WRC-2003 May Well Decide the Fate of CW

N4INU writes:



The World Administrative Radio Conference is scheduled to occur in Caracas, Venezuela in 2003. W5YI has categorized six items on the agenda that are planned to be emphasized:
<ul>
[*](A) Administrations are to continue to verify both technical and operational qualifictions of RadioAmateurs.
[*](B) Maintaining the non-commercial nature of Amateur Services, including amateur satellites.
[*](C) Specific provisions to recognize the role of disaster communications in the Amateur Radio Service.
[*](D) Possible elimination of prohibition against transmission of international communications on behalf of third parties.
[*](E) Removal of prohibition against radioamateur communications regardless of objections expressed by the administration of either of the countries between whom the communications are made.
[*](F) Elimination of provisions that merely and redundantly repeat regulations that generally apply to all radio services.
[/list]


So what is the likely outcome of all this?



Item (A) directs attention to Article S25-- with one paragraph therein stipulating the International Morse Code requirement for all administrations (nations) allowing radioamateur use of RF spectrum in the low bands (less than 30 MHz [or 10m]). It is WIDELY agreed by those well familiar with international radioamateur matters that the elimination of the CW requirement is a foregone conclusion. Great and heated controversy on this matter should prove no great surprise. It is difficult to determine exactly how our representative, the ARRL, plans to approach this matter. Articles in QST are not completely clear on this matter (although it is VERY clear that these articles have a very thick layer of political prudence-- they want to ensure a united front by the amateur population and do not want to fracture the commitment of that community (and quite rightly so).




But what does the amateur community believe with regard to CW? There are polls here on QRZ.COM that show that amateurs believe that CW should REMAIN a requirement for access to frequencies under 30 MHz by a factor of over 2 to 1!! And one of the polls also shows that amateurs believe 2 to 1 that the RF spectrum should indeed be divided into digital and voice segments so as to minimize intermodal interference!! It is not clear what our representatives at the ARRL plan to recommend at WRC-2003. On the basis of the poll results here at QRZ.COM there does not appear to be any substantial basis for ARRL's extremely cautious, careful, and discrete approach to this matter. The ARRL is our representative to WRC-2003. Is it practicable or worthwhile to let them know what we think?



Comments very welcome (either way!!) ...73 de N4INU...

 

There is little question but that CW is closely related to operational proficiency. Although CW is not a CAUSE of the proficiency, it IS an indication of it. The discipline, dedication, and determination required for Morse proficiency is bound to manifest itself in better amateur practice for all hams. Besides CW is an excellent LID FILTER!

 

I feel like I'm in a time warp with all these very old topics posted today. What's up, Fred?

 

Once CW is finally removed as a license requirement for amateur ops what's gonna be left for posts on this page?

Oh, I'm sure there'll be a few posts after this has come to pass lamenting the days of old and rueing the fact that code has gone by the wayside -- as far as it being a requirement to get an amateur license, that is -- but after the brewhaha has died down about this what topics will there be to moan and groan about?

Bet BPL will be the rightful heir to inflamatory posts, but even this will be signed into law and, once amateurs realize this doesn't mean the end of the world as we know it, even this will fade away into obscurity.

Forgive my cynicism on this matter, please -- then again,don't.

Chuck, AA1MN

 

The World Administrative Radio Conference is scheduled to occur in Caracas, Venezuela in 2003.

I just lost a year somewhere. Thought this was 2004 !

Ken
KA2LIM

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (enviroweenie @ Dec. 14 2001,15:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is little question but that CW is closely related to operational proficiency. Although CW is not a CAUSE of the proficiency, it IS an indication of it. The discipline, dedication, and determination required for Morse proficiency is bound to manifest itself in better amateur practice for all hams. Besides CW is an excellent LID FILTER![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Perfectly well said---

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke6irp @ June 02 2004,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (enviroweenie @ Dec. 14 2001,15:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is little question but that CW is closely related to operational proficiency. Although CW is not a CAUSE of the proficiency, it IS an indication of it. The discipline, dedication, and determination required for Morse proficiency is bound to manifest itself in better amateur practice for all hams. Besides CW is an excellent LID FILTER![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Perfectly well said---[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
keep cw for the ones that want to use it , for the ones that dont want to use it , let it fall By the wayside.

 

Umm..the last ITU/WARC was last July (2003). No date has been set for the next meeting. They meet every 2-3 years. So it's gonna be at LEAST 2005. And I don't think they are going to reverse their previous ruling, and put code back in, and tell the dozens of countries that have already dropped it that they have to change back.

The surveys you site are so statistically flawed it's funny. I'm not going to even expand on that.

And code is a LID filter? Anyone with a receiver and a brain can tell that's certainly not the case.

 

Hmm..upon closer scrutiny..I see this was posted on 8/27/2001. Somethings screwey here.

 

It's called April Fools for a reason.... you aren't supposed to do it on June 1st!!!

 

Hey Fred: Now I'm really confused, this article is regarding a upcoming meeting in 2003, you posted the article in June 2004, a couple days ago. I know I'm wearing a cheap sundial and yes it has been rainy with no sun for a few days here in Oregon... but how about translating this one. Is code in, out or undecided as of yet, by this group. I and my children are working towards our General and chose to study and prepare for the test first,we will take it, then see where the ARRL proposal and FCC action goes, regarding the code test and auto upgrades for active Technicians to general or what? Would appreciate clarification on this...Tom KD7ZOS

 

There must be some sort of computer gremlin at QRZ, Tom. A bunch of old topics got posted at the same time and Fred hasn't been heard from in a couple of days. Hope it didn't get him, too!!!

Fred, tell us you're OK!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0doz @ June 03 2004,09:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There must be some sort of computer gremlin at QRZ, Tom.  A bunch of old topics got posted at the same time and Fred hasn't been heard from in a couple of days.  Hope it didn't get him, too!!!

Fred, tell us you're OK![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah Fred,tell us your okay so we don't have to send out a search party.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0doz @ June 02 2004,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's called April Fools for a reason.... you aren't supposed to do it on June 1st!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wow, I just love those April Fools jokes.They are so cool!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (enviroweenie @ Dec. 14 2001,15:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is little question but that CW is closely related to operational proficiency. Although CW is not a CAUSE of the proficiency, it IS an indication of it. The discipline, dedication, and determination required for Morse proficiency is bound to manifest itself in better amateur practice for all hams. Besides CW is an excellent LID FILTER![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is little question but that CW is closely related to operational proficiency. Although CW is not a CAUSE of the proficiency, it IS an indication of it. The discipline, dedication, and determination required for Morse proficiency is bound to manifest itself in better amateur practice for all hams. Besides CW is an excellent LID FILTER! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure sure this logic follows.  Don't get me wrong, even as a Technician, I still have no real problem with the code for myself.  But for years I could hear some VERY bad operating procedures every weekend on 14.313 - and just about everyone involved was an Advanced or Extra.  I suspect that, regardless of our opinions, the code requirement for HF operations will be dropped.  I'm not one of those that's been pushing for that to happen, but I don't think it'll be the end of the world for amateur radio, either.  Still, those who complain that the ARRL hasn't sought enough input from its membership about its latest proposal have a very valid point.