rick (11/18/82)
No doubt that this article should be addressed to net.flame,
however, I think most of the non-ham net subscribers are not
interested in dits, dahs, and morse code blahs.
(flame on)
The ARRL ruling class (QST, Nov 1982, pg 9) claims the no code license
is "an idea whose time has not come." They base this assertion on the
following arguments:
1. The code requirement is the only proven
screening device for obtaining competent amateur
radio operators. Apparently, they believe only
individuals of the HIGHEST technical and moral
fiber are able to pass the code exam. Rubbish!!
We have more appliance operators, lids, and people who
could not cut a dipole antenna today than ever before.
I have many technically competent friends (CS types,
EE's, etc) that are capable of passing a code exam, but
they would rather spend their time updating their state
of the art skills. These same people would be very
interested in experimenting with spread spectrum,
packet radio, repeaters, etc, and have great potential
to help advance the amateur state of the art.
2. Amateurs have lost confidence in written exams. We
can restore their confidence by making the exams more
difficult. The content of the exams is very easy
to protect: merely compose each individual exam from
a data base of several thousand questions, and change
values in questions which require a numerical answer.
Say goodbye to Dick Bash and his short cut books.
I understand that the FCC has taken some steps in this
direction.
3. Difficulty in self-policing the bands filled with new, and
presumably inexperienced or incompetent amateurs. There
is no easy solution to this problem; it always has, and
always will exist. This attitude akin to arguing against
having children because they are too difficult to raise.
Also, while more amateurs may mean more potential problems,
it also means more amateurs to help in policing the bands.
4. (Non ARRL attitude) Alan M(orse). Amateur: "I passed my 13
wpm code test, so everyone else must." My only comment is
that hazing belongs in high school or college.
Some questions I have for the ARRL are what makes a good ham (honey
sauce and a little pineapple on top?), and exactly what type of people do
they feel we need to attract? Should amateur radio be more than a
alternate medium to the telephone for the masses to communicate over?
What makes radio amateurs more equal than their fellow citizens when it
comes to using the "public airwaves"? Why not use morse code only as a
computer communications protocol? In what direction does the ARRL
perceive amateur radio should head? Should the ARRL make decisions which
contradict popular opinion, for the greater good of Amateur Radio?
(Depending on who you listen to, hams are for/against the no code
requirement. The ARRL believes it is espousing a majority opinion
in coming down against the no code license).
The focus of this entire article is that if we can attract some
new technical blood into the amateur service, there are many
contributions that can be made to the state of the art.
Packet Radio, for example, has not been thoroughly explored by industry;
can amateurs invent new routing strategies to deal with
selective fading, mobile stations, or networks which can dynamically
rearrange themselves to bypass failed nodes, etc.. (Sure, I know a lot
has been written, but how many of these schemes are more than ink on
a piece paper?) What about using more efficient modulation schemes for
packet than NRZ, or FM -- anyone for delay modulation, m-ary PSK, etc?
Given the right people, there is much trail blazing to do.. I feel that
dropping the code exam in favor of a tough written exam will bring more
technical types into amateur radio, and, as a result, the entire amateur
service will benefit.
A little note on my background (ammunition for those who will argue
for the code requirement): I was able to learn code well enough to
receive 18 wpm in about 1.5 months, all while working full time. I passed
my advanced class license on the first try. I have operated CW and
ENJOYED it (I also have operated RTTY - yet I do not ask that everyone
be familiar with this mode as a prerequisite to obtaining a license).
Although I frequently disagree with ARRL policy, I am a full member.
As for the technical/professional end of things, I am a degreed digital
design engineer working with a university research group in the computer
networking/distributed processing area.
(flame off)
(return flames encouraged -- send to net.ham-radio).
_.. .
