I’ve read your “Learning CW” post several times and I agree with all.

I believe that some of the reasons for the decline in the use of CW include:

1.
The younger population want it NOW; consequently don’t see/imagine themselves dedicating the time to learn. I could rephrase; folks are lazy!
2.
CW may be seen by some as an antiquated mode and they would be right. Some folks see this as appealing while others see it as appalling.

There are other reasons; these two are the primary…from my thinking.

I THINK our responsibility (and you’ve done a good job in your post) is to ‘sell’ (promote) CW. It’s hard to do though.

Benefits of CW (what’s-in-it-for-me) can become “selling points”:

*
CW bandwidth is 100 hz while SSB is 2500 hz (USB + LSB). Modes do not transmit equally and 2 factors affect range including transmitter power (sending station) and receiver sensitivity (receiving station) (disregard propagation for this writing). Since the bandwidth of CW is well less than 10% of SSB, common sense tells the signal will be heard at a farther distance as compared to phone/SSB. I can throw this little rock farther than you can throw that big rock. This common sense I mention is argued by some HF gurus however.
*
CW portions of bands are ‘quieter’ and certainly less congested making it easier to complete a QSO. A no brainer.
*
For a newbie getting into ham radio, money is almost always an issue. My point here is that you can get into ham CWing, using <10 watts and a wire at a very low cost.
*
Reality is the digital modes PSK, JT65, FTs and so forth are MORE efficient than CW. Our younger population generally are more computer savvy than the older generation thus the popularity of the digital modes.

Learning CW:

*
You’re right…it takes an absolute commitment – no doubt! Lots of folks have read the Bible cover to cover – the commitment is similar.
*
Folks learn differently. I used recordings and would send the letter on an oscillator after hearing it. Others want video. Some want hands-on with an instructor but even those with an instructor have to spend some alone time to learn CW.
*
Your statement, “While the course gave the impression it would “teach” morse code, it didn’t. I’m convinced that while a course can offer the structure for learning, the learning part lands firmly and solely on the student” is dead nut on.
*
As you’ll well know, folks learn at different paces. I believe that often the pace correlates with the person’s age. I learned CW very quickly at the age of 25 – if I had to learn it today, it’d take much longer which would lead to frustration which might result in total failure (I quit!).

I’ve gotten lengthy – sorry.

Our job is to promote CW when possible. Recall when the Scouts sent their names on the key from the alpha CW list you wrote on the blackboard – the Scouts were all over that!

I’ll always believe that the ARRL did a disservice when they rallied with the FCC to do away with the CW requirement for licensing. I understand why it was done and, for that reason, maybe the decision was rational.

I would have rather seen a no-code license with allocated HF/VHF/UHF frequencies and then (to upgrade) a CW requirement.

My response to your dit-wit blog. Apologies for the rant.

73,

M

LikeLiked by 1 person