[Fwd: RE: [Fists] ARRL, FCC and elimination of CW testing requirements.]

Tue Jan 9 10:57:53 EST 2007

Thank you all for the comments on my letter to the ARRL regarding the
dropping of code testing, including the one about the "PhD", even though
the writer failed to notice that I did NOT sign that letter with those
credentials.  There is no need to get personal in this discussion, is
there?  The QRM this weekend was heavy from the RTTY contest crowd, who
by the way, doesn't give a rat's hair about stomping on CW QSOs in
progress.  Check out 7058 and below after sunset and notice that the
South American hams running SSB have moved down in order to further
avoid the US SSB hams that have moved down.  I've heard them and the
Canadians as low as 7010 in QSO.  While the QRM from the RTTY contest
was there, smack on top of my FISTS QSOs, I can assure you, so was the
minimum power necessary to maintain the CW communications.  Since CW is
allowed anywhere on all HF bands, I can foresee the day when a clear
frequency in the SSB portion becomes as good a frequency as any on which
to carry out a CW QSO.  Yes.  The ARRL did let down "a bunch of hams". 
As for sending in comments to the FCC at a time when it was soliciting
hams input on the matter, the ARRL did encourage that.  But that, was a
thinly veiled attempt at doing a CYA so that CW ops would not get PO'd
at them.  It didn't work.  If you think that the FCC was going to change
its mind about dropping CW testing (which the ARRL wanted), then I have
some WMDs in Iraq to sell you on as a pretense for going to war.  After
that, there is this bridge in Brooklyn.

Jozef WB2MIC

P.S.  I have to accept the FCC ruling, but I don't have to get over it. 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [Fists] ARRL, FCC and elimination of CW testing requirements.
Date: 	Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:13:53 +0000
From: 	kb2fel at citlink.net <kb2fel at citlink.net>
To: 	w1eof at hamnutz.com
CC: 	fists at mailman.qth.net
References: 	<NCBBJCLPMKDDBBMEAPOHOEKGOFAC.w1eof at hamnutz.com>

Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post needs to go to more than one destination please send them separately. 

Hi Mark,

I have no docs but, I was at a ARRL Convention here in WV.  There was  
a FCC rep who wore a Red ham badge with FCC and a ham call sign on it.  
I am not sure who was there from ARRL but the conversation came up  
code and no-code during the ARRL Forum.

Quote from the FCC Rep "They are your bands and the FCC will do with  
them what the ARRL wishes" he said to the ARRL person.

I just about fell out of my chair!!.

If the ARRL does not support an idea they let it be known.  In this  
case they did nothing.  Not doing anything is the same as showing  
support.  We all know how the ARRL likes to send out flyers and  
bulletins.  Did they send out one requesting help and write the FCC to  
keep them from changing the code standard...NOPE.

I think you get my drift.  If you don't perhaps you just dont want to see it.

The ARRL let a bunch of hams down.

The ARRL has to run their org as they see fit and that is their right.  
 I wish they would have supported keeping 20 WPM for extra and I did  
not like it.  I wish they kept 13 WPM for General and 5WPM for tech  
and novice but they did not and I did not like it.  But then I dont  
like lots of thins.  I dont like listening to a EXTRA Class ticket  
holder who does not understand how a dipole works.
  I dont like the fact that my grandkids cant pray in school  
anylonger and the fact that people are trying to take IN GOD WE TRUST  
away.  Guess I am just old-fashion.

Now if you are a CW op tell me what your thoughts are about the QRM  
from 14.058 to 14.065 and 7.030 to 7.060 over the weekend!  More to  
come as the No Code Generals work RTTY in the Data Parts of the band.   
What use to be for CW!

BTW I did some cross mode and tried to tell a RTTY op he was Giving  
QRM to my CW QSO and he just about told me to take a hike.

Thanks
Bob
KB2FEL WV dit dit

Quoting W1EOF <w1eof at hamnutz.com>:

> Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post needs   
> to go to more than one destination please send them separately.
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Please explain your statement "The ARRL did have lots to do with the CW
> changes."
> Show FCC proposals, news releases, anything factual that supports your
> position.
>
> Venting - Everyone is free to speak here unless it gets personal and nasty
> which we certainly don't need.
>
> I'm glad to hear so many people, regardless of position on the law, be
> supportive of making a massive effort to bring people into CW. That's
> something we can all agree on, something we can
> all work together toward.
>
> 73,
>
> Mark W1EOF
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kb2fel at citlink.net [mailto:kb2fel at citlink.net]
>> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:45 PM
>> To: fists at mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: Re: [Fists] ARRL, FCC and elimination of CW testing
>> requirements.
>>
>>
>> Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post
>> needs to go to more than one destination please send them separately.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Guess we all know what side of the fence you sit on.
>>
>> The ARRL did have lots to do with the CW changes.  If they wanted to
>> support it they would have sent all sorts of mailings out....lawyers
>> assigned to the cause and so on.
>>
>> Now go away and sit down and let Jozef vent if he needs to.
>>
>> Bob
>> KB2FEL WV
>>
>> Quoting Dan KB6NU <kb6nu at w8pgw.org>:
>>
>> > Sending CC's may delay your post. If you feel that your post needs to
>> > go to more than one destination please send them separately.
>> >
>> >
>> > Come now. You're grossly exaggerating the hand the ARRL played in the
>> > elimination of the Morse Code requirement. Once the international
>> > treaty was modified to eliminate the international requirement for
>> > Morse Code testing, it was only a matter of time before the test would
>> > be eliminated here in the U.S. In fact, the ARRL's position was to
>> > retain the test for Extra Class licensees.
>> >
>> > You go on further to state, "As a result of the CW requirements being
>> > dropped, there are now two classes of ham radio operator: those that
>> > pass a CW element and those that do not." How silly is that? Look, I
>> > love operating CW as much or more than you do, but to imply that a ham
>> > who has not passed a code test is of a lower class than one who has
>> > passed a test is just ridiculous.
>> >
>> > The Morse Code test elimination is a done deal. Get over it. Then,
>> > start working on getting as many of the no-code licensees on CW as you
>> > can. I'll tell you one thing, though--with an attitude like the one
>> > you've expressed below, you're certainly not going to win over very
>> > many of them.
>> >
>> > Remember, it's not about passing a CW test, it's about using it
>> on the air.
>> >
>> > 73!
>> >
>> > Dan KB6NU
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator
>> > Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com
>> > LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO!
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fists mailing list
>> Fists at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fists mailing list
> Fists at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
>

_______________________________________________
Fists mailing list
Fists at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists

-- 

Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D
Metaphoria
http://www.metaphoria.org