Standards for Hams

There has been a lot of talk about the removal of the Morse code requirements from amateur radio licensing. The discussion of this item will get more intense as the year continues because it is one of the items that will be discussed by the IARU at the WRC-2003 in Geneva this June. There are a myriad of alphabet soup groups that we as amateurs hear about e.g. ARRL, FCC, IARU, ITU, etc. but there is seldom an explanation about who these groups are, how these group interact and how decisions such as removal of Morse code testing are made. Focusing on Morse code requirement and how it could be removed from FCC Part 97 is what this paper will discuss.

There are many TLAs and ETLAs used in telecommunications and regulatory environments on a regular basis. TLAs or Three Letter Acronyms and ETLAs Extended Three Letter Acronyms are the jargon that is used to describe these regulatory agencies and forums. Some basic groups we know almost right from the beginning of our amateur career are the FCC-Federal Communications Commission and the ARRL-American Radio Relay League. The FCC is the regulatory authority for the United States, this is the agency that makes the rules that we as amateurs have to follow. Those rules for the amateur radio service are contained the Code of Federal Regulation Title 47 Part 97 (47CFR97) or just Part 97 for short. The ARRL is a forum that represents amateur radio operators from the US to international and national agencies, these are the guys that lobby on behalf of us. There are other international organizations that one may hear about from time to time. One of those is the IARU-International Amateur Radio Union. An individual does not join the IARU only organized groups of people referred to as ‘societies’ do, the ARRL, for example, is a member of the IARU and other country’s amateur radio interest groups belong as well. The primary interest of the IARU is to act as a sounding board for their members to work out positions related to spectrum. This is not to say they do not get involved in other topics, they do, Morse code for one, but they primarily discuss spectrum related issues. The IARU also attends meetings of the ITU, more about them later, to represent the amateur viewpoint to the global regulators. For our example of Morse code testing, it is the IARU that took up the position that requirements be dropped to 5 wpm, but they do not have any authority to actually change the rules. To do that they need to convince the regulatory authorities in each country that has an amateur radio service.

The ITU-International Telecommunications Union is a global regulatory authority charted as part of the United Nations that develops regulatory criteria and standards for all aspects of telecommunications including how spectrum is organized. The ITU is comprised of three groups the Radio Group (ITU-R) the Telecommunications Network Group (ITU-T), and a group that works with nations that are still developing their communications infrastructures (ITU-D). The ITU has also divided the globe into three regions. Region 1 is Europe, Africa, and all of Russia, Region 2 is North and South America, and Region 3 is everywhere else (Asia, Australia, Oceana). Each of the ITU group is even further divided into study groups and working parties that are charged with the development of a particular technology or service. The Amateur Radio Service is found in ITU-R SG8 WP8A. WP8A also works on the Amateur Satellite Service and land mobile (police and fire department systems) but not cellular systems. It is WP8A that writes and maintains a specification call M.1544 Minimum Qualification for Radio Amateurs. This is where the one can find the first mention of Morse code being a requirement for operation below 30MHz* written down and it is the authority for the FCC to require, as a minimum, 5wpm Morse testing for HF operation. Since this is a global standard issued by the UN (remember the ITU is an agency of the UN) those members of the UN are bound to follow the specification or face sanctions. This means that the FCC cannot unilaterally remove the Morse code testing requirement but can set the minimum to 5wpm. The FCC could and has set the maximums higher i.e. 13wpm, 20wpm, etc.

This now sets the stage for our example of the possible elimination of the Morse requirement. The IARU has already adopted the position that it supports “the removal of Morse code testing as an ITU requirement for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz.” This position comes form the member societies and follows procedures that are very similar to any democratic process. A motion was made, seconded, discussed and voted on, a majority of members supported this position and it was approved as a resolution and official lobbying position. Incidentally, the ARRL has voted to against this resolution at IARU meetings.

With the resolution in hand the IARU now approaches the ITU. The next big opportunity for this happens this June and it is called the World Radio Conference 2003 (WRC-2003). The WRC, formally called World Administrative Radio Conferences, WARCs, are were many of the really big decisions will occur and they take place every three years. At WARC-1979 a decision was made to increase spectrum for hams around the globe and thus was born the WARC bands (10, 18, and 24MHz). These WRCs are a pretty big affair and it takes several years to prepare and lobby positions for them. Many items will be up for discussion and even the IARU has more on their agenda than just Morse testing. But lets continue to keep focus on our example and it holds true for the other items as well. If the WRC approves the IARU resolution ITU-R WP8A will revise the standard M.1544, the approval process will take some time, as members of WP8A are allowed to raise any issue they may have with the language of the standards. But once approved the national regulatory authorities are now free to implement any part of it as long as they meet the minimum requirements. For the U.S. the regulatory authority is the FCC and they may initiate an update of part 97. But they are not the only ones that may initiate the action.

