The thread that really will heat up that neverending holy war on RRA Policy

Jeffrey Herman jeffreyh at HAWAII.EDU
Tue Jul 21 03:16:38 EDT 1998

On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, D.B. Cooper wrote:
> This is strictly an opinion, but requiring code for ham
> licenses is like requiring horsemanship for people seeking
> drivers licenses.  CW is fun and should be kept as a mode of
> communications for those who wish to practice it.  I like CW
> myself, but these days it's more a rite of passage than a
> critical mode of communication.

You've got to step back so as to get a global view of why the
code requirement exists for HF privileges. RF at HF respects no
boundries, and as communicators, hams the world over should
have at least one mode in common. Right now, there is only
one mode *all* the world's HF-licensed amateurs hold in common: CW.
Whether one chooses to use it or not does not matter; if the
need arises he has it available to him (maybe at a slower speed
than when he was first licensed!). The ITU has this global view
while many individuals have only an insular nearsightedness -
their own personal goals out-weigh those of the global amateur

Jeff KH2PZ / KH6  (ex WA6QIJ from '76 @ the San Francisco FCC office)
(former U.S. Coast Guard CW operator, too!)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
To subscribe: listserv at
and in body: subscribe BOATANCHORS yourfirstname yourlastname
To unsubscribe:  listserv at
and in body: signoff BOATANCHORS
Archives for BOATANCHORS:
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list