McAfee.es@PARC-MAXC@sri-unix (11/23/82)
Emerson:
I pretty much agree with your comments.
If you copy ham-radio at SRI-UNIX you can get your message to all out there on
the "nets".
Pete kd6hr
---------------------------
From: IRONSIDE.WBST
Date: 23-Nov-82 8:52:41 EST
Subject: NO CODE LICENSSE
To: HAMRADIO^.ES
Having past my Tech exam last May after spending 20 years desiring
a ham license but it off because of the code requirements I can perhaps
shed some light on this ongoing discussion.
No this isn't one of those "I had to do it so everyone else should"
(flames), let's face it without the code requirement I7d have had a \license over
20 years ago.
By the same token when I finally found the time to sit down and
learn the 5wpm required it really wasn't all that hard with the proper
instruction from an ARRL affliated club.
Now to the points I'd like to add to the discussion:
1) In reference to Pete(VE5BEL)'s fear it has been pointed out many
times that below 30 MHZ a knowledge of Morse Code is required
by INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT (ITU) regulations. Therefore any no
code license would be for use of frequencies above 30 MHZ.
2) In response to Dave Puree having just taken the General Class
written exam in May 1982 it was very disappointing to say the
least. The technical content was nil to non existent. No
wonder we have general's who don't know how to cut a dipole or which
end of a beam antenna directs the signal.
3) It must be remembered that with the passage of the Goldwater bill
the licensening exam for all but the Extra Class will be administered
most probably by ARRL affliated clubs drawing questions from a
national pool (computerized) selection.
4) The only remianing question would be if a code free license is
approved would it replace the present Tech with a corresponding
loss of privledges below 30 MHZ? The alternative would be
an entirely new license class call it (DIGITAL)
My own personal preference would be a new class (Digital) with
frequency allocations to be determined for argument sake say 220MHZ
and above. Prefrrably not 144 which is already extremely crowded nation
wide.
This would bie those desiring to experiment and advance the state
of the art a license without code requirements but limited to frequencies
on the fronteer of the art for experimental purposes. On the other
hand we also maintain the present traditional class structure for those
who want to pursue the HF bands for DX or other reasons with the required
code attachments per the International agreement.
I personally enjoy both the CW in the Novice bands for code practice
and long range communications as well as my 220 repeater operation for
local and home communications.
Address flames arrows etc. to IRONSIDE.WBST
What do you say to a new license class completely?
Emerson C. Ironside
KA2OMX
------------------------------------------------------------McAfee.es@sri-unix (11/23/82)
Emerson:
I pretty much agree with your comments.
If you copy ham-radio@SRI-UNIX you can get your message to all out there on
the "nets".
Pete kd6hr
---------------------------
From: IRONSIDE.WBST
Date: 23-Nov-82 8:52:41 EST
Subject: NO CODE LICENSSE
To: HAMRADIO^.ES
Having past my Tech exam last May after spending 20 years desiring
a ham license but it off because of the code requirements I can perhaps
shed some light on this ongoing discussion.
No this isn't one of those "I had to do it so everyone else should"
(flames), let's face it without the code requirement I7d have had a \license over
20 years ago.
By the same token when I finally found the time to sit down and
learn the 5wpm required it really wasn't all that hard with the proper
instruction from an ARRL affliated club.
Now to the points I'd like to add to the discussion:
1) In reference to Pete(VE5BEL)'s fear it has been pointed out many
times that below 30 MHZ a knowledge of Morse Code is required
by INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT (ITU) regulations. Therefore any no
code license would be for use of frequencies above 30 MHZ.
2) In response to Dave Puree having just taken the General Class
written exam in May 1982 it was very disappointing to say the
least. The technical content was nil to non existent. No
wonder we have general's who don't know how to cut a dipole or which
end of a beam antenna directs the signal.
3) It must be remembered that with the passage of the Goldwater bill
the licensening exam for all but the Extra Class will be administered
most probably by ARRL affliated clubs drawing questions from a
national pool (computerized) selection.
4) The only remianing question would be if a code free license is
approved would it replace the present Tech with a corresponding
loss of privledges below 30 MHZ? The alternative would be
an entirely new license class call it (DIGITAL)
My own personal preference would be a new class (Digital) with
frequency allocations to be determined for argument sake say 220MHZ
and above. Prefrrably not 144 which is already extremely crowded nation
wide.
This would bie those desiring to experiment and advance the state
of the art a license without code requirements but limited to frequencies
on the fronteer of the art for experimental purposes. On the other
hand we also maintain the present traditional class structure for those
who want to pursue the HF bands for DX or other reasons with the required
code attachments per the International agreement.
I personally enjoy both the CW in the Novice bands for code practice
and long range communications as well as my 220 repeater operation for
local and home communications.
Address flames arrows etc. to IRONSIDE.WBST
What do you say to a new license class completely?
Emerson C. Ironside
KA2OMX
------------------------------------------------------------