phil (03/25/83)
Phil, Let me say at the start that I do not support the code free license. Yes, I agree, it is an emotional issue to me. My arguments can not be supported in hard fact. In reference to the code being easy (for a Boy Scout) and hard (a test of dedication) at the same time, it was never stated that the Boy Scout did not need the same dedication to learn the code. In fact, from my own experience in a Scout type orginazation, only the most dedicated of us learned all the letters and the instructor dissappeared before any of us learned it at 5 wpm, thus ending the class. As I'm sure you know, learning the code is easy for some people while being difficult for others. This is of course the same for the theory. I also agree with you that Dave's (WN9NBT) comparison to addition and calculus isn't really appropriate, so let me give a comparison that seems better. I am a private pilot. One of the requirements for the license is the ability to read weather charts. I find the weather charts very complex and difficult to read. In fact, every time I read a weather chart, I must to some extent relearn how to read them. In actual use of an airplane, I am restricted to VFR (and good weather). Also, every time I need the weather charts, the people at the flight service station will read them for me. I suspect that 95% of all private pilots never NEED to read a weather chart to conduct a safe flight. But I will not recommend that this requirement be removed, even though this area was the most difficult part of earning the pilot's license for me. In reply to your remark "a lot of the opposition to the code free license is based on a fear of others who might prove to be more technically competent than themselves." First of all, I think I am reasonably technically competent. Secondly, I would hope that hams as a general rule, would not be so insecure that more technically competent people would pose a threat to them. I believe that a lot of the opposition to the code free license is based on the fear of the results of removing requirements in light of the history of the CB band. Thank you for tolerating my point of view. Phil WB6OHF/7
karn (03/26/83)
To Phil, WB6OHF/7: Thanks for your well thought out reply. I would point out that your comparison to pilots being required to read weather charts is not really relevant either, as being able to do so is probably a safety consideration. How much money and time should be spent on safety measures is an entirely different philosophical issue that I don't want to get into here. If the only basis for an amateur license test was safety, then the theory examinations would be even simpler than they currently are. The point is often made that amateur radio would immediately degenerate to CB if a code free license were made available; my point is simply that there are more relevant things (such as stiffer theory exams requiring the same amount of preparation) that could replace the code requirement as a "test of dedication". It is only after I saw this point of view rejected that I began to suspect the "technical insecurity" I alluded to in my previous comments. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2