I feel the the newest, latest proposal of the ARRL and CQ Magazine, as a
result of their surveys and other information obtained from their
membership and readers;  is right on target!

CW is not necessary with the advent of computers.  I can send and
receive CW at any speed needed using my home computer and my TNC.  In
light of that - packet and AMTOR is taking the place of CW in many cases
of emergency communications anyway.  We use Packet and APRS now for
almost all shelter operations during disasters as well as weather storm
spotting in conjunction with NOAA and NWS!

I believe that some knowledge of CW may still be of some benefit if one
is going to continue with that mode of operation - even if the computer
is sending and receiving it, so keeping with that discussion, possible
just setting the new speed requirement at 5 WPM is sufficient - not only
to prove some kind of  knowledge of the code - but also to conform with
the ITU regulations.  Which do not state a specific code speed
requirement.  There are other countries that have already gone forward
with the reduction of code speed requirements - as well as a couple that
have eliminated it completely.

Also, three classes of license are sufficient in my opinion - why do we
need more?  Beginner - General - and Advanced classes cover all three
main levels of operation.  Lets do this right for once - and continue to
attract new hams to the ranks!  ARRL and CQ has suggested No-Code Tech
for beginners - and General for the middle class (5 WPM and harder
written exam) - and finally an advanced class - whatever you wish to
call it - even Extra is fine (doesn't really matter)  and either have an
even harder exam - or possible increase the code to maybe 10 WPM for
that one , if there seems to be a real need for two different code speed
requirements.

Only having one code speed will also make it easier to give exams to
applicants -and will cut down on even more overhead for VECs.  Only one
tape - and only one application and only one test.  I think it is best.

In summary - we are continually having to share our bands with part 15
wireless devices - mostly video extender type items - lets allow more
hams access to HF now and the world of other modes of communications.

And if those few hams that get interested in CW as a result go forward
with their upgrades - then it is even better isn't it?

Thank you for your email asking for my opinion again - I think it at
least shows that the FCC is interested in hearing what we think.. Thank
you again!

Stephen Smith
KE4MDX