giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (07/14/84)
Okay -- I am strongly anti-code (as in code-for-the-sake-of-code), but as
someone pointed out, *I* may be the only one receiving a signal so I have
a responibility to have at least a minimal skill in code. 5 wpm has been
generally agreed upon as a acceptable speed, so I can live with that as a
requirement for a license.
BUT -- IT WILL COST!
(1): 5 wpm on *all* classes. This worship of code-for-the-sake-of-code
is *extremely* repugnant to a lot of us you need to keep your upper
bands. My personal interests are on *development*, not the actual
communication. Perhaps in a few years I my tastes will change to
where I enjoy rag-chewing on CW, but the emergency communication
argument for CW is the only one I (and a lot of others) will accept.
(2): You want technical competence required -- demand it. For a general
class license, all new *and* renewed licensees must build, from
components, one major subsystem of a radio. Included must be design
notes, assembly records (photographs of partially assembled board
and licensee), and testing results. Furthermore, each licensee must
undergo verbal examination by the volunteer examineers. And I mean
questions like: if your FM transmitter (if that is what they built)
changes the modulation level by the amount dm, how does this affect
the n-th sideband ? (by J' sub(n) (m) * dm). How is total bandwidth
affected? (Dependent upon the location of the zeroes of the Bessel
functions) While a person could still learn this by reading a book
(sin that that is!), the fact it is a verbal exam will ensure that
the licensee *must* have an adequate technical expertise.
For the advanced licenses -- you guessed it -- design and build a
complete transceiver. This radio must include *both* digital and
voice capacities. Furthermore, this radio must be operated under
the control of both the operator (via the front panel) and a
computer (via keyboard entries). Because of the scale of this
project, individual modules can be purchased pre-assembled
(e.g., power supplies, low-level computer i/o, various filters),
but a significant amount of assembly must be done solely by the
licensee.
(3): Serious discussion is started about removing archaic requirements
for a license. Included in that is a no-code/digital-only/high
frequency license. Everyone keeps saying "not for another 12 years",
well to me that is "in only 12 years." And you better believe that
if I suffer through the higher code speeds (for the advanced
license -> the technical aspects I want to free from archaic demands)
that I will be a vocal member concerning such policy. It will
be far better to approach the FCC in 1995 united with a new
license requirement than divided and sharply quarreling.
A comment I frequently see, "If you don't have to overcome obstacles, it
wasn't as satisfying when you succeed" overlooks one important fact:
THEY MUST BE NATURAL OBSTACLES! I have been working (on and off) for
2 1/2 years to get in shape to jog over 12 miles along pristine Florida
coast. That is a very large natural obstacle, as I will be forced to
jog in either soft, loose sand or in the breaking surf (or both).
And after all this time, I am still doing well to travel 4 miles in a
jog. After I run it, yes, I will be extremely happy. But if someone
came to me and said "Miss June says she wants to see you *now*, follow
this path" and it is a torturous path which takes a considerable amount
of effort to complete, and when I finish I find out that a different
path (which the original person knew) was far shorter and more direct,
then when I next see the person who sent me on the long path he had
best run for his life. I'm not lazy, but I feel *I* am the best judge
of how my time is best spent, and overcoming artifical obstacles is
just above transporting the Atlantic Ocean into the Pacific via a
teaspoon in priority.
Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relayron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/16/84)
Give me a break, the FCC can't even handle the damn multiple choice code test that they give now, let alone practical engineering tests. -Ron
Cherry.es@XEROX.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (07/19/84)
Hey Mr. Bruce Giles: Another reason for the code is to insure a level of maturity (Not Age!) so that absolutely asinine comments and wasted net time are not perpetrated on those who who have heard your view point once already. I can't believe that you would spend so much energy and effort to condem the code and yet, you would not spend the same amount of time/effort/energy to learn it! Isthisguyforreal?
PADDEN@SRI-KL.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (07/19/84)
._. .. __. .... _ ___ _. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -------
tech@auvax.UUCP (Richard Loken) (07/25/84)
oh shut up