From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!karn
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Title: Re: No code license
Article-I.D.: eagle.637
Posted: Thu Nov 18 22:47:01 1982
Received: Mon Nov 29 20:18:37 1982
References: sbcs.134

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