Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!andy@aids-unix From: andy%aids-unix@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.ham-radio Subject: No-code: the search for reason (longish flame) Message-ID: <1724@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Sun, 8-Jul-84 01:12:48 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1724 Posted: Sun Jul 8 01:12:48 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 03:51:17 EDT Lines: 97 From: Andy Cromarty [Warning: Yes, this is another opinion about no-code.] Once again I find myself fascinated by the line of reasoning espoused by opponents of the "no-code" license. To suggest that anyone who wishes to have a ham license but does not favor morse code examinations belongs in the spectral swamp that CB occupies seems to me to do grave disservice not only to the person who is the target of that criticism, but to the potential of amateur radio as well. I don't doubt that many hams fail to remember (at least without prompting) that there are other modes than voice and CW, and that lots of hams pursue those other modes. So apparently it needs saying: it does NOT stand to reason that anyone who doesn't wish to use CW obviously deserves no more communication capability than is afforded by a 5-watt 11-meter AM transceiver in a tiny and greatly overcrowded piece of the spectrum. Even if we accept the claim that hams have certain responsibilities as a result of the government-granted privileges that accompany the license, it certainly is not clear that this responsibility cannot be fulfilled through active participation in traffic nets, emergency communications drills, operation of special events stations to promote international good will, or serving as a QSL manager for a foreign station. The mysticism that elevates CW to the status of being sole source of evidence of True Dedication escapes me entirely, and I have yet to hear the passioned pleas for QSL managerships that I hear for code preparedness. Further, arguments that CW is good for emergency communications, given the low level of CW skill and homebrew electronics capability of most hams today, seem to me to be so weak as to no longer be tenable (or perhaps even intelligent). CW is excellent for weak-signal work of the sort that hams pursue as hobbyists; it is *horrible* for emergency communications. Just a quick look at your local traffic net's message rate (now how many of you belong to your local traffic net?) will show that those nasty little CB-like VHF FM handhelds are almost identically as effective in messages-per-minute as CW -- and remember that the CW message rates are in effect artificially inflated estimates of the utility of CW for traffic work, since the hams who routinely handle traffic on CW tend to have code skills far superior to those of the average ham (whereas anyone who can hold a mike and a pencil can pass traffic on the local VHF traffic net). If you want reliable and rapid emergency traffic handling, try packet radio; CW will never be able to compete with packet (or AMTOR) for traffic reliability. And in case you know so little about major disasters as to believe that every ham will run into his/her shack immediately after a nuclear blast has melted the VHF rig and start building a CW rig out of beer bottles wrapped with telephone wire, crystals, and lemon-juice batteries, you're overdue for a good course at the local Red Cross chapter on disaster services in general and the sociology of disasters in particular. Hams will be trying to figure out how to get drinking water out of their water heater, just like everyone else. While I'm on a roll: The claims that we hams have a moral responsibility to provide emergency communications (with which I happen to agree) and that our access to the spectrum is a "privilege rather than a right" granted out of the generosity of the U.S. Government (with which I happen to disagree) might find a more receptive audience if they're labelled as just that: claims. They are opinions, so let's admit the fact and treat them as such. Those interested in the topic of whether the government should "own" and then carve up the spectrum for citizens -- including prohibiting them from not only transmitting, but even listening to certain parts of the spectrum (own a radar detector in your car? is it legal in your state?) -- might fruitfully explore the ARPANET Poli-Sci Digest as an appropriate forum for discussion of such opinions. If those opinions are aired here, we could all at least do each other the courtesy of admitting that our views are at best personal truths -- and do our views the courtesy of supporting them with substantive reasoning and explanation rather than capital letters and lots of exclamation marks. Perhaps it is this substitution of religious zeal for reasoned argumentation that causes a CW enthusiast like me to be left cold by anti-"no-code" arguments. Finally, it would seem prudent to remember that we are arguing about a MODE here. I'd better say that it again: CW is a mode. We are not talking about evidence of a newcomer's technical qualifications, good citizenship, or moral fiber, and there are plenty of potential hams out there who might make a tremendous contribution while using RTTY, AMTOR, ASCII, AM, FM, SSB, NBVM, spread-spectrum, pulse modulation, packet, facsimile, or ATV. Imagine insisting that a knowledge of packet radio and digital techniques are invaluable to emergency communications and that no one should be permitted to call themselves a ham, even a Novice, before having mastered digital electronics and computer networking in reasonable detail, in order to fulfill our moral responsibility to be ready to provide emergency communications. (Frankly, that sounds a lot more realistic to me than the corresponding CW argument.) The answer still must be: This is a hobby; packet and CW are just modes; there are many ways to pursue the hobby, and many ways to serve the community, all worthwhile. ***Sender closed connection*** === Network Mail from host simtel20.arpa on Sun Jul 8 00:56:40 ===