andy%aids-unix@sri-unix.UUCP (07/13/84)
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
In no particular order:
"Morse code proficiency and swimming (preferably "drownproofing")
should be required for graduation from high school. Make that
elementary school!!"
Hear, hear! In fact, let's also have government requirements for
carrying an HT wherever we go, mandatory driver's licenses, demonstrable
tree-climbing ability, dog ownership, wearing of lifevests at all
times, and the indispensible facility of being able to open bottles of
Perrier with our teeth. Surely the survival value must be obvious. In
fact, if a radio transmitter and a case of Perrier floated along while I
was stranded on a small hot desert island, I can tell you without
hesitation which skill I would appreciate more.
Or to put it another way: how many readers feel so intellectually
incapacitated that they need the government to identify for them, and
then require them to learn, life's important survival skills? Raise
those hands high....
The point? It's all too simple to fabricate examples of the utility,
even the survival value, of CW or any other skill. Apart from their
occasional entertainment value, however, such constructions are largely
irrelevant to assessments of the value of the no-code license. If a
survival skill, whether it's swimming or CW, is of self-evident value
to the learners, then they will learn it out of their own rational
self-interest. In fact, whether or not they learn it should be taken
as a prima facie *definition* of what is in their own self-interest.
We all lead complex lives, and no one is better equipped than we are
ourselves to make the decision about what is the best investment of our
time and energy. [Admittedly a personal belief, but how would you
go about generating a rigorous disproof for such a broad claim? :-) ]
By the way, has anyone noticed that you really only need to be able to
*send* CW -- and only at 2 wpm -- to transmit a distress signal, and
yet the FCC only tests for evidence of *receiving* capability? And no
one has yet suggested that mastery of CW should be a legal requirement
for scanner devotees, airport controllers, taxicab drivers, broadcast
listeners, automotive radiotelephone owners, or marine pleasure craft
enthusiasts, even though many of them are required to have some sort of
FCC-granted license to operate and all are at least as likely to hear
our hypothetical distress signals as hams are. Even the local fire
department, the police, and the Red Cross, to whom frequencies are
allocated and licenses granted and who have an obvious interest in
supporting emergency communications, suffer no legal requirement to
demonstrate mastery of this mode. Hence it is not our unique position
among spectral occupants as emergency communicators that, um, qualifies
us for a CW examination requirement; we have no such unique position.
...And I do read QST (and 73, and CQ) nearly cover-to-cover every
month, and I just don't see the "ham, lost at sea, finds salvation in
rusty CW skills" headlines people keep alluding to. What I DO see is
dozens of stories like "John Doe saved the lives of 4 people in a
burning car wreck because he had the foresight to carry his 2-meter FM
handheld with him and knew the local repeater frequencies." Something
is lacking in this mandatory "CW survival skill requirement" line of
reasoning. I propose that it is content.
"Amateur Radio is the only *sucessful* 'self-policed' organization that I
know of and the need to learn Morse code does weed out those who are not
interested enough to be bothered with 'something they will never use'."
and
"Now that the argument is over as far as the FCC is concerned for
(I am told) at least twelve years, we should all pitch in and try
to help and encourage aspiring hams to get past the very minor
obstacle that the code represents."
"I've tried. When I show my packet station to any of my friends, they
are always impressed by it, and always ask what it takes to get
licensed. When I say they have to learn morse code, that is the end
of it."
I have had precisely the same experience. I know of a number of people
who are interested in packet radio and emergency communications who are
actively deterred by the code requirement. In light of this
experience, I find the "emergency communications value" argument
somewhat ironic. Here is a body of sincere, competent individuals whom
I have personally heard say that they would like to get involved in
packet radio and emergency communications, but for whom the CW
requirement constitutes a sufficient impediment that they probably
won't do it. I am personally offended by the frequently-heard smug
retort that such individuals "don't measure up" or "didn't really want
it". Is this a hobby or a competition? Why should they be expected to
demonstrate the same sort of loyalty to apparently arbitrary examination
requirements the ham radio service as self-selected old-timers?
