[Boatanchors] historical question who many running CW compared to the 60s?

[COURYHOUSE at aol.com]

historical question :How many operators are running CW now compared to  the 
60s?  numbers? percentage?   I am curious.
Ed Sharpe Archivist  for SMECC 



In a message dated 11/29/2015 7:14:43 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
boatanchors at puck.nether.net writes:

The ARRL  has been, seemingly, pushing for more WINLINK / PACTOR 
availability for some  time.  One speculation is that they hope to increase membership 
through  more boat, and yacht, owners getting licenses specifically for 
operating using  those modes because they do not want to have to pay for 
Internet access using  considerably more expensive commercial links.  Of course, 
being able to  afford, and to operate, such watercraft usually requires a 
substantial  investment and yet those same people don't want to spend any money 
to be able  to use the Internet while on the water.  Then, again, amateur 
radio  operators also have a reputation as to being "cheap" and, I suppose, 
boat /  yacht owners are no different where money is concerned!
Although the ARRL  does not normally make the actual number of members 
public, if one takes a  look at the mailing notice that has to be published, 
periodically, that is in  small print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy to 
get a pretty good idea as  to the number of members.  
For some time, the ARRL has "pushed"  EMCOMM to get new members to replace 
other members who have abandoned the ARRL  and, it seems, that they are 
doing the same thing with boat owners.
I  abandoned the ARRL some time back because they have long stopped 
supporting  what I believe the direction that amateur radio should take.  Since I 
am  not an ARRL member, I do not comment on the internal workings of that  
organization.  However, when the ARRL submits petitions to the FCC, or  even 
when they are proposing such, that affects the entire amateur radio  
population then I definitely do have the right to comment!
Several years  ago, the ARRL submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded 
WINLINK / PACTOR  operations that they retracted after quite an uprising 
within the membership.  It appears that they might be trying it again.
I realize that thing  are changing and have been changing for some time 
during the over 56-years  that I have been licensed and some of those changes 
have been for the good of  amateur radio and some have not been good for 
amateur radio.  However, I  definitely believe in doing everything possible to 
stop changes that are  definitely not in the best interests of the Amateur 
Radio  Service.
Glen, K9STH 
Website: http://k9sth.net


From: Bry Carling AF4K <bcarling at cfl.rr.com>
To:  k1zz at arrl.net 
Cc: FLBOATANCHORS at yahoogroups.com; tetrode at googlegroups.com;  
Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net; amradio at mailman.qth.net;  Arizona-AM at yahoogroups.com; 
dcboatanchors at mailman.qth.net;  CarolinaHamSwap at yahoogroups.com; 
boatanchors at puck.nether.net
Sent: Sunday,  November 29, 2015 4:46 PM
Subject: [Glowbugs] I agree

Dear David,
I echo all of the sentiments below. I think that in  retrospect, it was a 
huge mistake to take away so much CW spectrum from the  General Class CW 
operators on 80m.
I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion  of WINLINK / PACTOR and any other 
UNATTENDED digital mode operations on our HF  bands! They cause QRM and are 
a nuisance no matter what is done to claim that  they have been cleaned up!
Many of my ham friends and I confess to having  missed the April 2015 QST 
article and your It Seems to Us page in the  September 2015 issue. These 
articles discuss proposed changes to accommodate  digital modes, while 
eliminating or reducing extra class phone privileges on  80 meters. Many of us have 
now been awakened to the ARRL’s conclusions and the  proposed recommendations 
to its executive committee, and to the FCC. And while  the door may be 
closed to the initial polling (only 1,000 respondents), we  nevertheless feel 
the need for clarification, and if necessary an appeal for a  reconsideration 
of these ARRL’s proposals.First, this may be simply a matter  of 
clarification. I read, and then re-read both the September and April  articles several 
times. I can find no assurance that the proposal would  provide that the 
remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be retained for the  exclusive use of 
Amateur Extra Class licensees. While this may be merely an  oversight, the 
absence of this assurance seems suspicious. A clear statement  in your recap 
like “while the extra class phone exclusivity will be reduced by  50 kHz, the 
3650-3700 segment will be protected for the exclusive use of  holders of 
Amateur Extra Class licensees,” would have eliminated much anxiety.  Would you 
please clarify this via email and through QST as soon as  possible.Next, 
many of us earned extra class licenses through hard work and  devotion to the 
hobby. I earned mine shortly after incentive licensing was  introduced in the 
1970s. Incentive licensing is, in my opinion, one of the  ARRL’s most 
significant initiatives. I was very proud to be awarded my new  license, the 
extra band operating privileges, and the right to request special  call signs. 
Many of us I am sure had the feeling that we were in the top of  the class! 
Today of course, some of these hard earned “extras” have either  disappeared 
or made available to a broader base of hams without that extra  effort. 
Then there is the dropping of the 20 WPM code requirement, and the  code 
requirement completely, etc., which further eroded the  merit-based/privilege 
system that incentive licensing had launched. Moreover,  remember that many of 
us are in our 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and so on, and we  continually hear about 
the erosion of our other hard-earned rights in other  areas of life (Social 
Security, Medicare, Veteran’s benefits, etc.).My recent  posting to the 
qrz.com posting on this subject Friday rapidly became a popular  topic. And 
discussions on nets to which I belong and among club members proved  that many 
extras class licensees were totally unaware of these proposals. I  have also 
received an extraordinary number of private emails since Friday  questioning 
the ARRL’s motives, and the protection of our operating  privileges.So 
David, would you kindly send your reply to me (via email) as  soon as possible 
addressing the above points? Please address these specific  questions:1. Is it 
true that the ARRL proposal will protect exclusive Amateur  Extra Class 80 
meter phone frequencies (either 3650-3750, or even 3650-3700)  and thus add 
that specific language to this proposal? And if not, why not?2.  Will you 
reopen this issue for further input now that a wider audience has had  the 
time to become informed? (As of noon today, Sunday, there have been nearly  
12,000 views on the qrz.com forum.)3. When is the ARRL Executive Committee  
supposed to take this matter up, and where do we find a listing of the members  
of this committee?Thank you for your time, David. And thank you for the 
many  fine things you and the ARRL do for our  hobby.Respectfully,73,
_______________________________________________
Boatanchors  mailing  list
Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors