karn (03/10/83)
...are a bad idea in my opinion. Although I think packet radio is perhaps the most interesting new form of communication that needs encouragement, we shouldn't forget that plenty of advances can still be made in the more mundane modulation methods. For this reason, an experimenter needs the maximum freedom in the choice of modulation, and could very well have good reason to use voice. For example: 1. Experimentation with high efficiency switcher-modulated linear amplifiers, such as those used by necessity on the Oscar satellites. 2. Voice associated with television transmission. 3. Good old on-the-air voice coordination of specialized communications tests, such as packet radio. Why should a Experimenter be prohibited from putting up a repeater or sending television or facsimile? Knowledge of the code is certainly no guarantee that someone is competent enough to do so. No, I don't think code proficiency should be a requirement for anything other than sending CODE (and using the HF bands, according to treaty). If you want to "keep the loonies out" or keep the influx of new amateurs within limits to prevent band crowding, which are both worthwhile considerations, the proper way to do it is by making the theory test sufficiently difficult, not by making the license useless. I have an Extra Class license to show that I personally did not consider the code requirement as something to be minimally met; however, I fully sympathize with those potential experimenters who consider it superfluous for THEIR interests. I am beginning to think that the real reason so many amateurs oppose the no-code license is a growing insecurity regarding the prospect of an influx of newcomers who might be more technically competent than themselves. As an emotional defense mechanism, these amateurs hold on to the code requirement to "prove" to themselves and others that they're still superior in some way to the masses. It is time for this attitude to change. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2