[TenTec] Eliminating CW as a License Requirement

[Dr. Gerald N. Johnson]

On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 14:39 +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:15:06AM -0500, Paul Christensen wrote:
> 
> > While I'm of the opinion that testing for CW proficiency should not be an 
> > absolute requirement for HF access, I do believe that we should retain a 
> > 10WPM proficiency for Extra-class and keep the existing 25 kHz or so of 
> > reserved spectrum on most HF bands.   My rationale for 10 WPM is simply for 
> > historical preservation and goes back to the requirements of the first 
> > amateur exams administered by the FCC in 1912.
> 
> It does make sense, an EXTRA class license for EXTRA skills. Since the
> Morse code option is gone, possibly make it an option. A written test,
> AND some other skill test (build a radio?) or a Morse test in exchange
> for the skill test. Or better yet, skip the test altogether and require
> 25 QSL cards for CW QSOs. In English for the bureaucrats, 25 verified 
> conversations in Morse code with other hams.  

Perhaps ARRL certification like Rag Chewer's Club for code speeds. Wait,
there has been an ARRL code proficiency certification program for eons
already. 
> 
> > 
> > After conducting some research this weekend, I could go back as far as 1921 
> > when it appeared two levels of licenses classes existed -- both of which 
> > required proficiency of Continental Morse at 10 WPM.   Further, in 1934, 
> > shortly after the enactment of the Communications Act, three classes of 
> > licenses existed -- Classes A, B, and C (conditional).  Each required CW 
> > proficiency at 13 WPM.
> 
> That's the ARRL's doing. They wanted to increase the code speed from
> 10wpm to 12.5. It seems that at 11-12 WPM, people who can learn code
> "peak". It's a lot more work for them to go to 12.5 WPM. The FCC agreed
> but could not figure out how to reliably test for 12.5, so they went to
> 13.

That's the magic number where the characters are too fast to be counted,
but have to be recognized.
> 
> > Circling back, I would like to see the League file a Petition for 
> > Reconsideration that re-establishes the first CW testing speed of 10WPM for 
> > historical preservation for the Extra class -- and to keep the existing CW 
> > spectrum benefit while making no further distinction for any other mode.
> 
> I don't think it will ever happen. The FCC is trying to eliminate work.

Anyone, licensed or not, group or individual, can file a petition.
> 
> To repeat myself, I think the only way to preserve CW is to make new
> hams feel that it is a benefit to them. If you make a new ham feel that
> he is second class because he did not take a Morse test, you will find
> the second class citizens pushing you off the map. Make them feel welcome
> and make them want to use CW, and you will see it prosper.
> 
> To keep it barely relevant to Ten-Tec, IMHO, unfortunately the CW function of
> Japanese ham rigs will degenerate to an option no one uses. Ten-Tec may
> well become the "last man standing" in the field of commercially made ham
> rigs that perform well on CW.

For working CW and conventional phone modes, equipment doesn't become
obsolete other than in the maker's eyes.

> 
> 73,
> 
> Geoff.
> 
73, Jerry, K0CQ