🚀 go-pugleaf

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 87 15:56:23 cst
From: lll-crg!seismo!uiucdcs!clio.las.uiuc.edu!berger (Mike Berger)
Subject: Fido news letter

This is in response to your comments about an exam-free amateur radio
license:

I take exception to your recent comments regarding a code-free amateur
radio license.  You blame the amateur radio "fraternity" for being
restrictive, while the fault lies with the FCC and ARRL.

Most of the amateur radio operators I know would welcome an influx
of radio experimenters, which is the purpose of the amateur radio
service.  Naturally, there's a fear that granting licenses without
any kind of techical exam will destroy amateur radio just as it did
CB.  That's a legitimate problem that you failed to address.

Finally, I think that complaining about the morse code requirement is
a cop-out.  The requirement may be obsolete and stupid, but it's
not insurmountable (or even difficult).  The code test for a technician
class license (which is what most people want for packet communications)
requires answering 7 our of 10 multiple choice questions about a simulated
morse code conversation correctly.  I suggest that anybody who is unwilling
to make the minimal effort required to meet that requirement should consider
obtaining a standard commercial radio license instead.

Having to learn morse code to obtain an amateur radio license is
somewhat like having to learn ASCII to use a computer.  It no longer
makes sense in the context of state-of-the-art, and is just an artifact
from an earlier era.  But it's not the fault of the amateur radio
community in general, and it's hardly worth complaining about.

		Mike Berger, WB9ITN
		Center for Advanced Study
		University of Illinois

		{ihnp4|convex|pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!berger