It seems that there has been pressure on the FCC to grow amateur radio. I realize the number of licensees are down and this is unfortunate. Personal computers and the Internet have taken off in popularity and have probably taken some future hams away from the amateur service. This should not be viewed negatively. This trend has helped America become more productive and technically savvy. It used to be kids were souping up their Fords and Chevys and now they are working on their CPU's and hard drives. However, the marriage of computers and ham radio is a natural one. Both hams and computer enthusiasts are technically oriented individuals. The future of communication will most likely be guided by digital applications. I believe that the road to ham radio growth is through encouragement of digital activities rather than voice.

The ability to receive and transmit Morse code is still important to amateur radio. A CW transmitter is simply constructed, inexpensive, efficient and requires very little bandwidth. Low power or QRP operation is flourishing and the vast majority of this activity is with CW. New firms are being created along with existing firms to meet this demand by producing low power equipment. Much of it is in kit form. These kits help educate an amateur radio operator in radio and electronics where a "store bought" transceiver does little. Likewise the ham magazines regularly offer construction projects that are simple enough to encourage even a novice to give it a try. Just search the web for "QRP" and see the amount of returns that are generated. If you want a big surprise, search the web for Morse code and you'll see just how popular this mode really is.

When band conditions falter during a QSO, many voice conversations are converted to CW to finish it up. CW allows us to communicate effectively even when signals aren't strong enough to move an S-meter. The use of Morse code enables hams that aren't fluent in each other's native language to communicate through the use of Q-signals. According to an article by ABC news, dated July 17, 1998, "tucked discreetly into the shining digital control panels of the ultra-high-frequency radio used aboard U.S. space shuttles is a tiny, collapsible telegraph key. Just in case." http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/KWMorse980716.html. Just in case, is a good reason to maintain Morse proficiency requirements as is. NASA isn't interested in preserving a lost art, they are interested in preventing a lost life.

The May 1998 issue of Worldradio wrote: On 31 December 1997, just minutes before the British government ended Morse code monitoring of 500 kHz at shore stations, a freighter in the North Atlantic, the Bahamian M/V Oak, a 13,000 ton freighter carrying a cargo of wood sent an "SOS" using Morse code. "SOS SOS This is Oak. Position 53 16N 24 50W Stop Engine. We need assistance." The ship was in heavy seas, and the cargo had shifted. She also lost power, and was sinking. The call was answered by a British shore station and a Royal Air Force "Nimrod" was soon orbiting overhead. The crew abandoned the ship shortly thereafter, and was rescued.

The ARRL presented you with some ideas in their letter. However, you can see by my above comments that I don't agree with it. While their intentions may have been good, I think their proposal doesn't work. We should grow ham radio but not at the expense of a less skilled operator. Here are my suggestions:

1. Eliminate the novice license as we know it today and change the name of the Tech license to Novice. For those currently holding a novice license, automatically convert them to Tech (presently known as tech plus). The tech license is essentially the entry level class now, so make it official.

2. Allow tech class (presently known as tech plus) operators the use of digital modes on HF. This would encourage new comers that are interested in computers to amateur radio. Perhaps the 125 kHz of spectrum that the ARRL proposed be converted to voice on 15, 40 and 80-meters could instead be allocated to CW/digital use for this purpose. This could bring in a whole new crop of hams with computer backgrounds that would concentrate on digital modes to advance the radio art.

3. Allow amateur radio operators and their clubs and organizations some time to encourage growth on their own. Like everything, I suspect ham radio is somewhat cyclical. Even though the numbers are down, I regularly chat with many new hams on HF CW. Many older hams are coming back to ham radio after years of inactivity due to job and family responsibilities. Their activities will encourage new comers to the amateur service, because of their renewed enthusiasm. I also anticipate amateur radio activity will be increasing as propagation improves in this sunspot cycle.

This simple, 3-step approach would simplify the license structure and encourage new members to the amateur service. It encourages technically minded people that might be employed in computer fields, the opportunity to experiment on HF. It doesn't do anything radical that would alienate any licensees. It doesn't create any added enforcement burden for the FCC. The conversion of CW/digital subbands to voice does nothing to expand the base of qualified amateurs or improve the radio art.

Ham radio is alive in a big way. Surf the net and see how many hams have web pages, are subscribed to e-mail reflectors or use the newsgroups. Let's steer the amateur service in the direction of the future. Computers and ham radio are like peanut butter and jelly. The addition of unearned voice privilege won't grow the service in the way it should be grown. Don't reduce the Morse proficiency requirements because we know that if all else fails, we can touch two wires together, call for help and someone will know what it means at the other end.

While this plea is based upon logic and reasonableness, it comes from the heart. The amateur radio service is special and should be treated as such. It is full of people that volunteer their time for public service. Any proposal should not be motivated solely for sake of quantity or what other licensing bodies outside the US are doing. Suggestions made by those that have a pecuniary interest in amateur radio should not be considered. Please don't make change just for the sake of change, when perhaps only an adjustment is in order. Thank you.

ARS N9BOR
ARRL Life Member
FISTS NR 4594