karn (12/01/82)
At first, I was surprised to see so many people supporting the code-free license and few opposed; I can see that within the past week or so, the opposite side has been heard from. I would like to make a few "reply comments" to some of the points that have been used against the code-free license. 1. "CW is useful in small-signal conditions." NO ARGUMENT! I frequently use CW in exactly such situations, and would recommend that anyone learn the code voluntarily for just such use. My biggest interest within amateur radio is satellites, and CW is quite useful there. Half the passband on Oscar-8 is generally CW, as is the spacecraft telemetry beacon. It is precisely the usefulness and simplicity of CW that will keep people voluntarily learning it for some time. 2. "CW is the ONLY mode useful in small-signal conditions, and THE most 'efficient' modulation mode." This one is a MUCH less clear. Paul Newland, in a recent report to the FCC regarding his AMTOR activities conducted under an STA, said, "CCIR 476-2 ARQ coding is VASTLY superior to conventional RTTY coding. CCIR 476-2 displays an amazing robustness during conditions of propagation that render SSB *and CW* [emphasis added] modes of communications virtually useless..." It does indeed appear that automatic error correcting and detecting codes implemented by computer can perform very well in marginal conditions. It has only been the lack of more experimentally minded amateurs such as Paul which has kept these techniques from being widely used in the amateur service. AMTOR, like packet radio in general, was invented outside the amateur service. As to spectrum efficiency, any textbook on communications theory will show you that many digital modulation and coding techniques are much more efficient both in bandwidth and in power than on-off CW keying. 3. "Anybody can learn the code in X amount of time. All it takes is a little effort. If they don't feel like learning the code, they aren't motivated enough." The same can be said for learning electronics and communications theory. If one is to spend a fixed amount of time learning a choice of skills, it would seem reasonable to spend it doing those with the biggest "payoff." Much of the technical knowledge I have learned in hamming has been of direct use in my professional life, perhaps a larger percentage than the knowledge I obtained in my college courses. Experience from hamming enabled me to obtain a First Phone, with which I worked my way through college during summers at a television broadcast station. However, I have never "pounded brass" for money, nor do I ever expect to. Try comparing the relative numbers of FCC commercial radiotelephone and radiotelegraph license holders. I AM uncomfortable with merely doing away with the Technician code test. I think the written exam should be expanded to require an equivalent amount of effort for preparation that the code would have required, for the "average" beginner. It would take less preparation for a person already skilled in electronics and communications technology, but it would ensure that an amateur is capable of operating his station safely and without interfering with others. In any case, the test should not be capable of being crammed for with the Bash books, but should require real understanding of the material. If I have any reservations regarding the codeless license, it is the ability of the FCC to create such a test. 4. "If I can learn the code, you can too." This is a slight variation on the "If I had to learn the code, then you should too" theme. Unfortunately, this is an emotionally based argument, and similar to the one many fraternities use to perpetuate hazing. Each requirement for a privilege should be evaluated (and re-evaluated) on its own merits, and not based solely on tradition. Technology continuously evolves, and requires a willingness to change in order to maximize its benefits. Every ham or potential ham has different motivations for getting involved, and it takes maturity to accept that not all persons place the same amount of importance on the things that you do. 5. "CW is a 'universal' mode of communication, one that all amateurs should have in common." This is the only argument I have a hard time refuting. Paul Newland suggested that knowing CW makes it possible for any radios to communicate, and to identify sources of interference. Not all amateur transmissions are identified in CW (only CW and RTTY QSOs, and repeaters in general.) I also challenge you to copy CW even at 5 wpm on an AM or FM receiver! There is a case, however, that exotic modulation techniques, e.g., packet radio (some consider RTTY "exotic") should continue to be identified in CW; I think that there is still good reason for this. However, automatic identifiers are capable of reliably generating CW IDs. If one wishes to identify an interfering station, one would then have a practical incentive to know CW! However, the interfering operator is probably not likely to be any more aware of being the source of interference by being able to copy CW; after all, if he/she is interfering, then he or she is transmitting and is unlikely to be able to hear any complaints! Seriously, the rule should be, "if you hear anything, even (especially?) if you don't understand it, then don't transmit!" However, I'm sure you can cite many instances in which even CW-knowledgeable hams ignore this rule... 6. "Amateur radio's purpose is public service, and CW is essential for disaster and public service work." This is a non-sequitur. In my early hamming days (during high school) I was an active member of the local Civil Defense organization and spent time with the local 2-meter club providing communications for walkathons and other public events. In both organizations, the predominant mode was FM phone, which served our needs quite well. I was on a CW kick at the time, preparing for my Extra, and was disappointed that I could not find a "practical" use for CW in these activities. If there was a skill lacking among the CD operators during the monthly drills that really hampered communications, it was the ability to type on