July 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9024] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 06 Jul '03

06 Jul '03

Interesting discussion this holiday weekend. And I would like to see it continue so that we can come to some consensus QUICKLY at the July meeting..... >Thanks to the pace of FCC rulemaking,despite the fact that the international >regulations change tomorrow we still have time to make this part of our >strategic planning. > >Dave K1ZZ Let's keep the discussion going, but realize that we will need to time limit it at the Board meeting. What I am worried about is a LENGHTY one issue session that will take us away from more important issues that we should be dealing with. Yes, the CW issue is important, but we should not let it distract us from the more important OVERALL Starategic Planning that Coy and others have set up for this meeting. Let's not forget that the last time we attempted strategic planning we let the restructuring issue distract us BIG time. I really do not think we want to let that happen once again. I don't want to see us waste time and money by allowing ourselves to get distracted by this emotional, or is it a religious issue. To avoid that I think we need to limit the time we will spend on this one issue either before the meeting or at the start of the session. We might, beacuse strategic planning is so important, want to wait, if we can, until January to determine exactly what our position will be as the FCC has been lately so slow in acting. We can do that by initiating a public process (a committee and perhaps including a survey process) that will culminate in January. I think much of the anger we feel is out there (I am not convinced there is) will disipate during the process piece. What will be the FCC time table here with a request? Dave and Chris will have an idea on that I am sure. (Bill Cross is too busy making up FCC policy for state issues. One of the good things about Cross/FCC slouth was that the "Restucturing" process too almost two years. By the time it was over and the FCC ignored our ARRL position on code speed (remember here they had told us before the RM process that they wanted 5 WPM, but we ignored that) most US Amateurs had worn themselves out with verbiage on the issue. We were also not overrun with weapons of mass distruction from CB type operators amoung our ranks. The world did not come to an end on April 16, 2000.) I want to see something very positive come from our strategic planning effort, so please let us be focused on that task at the coming Board meeting in a few days. Meanwhile let the discussion continue. from HOT Long Island...... de Frank....N2FF...... (PS My spell checker is not working.)

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9023] Mr Morse
by Sandy Donahue 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

For what it is worth: I have been licensed since 1960 (Extra since 1983). To still require a CW proficiency in this day and age is analogous to requiring that one learn to ride a horse before getting a drivers license. It is a nice skill, I would put my CW skills up against anyone on this reflector (except for Dave and Rick), but it is time for it to go. We have an excellent institution of higher learning here in Atlanta, Georgia Tech. To get an engineering degree, they no longer require proficiency with a slide rule. They used to, but calculators and computers made that skill nonessential. Over the past weekend, I toured a number of Field Day sites in the WCF section. I brought this issue up with dozens of individuals and the response was either "its about time" to "its too bad, but it is not keeping me up at night". A lot of pseudo-ham-sociologists equate this to the dumbing (dumming?)down of society as a whole. Perhaps but I don't think so. We need to lead on this issue or get out of the way. I betcha on Monday someone will file a petition to eliminate any code requirement for any amateur license. The board can agree, disagree, or stand mute, it probably makes no difference with the Commission. This coming weekend is the Southeastern Division Convention in Gainesville, Ga.(which all of you are invited to attend, no matter how you stand on this issue).Frank and I will actively seek comment from members at the forum or the League booth. I will wager we won't need any kevlar or nomex. ===== 73 Sandy Donahue, W4RU Vice Director, Southeastern Division ARRL __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9022] Re: Polls... Let's Try Again
by dick＠pobox.com 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

5 JUL, 2003 - 1315 CDT I put Dave Sumner's final WRC-03 message out on two Chicago area reflectors (NIDXA and SMC) about 36 hours ago and I have yet to see any comments pro or con on the Morse Code issue posted to either reflector, nor have I yet received any direct messages on this topic. It's not that some people are rabidly happy or unhappy with the WRC-03 consensus, I suspect most of the members of these two active organizations think it's a done deal that Morse will cease being a licensing requirement in the U.S. now that the international treaty requirement is eliminated. Also, I think the impact of this decision is somewhat offset by our favorable outcome on 40 Mtrs. I will be going to one of the larger Chicago area hamfests (1200 people) tomorrow and I expect to hear comments and inquiries on the U.S. Morse Code requirement issue. I'm considering taking a couple hundred "mini-poll" sheets that will require full name and call sign before I will include them in the tabulation. And I will also verify claimed ARRL membership. If I do this, the format will be along the line of what Jim Weaver has posted here. If you want, I will post the tabulated results on the ODV. I could be surprised, but I doubt if I would get more than 50 responses and the results would not show a clear consensus. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9020] Re: Polls
by Jim Weaver 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