Rick Spanbauer, WB2CFV
SUNY @ Stony Brook
allegra!sbcs!rick or
peri!sbcs!rickkarn (11/19/82)
I thoroughly agree with the article in favor of the no code license. I have been licensed about 11 years, 9.5 as an Extra. I do enjoy using CW on the HF bands, even though I was one of those who said "I just want to be able to talk" before I got my first license. However, I feel that state-of-the-art technical capability is FAR more important (and far more lacking, unfortunately) than Morse Code capability in the Amateur service, and that knowledge of CW is often irrelevant to many of these technical areas. I have often asked technical friends who are interested in the practical aspects of communications why they don't get an amateur license. The replies are usually along these lines: 1. "I don't want to learn the code; I just want to experiment with [packet|satellites|microwave|etc]." 2. "Why should I want to be part of a service that still uses Morse Code?" 3. "Nobody does anything technically innovative in the Amateur Service." When you think about it, these three reasons are circular. Opportunities for major technical innovations are missed because many technical types aren't hams. Many technical types don't become hams because they don't feel learning CW is worthwhile. CW is still used because there haven't been technical innovations (and the acceptance by the amateur community) to replace it. The surest way to break this cycle is to introduce new blood by removing the CW requirement. I'm not sure that making the written test harder is the right thing to do; the purpose of the test should be to make sure that the operator has the technical expertise and understanding of the rules to operate his station safely and prevent interference to others. The FCC has also shown that it is incapable of producing tests that are truly relevant, up to date and a good measure of an operator's technical expertise. The biggest threat to our amateur allocations come from competing interests who point out the underutilization in our higher bands. The surest way to protect these bands is to use them, and the best way to use them is to bring in new amateurs who will use them. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2
hardie (11/19/82)
It has never been made really clear exactly what priviledges a no-code license will bring. If a no-code licensee cannot use the cw portion of the band at all then it does not matter too much what they do. The Canadian so-called digital license only gives priviledges from 2 meters and up. If the American plan is similar to that then I see no problem with a no-code license. But if it also permits use of the cw only portion then it deserves as much opposition as can be mustered against it! I am all for allowing technically oriented people into the amateur service but not if they can muddle around in parts of the band that they have not proved competence in. I personally derive a great deal of enjoyment out of using CW. Computers are my job .. ham radio (and particularly CW) is my HOBBY (no flames please ... I know its supposed to be an experimental service) so I am not particularly interested in packet radio (yet) because it is too close to the stuff I do all day. I also do not have the money nor the technical expertise to get into spread spectrum, satellite work etc.etc. I suspect the major opposition to non-code is because it is perceived as a threat to the existence of the CW portion of the band .... if the code requirement is dropped far fewer new hams will bother with it and then there will be considerable pressure to reduce the CW portion. I hope the no-code license follows the Canadian style and only permits no-code from 2m and above. pete hardie ve5bel 73
bobvan (11/20/82)
Phil Karn's recent "no code license" article really hit home with me. My dad is a ham. I've got a first class radiotelephone license. I've got the money to buy a rig. I'd love to experiment with SSTV, packet radio, AMSAT, and new modulation techniques. I've even got a program for my micro that will teach me the code! But I don't have my ticket. I've spent a lot of time at hamfests and listening on the bands and am quite certain that I am more competent technically (rf, audio, digital) than a good percentage of the hams on the air today. I understand why the rules are the way they are, but wish there was a way I could get a license without having to learn the code. For me, learning Morse code has always been a hill that I lacked the momentum to climb. I even sat down (with the program) and learned all the letters once. There has always been something more interesting (and easier) that led me away (CS, EE, relationships, not in that order). Are there any other technically competent but ticket-less net.ham-radio readers out there? Send mail to me and I'll summarize the repiles. Bob Van Valzah (...!decvax!ittvax!tpdcvax!bobvan)
fayette.wbst@PARC-MAXC@sri-unix (11/20/82)
I have been reading about the codeless license now for a few months and now feel that i can make a rational point, Phil you'r right good people are not coming on board because of the CW requirement. Lets get out of the dark ages!!!!! Mike WB2FSI
davy (11/22/82)
#R:sbcs:-13400:pur-ee:5600003:000:1521
pur-ee!davy Nov 20 16:27:00 1982
I also agree with the article(s) in favor of the no-code
license. I am not a ham, but am interested in becoming one. In
fact, I'd probably be one now, if it weren't for that code
requirement. I simply don't have the time right now (I am a
full time student, plus I work ~20 hours a week) to sit down
and learn it.
If and when I do get my license, I don't plan on using CW at
all. Not because I think it's necessarily outdated or
primitive, just because that end of things doesn't really
interest me. Instead of requiring the code to get a license, I
think perhaps they (the FCC) should simply make the written
test more difficult. I looked at a "sample" novice test, and
answered about 75% of the questions correctly without even
knowing the answers, I just used common sense.
Perhaps the test to get a code-free license should be more
along the level of a general-class test (I've never seen one,
I'm just making an example), but the license should only grant
the permissions given to technician-class folks. Then, I guess
if they really wanted to, the FCC could require that code-free
license holders take a code test if they wish to upgrade to a
higher-level license.
Oh well, enough rambling. Mail any comments, flames, etc. to
me, not to the net.
