With the permission of Dr. Stephen Holland, KD4TTC, of Naperville, IL I am forwarding this email exchange to ODV. It is lengthy but I think it is a very good example of the potential out there from which we can recruit, that is people who will make good operators, have skills that we need in amateur radio, have an interest in HF for modes other than SSB, and who have no interest in CW. I apologize for the length but I thought it was worthwhile to share a positive well written input with you and hopefully this will get us some comments in support of a possible NRRM. Also, for all we know, some new licensees may get an interest in DX or weak signal VHF/UHF and then actually take up CW. Howie, K9KM -----Original Message----- From: Huntington Howard-CADV02 Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:17 AM To: 'Stephen Holland' Subject: RE: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. Steve, Lots of things. Your comment is quite well written and clearly indicates what you want to do with amateur radio. You have no interest in Morse, and that is ok. You have skills that we need and may, in the future, help others to learn those skills. You are committed to be a good courteous operator. You have an interest in HF and want HF privileges that allow operation on interesting modes and on a variety of bands. Surely there are many more out there like you who will come forward if FCC adopts this proposal. That is good for amateur radio. I think the Board will be glad to hear that we have a chance for success. Howard Huntington, K9KM -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Holland [mailto:sholland@mac.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 9:57 AM To: Huntington Howard-CADV02 Subject: Re: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated. Sure! Hey, I didn't imagine my rant would bubble up so high. What did I say that struck such a chord? Steve kd4ttc, ARRL member On Thursday, January 22, 2004, at 06:05 PM, Huntington Howard-CADV02 wrote:
Stephen,
With you permission may I forward this exchange to the entire ARRL Board of Directors?
Thanks,
Howard Huntington, K9KM
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Holland [mailto:sholland@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:27 AM To: Huntington Howard-CADV02 Subject: Re: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated.
Yipee! I am in the Nocode international group which has been active in getting people like me pointed to the process. I expect that I'll get eMail from them and I'll submit ORIGINAL content to the right places.
I appreciate the efforts the ARRL is doing on this, including your work as well. I imagine the Morse community is going to be miffed at ARRL. I'll do what I can to keep those folks happy by supporting CW only subbands, and I will try to be an impeccable operator on HF as well.
When I saw the ARRL position it was a wow moment. ARRL carries a lot of weight at the FCC, so this likely will go through.
Stephen kd4ttc, ARRL member
On Tuesday, January 20, 2004, at 02:22 PM, Huntington Howard-CADV02 wrote:
Stephen,
I think your reply really put into perspective that there are very qualified people ready to join amateur radio but simply have no interest in Morse. Of course we have known this for quite some time but you have made a contribution to spell it out in many ways. For that you have my appreciation and thanks. This has been considered at the recent meeting.
If you take a look at the press release http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 that follows the meeting in Windsor, Connecticut that ended January 17, I am hopeful that it will fulfill your wishes regarding the Morse requirement. If the FCC adopts the ARRL proposal, you and many other Technician class licensees and Technician Plus licensees will be merged into the General Class with those privileges including HF. Also, a new entry class license is proposed with a much simpler written examination and no Morse is proposed that allows CW/Data and phone privileges at 80, 40, 15 and 10m as well as VHF with some power restrictions on useful portions of those bands.
We need your support to get this proposal through the FCC. You will see that process begin very soon and it will take some time before we see any change to Part 97.
I support this proposal. If enacted, it will boost amateur radio for years to come. I guess I should tell you too that I am, as you say, a Morse enthusiast. I do not believe that this proposal will reduce Morse activity which today is very strong. Since your have listed your favorite activities, some of mine include circuit design of those things that you cannot buy, antennas, and CW contesting at 40 plus wpm and at rates at times in excess of 100 QSOs per hour (take a listen to the North American Sprint CW around 7040 and 14040 kHz starting at 6 PM Saturday Jan 31). And as you said, if I had time I would like to try some sound card modes, antenna modeling, ionospheric propagation analysis and programming PICs (also) for remote control. Seems like although I am an electrical engineer I just do not have time to get into those things.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Howard Huntington, K9KM
-----Original Message----- From: sholland@mac.com [mailto:sholland@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:05 PM To: Huntington Howard-CADV02; W9GIG@arrl.org Subject: Re: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated.
Howard, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Inasmuch as you are not counting votes, and you clearly are willing to consider issues from policy rather than just a vote counting perspective, let me add some comments I hope will sway you to consider giving input that will bring about an elimination of the Morse requirement.