the RTTY machine! I am aware of the many stories about lives that were saved because of someone's knowledge of the code. However, how many lives could have been saved in situations where a nearby person could have been a ham with a 2 meter HT, but wasn't because he couldn't be licensed without knowing the code? Amateur radio can perform public service in many ways. Directly, through the provision of emergency and backup communications, and indirectly, by promoting the advancement of the radio art and by providing a training ground for electronics and communications experts, free of cost to the public. It is this indirect form of public service in which we could be doing so much more. New communications technologies, e.g., satellite and packet radio, certainly contribute heavily to this latter form, and will also provide much of the direct kind in the future. If we are to retain our frequencies, it will be on the basis of having met our "basis and purpose" (97.1), not on how many people know the code. Part of our problem is that amateur radio isn't a unified, monolithic hobby. It is rather more like a loose formation of related, but specialized activities flying together. We should be able to make this diversity an asset, rather than a weakness, by accommodating different interests without pitting one faction against another. Allowing "fresh blood" into the hobby with interests that might be different from yours should not be seen as threatening; there will continue to be much diversity in amateur radio, and opportunities for exposure to this diversity should be encouraged and not forced. I personally think the greatest things to come along in amateur radio since SSB are satellites and packet radio; however, I would rather see newcomers to these areas come by choice and not by force. If amateur radio is a change from what you do at work and packet radio, for example, is too close to "real work" to be fun, fine! Nobody will force you to use it, and no one will take your existing CW privileges away. I feel that the code-free license, with proper safeguards such as a competent technical exam, will be a positive, healthy step for amateur radio. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2
Stephany.WBST@PARC-MAXC@sri-unix (12/06/82)
Re: Code-free licensing: Epistle #3 You have missed the fundamental arguments. 1) The elimination of the code requirement will not bring in all the new blood and geniuses that will revolutionize Ham radio. The facts: a) the Canadian Digital licese has only been issued to less than 200 people. b) The Reduction of the code for technician class at 5 WPM was for the purpose of bringing in all those people that would populate the UHF. The Technician Licese turned into a waiting room untill you get your general, the geniuses never showed up. c) In Japan, a code free licese for 2meters made 2 meters into a Citizen's Band just like in the US. There was never any great technical upswing. If anything, Ham radio was worse off because of all the clunkers they picked up . So forget the genius argument. The geniuses already have liceses. 2) Code is not "just another mode" to be equated with the others on an equal basis. It is the mode that gets through when all else fails. The distress situations were only quoted as dramitization of the idea. When your mike is broken, your TTY doesn't work, etc., the code is the last resort. remember Ham Radio is not just another hobby, it is based in pulic service. Public service justifies its existense. Without our ability to communicate in times of disaster, there would be no Ham radio, or at, least, we would not have the spectrum space we do have. I cannot see how a person without code, even though he may not use it, can participate in a disaster with confidence. It would bother me no end if I knew that if my SSB demodulator failed, the mike broke, etc., I could not communicate. I agree the CW is not the most efficient mode when compared with several other modes in use. But these comparisons are really not a valid argument: 1) These other modes assume the existence of some elaborate equipment, usually including digital circuitry. Modulating CW with similar circuitry (phase shift CW for example) can place it on an equal basis since CW is another form of modulation that can always be substituted for the modulation in use ( example, the ASCII code can be substituted for the CW code). But, and this is the big but, CW is human readable. I know of one person that can read Baud TTY code by ear ( at 30 WPM , he could only read every other letter). I know of none that can use any other code. I know of 300,000 that can read CW. 2) When the chips are down, if you want to send CW, all you need is 1 (ONE) transitor, some wire, and a battery. ( no receiver). Can oany other mode do the same ? Compare it to a trip in the wilderness: you do not need to make a fire by rubbing two sticks togeather, you can bring a cigarette lighter. But what happens when the cigarette lighter fails ? Chances are that you will never have your life saved by knowing CW, But, how many lives will be sacrificed by eliminating the CW requirement. A few?... A Hundered ? .... What happens when the guy in a flood area looses his mike or rig, and only has his grid dip oscillator to communicate ? An old tube type ACDC receiver has enough spunk in its local oscillartor to communicate on 160 meters. ( The Germans, during WW2 used to pick up thoses oscillators for a distance of 100 miles and zero in on convoys). Also, if you think CW is so old fashoned and unnecessary, remember that the final back upo system for communication to trident and polaris subs is CW on 300 Hertz (thats right ,CW on 300 HERTZ). No other system will work (all other systems take too much bandwidth). All Navy opoerators are still trained in CW and there will be no change in the future despite satellites and backscatter. There is no question in my mind that a Ham without a knowledge of CW , even at the low rate of 5 WPM, is a detriment to Ham radio's purpose as public service, and represents a lowering of the ability and competance of Hams the world over. Joe, N2XS (Spark Forever)