karn (03/15/83)
I have received a copy of the FCC's NRPM on the no-code license, reprinted in the March 1983 issue of the AMRAD newsletter. Unfortunately, I cannot determine for sure from the reprint the date of the Federal Register in which this NPRM was printed. While the whole thing is much too long for me to type in here, I would like to quote a few sections. These all come from the later sections marked "Discussion" and "Conclusion". 73, Phil ----------------------- "Essentially, we will be considering the authorization of the same frequencies for whichever codeless license we may implement. There are, then, only two principle differences between our proposed codeless Technician class and Experimenter class operator licenses. These are the subject and level of the written examination to be administered to the applicant, and the total number of operator license classes to be provided for in the Amateur Radio Service.... "...we must point out that the Technician class license proposal has an advantage over the Experimenter class license proposal. Implementation of the Experimenter class license may require the Commission to develop a new syllabus and provide, by some means, for the preparation and administration of new examinations... We would be remiss if we did not consider these administrative burdens in weighing the respective desirability of the two license classes proposed. Accordingly, we request that this matter be addressed in the context of comments on this proceeding. Finally, the Commission does not wish to de-emphasize the importance of the international Morse code as a communications mode in the Amateur Radio Service...it is precisely these attributes [the universality and efficiency of CW] that make us believe that Morse code can 'stand on its own two feet.' We believe that once an individual has had an opportunity to become involved in the Amateur Radio Service and become acquainted with its many intricate facets, there is a desire to learn more about radio and the offerings of the service. We anticipate that in the case of the codeless class licenses these new interests may include the international Morse code, just as we anticipate with all other licenses... "Beyond station identification and use in certain weak signal communications modes, we note that the Morse code is seldom used on frequencies above 50 Mhz, even though all amateur operators are currently required to demonstrate their proficiency in it prior to licensing. We then ask why the Federal Government should continue to require of operators a skill which may have less utility than other skills in these bands for which the license would be granted to operate. We do not, for example, require applicants to demonstrate proficiency with a typewriter even though radioteleprinting may be the most efficient mode for certain 'traffic' handling. We believe that a more important qualification for an operator license is an individuals ability to understand the Commission's regulations and the radio station for which he/she is responsible. Other than this, we would leave to the individual the decision as to whether learning the Morse code would benefit his/her endeavors in amateur radio. "...It has also come to our attention that some of the current amateur licensees are particularly concerned that even if a codeless license class were to convey privileges only in the VHF bands and higher, that those privileges might include certain well populated bands (e.g., the popular 2 meter band). With respect to this, we wouldlike to reemphasize that we plan to be flexible on the issue of frequencies that would be authorized for the codeless license class (in particular the Experimenter class, since we are not considering changes in the privileges for Technician class licensees). We will carefully consider the comments of both amateurs and non-amateurs on this issue and make appropriate adjustments in the frequency bands eventually authorized."
wn9nbt (03/23/83)
#R:eagle:-83100:pur-ee:5600010:000:575 pur-ee!wn9nbt Mar 22 09:27:00 1983 NOTE: CW is *almost exclusively* used on UHF and above for DX attempts, *NOT* as rare as one may think. This whole argument seems pretty juvenile. Granted there are a lot better ways of communicating than Morse Code, however no one says you have to use it, only learn it. A similar argument would be, "I don't need to learn addition to use Calculus." I didn't know there were so many experts out there that can't comprehend a simple "language" that a lot of grade schoolers and Boy Scouts easily become proficient at with minimal effort. -- Dave Chasey - pur-ee!wn9nbt