After all, the ham radio service is working hard to exclude them, and
in as pompous and self-serving a fashion as possible. For that matter,
the message you are reading at this moment is itself a testimony to the
observation that we hams can't even agree among ourselves as to whether
the code requirement is a good thing. I suspect that there was more
than a little truth in the comment that many rather elitist hams really
don't want the ranks to grow. (Crowds the bands, dontchaknow.) I know
no better term for this than greed.
So what? If none of those lazy slouches can cut the mustard, what's
the cost to ham radio? Potentially immense. A non-ham no-code license
is not excluded by the recent FCC no-code response, as I understand
their decision. If a separate no-code radio service is established
that (unlike CB) does have a theory test as a part of the licensing
process, all those competent, sincere, interested potential hams will
gravitate towards the service that meets their needs without imposing
additional irrelevant (and perhaps capricious) requirements. This will
include not only those who would never have become hams because of the
CW requirement, but also those who probably could have been coaxed into
learning CW well enough to pass the test and then forget it (which is
an accurate description of an awful lot of hams I know). Further,
these people will not just be bodies to swell the ranks; they'll be the
people who are pushing the communications frontiers, the people who
have given ham radio its historical and (until recently) deserved
reputation as playing a significant role in advancing the state
of the communications art. We'll very nearly be losing the wheat and
keeping the chaff, if you believe that ham radio exists in part to
advance communications. (Everyone on this net better realize by now
that ham radio is about a decade BEHIND the state of the art in
"advanced" techniques such as packet. After all, how do you think this
message reached your mailbox? We're still playing catch-up at the
moment.) Somehow there must be some larger and more meaningful set of
goals for ham radio than merely "keeping the CBers out"; what's the
***Sender closed connection***
=== Network Mail from host simtel20.arpa on Fri Jul 13 18:47:15 ===andy%aids-unix@sri-unix.UUCP (07/13/84)
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
In no particular order:
"Morse code proficiency and swimming (preferably "drownproofing")
should be required for graduation from high school. Make that
elementary school!!"
Hear, hear! In fact, let's also have government requirements for
carrying an HT wherever we go, mandatory driver's licenses, demonstrable
tree-climbing ability, dog ownership, wearing of lifevests at all
times, and the indispensible facility of being able to open bottles of
Perrier with our teeth. Surely the survival value must be obvious. In
fact, if a radio transmitter and a case of Perrier floated along while I
was stranded on a small hot desert island, I can tell you without
hesitation which skill I would appreciate more.
Or to put it another way: how many readers feel so intellectually
incapacitated that they need the government to identify for them, and
then require them to learn, life's important survival skills? Raise
those hands high....
The point? It's all too simple to fabricate examples of the utility,
even the survival value, of CW or any other skill. Apart from their
occasional entertainment value, however, such constructions are largely
irrelevant to assessments of the value of the no-code license. If a
survival skill, whether it's swimming or CW, is of self-evident value
to the learners, then they will learn it out of their own rational
self-interest. In fact, whether or not they learn it should be taken
as a prima facie *definition* of what is in their own self-interest.
We all lead complex lives, and no one is better equipped than we are
ourselves to make the decision about what is the best investment of our
time and energy. [Admittedly a personal belief, but how would you
go about generating a rigorous disproof for such a broad claim? :-) ]
By the way, has anyone noticed that you really only need to be able to
*send* CW -- and only at 2 wpm -- to transmit a distress signal, and
yet the FCC only tests for evidence of *receiving* capability? And no
one has yet suggested that mastery of CW should be a legal requirement
for scanner devotees, airport controllers, taxicab drivers, broadcast
listeners, automotive radiotelephone owners, or marine pleasure craft
enthusiasts, even though many of them are required to have some sort of
FCC-granted license to operate and all are at least as likely to hear
our hypothetical distress signals as hams are. Even the local fire
department, the police, and the Red Cross, to whom frequencies are
allocated and licenses granted and who have an obvious interest in
supporting emergency communications, suffer no legal requirement to
demonstrate mastery of this mode. Hence it is not our unique position
among spectral occupants as emergency communicators that, um, qualifies
us for a CW examination requirement; we have no such unique position.