Gee, we are getting into the old debate of whether we are a democracy or a republic in operational form. I have to agree with Jay . . . and, simultaneously, with Tuck. I believe that as a Director, it is my responsibility to keep in touch as closely as possible with the Division membership and also educate myself to information they may not have in front of them. My vote is developed from a combination of member input and "other" information. I am not a parrot who always regurgitates the voice of the members and I am not an elitist who automatically feels above the members. This said, I don't particularly care if every member in this Division share their opinion with me (would be nice if they did). If they don't care enough to give me their opinion, this is up to them. Not voting is an option. On the other hand, if out of 13,000 members, 3,000 vote and of these 2,000 favor a particular position, you can bet what my conclusion is concerning the wishes of members who have an opinion they are willing to express. I'm receiving inquiries as to the "ARRL position" as I suppose are the rest of you. Unless someone can give me a solid reason for not doing so, I plan to poll the Division if we don't poll the total membership. 73 Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9021] Re: CW etc.
by Jim Weaver 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

One of these years, I suppose, there will be no CW. Another of these years, I suppose, there will be no Amateur Radio or it will be so different that no one today will recognize it. It is fortunate from my viewpoint that each of these "one of these days" will be well in the future and I won't have to deal with the transition to whatever comes afterward. This said, we are talking about legal requirements and legal requirements, only. Let's begin to make a distinction between legal requirements and preferences. No one, as I understand, required the old spark gappers to begin switching to CW (until after the move to CW had been well established), but they switched in large par. No one required our predecessors to begin using AM, but they began to use it. No one required "us" to begin using FM vs. AM on V/UHF, but we have essentially done this to the exclusion of AM. No one has required many of the "low code" operators of later years to use Morse, but many have and these are becoming good ops. No one to my knowledge expects FCC to BAN the use of CW so there is no reason to expect CW will dry up and blow away provided the Board and staff come up with ways to continue to interest people in it. If we can't create interest in CW, it will go away from amateur use whether it is required for licensing or not. My sense is that we as the Board are in an essentially win:win situation or at least a win:no lose situation if we play our cards correctly. My sense concerning the cards is to poll the MEMBERSHIP to determine their thinking (yes, we may already know it, but lets bring them into the discussion). If there is a clear-cut member-view as we may expect, I think we should promote their thinking. If there is no clear-cut member-view, we can thank the members for expressing their wishes and as the Board can determine what we determine. If the membership overwhelmingly wants to keep Morse requirements and if we petition FCC to do this, what do we have to lose? If FCC says "no" as we would expect, it isn't our fault and we say so very loudly and prominently. If FCC surprisingly agrees with the keep-code position, we have gained another victory - on behalf of our members. Either result shows we value member input which isn't bad. The admonition that in trial one does not ask a question for which he/she does not know the answer is quite accurate. As a defense witness, I sank the plaintiff attorney any number of times by knowing what he wanted me to say, leading him to where he thought he had me and then shooting him out of the water with my fully truthful-but-unexpected answer. The Morse situation is different; however, provided we are smart about how we follow through. Will every member be happy with whatever the outcome is? No, but we can make most of them happy WITH THEIR ARRL. This is my opinion for what, if anything, it may be worth. Tnx, 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9019] Re: CW etc.
by Tuck Miller NZ6T 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

