Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: crrl bulletin nr 30 (digital license)
Message-ID: <708@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Dec-85 04:28:15 EST
Article-I.D.: petrus.708
Posted: Thu Dec  5 04:28:15 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 05:33:59 EST
References: <78@brl-tgr.ARPA> <303@sask.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 28

> > Commenting on what the Canadians are doing may not be any of my
> > business, but, I can't see why they are starting a code-free licese.
> > Code free licenses already exist, it is called the citizen's band.

> 	We already have a no-code license up here in VE-land. It is
> called the digital license and it seems to have been an unqualified
> failure.

Ohboyohboy...[rub hands with glee]...just what I've been waiting for,
a reopening of the old no-code debate!

I always find it amusing to compare the comments of those who oppose
the technical no-code license because it will create another CB out
of amateur radio with those who oppose the technical no-code license because
the Canadians tried it and nobody bothered to get one.

From what I've heard, knowledge of the code doesn't keep quite a few
people from jamming FM repeaters, but *lack* of knowledge of the code
DOES keep quite a few otherwise talented people from participating in
amateur packet radio development and other clearly worthwhile activites.

Sooner or later we *will* get a no-code "amateur" license in the USA.
The question is whether it will occur before or after the present amateur
service atrophies away from lack of both quality and quantity.
I much prefer the former over the latter, but you've got to have at least ONE
of those two factors to get and keep frequencies.

Phil