Now 46 years old, I licensed about 8 years ago while I was in Alabama. I had not considered licensing until I found out I didn't have to meet a Morse code requirement. I have enjoyed life above 50, so to speak, but at field day a few years ago I saw how much fun long distance HF could be. Not that field day exchanges were all that exciting, but imaging SSB contacts to far away places has it's allure. I had planned on getting code skilled, but life has it's distractions from the hobby. Now, I don't think anyone can call me a slouch. I am a physician, work to make people better, have moved 2 times in the last 6 years, and have just started a new business employing two staff, deal with insurance companies, keep up with the medical literature, and so on. I thought by now i'd have done the code, but no. Several years have gone by. Other things I do are program computers, take piano lessons, do woodworking, enjoy electronics as a hobby (interesting how LSI chips have given us such amazing capability in circuit design), and enjoy my wife and children.
Where I'd like to go with amateur radio is to experiment with computer analysis of signals, build interface circuits, remote control, learn about PIC microcontroller design, satellite communications, and do some stealth antenna design that will work in my CC&R'ed neighborhood.
What I do not see is how a Morse code requirement is going to help me advance the art of radio communications. It seems to me the content of the licensing exam ought to be part of making the licensee a better amateur operator. I know of no other facet of amateur radio that I have to learn for the test that is not important in general operation on amateur radio, except for the morse code requirement which is only of use if you want to use that mode. I think the case can be made that there ought to be a requirement for programming PIC microcontrollers, specing out IC's, tuning up an antenna tuner, using a SWR meter (or a VOM for that matter) if there is a Morse code requirement. Any of those skills would be of more use in modern practice. Obviously, what I am getting at is amateur radio is so much more than Morse code nowadays, even on HF. I'd rather be spending my time figuring out how to make a plug-in for my web browser that will let me run Pactor off my computer having written the program myself. I'd like to take the new PIC chips that allow USB interfacing and modify my old Icom 2 meter rig to do packet with modern USB enabled computers.
So here I am. One of the non-Morse riff-raff. However, it comes down to a personal discovery. I really have no interest in Morse. Really. Nothing against the morse code enthusiasts. They are nice people. I've met a number at field day. It is just that for me I have no motivation. I enjoying seeing other people enjoy working Morse: there is a satisfaction and a Zen to it. But I enjoy seeing folks enjoy all the aspects of Amateur Radio. (See me review of Now You're Talking on Amazon) I'd just like to see a lot of people joining the amateur radio community.
Now, if I'd like to advance the art of radio but am not in HF because I am not motivated to learn Morse, consider that there are probably lots of fine folks with even more computer and electronics skills that me that are also not part of our hobby. I suspect there are a lot of people with skills that amateur radio could use who just don't have an interest in Morse. I suspect around you at Motorola there are talented folks who would bring new perspective to Amateur radio that have no interest in Morse. I've enjoyed working above 110 baud ever since we upgraded the modem in high school to run at 330. Man, were we flying then with 3 times the throughput! Frankly, packet at 2400 is a little tedious. But if I was only using Morse on HF I'd go nuts. Maybe the new blood we need is the new blood that doesn't want to use Morse. People who have a world view different from current users precisely because they are different and DO NOT have time for Morse. I think this is the important part. By requiring Morse we are selecting people that are of the attitude that Morse is important enough to put in the effort to learn it. This means that folks with the mindset that Morse is not important are not going to join us, and these folks likely have other insights and interests that will contribute to Amateur Radio, different from the folks already in amateur radio.
This I expect: drop the Morse code requirement and you will get people with a different attitude into amateur radio and HF. But anyone with technical savvy will still respect the folks that work another continent on 100 mW on HF with Morse, be they either FFT writing software guru's or fist pounders that love a straight key, and we will all be able to coexist in a hobby richer for its greater diversity.
Steve Holland, M.D. kd4ttc kd4ttc@arrl.net
On Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 05:39 PM, Huntington Howard-CADV02 wrote:
Stephen,
The requirement for Morse proficiency testing will be considered at the annual meeting of the Board in January and we certainly appreciate your comments. You should have copied Central Division Director Dick Isely, W9GIG and I have copied him with this reply.
Speaking from my own personal point of view, we will give this issue serious consideration as it is a serious issue to many of our members and has significant implications for the future. As Vice Director, I will support the policy of the Board. I can give my own input to Director Isely and your input along with that of many others are part of what I do consider. I do not, however, form my opinion by counting the emails for and against retention of Morse testing. I was elected to do more than that. Thanks for your comments and I can tell it is important to you.
Howard Huntington, K9KM Central Division Vice Director
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Holland [mailto:sholland@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:53 PM To: k9km@arrl.org Cc: w5jbp@arrl.org; w5zn@arrl.org; n3kn@arrl.org; wa6wzo@arrl.org; w6rod@arrl.org; k1zz@arrl.net Subject: I would like to see the Morse requirement eliminated.
Dear Howard,
I'd like to see the morse code testing requirement eliminated. I support the continued presence of the Morse code subbands and am happy to see folks enjoy themselves. However Morse code requirement is outdated.
As you are called on to advise on policy please include my voice against the Morse code testing requirement in mind.
Best regards,
Stephen Holland, M.D. Naperville, IL KD4TTC