The FCC sometimes on its own will start and update a rule but any citizen or U.S. company can also request an update to a rule. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) is developed and opened for comment, and that mean comments form anyone. That could be you or me, or company ABC or the ARRL, etc. Once those requirements are collected they are reviewed and a final decision will be made based on the will of those who submitted comments. With our Morse requirement example the FCC may choose to not update part 97 and no action will take place until they are requested to change the rules and the comments favor a removal of the requirement. With the NPR it is possible that the result is to keep the Morse testing requirement and that would be in agreement with the minimum performance which is set to no Morse code or eliminate it all together.

The process seems big and cumbersome but it does work. The question is how can you get involved. First join the ARRL but don’t stay at home and read your QST you have to let those that are in the decision making positions know your thoughts. At least twice a year the ARRL holds meetings to review topics and understand what the membership wants. This is what your Division Directors do, they represent you to the ARRL, their primary duty to ensure the preservation and expansion of our hobby continues. They cannot do this unless they know what the ham community needs and you thought they just had met and greets at hamfests.

The process that was reviewed is not just the process for the Morse code requirements that will be taken up this summer but also for other topics such as 7MHz issue with broadcasters, the development of a global ham license, RFI, and many others. I highly recommend you visit http://www.iaru.org/iaru-index.html#wrc2003 and review the many topics and see if one is of interest to you. Then tell your division director of the ARRL. Who is your division director? Go to http://www.arrl.org/divisions/ to find out.

*Resolution 01-1 of December 2001 meeting of the IARU, http://www.iaru.org/ac-respol.html

 

Me too. Wow thats a lot to digest! Less is sometimes more. You know?

 

Right now I'm hoping that they will remove the code on the HF bands. But I guess it's just wishful thinking. It's time for a change.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Debater @ Feb. 24 2003,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could the author or perhaps someone of greater intellect decipher this for me and advise me as to the point of this posting?

If there is a message here, just what is it? A simple, concise paragraph will do, thank you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know about having a greater intellect than you, but I thought the posting was fairly straight forward. The poster is attempting to explain the process of how Amateur radio regulations come about. He is also suggesting ways that you can influence what regulations are put in place. He is a bit wordy, but anyone who is attempting to explain something that is non-trivial always is.

I take the point as being this. Anyone who really cares about the new proposed international Amateur radio regulations should let their voices be heard in a meaningful way.

 

I'm for the removal of the cw requirement for hf operating privileges. It's a good mode but it has outlived it's usefulness. There are better and easier ways to communicate by radio in this time and age.

With the old timers going SK, newbies going digital, and antenna restrictions running amuck, doing away with the cw requirement is one of the few ways left to attract more ops to hf before it is taken by the government and given to big money groups.

It's really time for a change!

 

"outlived it's usefulness"? What a foolish comment.
Nothing is as efficient as cw. Saying anything contrary to this basic fact is just plain silliness. Anyone foolish enough to live where they can't have a good antenna system should appreciate even more cw's ability to work where and when all other modes fail.

 

Yeah, I want the code requirement to be eliminated once and for all also.  Alot of my friends, CB'ers and other interested (interesting?) people, would like to get their ham ticket for HF operation but the code keeps them unfairly out.

So, what do they do - Freeband and bootleg and that's just not fair.  If the code disappeared, they wouldn't have to operate illegally.  They could just fire up the old HF rig and talk all over the world either in the bands (legally) or just above or just below the band (illegally) - (no one will notice).  Bad habits are hard to break ya know.

So, eliminate the code and let my good buddies operate legally then we won't have to complain about the Freebanders and the 10 meter intruders anymore.  We can all be one big happy family.  Us and them.

K2WH

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (VA7ADR @ Feb. 25 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm for the removal of the cw requirement for hf operating privileges. It's a good mode but it has outlived it's usefulness.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, from what I can make out from the original post, U.S. operators would voice their opinions one way or the other to their ARRL division director. I assume Canadians would submit their comments to someone equivalent. Wasn't there a separate Candian Amateur Radio League at some time? Or have they reorganized?

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YKY @ Feb. 24 2003,13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"outlived it's usefulness"? What a foolish comment.
Nothing is as efficient as cw. Saying anything contrary to this basic fact is just plain silliness. Anyone foolish enough to live where they can't have a good antenna system should   appreciate even more cw's ability to work where and when all other modes fail.  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sorry, but some of the newer digital modes are better and more efficient than CW for weak signal work - that is a basic fact!  I have received msg's when no signal is evident visually or by ear.

