Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!ptb@Mitre-Bedford
From: ptb%Mitre-Bedford@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: No-code: the search for reason  (longish flame)
Message-ID: <1759@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jul-84 05:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1759
Posted: Mon Jul  9 05:28:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 01:24:26 EDT
Lines: 30

Andy, I like your style and appreciate your reasoning - this is indeed
an argument of opinions here.

My opinion is that there is one good reason for requiring people 
to have some baseline proficiency in the Morse Code.  Have you ever
noticed how well code can be copied even in the event of extreme
interferenceor fading?  This could be coming from a number of sources: just
plain distance, other stations on the air, or sunspot activity to name
a few.

FM voice does not work well at all under these conditions because of
the larger bandwidth requirements of the voice (about 3 khz), and also
the "capture effect" of the FM detectors such that the stronger will
mask out all the weaker signals.

Therefore, someone USING morse code may very well be able to get
through when someone else using SSB or FM or another mode may not.
The stakes in this could be quite high, even life and death (remember
Amateur radio has indeed played a good part in many National and
International emergencies. (And what about ships at sea??)

Now, I ask you, what good is being able to get through to a receiver
with a mode, Morse code or anything else, if the operator on the
other end is not capable of deciphering what the sender is saying??
In my mind, this is the real reason for the code requirement - to have
radio amateurs be ready to assist in an emergency rather than have to
pass for lack of the appropriate skills.

				- Peter Baldwin, WA1SNH
				(ptb@mitre-bedford)