...And I do read QST (and 73, and CQ) nearly cover-to-cover every
month, and I just don't see the "ham, lost at sea, finds salvation in
rusty CW skills" headlines people keep alluding to. What I DO see is
dozens of stories like "John Doe saved the lives of 4 people in a
burning car wreck because he had the foresight to carry his 2-meter FM
handheld with him and knew the local repeater frequencies." Something
is lacking in this mandatory "CW survival skill requirement" line of
reasoning. I propose that it is content.
"Amateur Radio is the only *sucessful* 'self-policed' organization that I
know of and the need to learn Morse code does weed out those who are not
interested enough to be bothered with 'something they will never use'."
and
"Now that the argument is over as far as the FCC is concerned for
(I am told) at least twelve years, we should all pitch in and try
to help and encourage aspiring hams to get past the very minor
obstacle that the code represents."
"I've tried. When I show my packet station to any of my friends, they
are always impressed by it, and always ask what it takes to get
licensed. When I say they have to learn morse code, that is the end
of it."
I have had precisely the same experience. I know of a number of people
who are interested in packet radio and emergency communications who are
actively deterred by the code requirement. In light of this
experience, I find the "emergency communications value" argument
somewhat ironic. Here is a body of sincere, competent individuals whom
I have personally heard say that they would like to get involved in
packet radio and emergency communications, but for whom the CW
requirement constitutes a sufficient impediment that they probably
won't do it. I am personally offended by the frequently-heard smug
retort that such individuals "don't measure up" or "didn't really want
it". Is this a hobby or a competition? Why should they be expected to
demonstrate the same sort of loyalty to apparently arbitrary examination
requirements the ham radio service as self-selected old-timers?
After all, the ham radio service is working hard to exclude them, and
in as pompous and self-serving a fashion as possible. For that matter,
the message you are reading at this moment is itself a testimony to the
observation that we hams can't even agree among ourselves as to whether
the code requirement is a good thing. I suspect that there was more
than a little truth in the comment that many rather elitist hams really
don't want the ranks to grow. (Crowds the bands, dontchaknow.) I know
no better term for this than greed.
So what? If none of those lazy slouches can cut the mustard, what's
the cost to ham radio? Potentially immense. A non-ham no-code license
is not excluded by the recent FCC no-code response, as I understand
their decision. If a separate no-code radio service is established
that (unlike CB) does have a theory test as a part of the licensing
process, all those competent, sincere, interested potential hams will
gravitate towards the service that meets their needs without imposing
additional irrelevant (and perhaps capricious) requirements. This will
include not only those who would never have become hams because of the
CW requirement, but also those who probably could have been coaxed into
learning CW well enough to pass the test and then forget it (which is
an accurate description of an awful lot of hams I know). Further,
these people will not just be bodies to swell the ranks; they'll be the
people who are pushing the communications frontiers, the people who
have given ham radio its historical and (until recently) deserved
reputation as playing a significant role in advancing the state
of the communications art. We'll very nearly be losing the wheat and
keeping the chaff, if you believe that ham radio exists in part to
advance communications. (Everyone on this net better realize by now
that ham radio is about a decade BEHIND the state of the art in
"advanced" techniques such as packet. After all, how do you think this
message reached your mailbox? We're still playing catch-up at the
moment.) Somehow there must be some larger and more meaningful set of
goals for ham radio than merely "keeping the CBers out"; what's the
*net* value of the CW requirement, given all of those goals?
Ultimately, the worst could befall us: all those "keep them out of the
ham bands if they won't learn the code" hams may get what they're
asking for. (Funny how so many of them are non-CW users -- they seem to be
disproportionately well represented by 20- and 40-meter phone users in
particular, in my experience. I am at a loss to identify this "we" whose
sanctity they're trying to preserve.)
Finally:
CW is more efficient in its use of the spectrum than compteting
modes, and we have a responsibility (see Part 97 of FCC regs) to
use the least possible amount of spectrum consistent with good
communications.
