Consultation on the proposed restructuring of the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU)

As always, you are spot on.
***
A growing Bureaucracy serves only itself.

 

Two years ago, while mandated by IARU-R1 to implement its Technology Working Group, and in my function of acting USKA/Switzerland president, I revealed that global IARU AC has clandestinely officially registered in Switzerland what they now call "IARU Swiss" already in 2017. Covertly operated since 2017, under new 2017 constitution (replacing 1989 edition!), without voting/consent of its Member Societies. No annual report, no financial report, no audit, no budget, secret committees, no transparency whatsoever towards its IARU Member Societies. I took the time to fully document this scandal on my site www.iaru.ch.
This is IARU's intellectual bankruptcy some of us have been expecting for years. Bad and dishonest management brought IARU to the brink of death. I am glad this scam finally gets global "public" attention.
Let us restart from scratch! Millions of worldwide wireless experimenters deserve a decent and credible new organisation taking really care of our interests in politics, authorities, international bodies, science and industry.

 

Has the IARU a function?

Kraus/KC4ZGP

 

Is this "disinterest" from an aging demographic of Amateurs? I see it from an aging in thoughts on what Amateurs are supposed to be and what they are supposed to do?

Was it you that believed Amateurs lost their "elite" status because of the loss of a Morse code knowledge requirement? If not then that is an opinion that's been expressed many times by many people in this forum. Maybe the disinterest from regulators in Amateur radio is because there's so many Amateurs that believe they are "elite" because they know Morse code. Maybe the regulators aren't seeking an "elite" radio operator but rather a competent one.

How would someone that regulates radio spectrum define a "competent radio operator"? That's easy, they wrote it down for us. I have in my possession two books that should give a fairly good idea on what regulators and other users of the spectrum look for in competent radio operators, one such book is a study guide I picked up for GROL, and the other is my SMART book from US Army basic training. (SMART being an acronym for "Soldier Manual, Army Recruit Training". My guess is an E-4 thought that up.)

The two documents vary on some details but it appears the desired foundational skills are the same. Can the radio operator make a coherent and concise situation report? Does the operator understand NATO/ICAO phonetics? Do they know how to respond in an emergency? Are they aware of which frequencies to monitor, and when they are responsible for monitoring those frequencies? Do they understand some basic protocol for efficient communications? Do they understand the kind of simplified and "structured" English in common use on the radio that will facilitate this protocol? Do they understand words and phrases like, "will do" (or maybe "will comply"), "understood", "over", "out" (and the distinction "out" has from "over"), "mayday", "pan pan" (and how that differs from "mayday"), and "say again"?

There was a time when demonstrated knowledge of Morse code was part of being an "elite" radio operator. If the radio operator didn't know how to actually operate the radio, and provide at least some minimal understanding on how it worked to do some maintenance and repairs, then that is not an "elite" anything. If Amateurs were seen as an "elite" then it is likely because they took much the same testing as a military or commercial radio operator. I doubt they were considered "elite", more likely as "competent" which would have been enough to step up to defend their spectrum since competent radio operators would prove valuable for all kinds of reasons.

I would expect that Amateur radio could attract more young people if Amateurs held themselves to much the same standards that commercial and military radio operators. To me that means dropping a lot of the Amateur "lingo" from radio communications, most of that just sounds silly to outsiders, much like how CB radio "lingo" is mocked. I'll see in movies and TV shows examples of how script writers and producers did their homework to reproduce how professionals talk on a radio. Kids that see this might not quite understand why they talk like they do but they will often emulate that on the radio if given the opportunity, and I expect in time they will come to realize that people talk that way on a radio because it benefits efficient communications. If Amateurs talk different then the kids will want to know why, and if there isn't a good answer then expect them to lose interest and find some other kind of radio to use or lose interest in radio communicatons completely.

 

If you REALLY want to make improvements and increase the standards and professionalism of ham radio, then there's one extremely important thing you have to do: you must re-instate the compulsory Morse test for hams wanting to use CW. NOTE: for using CW, NOT to get onto HF with other modes. I'm extremely dismayed by the ever-decreasing standards of new CW operators. I was never that bad. I trained at Morse code at my radio club and received lots of help from lots of hams on 2mtrs and 6mtrs for 2 months, did the 12WPM Morse test and within months I was upto 20WPM. Shortly afterwards I was upto 30WPM. I don't care about other hams' views about this, but I DO care about ham radio.

