IARU RIII decides to work for elimination of Morse testing!

 One of the primary issues facing the IARU R3 11th Conference (held in Darwin, Australia,, August 28-September 1, 2000) was the issue of ITU Radio Regulation S25.5 and the future of Morse testing requirements.

Seventeen of the region's member societies participated in the conference, and conference chairman and WIA President, Peter Naish, VK2BPN, said the results clearly showed that IARU R3 spoke with a single voice.

The ITU Radio Regulation, S25.5, that currently requires Morse code proficiency in amateur license testing, generated considerable discussion during conference Working Group 3 (WRC-03).

However, after a number of wording revisions, the general intent of recommendations in a WIA input paper on the ITU RR S25.5 were adopted.  (Revisions to S25 of the ITU Radio Regulations are scheduled  for consideration at WRC 2003.)

The Conference resolved to support lowering the amateur license Morse code test speed to 5 wpm immediately as a temporary measure, and the ultimate removal of Morse proficiency as a license requirement.

At the final plenary session a motion, proposed by WIA and seconded by SARTS, read:

"IARU Region III strongly supports Morse code as an effective and efficient mode of communication. However, it believes that the position of Morse as a qualifying criterion for a HF amateur license is not relevant to the healthy future of amateur radio. Therefore:

  1. That IARU Region III urges member societies to seek, as an interim measure, the reduction of all Morse code testing speeds to five words per minute.
  2. That setting aside any previous relevant decisions of earlier Conferences, a policy of the removal of Morse code testing as an ITU requirement for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz be adopted by IARU Region III.
  3. Further, we recommend that the Administrative Council adopt the above position as IARU policy."

The motion was passed, with ARRL voting against, and HARTS, whose members had three years ago supported retention of a Morse code as a license requirement, recording an abstention.

Also related to ITU RR S25 was another motion in which the Conference addressed concern about the preliminary draft recommendation for WRC-03 (M-AOQ, ITU-R Document 8A/TEMP/91-E), which includes reference to "Radio Telegraphy" under a list of Operating Skills for the amateur license.

The concern expressed by delegates was that "Operating Skills" could be misunderstood, and in fact it had been wrongly seen by some in the amateur radio fraternity as indicating the retention of a Morse code telegraphy skill.

Delegates heard that in ITU terminology, Radio Telegraphy meant all digital modes of transmission. In a motion proposed RSGB, seconded ARRL, the conference resolved to instruct the IARU R3 representatives on the IARU Administrative Council to replace in the M-AOQ the term "Operating skills" with "Methods of communication".

Editorial Opinion:   

This editor cannot help but wonder if this minor wording change will prove to be sufficient to prevent those who favor retention of Morse testing from arguing that "M-AOQ requires Morse testing" to the administrations of the world.  

After all, what's the big difference between "Operating skills" and "Methods of communication" ???... BOTH could be argued, by those so inclined, to require a demonstration of Morse proficiency as long as there is reference to "Radiotelegraphy" in the text..  

Additionally, if "in ITU terminology, Radio Telegraphy means all digital modes of transmission" why does the draft M-AOQ which was presented to the ITU also contain a separate and distinct reference to 'Data and Image' in the same section which recommends a requirement for 'Radiotelegraphy'?  (Answer: There are still some skunks in the woodpile.)

Thus, despite the obvious good intentions of the R3 delegates, I believe that M-AOQ still presents a potential problem in the future and suggest that a better approach to "Mandatory Recommendations" (an oxymoron in itself) is to simply "suppress" (delete) Section S25.5 and leave the remainder of S25 and S26 (which have served the ARS well for many years) as they are.  This approach would be far simpler and less subject to nefarious manipulations.  

After all, as the old saying goes "If it works, don't fix it." The only thing that is "broken" about S25 is S25.5's requirement for Morse testing ... fix the part that's broken and leave the rest "as is."  

Carl R. Stevenson, WA6VSE
Executive Director, No Code International