[KYHAM] No Code

[wa4qal@ix.netcom.com]

I said I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion...  Yeah, right.  So much for 
good intentions.

One of the things that the ARRL has been fighting for decades is the erosion of the
ham bands to other services.  I'm not sure how many of us remember when part of
the 220 MHz band was removed from the amateur service and allocated to a 
commercial service.  True, it wasn't all of the band, but it was a significant portion.
Several of the microwave bands are under attack now.  And, things will probably
only get worse as more commercial outfits try to grab frequencies to expand the
cellular phone and wireless LAN bands, since those industries seem to be 
expanding without limit.  

Well, so we give up a couple of our lesser used bands.  So what?  Well, maybe we
don't need 2 meters either since commercial outfits could use it for computer
networking.  Maybe we don't need 70 centimeters or 6 meters either since
they're not entirely used and cellular phones could make use of these frequencies.
Maybe we don't need all of that space on HF either.  As a matter of fact, maybe
we don't need anything except five frequencies near 5 MHz...

Think it can't or won't happen?  History isn't on your side.

The only way we can keep our frequencies is by keeping them utilitized, and 
providing a public service.  And, the best way of doing this is to make sure we
have a lot of new hams that are interested in public service.  

I've heard the comment that CW is necessary.  However, I'm not so sure that's
the case now.  Sure, it can be sent and received with fairly simple equipment,
and it has a reputation for punching through noise conditions, but it tends to 
be very slow to be sent, and, in an emergency situation, I'm not sure I'd want
my life hanging in the balance while a slow mode like CW was used to send the
information.  I remember some studies that indicated that modes such as 
packet could punch through noise conditions just as well as CW, and, in some
cases, even better.  And, while the equipment is a little more complex, 
equipment costs are probably the lowest they've ever been in the ham radio
service.  For some situations, such as meteor scatter, packet and some of the
other digital modes can actually get information transferred MUCH better than
CW.  Few CW operators would sit for hours on end trying to get a short burst
of information through when a meteor happened to ionize the atmosphere 
in the right place.  However, with a mode like packet, a computer does all of
of the transmitting and receiving, and it doesn't mind sitting for hours at a 
time pounding out packets until one of them happens to get through.  

I've heard comments about CW being useful for traffic nets.  However, when
I first got involved in digital communications about 15 years ago, there was a 
world-wide packet network that could take a message and deliver it almost
anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours.  Most traffic nets take a few
days to get a message across the county, if it even arrives at all!  

CW has it's place, but it's not the only, nor even the best, mode for communications.

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy using CW.  But, I also enjoy using packet,
RTTY, AMTOR, SSB, and FM, and I'm sure I'd also enjoy using SSTV, ATV, and PSK-31 
when I have time.

What I can't understand is that people are insisting that CW testing remain a 
part of the licensing process.  I suppose if that's the case, then what we really
need is to improve the testing process by making licensees pass a test for
manually decoding a packet transmission, deciphering a RTTY signal, identifying
an SSTV signal when they hear it, and understanding how to build an ATV 
transmitter before they're granted a license to transmit any kind of signal
(including CW).  And, while we're at it, maybe we should retest all of the existing
amateurs, just to make sure they're staying current with technology.  Ridiculous?  
Well, isn't it also ridiculous to impose the requirement to receive CW on someone 
who is interested in the ATV mode of amateur radio?

But, you say, CW can be used for emergency communcations and public service
work, while ATV can't.  Well, I was at a meeting last weekend with some of the
governmental EMA (Emergency Management Agency) people, and we were 
discussing the possibility of using ATV for remote viewing of disaster sites. 
Not CW, but ATV!  So, it seems that ATV is of more interested in emergency
communications than CW is.

I've also heard comments that CW is a "traditional" mode, and that testing for it
is traditional.  Well, spark transmitters were also tradition back in the 1910s and
1920s, but when's the last time anyone ever heard a spark transmission on 80 
meters (We'll ignore the fact that an 80 meter spark signal has a bandwidth of 
about 100 MHz on the 80 meter band.)?  We had to give that up when "better"
modes came along.  How may of us remember the requirement that we had to
operate for a certain number of hours every year in order to keep our licenses?
If you didn't operate, you didn't renew?  How many of us remember when we had
to log every transmission?  And, if you got inspected and didn't have the up to date
and accurate log, you could kiss your license goodbye.  But, we no longer have to
perform those actions.  Has it harmed the hobby?  Well, I'm sure that some people
would claim that it has, but, in my not so humble opinion, it hasn't; it's enhanced it.

No, I think it's well past time to eliminate the CW requirement.  However, I don't
think we should throw out the technical tests entirely.  I think it's still reasonable
for people to know the rules and regulations, how radio equipment and antennas
work, and even how to build and troubleshoot circuits.  But, let's restrict the
test to things which are actually appropriate, else the entire testing procedure
has turned into a hazing rite for a bunch of old frat guys.  And, if that happens,
it won't be too long until the dean kicks the entire bunch off the campus of the
airwaves.

Dave
WA4QAL