Actually, no one has yet advanced this argument, so I will. It does
seem to have some merit. But there are lots of ways to skin a cat. If
a phone conversation takes up 10 times the bandwidth but requires 1/10
the time to communicate the same information, the bandwidth-time
product is the same for the two modes. (Given the CW skills of most
already-licensed hams I know, these numbers are a pretty optimistic
estimate for CW communication speeds.) Similarly, packet offers
time-multiplexing of a single 3KHz channel, so several conversations
can proceed simultaneously on the same frequency. There's no magic in
this: communications occur at 1200 baud (say), but most of the time you
don't need the channel because you're typing, not transmitting, and the
packet only gets sent when you having something coherent to say,
instead of occupying the channel at every instant, for every syllable.
And once again, the people who occasionally put forth this "CW efficiency"
argument seem to rarely follow their own advice -- most of them, at least
in my experience, still use HF phone most of the time. In fact, they
wouldn't even KNOW if there were no-code users on, say, 220 MHz.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
What's the "bottom line" here? Well, I return to the closing comment
of my previous message, and appeal to "no-code" opponents to provide a
convincing and well-reasoned argument against no-code. Frankly,
disemboweling most of the anti-"no-code" claims and arguments I've seen
over the past couple years is like shooting fish in a barrel. As I
said before, I am a CW enthusiast and I'm not (yet) a no-code advocate,
but the proposed rationalizations of the CW requirement certainly are
not doing anything to convince me. How well do you suppose they're
faring with potential newcomers, or anyone else who doesn't already
(want to) believe that they have some merit? Is there really any *good*
reason to prevent technically qualified individuals with a bona fide
interest in amateur radio communications from contributing to ham radio
on the basis of no ability to copy CW? Does anyone out there who
opposes no-code really feel that thy can put forward arguments against
no-code that demonstrate why CW receiving capability should be a
government requirement for all classes of amateur radio license, instead
of an argument that simply appeals to elitism or the sort of emotional "mob
mentality" of the rabid anti-CBer? (I don't like the CB subculture
either, but I don't wake up at night screaming due to nightmares that
I'll hear them on 220 MHz using packet radio.) Is there some argument
that, say, people who hadn't already "proven themselves worthy" would buy?
I'm still all ears.
73, Andy N6JLJjhs%Mitre-Bedford@sri-unix.UUCP (07/16/84)
"I'm still all ears. - N6JLJ" Judging from the total verbiage generated thus far, this fellow has very prolific ears! Maybe that's why he can't hear the several good arguments that have passed him by. To repeat an earlier statement, the Government wants us to know code for THEIR benefit. (Sorry, not all terminals support underline, so I use caps for emphasis.) The fact that it might be to our benefit, as in the case of the two motorists down in Connecticut a couple of years ago, is just icing on the cake. This is NOT just a hobby, it's a National emergency communications resource. For the public benefit, not the hams'. That's why we keep getting spectrum allocations, at least one of the major reasons. Current policy of the FCC is to deny new HF allocations unless there is a demonstrable emergency backup communications capability to be had. Yet we got several whole new BANDS at WARC. As for talented people who "can't" learn the code, I can't help wondering how anyone who is unable to learn the code is able to learn to tie their own shoelaces, let alone contribute to technology. After all, guys, we're talking about 5 WPM, you Turkeys! Once you've memorized the alphabet in Morse, you've practically got it made. For any packet-capable individual who is not (physically or mentally) handicapped (and frankly, I'm beginning to wonder), it shouldn't take more than a month of serious spare-time effort. 73, John H. Sangster, W3IKG jhs at mitre-bedford
Cherry.es@XEROX.ARPA (07/16/84)
As Albert Einstein once stated: Great Spirits Have Always Received Strong Opposition From Mediocre Minds. Another reason not to have a no code license is that many foreign countries may forbid their operators to communicate with these no-coders, since the code requirements for amateurs were first established for international communications by the Geneva Convention. but then these no-coders would want to tell others how to run and live their lives too..... WA0TZM / Bob