 

Eh, never mind. It's not even worth it

 

A couple thoughts on that....

First, if you want to kill Morse code dead then that is one way to do it.

Second, there's no regulatory authority that would agree to imposing such a rule. This appears to already be a question that has been asked and answered, there's a long tradition in Amateur radio to allow use of CW and Morse code on Amateur frequencies without a prior demonstration of knowing Morse code which would make it difficult to reverse now.

 

Last I checked IARU membership rules allow membership by only one national org per nation -- a guarantee that the entrenched stay entrenched and the up-and-coming stay marginalized.

A great idea for 1925.

 

You mean something useless like the ARRL?

The ARRL killed Morse requirements.

Kraus/KC4ZGP

 

No, they did not.

 

The ARRL petitioned for the Morse code testing requirement to remain for Extra.

It boggles my mind why ARRL leadership would even ask after the FCC made it clear that they were not going to allow any Morse code testing requirement to remain. If the ARRL asked for something like keeping the Morse code requirement, and keeping the distinction between Technician and Technician Plus, then the FCC may have agreed. That meant demonstrated Morse code knowledge would not be required for an upgrade but if people wanted that "half-step" to General with a Morse code test then they could have it. It would be in effect much like Canada having two ways to get to HF, a higher score on the Basic written test (80% vs. 70%) or pass a Morse code test. Well, three ways to HF access, even with the lower passing score on Basic there's full privileges after passing the Advanced written.

There would have been other means for ARRL to argue for an optional Morse code test. That opportunity is likely gone forever now, but it would have been interesting to see if the FCC would have allowed for an optional Morse code test at the time. All the FCC would have needed was someone willing to ask and make something approaching a reasonable argument on how it would cause no headaches for the FCC.

 

The times when ham radio proved useful, in large scale emergencies such as post-Hurricane and earthquake, it was in the form of message handling. Health & welfare traffic most definitely helps people. So, how about part of the training/question pool be teaching how to effectively pass message traffic? Many hams have no idea how to do that, and the groups who do, do it well RRI and other NTS people do it at least daily for practice/fun messages.

In the aftermath of Helene flooding in Western N. Carolina, I listened to more than a few H&W messages outgiong in Morse, and read reports about digital modes and some voice outside of the area, Inside, VHF voice served heavily. Seems a good place to focus to make ham radio operators 'value added' rather than being perceived as an obsolete burden..

YMMV -

73 de Ray ..._ ._

 

Could the ARRL lose its place at the IARU?

The deliberations underway that may lead to an overhaul at the IARU could include consideration of improving the test for whether a "Member-Society" adequately represents licensees in its region of responsibility. For now, the ARRL is the designated "Member-Society" for licensed radio Amateurs in the United States.

For years, the ARRL's paid support has hovered at around 20 percent of U.S. licensees, and the club never asks the other 80 percent for its input ahead of ARRL's activities at the IARU. This combination forms a basis to challenge whether the ARRL is doing harm to U.S. licensees when IARU recommendations are decided upon.

In the present constitution and by-laws of the IARU, there is a mechanism to eject a "Member-Society" based on these factors:

a) The Member-Society has failed to fulfill its duties under this Constitution;

b) The Member-Society has acted contrary to the interests of Amateur Radio or the IARU; or

c) The Member-Society no longer adequately represents the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country and/or separate territory.​

Source: Article II, Section 11

https://www.iaru.org/reference/iaru-constitution/

I hope the overhaul firms up the criteria to measure the performance of its "Member-Societies" , and specifically calls on its U.S. club to survey its constituents regardless of whether they have paid fees to the ARRL.

 

This almost surely will not happen.

There is a deep-rooted reluctance to ask for or consider any inputs from the membership in policy-determining issues. This has been amplified by a general apathy and indifference of both members and non-members.

Generally speaking, amateurs tend to take their privileges for granted and pay little, if any, concerns for how they were earned and how to keep them.

This has been taken advantage of by the club leaderships which spread the gospel that the current privileges are due to them, and that any criticism or aims for reforms are "disloyal", and will undermine the standing of amateur radio in the eyes of the regulators.

Most of the "rank and file" memberships buy this reasoning "hook, line and sinker" and are happy not having to bother. On the other hand, the regulators would be quite happy to watch amateur radio just disappear, so they would not have to deal with us in the future.