--Dave Curry
pur-ee!davybaker (11/22/82)
having been a ham for 23 years i have some observations about no
code licenses. when i became a novice the big challenge was the code
at 5 wpm and ohms law. i over came both of them and felt that i had
to work for it and now that i have it i want to protect it from those
who would destroy it.
The sad state of affairs on the hf bands (lids, kids, space
cadets and phonetic fanatics) with all the jamming, swearing, etc.
drove me to uhf weak signal work and oscar. up here we have those
'technicians' who all they know is the code at 5 wpm. well of course
noboby cares because all license classes operate in harmony.
what is the major mode for weak signal work? cw of course. the
majority of eme qso's are cw, the majority of low enhancement dx qso's
are cw. what does it prove? even in the highly technical world of
uhf, cw is very important.
you can have your no code license up here, but please don't stomp
on my 'in the noise almost readable' signal because i am also trying
to advance the communications art.
the biggest problem will be in the test the fcc gives. if it is
too difficult all the non ee types will be claiming discrimination.
if it is too easy another cb band will result. just maybe a 5 wpm cw
test will be perfect way to separate the men from the boys.
73 and good dx
dan af9r
(....decvax!ittvax!tpdcvax!baker)
hNBarbieri.es@PARC-MAXC@sri-unix (11/22/82)
I am in favor of a no code license in the frame work of what the Canadian digital license is, if that is it's only purpose for introduction. Having been a teacher for amateur classes and a ham for 5+ years, I agree that there are a lot of technica
delong (11/25/82)
#R:sbcs:-13400:uicsovax:3400001:000:823 uicsovax!delong Nov 23 17:19:00 1982 I might as well put my 2 cents in also. I too was faced with a decision years ago as to which hobby I wanted to devote my time. I was interested in becoming a ham as it was different from my work. I was not willing to spend a considerable amount of time learning a needless skill as I am a klutz at skill activities and I rebelled at the code anyway. I had a 3rd class at the time and worked at a radio station. I perked up my ears when I heard about the potential move to codeless hamming. I've been scanning this newsgroup since then. If the majority, wish to continue the requirement for code as a badge of honor and membership into the club that is their right and I have no agrument with that mind set. However, I think I'll continue to pass until codeless becomes a reality as time is allways scarce.
mahler (11/25/82)
I obtained my novice ticket within the last month, and within a couple weeks I'll trek to Chicago for a 13 wpm code and General written exam. I am in favor of maintaining the code elements for amateur licensing. I don't know (yet) if I'll continue to use CW after I get my General but it is a skill that might prove useful in the future, and currently is a factor in maintaining a good level of ops on the low bands. I don't consider it any different than anything in life. Each thing that we do (like college,job,hobby) has a hoop, and if we want to reach the final goal we must jump through the hoops. --Steve Mahler, KA9OLT, Network Services Manager, Eng. Comp. Network, Purdue
smh@sri-unix (11/29/82)
#R:pur-ee:-69400:sri-unix:5200002:000:354 sri-unix!smh Nov 28 06:49:00 1982 That hit the nail on the head Steve! Those who really feel they can and will make a contribution to the state of the art in amateur radio, but cannot seem to pass the hurdle of 5/13 wpm should re-evaluate their drive and persistance. Will it be there to further the art after the license is granted? Scott Hinnrichs WB6SJA sri-unix!smh SMH@SRI-KL
jfw (12/02/82)
My own feelings on this are as follows: I think it would be best to keep the code requirement, not out of macho from having mastered it myself, but out of some concern about the people getting licenses. CB was usable until it became trivial to get a CB license, at which time it became a joke. [Flame prevention: regardless of what you feel the percentage of twits on the Children's Band to be, it takes only a low number to make life miserable for everyone else] The code may be perceived as a pain, but it *can* be useful, and it ensures that the person trying for the license is willing to spend some effort to get the license, and either badly wants to annoy people, or wants to use the license for something. It should not be "easy" to get a ham license, it isn't just a video-game class toy. Perhaps the code requirement is not the best way, perhaps it is a bit too stiff (somehow, I seem to recall that Canada has a license class with a requirement of only "recognition" of Morse Code (i.e., at 0 baud)(er, w.p.m.)); but a too-stiff technical exam doesn't seem right either (too many good operators aren't EE types). To some degree, anyone can deal with the code. As an additional benefit, one usually learns code from current hams, thus ending up being relatively acculturated when one starts. John Woods, WB7EEL/1 ...mitccc!jfw