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

[ARRL-ODV:9003] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by Dennis Bodson 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Jim: Why not a Quart. Happy fourth of July. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9002] Re: Morse Code Requirement Well, a poll on our web site would do one thing for sure. Defuse the statements that the members were not asked. Now, I would like for all of you to go to our web site and look at past polls. There are a number that ask about CW. One in particular ask how much of your time is spent on CW. Another which is not CW related ask: "Could you pass the same class of exam today." While every one of the pundits will say the polls are not "scientific" so be it, but a simple "Should the ARRL petition to keep the CW requirements, Yes, or No would be pretty simple. I know that in just looking at the above, the structure of the question would and could be highly criticized. To rephrase: Should the United States require CW at 5WPM for amateur licenses?" OK, I give up. . . . . . I am going to get a 5th for the 4th. Happy 4th. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9002] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by W5JBP＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Well, a poll on our web site would do one thing for sure. Defuse the statements that the members were not asked. Now, I would like for all of you to go to our web site and look at past polls. There are a number that ask about CW. One in particular ask how much of your time is spent on CW. Another which is not CW related ask: "Could you pass the same class of exam today." While every one of the pundits will say the polls are not "scientific" so be it, but a simple "Should the ARRL petition to keep the CW requirements, Yes, or No would be pretty simple. I know that in just looking at the above, the structure of the question would and could be highly criticized. To rephrase: Should the United States require CW at 5WPM for amateur licenses?" OK, I give up. . . . . . I am going to get a 5th for the 4th. Happy 4th. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9001] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by Jim Weaver 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Dick, RE: You message about HPM not having to pass a code test. Was Hiram P. MAXWELL the developer/inventor of the old Maxwell motor car? HI! The Devil made me do it! 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:9000] Re: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by dick＠pobox.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

4 JUL, 2003 - 1255 CDT I forgot to add to my earlier comments that Yahoo is also a source of much of the spam these days. Particularly, several of it's overseas domains. If any person using Yahoo in Brazil or Romania tries to send me an email, I will not get it. Blocking those two domains cut my spam level by about 20 percent. Wish I could do the same for Hotmail and Yahoo here in the U.S. I also think setting up our own IP address for ARRL.Net would give us better ability to control our own email forwarding system. It will not cure all the spam problems, but it's a tool that will help and the expense is minimal. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8999] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by dick＠pobox.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

4 JUL, 2003 - 1245 CDT Just to put a little perspective on Morse Code requirements... Jim, in his comments at the ARRL Meet Your Leaders Forum at HamComm said there was no Morse Code requirement when Hiram P. Maxwell was licensed. If Morse Code proficiency was not necessary for licensing our patron saint and all the other very early hams, why should it be continued as a requirement now? 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8998] Re: Morse requirement
by Jim Weaver 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

I'd like to build on Tuck's idea of a poll on the ARRL web site. I suggest the topic of defending or rejecting Morse license requirement(s) is a good topic for discussion via Director letters and at any meetings with members that may come between now and the Board meeting. While recognizing this claim is generally overstated, I think a large percentage of members feel they are not consulted properly before major decisions that affect them are made. I don't want to get into a debate over the accuracy or inaccuracy of this "feeling," but I hope we will take this into account and consult the membership as thoroughly as possible. 73, Jim W. 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:8997] Re: Morse requirement
by Tuck Miller NZ6T 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