One thing I keep hearing over and over again, is why should CW be a "requirement" to gain access to the hf portions of the band? The most prevalent answers thus far are because it is tradition, and it is a way of weeding out those folks we don't want. Sorry folks, but neither of those arguments hold any water, at least in my point of view. First, why would we want to weed anyone out? We need to attract more and more people into the service, not the other way around. I hear some say that if the code were dropped, we would turn into another CB radio type of atmosphere. Have you tuned around the bands lately, and even before the restructuring in 2000. I have heard many Extras, Advanced and yes, General class operators, arguing, using words that would make a sailor blush, and otherwise making them selves an embarrassment to Amateur Radio. Yet, they had to pass the code before crossing into the threshold of HF. Did not make them a better operator. Tradition? So was spark gap. Do we require folks to send by spark gap in order to enter the hf areas? Of course not. We move on. CW is a great mode of operation. , but so is packet, atv, ssb, am, psk31, and the list goes on. Why should one mode of operation have any higher value than the other. I realize that we will have much discussion on this subject, but as Jim H points out, now is the time to do it. We all have our own opinions and ideas, but in my opinion, the bottom line is this. The final decision not only effects each and everyone of us in the board family, but most importantly, it effects our members, and non members alike. As side note, I noticed that over 50,000 of our members have signed up for section/division news from all over the country. Sending out a note to them via this means, and asking them to vote in a straw poll, would at least give us some insight to their opinion. Sure, it would not be scientific, but at least it would be some type of gauge..........and I believe the software only allows you to vote once. At least it does in the members only area. 73, Tuck K4NK(a)aol.com wrote: > I have just finished reading all of the comments on ODV about the > Morse controversy. I am concerned about what I have read . It seems > several have indicated that the FCC will drop the requirement NO > MATTER WHAT we petition. As a Vice Director perhaps I'm just out of > the loop enough not to understand the politics of this situation. My > concerns go way beyond this issue. I operate 99% CW , I am concerned > that our " CW sub bands " will go away at some point. Perhaps even the > mode , as we see on 5 MHz. If this were the case Amateur Radio would > offer no appeal to me . > There will be a fight ... but as for me I will never back down on > the requirement . I will also (although I have no vote on the board) > oppose any effort to simply let the FCC drop the requirement. > > > Les Shattuck K4NK -- ************************************************ ARRL The national association for Amateur Radio Remember, Helping Others....Always Worthwhile!! Southwestern Division Vice Director Are you a member yet? If not, please join! Check out the Convention web site at: http://www.hamcon.org/ Personal Web Page: http://www.qsl.net/nz6t

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9018] Re: Polls
by sysop＠bfdin.com 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

AR>In any event, I am suspicious of self-selected surveys. If we were to AR>use the ARRL Web survey how would we determine how many of the voters AR>were from each Division? One more thing, how would we limit the survey AR>participants were ARRL members? If anyone, member or non-member can vote AR>how would such a survey be helpful in determining the desires of the AR>ARRL members of any particular Division? Jay, have members use their login to the ARRL web site to place their vote. - Bill N3LLR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9017] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by sysop＠bfdin.com 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

Dave, Any idea when the FCC may drop the CW requirement? - Bill N3LLR AR>Thanks to the pace of FCC rulemaking,despite the fact that the international AR>regulations change tomorrow we still have time to make this part of our AR>strategic planning. AR>73, AR>Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9016] Re: CW etc.
by W5JBP＠aol.com 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

In a message dated 07/05/2003 7:12:31 AM Central Daylight Time, K4NK(a)aol.com writes: > I'm just out of the loop enough not to understand the politics of this > situation. rate Les, this is precisely why I put it out on the ODV. Discussion here will save a lot of time later. I am glad to see the comments. Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9015] CW etc.
by K4NK＠aol.com 05 Jul '03

05 Jul '03

I have just finished reading all of the comments on ODV about the Morse controversy. I am concerned about what I have read . It seems several have indicated that the FCC will drop the requirement NO MATTER WHAT we petition. As a Vice Director perhaps I'm just out of the loop enough not to understand the politics of this situation. My concerns go way beyond this issue. I operate 99% CW , I am concerned that our " CW sub bands " will go away at some point. Perhaps even the mode , as we see on 5 MHz. If this were the case Amateur Radio would offer no appeal to me . There will be a fight ... but as for me I will never back down on the requirement . I will also (although I have no vote on the board) oppose any effort to simply let the FCC drop the requirement. Les Shattuck K4NK

1 0