rjf (03/10/83)
Well, the battle lines have been drawn! Code or NO-code?
My feelins on the matter are simple. I believe that there
should indeed be a license class that has a theory requirement
but no code test. HOWEVER, this (Experimenter) Class license
should be restricted to the UHF frequencies, NOT VHF! In other
words, they should only be allowed on above 220 MHz. Certainly,
they shouldn't be allowed on 2 meters. Two meters is crowded
enough with people that HAVE gone through the trouble of learning
Morse Code (at least 5 words per minute anyway). Even 220 is getting
a little full in some areas.
While I understand the new radio computer people wanting
to get on the air with their stuff without learning something
they will NEVER use, let them have frequencies that other hams
don't normally use and where they will have to really work at
getting on the air. Hams have always helped push ahead the
state of the art. If these experimenters really want to get
on the lower frequencies then they should take the time to learn
what everyone else does. I refuse to accept the idea that it is
impossible for someone to learn the theory AND Morse code at 5 wpm.
My wife has NO backround in radio, and she did it. C'mon people,
you want to be a ham, do it, its not hard. You don't want to,
fine, but don't expect the privledges that go with being one.
Bob Fabrizio, WA3SBT
(...!{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!rjf)digger (03/15/83)
I will have to agree with Bob. It does not take so much to get a ham licence. If these people can learn a computer language then they shouldn't have any problem with morse code. An experimenters class license is good provided they are put in a band of their own. 220 Mhz is alive and active. 450 Mhz is also far from dead. If they are to create another class of license then they can surely find a portion of VHF or UHF that is not allocated to Amateur radio. After all they found some for the CB'ers didn't they.? I think that the fact that Amateur radio operators have the priviledge to build and maintain there own equipment (transmitters etc.) is being over looked. If a person can learn the theory at age 12 as I did then learning code shouldn't be too difficult, besides what ever happened to the chalenges in life. I have been a ham for 7 years now and hold the advanced class license. I learned the code and I can understand the call of most repeater cw identifiers. If no-code licensecees appear on VHF and UHF they will never understand the code. There is code on FM TOO. I think that the operator should be able to copy the call on my repeater. Not to mention the various other helpfull messages it produces in code. Enough is said I will listen again. Scott Miles WB6PQM Northern Amateur Relay Council 220 Mhz coordinator zps!zehntel!sytek opps... digger@zps any way you have my QTH 73's
michaelk (03/15/83)
As a historical comment, ... CB was not created out of non-ham radio
spectrum. It was taken from ham radio. It was the old 11 meter
ham band. I've been a ham for only 19 years or so, & it was already
taken away back then.
Once upon a time I used to have a Heathkit DX-100 (now known
as boat anchor) that had 11 meters on it. Next time you are at a hamfest
look at those B.A.'s! Perhaps there are some old-timers on the net that
can enlighten upon the political reasons for CB creation and such, so
that we can see how the situation then compares with the no-code situation now.
Mike Kersenbrock WB4IOJ
Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products
Aloha, Oregon