danny (12/09/82)
While much has already been said on the net about code-free
licenses, it seems to me there have been some spurious arguments
made against the code-free license proposal that have not been
adequately challenged. (For what it's worth, I've been ham since
age 11, an Extra for the past 20 years, love CW, and would fight
hard against any proposal I thought might lead to the
deterioration of ham radio.)
1. There have been a lot of hams arguing for retaining the code
requirement by pointing out that anything worth having is worth
working for, that those willing to make the effort to learn the
code will make better hams, etc. There is a basic point being
missed here: the reason a code-free license is being suggested is
not so that prospective hams won't have to work so hard, but
because of the feeling that the code requirement is arbitrary and
unncecessary in today's world (I'm not sure I agree that it is
unnecessary, but that is the CLAIM). What the the no-coders are
(or should be) saying is let potential hams put themselves out in
learning something USEFUL, like modern, relevant, theory. An
analogy: suppose, because of the slowness with which regulations
change, it was still required that hams know how to construct and
adjust spark transmitters. One could use the same argument we
keep hearing: "it only takes a few weeks to learn enough about
spark transmitters to pass the test; we all suffered through it;
new hams should be willing to make the same effort." Obviously
the real question is whether knowledge of Morse code is one of
the more relevant skills to communications in the 1980's, not
whether new hams should be made to "suffer" in exactly the same
way we did.
2. The argument is often made that without a code requirement,
the ham bands will degenerate into the idiocy heard on CB. There
is an interesting phenomenon that has to be taken into account,
however. The region between the top of the citizens' band (27.4
MHz) and the bottom of 10 meters is inhabited by the so-called
HFer's. These people are unlicensed but bought ham rigs that are
operable on SSB below 28.0 MHz. The interesting thing is that in
this frequency range you hear none of the sub-human screaming so
typical of CB. In fact it is indistinguishable from a ham band,
except for the call letters. While I certainly don't condone
people squatting on a chunk of spectrum assigned to other
services, the "HF" band demonstrates that there is reason to hope
that, where the proper example is set, no-code doesn't imply CB.
3. The only arguments I find somewhat persuasive for retaining
the code requirement for all licenses are that a CW transmitter
is trivial to build from junkbox parts (and therefore instantly
constructable after a major disaster) and that CW is an
outstanding weak signal mode and it is in the public interest to
have a corps of operators who are proficient in it. The flaw in
this argument is that even at present, with code mandatory, a
large percentage of hams are "functionally illiterate" when it
comes to CW. (And I'm not referring only to Technicians.) Of how
much use in an emergency is someone who cannot even recognize his
own call at 5 wpm? (Furthermore, a large percentage of
currently-licensed hams could not even construct a keyed crystal
oscillator without step-by-step instructions and a parts kit.)
The point is: at present there are two types of ham, those who
like CW and know how to use it, and those who somehow got their
license but essentially no longer have any useful skill in Morse
code; if a code-free license is offered, precisely the same
situation will exist - those who are interested in CW will get
the HF licenses and maintain their skill, while the same large
percentage of hams will be functionally code-less. If the no-
code-free-license people carried their argument about CW and
public service to its logical conclusion, they would have to
insist that all hams demonstrate, every couple of years, the
ability to use CW at a reasonable speed. Anything less is little
different from having a code-free VHF license.
Dan Kahn, K1DK