My thoughts exactly! I got my ticket back in the Morse era. I always considered the code requirement to be a unreasonable obstacle to getting a ham license. The knowledge of Morse Code (or lack thereof) has no correlation to being a good amateur operator. I will forever hold a grudge against the ARRL for supporting the code requirement for so many years.
Ehhh, it could be argued that greater familiarity with diverse communications techniques broadens the knowledge base of an individual and potentially makes them a more rounded operator.
But in general I agree, proficiency in code does not make a persons a "better" ham, and never did. However, I will say that I think that in general requiring people to learn the code as a licensing prerequisite did make the average ham better. I know, it sounds contradictory, but it is not, let me explain.
Knowing the code does not make a person a better ham. They are what they are, I feel, whether they know the code or not. Some potentially very good hams were driven off because they could never learn the code, I knew several myself that I think would have been great hams who did not do it because of the code requirement.
However, it is absolutely true it takes less effort today to get a ham license. I am not arguing that the test is easier to pass (although I think that also) but even if the test was just as stringent today the rest of the process is quicker and easier, including not having to take the time to learn code.
It flat out takes less effort today to get a ham license. And that is great in some ways, and not so great in others.
In the past you had to "want" the license more, and put in more effort, and more time. Even when the test was multiple choice you still had to study the material and learn it (however temporarily for some people) to pass the test, not just memorize the correct answers from a pre-released question pool. This learning almost always involved extended exposure to practicing hams, and learning the hobby before you were licensed. Then you had to learn the code, again something that is normally not done alone, and further increasing your exposure to the hobby before you are licensed.
And (prior to 1977) to get the Extra class you had to hold an HF voice license for either one or two years (depending on the time period being discussed) before you were able to test for Extra. You not only had to have such a license, but you had to have a log book that showed activity on the HF bands. This guarenteed that the holder of an Extra class was experienced.
Back then the average examinee probably knew more about ham radio before they took the test. And because they had put more effort into getting to that point, taking the test, it likely weeded out a number of people who were less serious about the hobby. The ones who tested had to be more driven, because it had taken more effort to get to that point.
So the process did not make them a better ham, knowing the code did not make them a better ham, but
getting to that point might have loaded the deck a bit to make it more likely that the people who completed the process were better hams, or at least more driven to be there.
As to the OPs question, is using computers, either to send or receive code, cheating? Shoot no, it is using another tool in the kit. But to date I have not seen an available program that can do it as fast or as well as a well versed human under adverse listening conditions. When signals are strong and clear, sure, but when there are half a dozen crammed in 200 Hz, and you want the guy who is 20 dB down from the guy 25 Hz away, I think the human ear is more dependable.
T!