One way to get the word out on the poll is to alert our members by e-mail. We all have the ability to send out a global e-mail to the members in our respective divisions, or better yet, our El Presidente could send one out to the masses. Not sure if he has the access to send e-mail to all the members who have signed up for the e-mail alerts, but would imagine he does. He could invite the members to visit the ARRL web site, and vote on this very important issue. Tell us what they the members want. A great number of our members are signed up for this feature, so getting the word out about a poll would be quick. Have a safe 4th everyone. 73, Tuck NZ6T Andy Oppel wrote: > Hi all, > > Not a bad idea, but I don't know how many responses we would get. I > think this is a highly polarized issue with lots of members on the two > ends. I'd like to think that there are a lot in the middle who don't > feel so strongly either way, but of course, those are the ones we > won't hear from. Some sort of survey might give us a sense of what > the distribution of opinion is. > > -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO > Pacific Division Vice Director > > At 07:33 AM 7/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: > >> Might I suggest putting this as a poll question on the ARRL web site? >> This is a very important issue, and we might be able to get a gauge >> on how some of the members feel about the subject. 73, >> >> Tuck NZ6T >> >> <mailto:W5JBP@aol.com>W5JBP(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Yes, Dave, tomorrow we would not. I do have a question however, when >>> did you "abstain" on a vote regarding 25.5? I was not aware of such >>> a vote at the WRC. >>> >>> The question is to each of you on the board, what do you want to do? >>> You know as well as I, come Monday there will be a number of >>> petitions submitted to the FCC for elimination of element 1. >>> >>> This is another opportunity to be as popular as we were during the >>> implementation of incentive licensing. Damned if we do, damned if we >>> don't. Those who will be petitioning the FCC know that we will be >>> having a board meeting in a few weeks, and will have to deal with >>> the issue one way or the other. >>> >>> Time to put on the kevlar. >>> >>> Jim Haynie, W5JBP >> >> >> >> -- >> ************************************************ >> 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/>http://www.hamcon.org/ >> Personal Web Page: <http://www.qsl.net/nz6t>http://www.qsl.net/nz6t >> > > Andy Oppel > andy(a)andyoppel.com > > > -- ************************************************ 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:8996] Re: Morse requirement
by sysop＠bfdin.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Mike, I agree. We ought to sell the "fun" part of Morse Code. Because the requirment is going away eventually, doesn't mean that the mode has to go away. Some hams want to keep it around because they enjoy using it and because there are times that it is the only reliable mode to communicate. Let's convey the enthusiasm back. At the same time we need to realize that some people don't care to operate code. So be it. Amateur radio is so diverse, let people go where their interests take them. The end of the code requirement is not the end of amateur radio! - Bill N3LLR AR>Well, the Morse requirement is going to go sooner or later. We might as AR>well face it, AR>and tell our members that that's how it's going to be. I think we should AR>expend our efforts in AR>areas where we may ultimately prevail, like spectrum protection. AR>What we might do is roll out some programs for the preservation of Morse. AR>We do some of this AR>already - code practice runs and so forth. We should be creating or beefing AR>up some voluntary AR>certifications. We should be developing programs for the encouragement of AR>its use. And we should AR>have some of these in the works BEFORE we announce an official Board AR>position. Since we ought AR>to have that position prepared by the time the July meeting is complete, we AR>have about 3 weeks to AR>get this all together. Waiting until December to establish a position would AR>be more of the "reactive AR>rather than proactive" stuff for which we have become so famous. AR>Mike AR>K1TWF AR>----------------------------------- AR>Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck AR>Phone: (978) 250-1236 AR>Fax: (978) 250-0432 AR>Web: www.mraisbeck.com AR>Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net AR>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential AR>information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have AR>received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, AR>or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply AR>email and delete this message. AR> -----Original Message----- AR> From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] AR> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:26 AM AR> To: arrl-odv AR> Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8991] Re: Morse requirement AR> Yes, Dave, tomorrow we would not. I do have a question however, when did AR>you "abstain" on a vote regarding 25.5? I was not aware of such a vote at AR>the WRC. AR> The question is to each of you on the board, what do you want to do? You AR>know as well as I, come Monday there will be a number of petitions submitted AR>to the FCC for elimination of element 1. AR> This is another opportunity to be as popular as we were during the AR>implementation of incentive licensing. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. AR>Those who will be petitioning the FCC know that we will be having a board AR>meeting in a few weeks, and will have to deal with the issue one way or the AR>other. AR> Time to put on the kevlar. AR> Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8995] Re: Morse requirement
by Mike Raisbeck 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Well, the Morse requirement is going to go sooner or later. We might as well face it, and tell our members that that's how it's going to be. I think we should expend our efforts in areas where we may ultimately prevail, like spectrum protection. What we might do is roll out some programs for the preservation of Morse. We do some of this already - code practice runs and so forth. We should be creating or beefing up some voluntary certifications. We should be developing programs for the encouragement of its use. And we should have some of these in the works BEFORE we announce an official Board position. Since we ought to have that position prepared by the time the July meeting is complete, we have about 3 weeks to get this all together. Waiting until December to establish a position would be more of the "reactive rather than proactive" stuff for which we have become so famous. Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8991] Re: Morse requirement Yes, Dave, tomorrow we would not. I do have a question however, when did you "abstain" on a vote regarding 25.5? I was not aware of such a vote at the WRC. The question is to each of you on the board, what do you want to do? You know as well as I, come Monday there will be a number of petitions submitted to the FCC for elimination of element 1. This is another opportunity to be as popular as we were during the implementation of incentive licensing. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Those who will be petitioning the FCC know that we will be having a board meeting in a few weeks, and will have to deal with the issue one way or the other. Time to put on the kevlar. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8994] Re: Morse requirement
by Andy Oppel 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Hi all, Not a bad idea, but I don't know how many responses we would get. I think this is a highly polarized issue with lots of members on the two ends. I'd like to think that there are a lot in the middle who don't feel so strongly either way, but of course, those are the ones we won't hear from. Some sort of survey might give us a sense of what the distribution of opinion is. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director At 07:33 AM 7/4/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Might I suggest putting this as a poll question on the ARRL web site? This >is a very important issue, and we might be able to get a gauge on how some >of the members feel about the subject. 73, > >Tuck NZ6T > ><mailto:W5JBP@aol.com>W5JBP(a)aol.com wrote: >>Yes, Dave, tomorrow we would not. I do have a question however, when did >>you "abstain" on a vote regarding 25.5? I was not aware of such a vote at >>the WRC. >> >>The question is to each of you on the board, what do you want to do? You >>know as well as I, come Monday there will be a number of petitions >>submitted to the FCC for elimination of element 1. >> >>This is another opportunity to be as popular as we were during the >>implementation of incentive licensing. Damned if we do, damned if we >>don't. Those who will be petitioning the FCC know that we will be having >>a board meeting in a few weeks, and will have to deal with the issue one >>way or the other. >> >>Time to put on the kevlar. >> >>Jim Haynie, W5JBP > > >-- >************************************************ >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/>http://www.hamcon.org/ >Personal Web Page: <http://www.qsl.net/nz6t>http://www.qsl.net/nz6t > Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com

1 0