Especially PSK31.  PSK31, is an apartment dwellers or a home with restrictive coventants dream.  5 watts with an indoor antenna, works the world.  Yes I know it can be done with CW, but with newbies and others not knowing CW or refusing to learn it, PSK or the other digital modes are very attractive alternatives.

We as guardians of amateur radio all have to face this basic fact - amateur radio is evolving - and live with it.  If you want to be out of the loop, that's your choice.

I don't know if you have ever attempted to use the digital modes (besides CW), but they have an amazing ability to copy 100%, very weak signals.

K2WH

 

oh sure...99% of you folks went through the TIME, EFFORT and TROUBLE to LEARN the international morse code ( c w ),  so YOU could communicate with other AMATEUR radio operators around the city, state, country or even the world. YOU put forth a LOT of energy into learning the morse code, just as I did. Now you want to ELIMINATE it, so others can have a "free ride " into HF...NO WAY !!   . "" I had to learn it to be able to communicate on HF, and so should ANY one else who wishes to.""   YOU did it, now some of you want to make it into a " free band- good buddy system ". !! C W is great ( it helps keep the riff - raff out ), sure some folks arent that great of operators on HF with EXTRA class of licences, but you always have a few "bad apples " in any crowd.  KEEP THE CODE !...kd4amg

 

Hey folks...

The posting was NOT about the code...
Code was used as an example....
He used code because that is something everyone has heard about...

The original poster took no postion for you to argue about...
It was simply informative about how the system works...

It was really pretty simple and straight forward and I don't understand
how anyone could NOT understand it...
-----------------------

Thanks for the posting... There were a couple things there I was misinformed about... I'll look into them...

 

There is no doubt when you see my call letters that I am for keeping the code examination.  If I had my way I would vote to go back to the 13 wpm and a test at the FCC office and no VEC.
Joining the ARRL is not going to bring you a winning vote to hang on to the code test or get rid of it.  The ARRL is a magazine publishing company and has been that way from the very first start. And very good books I may ad, the very best. (Your vote may go the wrong way, be careful what you sign and join). Most clubs and organizations control people, so be careful.
The only way to keep ham radio going is to keep the code tests and the theory. By eliminating both the code and theory, we may in a very short time no longer have  ham radio, but into something much more different.
Lets not think of ourselves and what we can get from it for free, gratis , no cost. Lets get smart and preserve our ham radio the love of our life.

                 73, W6th

 

I'm not sure just how it happened but this post slipped under the Radar until the second page. Well done  Scott, you took the time and effort to explain the total process so that even an entry level HAM would understand how the system works. It would seem that it was over the head of a few, but now that HAM Radio has been reduced to the lowest common denominator, we can expect some will be left out in the cold.
The explanation you presented should be of value to all members of the HAM Radio Fraternity as it effects newbies and OF's alike. I would point out to some of the newer crowd who are bent on changing the Service to more meet their own individual desires, instead of reinforceing the foundation on which it was built, Scott has very well outlined how the process works in a very precise manner, and if you notice there was nothing in the process about whinning and crying and saying "I can't learn ".
Although the code issue was not the premise of his post, since he did use it as an example, I believe at my last check there were several nations who were against the dropping of the code requirement. If the US and Britain were to join them it almost would be a foregone conclusion that the code requirement would remain.
Scott well done and TNX for the well presented post we need more informative topics.    
ENJOY!! It is later than you think ......73,   ORV
 

 

As was previously stated inyernational requirements are only minimum requirements. I live in the United States of America and am a citizen of such! We can make our own requirements as long as they are the minimum or greater. When the CW requirement is removed, I will turn my license to the FCC to be canceled because that will be when all the LIDS will flood in. The only Americans that want it removed id the ones that are too lazy to take the time to learn the code. The past ten to fifteen years has been filled with politcal correctness (a bunch of anti-American bull) that has allowed sloth to become acceptable in this Great Nation. We need to restore and maintain high standards in all our endevors, not lower them! In the past Hams were respected because of these high standards as was this Nation. I know that I will be called by some an elitist. If so, I will hold my head up and be proud of the title. The elite are the best. What is wrong with being the best and only allowing the best to enter our ranks. It is not as though they don't have anywhere to go, just listen on 11 meters. In short, you don't deserve somethings just because you suck air! You have to earn them!

 

I am a relatively new ham. I just passed my Technician test in Januray, and the General and CW tests this weekend. While I cannot say that I am proficient with CW, I still believe it should be one of the requirements for HF operation. Even if not for its usefulness (and I'm sure it still is useful) it should be kept as a symbol of what Ham radio is about. Sure, we have RTTY and other computer asissted methods of digital communication, but they aren't what founded the hobby.

Just a little piece of my mind.

Jason Steiner
KB3IYN