"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:



"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.


Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point.
When

there is no

code test
most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so

that means that

you don't
care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which
shows

how

shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they

have far

bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time

they must

spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.


Strange that there are many things people do which are
long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars,
etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest
in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse
dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on
"how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup.

Because there is the difference between a cheerful anachronism, and what
will eventually be considered a waste of bandwidth.

I can keep an old car in my garage without affecting anyone.but
bandwidth is another matter. But let us look at this scenario. Say 15
years from now, there will be s aizable number of hams who have never
used a paddle or key. There will be new hams taking up CW, but without
an incentive, like a Morse code test, that number will likely fall
somehat percentage wise (it has to if the No-coders are correct in that
good hams are kept off the air by the code test)

So these hams look at the bandplans: "Wow! just look at 80 meters. Fully
half the bandplan is dedicated to stuff other than SSB! It's unfair that
they should have all that bandwidth." And a bandwidth grab begins......
Doesn't matter that there are still CW users out there. "And heck, they
are always bragging about how little bandwidth they use, so only give
them a minimum abount if anything."

Mike,

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK