yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/11/84)
I would like to summarize the mail sent to me and as follow-ups on the net. The overall response was pretty evenly divided: 8 for and 7 against a codeless license. Several people would not stay within the contenxt of a VHF/UHF only license in their comments, but were counted anyway (they were all against). Following the discussion caused me to notice some things: the Derry, NH 2 m repeater on 6.25/85 is using a voice id where code used to be. On the occasion I served in an emergency with the National Guard up here (ending up as net control for Sector 1B Civil Defense EN as I recall, for about 18 hrs) I used 2 m fm phone exclusively. When my microphone failed, and could only send code, I repaired it--no one out there had a bfo, and I couldn't get my IC230 into the cw portion of the band. FCC is removing two amateur UHF band allocations to other services. In responses I did not count, becuase they were verbal, I heard a story about ex-WB1CZM, who might read this, as having heard a fellow at a ham fest say, as did many of the con letters: 5 wpm is easy to pick up--anyone can do it in a short while!. He replied "Then it is silly to require it for a license--anyone who needs it will just pick it up!". Another was from WA2NKL, who told of a club meeting where he asked those assembled: "would everyone opposed to a codeless license for 1 GHz and up please raise one hand." Every hand went up. "Now, would those who have stations operating on 1 GHz and up please raise the other hand?" 1 hand went up. It seems clear that many of us against the codeless license base our opinions on a fear that we will soon overcrowd the HF bands with lids, and that we will not render a service to the country by failing to know code. The only "good" reasons given were "it is most efficient" and that "when everything else fails, it will still work with two wires." The first is just wrong: QPSK (quadrature phase shift keying), especially with some error correcting code, is more reliable and more efficient--need I add that if we had some no-code but good tech types they'd know that? The second is undeniable if you have the technical competence to build a transmitter; now if you were the one in trouble, would you send SOS, which every child knows, or QRRR and hope a ham heard you? I know now that the taxpayers get what they want. I also remember that the last I checked there were more CBers than hams. We better keep making rational decisions, not just popular ones. We could otherwise lose more bands to other services. I was going to try and keep this short. Mind you I do respect the opinions of all concerned. I just think this is worth talking about periodically until all the gut (knee-jerk, I think they call it) reactions are replaced on BOTH sides of this issue by reason. I am sure that I could not get ARRL to recommend a no-code UHF license right now, and I want to see that day. I am sort of bothered that ARRL officers feel they would not be able to be re-elected if they had such a view. At least until I hear some better reasons! Thanks much to those who answered: WA2IAA (ret.), KD7LZ, ron@brl-tgr, uok!mpackard, sde@mitre-bedford, N2XS, NF4T, W4IZI, W3IKG, Hobbit, nathanm!hp-pcd, N6JLJ, K3MC, W5USJ, WA7NJK, KN9K, stephenc@tektronix, KK9W, WA3MEZ, and WA2NKL. (As soon as I replace my HF exciter, and I get a transmatch, I'll look for you guys on the air. I have this old Collins 30S1 getting dusty, and haven't worked cw since leaving Maine. Don't look for me in the extra class portions until September!) WA2YBA -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba