ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access:
from
ARRL
on
January 19, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1
View comments about this article!
ARRL
to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access
NEWINGTON, CT, Jan 19, 2004--The ARRL will
ask the FCC to create a new entry-level Amateur Radio license that would
include HF phone privileges without requiring a Morse code test. The League also
will propose consolidating all current licensees into three classes, retaining
the Element 1 Morse requirement--now 5 WPM--only for the highest class. The ARRL
Board of Directors overwhelmingly approved the plan January 16 during its
Annual Meeting in Windsor, Connecticut. The proposals--developed by the ARRL
Executive Committee following a Board instruction last July--are in response to
changes made in Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations at World
Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03). They would continue a process of
streamlining the amateur licensing structure that the FCC began more than five
years ago but left unfinished in the Amateur Service license restructuring Report and
Order (WT 98-143)
that went into effect April 15, 2000.
"Change in the Amateur Radio Service in the
US, especially license requirements and even more so when Morse is involved,
has always been emotional," said ARRL First Vice President Joel Harrison, W5ZN,
in presenting the Executive Committee's recommendations. "In fact, without a
doubt, Morse is Amateur Radio's 'religious debate.'" The plan adopted by the
Board departs only slightly from the Executive Committee's recommendations.
The
"New" Novice
The entry-level license class--being called
"Novice" for now--would require a 25-question written exam. It would offer
limited HF CW/data and phone/image privileges on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meters as
well as VHF and UHF privileges on 6 and 2 meters and on 222-225 and 430-450
MHz. Power output would be restricted to 100 W on 80, 40, and 15 meters and to
50 W on 10 meters and up, thus avoiding the need for the more complex RF safety
questions in the Novice question pool.
"The Board sought to achieve balance in
giving new Novice licensees the opportunity to sample a wider range of Amateur
Radio activity than is available to current Technicians while retaining a
motivation to upgrade," said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. "It was also seen as
important to limit the scope of privileges so the exam would not have to
include material that is inappropriate at the entry level."
As an introduction to Amateur Radio, the
Novice license served successfully for most of its 50-year history. The FCC has
not issued new Novice licenses since the 2000 license restructuring, however.
Under the ARRL plan, current Novice licensees--now the smallest and least
active group of radio amateurs--would be grandfathered to the new entry-level
class without further testing.
Anticipating assertions that the new plan
would "dumb down" Amateur Radio licensing, Harrison said those currently
holding a ticket often perceive the level of complexity to have been greater
when they were first licensed than it actually was. "Quite frankly," he said,
"if you review the questions presented in our license manuals throughout the
years, you will be surprised how they compare to those of today."
Technicians
and Generals
The middle group of licensees--Technician,
Tech Plus (Technician with Element 1 credit) and General--would be consolidated
into a new General license that no longer would require a Morse examination.
Current Technician and Tech Plus license holders automatically would gain
current General class privileges without additional testing. The current
Element 3 General examination would remain in place for new applicants. ARRL
already has proposed additional phone privileges for Generals in its "Novice
refarming" petition,
href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513084388">RM-10413,
but the FCC has not yet acted on that petition.
Morse
Code Testing Retained for Extra
At the top rung, the Board indicated that it saw
no compelling reason to change the Amateur Extra class license requirements.
The ARRL plan calls on the FCC to combine the current Advanced and Amateur
Extra class licensees into Amateur Extra, because the technical level of the
exams passed by these licensees is very similar. New applicants for Extra would
have to pass a 5 WPM Morse code examination, but the written exam would stay
the same. The League's plan calls for current Novice, Tech Plus and General
class licensees to receive lifetime Element 1 (5 WPM Morse) credit.
"This structure provides a true entry-level
license with HF privileges to promote growth in the Amateur Service," Harrison
said. "It also simplifies the FCC database by conforming to the current
Universal Licensing System (ULS) structure and does not mandate any
modifications to it."
Sumner concurred. "The Board started out by
recognizing that three license classes was the right number when looking down
the road 10 or 15 years," he said. "We need a new entry-level license."
"On the other hand, there's nothing
particularly wrong with the existing Extra class license," he continued. "The
change in the international regulations notwithstanding, the Board felt that
the highest level of accomplishment in the FCC's amateur licensing structure
should include basic Morse capability."
Sumner and Harrison say the current
Technician entry-level ticket provides little opportunity to experience facets
of ham radio beyond repeater operation. "The quality of that experience,"
Sumner said, "often depends on the operator's location."
Among other advantages, Sumner said the plan
would allow new Novices to participate in HF SSB emergency nets on 75 and 40
meters as well as on the top 100 kHz of 15 meters. The new license also could
get another name, Sumner said. "We're trying to recapture the magic of the old
Novice license, but in a manner that's appropriate for the 21st century."
Proposal
Includes "Novice Refarming" Band Plan
The overall proposed ARRL license
restructuring plan would more smoothly integrate HF spectrum privileges across
the three license classes and would incorporate the "Novice refarming" plan the
League put forth nearly two years ago in a Petition for Rule Making
(RM-10413).
The FCC has not yet acted on the ARRL plan, which would alter the current HF
subbands. The Novice refarming proposal would eliminate the 80, 40 and 15-meter
Novice/Technician Plus CW subbands as such and reuse that spectrum in part to
expand phone/image subbands on 80 and 40 meters.
The ARRL license restructuring design calls
for no changes in privileges for Extra and General class licensees on 160, 60,
30, 20, 17 or 12 meters. Novice licensees would have no access to those bands.
| Proposed
Phone/Image HF Subbands (Includes Novice Refarming Proposal)
80 Meters
Extra: 3.725-4.000 MHz (gain of 25 kHz)
General: 3.800-4.000 MHz (gain of 50 kHz)
Novice: 3.900-4.000 MHz (new)
40 meters
Extra: 7.125-7.300 MHz (gain of 25 kHz)
General: 7.175-7.300 MHz (gain of 50 kHz)
Novice: 7.200-7.300 MHz (new)
15 meters
Extra: 21.200-21.450 MHz (no change)
General: 21.275-21.450 MHz (gain of 25 kHz)
Novice: 21.350-21.450 MHz (new)
10 meters
Proposed
CW/Data-Exclusive HF Subbands (Includes Novice Refarming Proposal)
80 meters
Extra: 3.500-3.725 MHz
General: 3.525-3.725 MHz
Novice: 3.550-3.700 MHz
40 meters
Extra: 7.000-7.125 MHz
General: 7.025-7.125 MHz
Novice: 7.050-7.125 MHz
15 meters
Extra: 21.000-21.200 MHz
General: 21.025-21.200 MHz
Novice: 21.050-21.200 MHz
10 meters
|
Copyright © 2004, American Radio Relay League, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K0CBA on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another step toward the ultimate goal of a "box top" license.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W8AD on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh Oh!!! It won't take long for the flames to start!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KT0DD on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm already hearing chatter on the bands about organizing an ARRL boycott because of this.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W2MC on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boycott?
I think its a fair proposal, and acknowledgement of the real world.
I like it.
Jon
W2MC
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AD6WL on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I kind of like the idea. I would prefer three things different.
1.) They should give the new Novice privileges to current Techs, Tech+ and Novices.
2.) Current Techs, Tech+ and Novices should have to take the element 3 to upgrade to General.
3.) Current Techs should have to pass element 1 for General class license.
The new Novice class license seems to have a very good amount of HF privileges on the phone, digital and CW portions of the band. That is why element 1 should be retained for General.
Overall the ARRL has the right idea with the exception of the above-mentioned changes. But the current Techs should definitely not be upgraded to General without passing element 3.
My final though is that I wonder what groups like NCI and NCVEC think of the ARRL proposal.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K2LES on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see this proposal as a fair across-the-board compromise. The ARRL recognizes that in order for ham radio to sustain itself and grow, an overhaul of the existing license structure is in order to effect an infusion of new blood. The international amateur radio community has embraced these changes. It's time the US follows suit.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AB0SI on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD added:
I'm already hearing chatter on the bands about
organizing an ARRL boycott because of this.
It made difference what the ARRL came up with: SOME were always going boycott/complain/threaten to join the Red Army Faction/sell their CB amps etc. etc. etc.
While I would have done things somewhat differently (of course, wouldn't we all?), the League seems to have developed a reasonable approach.
Just in case someone cares (I can't think why anyone would), I have mixed feelings regarding retaining code testing. Since I am writing this on Monday, I am for code testing.
73
Paul AB0SI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K3UD on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is pretty close to what I suggested to Jim Weaver, the Great Lakes Division Director.
However, I don't understand why the Novice class was not grandfathered into the the General class as was the Tech, Tech+ and Tech with code. While the Novice historically was THE entry level license, this was, in effect, taken over by the no-code Technician class shortly after it started.
While I support the idea of an entry level license, populating it with Novice and not the no-code Tech is a mistake, since these licenses are in fact entry level. In my opinion, it would have been better to include the Novice into the General and to craft the entry level license from ground zero, much the way the Novice license (and Technician) were crafted in the early 50s.
The merging of Advanced and Extra makes sense as the Advanced written test was....depending on whose opinion...more difficult than the Extra. In my case, the Extra was almost a gimme compared to the Advanced. I took the Advanced and the old 2nd Class commercial at the same time and the Advanced was tougher than the 2nd. While that's how I see it, others will dispute it.
Will the ARRL get burned over this? Tough to say. I always thought that they needed to sit back and wait a bit until the dust settles over the code question and perhaps commission some actual scientific based research among the membership and the amateur community as a whole. At least no one loses anything, and even the new entry level license has a good spate of privileges.
73
George
K3UD
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great...another 8 months of arguing and name calling.
Are we ever going to be happy with the status quo?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K0RGR on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it is a win-win proposal for everybody.
Not that long ago, the written test for Tech and General were the same. When first created, Elements 2 and 3 were very similar in scope, and still are. In a recent VE session, we had 4 or 5 people attempt the General test immediately after passing the Technician. Without studying the General at all, all of these people,including one very non-technical XYL, came within 3 questions of passing the General. I think lack of Element 3 credit is much ado about nothing.
Now, we will have an opportunity to rewrite those tests the way we want them - please FISTS, help us create good technical exams for all classes. Some people will get 'lucky' but again, with the current dropout rate, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
There are things we would all do differently, but overall, I think ARRL did a great job of coming up with a fair proposal that will serve the entire Amateur Service well.
It's time now for us to come together. I fully support the proposal of ARRL and reject all others.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W1AI on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most of this proposal is great.
However, it makes NO SENSE to give General Class licenses to people who have only passed the much simpleer Technician exam. Current Tech and Tech Plus licensees should be converted to Novice.
Are they planning to include bubble gum in the wrapper with these converted General class licenses?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AE7G on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I’ve always felt sorry for hams who start out as tech--they miss the fun of being a Novice, with Novice sub bands full of other “dumb” novices, and being on HF.
Plus, for me, the magic of ham radio has been xmitting a signal that bounces off the ionosphere, especially when the signal lands in another continent. I never got excited about making contacts via repeaters, even linked repeaters. VHF contacts via ducting was fun, but not enough to surpass the thrill of using the ionosphere.
I hope this new proposal enables new “Novices” to experience the same magic and FUN I had.
If the ARRL proposal comes to fruition, we will all have to work hard integrating new hams into HF culture.
It is unfortunate that the "new-hams" will hit HF during the trough in the sun spot cycle.
73
Bob
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W5EEX on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This looks like a fair and reasonable proposal....although it will probably be a long time before it becomes "law"....so if you are trying for General now, and working on your code, I would not advise you to wait for this to take place. Keeping CW alive, and offering some incentives for Extras is a good thing....I am happy with it. I only wish the Extra code speed had been put back to 15 or 20 WPM....but this is a good compromise proposal as far as I am concerned. I guess I will be mailing in my ARRL dues renewal next month afer all :)
73, W5EEX
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've always been against giving free upgrades, and I'm against making the General a codeless license. Let me revise this proposal some. Retain Element 1 testing for both General and Extra. Combine Elements 2 and 3 into a new Element 3. The new Novice exam should be categorized as the new Element 2. Keep Element 1, 2 and 3 testing for General. Keep Element 1, 2, 3 and 4 testing for Extra. I like the new bandplan and new no-code Novice idea for the entry-level license. No-code Technicians should keep the same privileges they have now plus the new Novice privileges on HF. No-code Techs should be required to take Elements 1 and 3 if they wish to upgrade to General. The new Novice class lecensees should have to take Elements 1, 2 and 3 if they wish to upgrade to General.
Should this proposal be published by the FCC and open for comments, I will post my comments along the lines that I stated above.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W5LSD on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh great ... a theory dumbdown too.
Did WRC 2003 set the stage for diminishing
the written exams or could this just be
a $$$$$ thing for the ARRL ?
Most folks seem to favor tougher written
exams. And it's a fact that the majority of ARRL
members dont favor any flavor of codeLESS
HF license. Looks like the ARRL favors
revenue as it dis-assembles a formerly
proud hobby.
It's like thermal runaway ....
the dumber it gets, the faster it gets dumber !
And YOU can be a proud ARRL member and help the
dream come true !!
10-4 good buddies
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KF9Z on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am so upset I cannot express my true feelings beyond this (and I am a broadcaster by profession!)...
This idea is horrible! Since when did we give the idea up of working for things? If you want it badly enough you will work for it. If it is handed to you with no additional work you take it for granted. I love CW and I passed 13wpm code test prior top the rule change. Shortly after the new rules were in place I upgraded to Extra (and not because of the reduced code requirements as I am very fluid with CW and contest regularly).
That said I am VERY unhappy with the ARRL for this one. I have been a die-hard supporter of the ARRL in the past but I cannot defend the indefensible. This is outstanding in its stupidity. If you cannot earn it just wait long enough and you can get it handed to you. That is a sure fired way to instill respect for the hobby. If you are not required to work for something it looses all sense of accomplishment and desire to treat those privileges with honor and respect. Sure you can be an ass and pass your 20wpm code test. No ham on earth would disagree with that. But imagine the bands FULL of people who do not have the respect earned through study and tradition.
Oh well. There is not much I can do about it other than say my piece. And my piece is this...IT SUCKS. But that is the way the world is heading. Give it away as we do not want people to work for anything. That is not fair...the entire working for things thing. Count me out on this proposal and on the ARRL. My membership will lapse with out a renewal. I figured something was up when the League stopped selling QST at the book store. How can we attract new blood into the hobby if you do not promote your preeminent hobby magazine? I have it! GIVE AWAY THE LICENSE!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KK7AC on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes Darrin, KF9Z, you are correct...a some-thing-for-nothing socity. Its real sad. A change was about to happen we knew, but I feel a little too much is being let go and given away. I only respect those who WORK for something, not GIVEN to them. I too will let my ARRL go after its run its course.....I was going to become a life member about 2 years ago when they had a pretty sweet deal to do so. THE ONLY reason I did not take advantage of it was to see the out come of this very issue. Oh well, I guess I will focus more attention to playing the bass guitar instead of trying for the 200 DXCC mixed award.....it just wont have the same meaning anymore. Right or wrong my true fellings are that what I have has been cheaped abit. I still love ham radio, just not the same. -KK7AC
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W5AU on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dumb Down to Zero has begun !
Quote from W5LSD:
Most folks seem to favor tougher written
exams. And it's a fact that the majority of ARRL
members dont favor any flavor of codeLESS
HF license. Looks like the ARRL favors
revenue as it dis-assembles a formerly
proud hobby.
It's like thermal runaway ....
the dumber it gets, the faster it gets dumber !
And YOU can be a proud ARRL member and help the
dream come true !!
------------
I wont be renewing my ARRL Membership. They
refuse to listen to the members. What kind of organization is this. When the majority of the
members say NO to NoCode, and they just plow
right on in there like nothing has been said.
This could very well be the end of the ARRL.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like it. Would make a few changes like I have stated on another most. Main thing I would make it where you would have to keep this new Novice ticket 6 months to a year before you upgrade or take a general course in Ham radio. I hope the FCC gets on this soon so we can quit fighting over code or no code
Terry
WB4QNG
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
They didn't waste anytime, did they? Notice the date of this announcement was the same day they held their election for league President.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I don't understand is why this proposal seems to be OK with most who have posted here. Many of those in favor of this proposal were vehemently opposed to granting no-coders a free ride on HF. At least they indicated this on other threads. Now, because the ARRL is calling for keeping Element 1 testing for Extra, it seems to be OK to trash the General. something is wrong here. No, its not OK to trash the General. I'm glad at least some hams feel the same way I do. I'd hate to think I'm alone on this issue. Even if I was, I refuse to follow the masses. I feel strongly on this issue, and I refuse to capitulate. Ham radio has been on a downward spiral for a long time now. Maybe when the rest of HF is a carbon copy of 11 meters, everyone will wake up - when its too late.
Talk about a slap in the face? Talk about a betrayal? The ARRL is looking to hand no-code Technicians a free upgrade to General. It is obvious that the ARRL sees the future of ham radio with the no-coders, and is kicking the rest of us where we sit. Members = Money. Money talks. B***S*** walks. My ARRL membership expires this August. I will give serious thought to this issue at renewal time. After this, all the ARRL means to me is QST and the "members only" TIS pages on their web site. I don't need the propagation report and the ARRL Letter e-mailed to me. That stuff is published right here on e-Ham. I can think of loads of things I can do with $39 a year. To say I'm "up in arms" is putting it mildly.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N7UQA on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For crying out loud guys, I think this is an exelent proposal. I worked my way up through the ranks of Novice, Tech, General, Advanced and Extra and had done the 5,13 and 20 wpm code tests. I think it provides a good balance between the ranks and still includes a code test for the extra. As long as they follow the rules I have no problem with this. Besides, it would be nice to get a little more breathing room on the phone bands.
If all you are going to do is bitch about it, cancel your ARRL subscription, turn in your licence for cancelation and sell all your ham gear. The ARRL does alot for us hams, I don't always agree with the ARRL but they are the only game in town. Everything else is just a magazine subscription..
Craig - N7UQA
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
UQA:
I may have to be a bitch about it, to quote you.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
- i'm not sure how to word this, but perhaps someone can chime in here with an observation (keep in mind that i'm a relatively new ham):
- is something horribly wrong with the ARRL? or is this normative behavior?
- IOW, is the ARRL an organization run by constituents and members, or is it an organization run by an 'inside' circle and outside interests?
- as a member, i have not been asked my opinion... i guess i should have been more proactive on my feelings? this is a good lesson for me...
- note that i'm not being publically pro or con regarding the ARRL's proposal here, just curious...
- i welcome any long-time ARRL members for a historical view on how the organization works...
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K4FAU on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is great ...
but what really gets me -- why is it that no one complained that the rest of the world, 31 countries to date, has dropped their code requirement and no one complains...
but we want to stop our own American brotheren from getting on the air who doesn't want to learn another mode....
how ironic...
I say bring on the fresh blood -- maybe the average age of the HF'rs will drop below 70 .. or maybe the IQ raise above 70...haha
Brian
Amateur Extra
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.eham.net/articles/6468
Read my article earlier this year under the above URL.
Then tell me what you think.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W3DCG on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
15-20 wpm for the most privileged class of hams in the US, was certainly a long-shot, over-zealous fantasy requiring larger spheres than I figured we'd have.
I thought, as likely as taxes being lowered. Once ratified, levied, however one cares to call it, permanence seems to be the naked truth. As well, the problem of what to do with the extraordinarily large numbers of existing 5wpm Extras, would likely be an administrative hassle of night terror proportion. After all, we are engaged in a war against terror.
Minimally, the proposal acknowledges the relevence of CW by keeping it in the Rule book. It helps us to know where we've been to better appreciate where we are, where we're headed.
All wishful thinking aside, it seems to me this proposal is pragmatic, reasonable, and sane.
Mild surprise.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W2MC on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting, KF7Z..........
Basically, you are saying:
"I'll take the free ride on the lower code speed, yet no one else should get a 'goodie'."
I WAS one of those who was "...an ass and pass your 20wpm code test.". I passed the silly thing, even when I didn't 'have to'...the rules were going to change, anyway (I am one of the last 'fast-code' Extras)....And guess what? I now have "bragging rights".....but I still dislike CW. I can still copy CW...not at 20 anymore, tho its still 'in there'. But I don't like it, I generally don't use it, and I could never understand the purpose of beating everyone over the head with CW. What was to be gained?
Now.....I can say I did it. But now everyone who follows along behind me must do everything exactly the same way I did?
That's nonsense.
Why were we testing for 5, 13, and 20 wpm CW in the first place? Why all this importance placed in CW? What was the value added for all that effort? Its only a operating mode....it won't kill you, like touching the HV line in a tube amplifier, for example. How many questions relate to stuff like that?
(And yes, it was effort. It took me almost two years to build up to that speed. And don't give me that "It builds character" crap. I've built enough already. If you wanna "build character" with something meaningful and Ham Radio related, go get an engineering degree.)
Jon
W2MC
BSEE '85
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"- as a member, i have not been asked my opinion... i guess i should have been more proactive on my feelings? this is a good lesson for me..."
As a member, I have not been asked my opinion either. I WAS proactive on my feelings. I made my feelings known to my ARRL director via e-mail twice. Neither time did I get a reply from him.
This should have been put to a referendum among the membership.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4DG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I expected, lots of people would pan the ARRL over this.
I think the ARRL has some good ideas. I think that simply keeping the current license system in place but eliminating the 5 wpm exam completely would have been best. But the ARRL knew that it couldn't please everybody and decided to draft a compromise that would address everyone's concerns.
Even though I think the Morse Code testing is completely unnecessary, I'm not about to drop out of the ARRL over this.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N7UQA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Alot of the complaining here is the same tired old crap that I heard when the No-code Tec came out. Here come the CB'ers to 2 meters I heard. Well, in all honesty back before I got my licence I listened to 75,40 and 20 meters, and you know what I heard? General, Advanced and Extras jamming nets, playing music and sound effects burping and making racist and unwanted remarks. And all these guys took the test the old way. Obviously, the code and "harder" written exams didn't stop them.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K4FAU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually I am a member of the ARRL, and Amateur Extra that got his license when the code was 20, and fully support the ARRL on this --
more poeple means more DX -- this give me an oppurtunity to talk and work more people -- thats why I am in this hobby... I have no idea why some of you are ...
too many think that these new guys are taking something away -- they are not -- they are adding ...
but to all of you that don't like it -- I strongly suggest that you cancel your ARRL memebership.. right now .. stop bitching about it .. do something .. QUIT ... and sell all of your gear cause life as you know it is over apparently --
by the way -- I'm looking for a new ICOM HF so when you panty waist whiners quit let me know and I will buy your equipment before one of the new guys just knocks you down and takes it...
aaaghhhhh!!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W5AU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just talked to a Lifetime Member who is seriously
thinking about resigning from the ARRL. Boy, he is
some upset !!!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG6GMT on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good for the ARRL ! Good plan and YES as a member I was asked in a pole about my feeling about this Proposel. Now like others here have said lets hope this gets done soon then we can work on the real problem BPL. Have fun contesting this weekend
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K3UD on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok,
What kind of proposal could the ARRL have come up with given the likely scenario of the FCC, on its own, dropping the code as a requirement for HF access? Who would it please? Who should it please?
Anything over 5 WPM would have been unlikely as the FCC probably does not want a hassle over medical waivers. Keeping 5WPM for the Extra (if it actually happens) needs to be looked at as a victory. I am all for toughening up the written exams and I hope that the VECs actually look to do this, but again, I don't think it will happen.
There are a lot of hams here and in other forums acting out Don Quixote and on a seemingly impossible quest of time travel to the past when everything was OK in the realm of Amateur Radio. Many OFs (myself included) feel that some of the best times in Amateur Radio were in the 50s and 60s.
However there were those who thought it was the worst of times.. so much so that privileges were taken away from those who had earned them, sacrificed at the altar of good operating practice, code use, technical expertise, appliance operators, and home brewing.
The ARRL was hurt by incentive licensing back then and EVERY THING that has been done since then have been attempts to reverse the impact. Now the ARRL could be seriously hurt again, at a critical time when Amateur Radio is facing a lot of threats to its viability. History repeats, the lesson will be repeated until learned, and there is no time machine.
The FCC still might toss all of this out and do what it wants... and what it seems to want is less regulation, less records to keep and maybe to turn over licensing, privilege allocations, classes of license to a third party, possibly private sector. Also, there have been many proposals to the FCC, some very well crafted which might get some attention. As a great Yankee catcher once said... "It Ain't Over Til It's Over".
While I, along with many others have some reservations about what the ARRL will be proposing, It just might be the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. I renewed my membership last month and intend to do so as long as I am able.
73
George
K3UD
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W5EEX on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't understand the comments here by ARRL members who say they weren't given a say in this matter.
There were publicized online feedback "forums" at the ARRL Division level....and it seemed to me there was plenty of notice given about when the collection of feedback started and ended. I filed my comments....either these people were not paying attention, or they were waiting for the request-for personal-opinion letter to show up in the mailbox from ARRL. If you didn't post your feedback...don't complain.....it seems to me the ARRL did listen to the feedback and came up with a proposal to meet as many suggestions as was possible. Let's hope now that the FCC will listen to ARRL.
73
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC0JTC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This was no easy decision for ARRL leadership. They knew whatever decision they came up with, a portion of the ARRL membership would be upset and angry. About a week before the meeting ARRL members were solicited for comment on this issue. The midwest division at one point had about 600 response to the request with 357 to continue testing, 208 to delete, and 57 to continue testing for extras only. It appears that the organization has tried to appease both interests.
1. They recognized that existing extra licensed amateurs did not want the code requirement dropped. The organization chose to maintain code as a requirement to gain licensure and be able to operate in the extra portion of the band.
2. The ARRL also recognized that the membership that did not hold extra licenses, were not supportive of continued morse testing. And as a result they chose to eliminate the code from testing for those operating privileges.
3. This appears reasonable and fair given the clearly defined lines that were drawn. The ARRL may have seen the handwriting on the wall and recongnized that the FCC would not accept continued morse testing as a requirement for operation in the HF bands. This may have been a compromise that they think that the FCC will swallow.
4. They also decided to address the band plan and open up more freguency for phone on some of the bands for those with general privileges.
5. They took on a dificult and unpopular task and should be commended for there efforts.
6. It will be interesting to see how soon the FCC responds to this and if they will accept these suggested changes completely or in part. The FCC may balk at continued morse testing for extra privileges as well. Time will tell.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KN4AQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. There are a thousand different ways it could be set up, and I'd do it differently, but I can stand behind the ARRL on this. Good job, guys!
As an instructor, I know that getting into ham radio isn't easy for those with no technical background. And getting the license isn't the end of learning, it's the beginning.
I'm a little concerned that current Techs will get tossed into HF little formal education. As usual, though, it will be up to those of us who have been around a while to help them learn the ropes.
Over the years, we've seen several attempts at reviving the Novice. 220 MHz and 10 meters didn't do it. Too little, too late. This just might. The Tech has been an awkward entry-level license. I'll be happy to teach a "full-spectrum" course again.
I do think the spectrum refarming needs more work. I'm not sure I'd lump it in with the license changes. We're about to have a "digital" revolution, with HF digital signals carrying voice, text, image. In interesting note in the article on the AOR digital adapter in QST: digital voice is legal on the phone bands, but text - in the same digital signal - isn't. The rules are behind the curve, and need a lot more thought.
73,
Gary KN4AQ
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N5QXP on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see if I've got this right. By throwing open the barn doors, Extras get 50 and Generals get an additional 150 khz?
And I suppose we should be grateful, huh?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K4JSR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At least this finally ends the bitching about Incentive Licensing! Let's see if we can make this
angst grow and continue for some 30 odd years or so.
Cal K4JSR
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by NE0P on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If I was a novice, I would be extremely pissed. Lets see, this proposal takes away the 23cm band from me, and makes me lower power on 10 meters. That is absolutely stupid. Most radios today do 100 watts out of the box on HF and 6, and 50 or so on VHF. So why not let Novices run the full 100 on 10 and 6? How is 10 meters any different than 15 meters?
Also, under this proposal, we give a bunch of CW privledges to people who refuse to learn CW?? The general license, if it carries no CW test, should give maybe 50 khz on each band for CW, tops.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG4PFO on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like it........thats all I got to say
KG4PFO
(TECH)
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KF4MKJ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All right more activity on 15 meters!! A huge band with nearly no avtivity except on contest weekends. We get more phone space on 40 meters!! Only downside I see here is giving Tech and Tech plus General priviledges without the general test. They should have been lumped in the novices. Otherwise this seems like an excellent idea to me. An entry license with HF phone priviledges spread around enough so that they can get a taste of more than repeater operation.
73 KF4MKJ
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> They didn't waste anytime, did they?
They wasted nearly a year
> Notice the date of this announcement was the same
> day they held their election for league President.
It was the annual ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The meeting is the only place where ARRL sets its policy on issues this touchy. They could have done the same thing last July, but for various reasons weren't yet ready to.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TWO problems, one bad, the other unforgivable...
100w on HF is BAD, should be 10 or 20 watts - max.
GIVING General privledges to some of the no-code techs that hang out on this site is unforgivable.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC0ARF on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like it.
I am surprised that the Techs (which I am) would not need to pass General Written (which I have done 3 times) in order to be upgraded. I am code-untalented, and while I do not seek erasure of the code subbands, I feel that morse code testing is not a proper license criteria.
Morse Code does not define the quality of an operator. It does not define the character of an individual's intellect, nor does it make one person any better than another. Morse Code is a communications method: some have the gift, others like me do not.
I have tried the code test 5 times in my life; I will not make a 6th attempt. I just don't get it. I'll also admit that I am not desparate to pass it either: it is not a surivial skill (unlike CPR or first aid-- do you grumpy hams have certs in those?) I'll be dead honest here: I don't care to invest the time to learn a mode I will not use. I devote X amount of time to my hobbies, including ham radio. Now, if Morse was in my Professional field, I would certainly chase it down. But this is a Hobby, and I have the luxury of saying no.
Do I think the band will fall apart, and the world will end? Nope. HF requires antenna systems, and some serious outlay of equipment funding. There are not too many multi-band antennas out there that are plug and go. If you don't tune the antenna properly, and you melt down the finals in the radio, that operator will be off in a hurry with broken parts.
As I sit at my desk and think about all the no-code stuff wired up on the shelf (yeah, the IRLP node, the 1.2 GHz data network, the 2m packet system, the APRS computer, the cross-band repeater, the HF radio listening to 40 meters, and that crystal radio set), I'd like to thank the ARRL for proposing the elimination of the code mandate. When this thing is passed, I'll be able to think about dipole antennas, antenna tuners, baluns, and QSL card design. Be able to talk more than on 6m that I listen to weekly for activity.
I hope some of the hams who have been on the bands will be around to talk about propogation, and suggest different methods. We will have intelligent discussions, and share the goodwill among amateurs. You can even ask me computer questions, and I'll answer as best as I can (I am a network administrator).
All of this is possible because WRC (and hopefully the FCC) recognize that Morse Code is a mode, and not a test for intellgence.
Christian
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K4SCH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its a great idea!
Let the battle begin!!
73 de K4SCH
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W8VOM on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Talk about a slap in the face? Talk about a betrayal? The ARRL is looking to hand no-code Technicians a free upgrade to General. It is obvious that the ARRL sees the future of ham radio with the no-coders, and is kicking the rest of us where we sit. Members = Money. Money talks. B***S*** walks. My ARRL membership expires this August. I will give serious thought to this issue at renewal time. After this, all the ARRL means to me is QST and the "members only" TIS pages on their web site. I don't need the propagation report and the ARRL Letter e-mailed to me. That stuff is published right here on e-Ham. I can think of loads of things I can do with $39 a year. To say I'm "up in arms" is putting it mildly."
Amen!!! W8VOM
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KT0DD on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I Don't agree with the new proposal, but in reality, there's nothing I can do to change things. The majority will get their way, and since "Dumbing Down" is now the "American Way", we know who the majority is.
As I have read somewhere else on here, any society that can rationalize & justify perversion, is capable of anything. I enjoy the hobby and will continue to do so. However, I will be VERY selective with whom I communicate with, and where I operate. 73.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K8FFO on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I understand that the number of hams is on the decline, but giving licenses away is not the answer. What ever happened to taking pride in individual achievement by working hard to get your license? Is this a contest to see how many licensed hams we can get? Has someone set a quota for the number of licensed hams that we must have? If we had a shortage of doctors or pilots would we lower the standard so that we could get more? I don't think so.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KX8N on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The majority will get their way"
Isn't that what is supposed to happen?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KB3JZG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Open Letter to the ARRL Directors and Presidents
The following letter I have sent myself to ALL the directors and all of the Presidents ( seems to be a lot of the ) in the ARRL, and to several web sites, and ham radio groups.
Hello,
To all of the directors and to the Presidents of the ARRL.
You have got to be kidding about the no code hf license. I havent been in ham radio long enough to understand everything you do, but this is one I think you are making a big mistake on. There is no reason I can think of to give someone an HF license without some kind of code requirement. Think about the reasons for learing it, and what would be even one reason not to. I thought the purpose of learning code, and your contests were to produce better radio amateurs, but in doing so you are creating a monster. What will happen when the only way to communicate will be with using code, and there is no amateur qualified to do so? Noise on the band, static, arual propagation, are you saying that code isnt needed anymore? Is the reason you are giving up the store is in order to create many new memebers for the ARRL? Is the ARRL in monerary trouble that this would cause you to do this?If this is the direction the ARRL is taking then I dont think I need to be associtated with them anymore.
My only hope now is that every amateur radio operator contacts everyone of you and lets you know there honest opinion on this subject.
Robert M. Jaworski
KB3JZG
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by NV7E on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KBŘRE is not a tech callsign. Also, it is not in the FCC database.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is that a light I see at the end of the tunnel ?!?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KK9H on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This proposal basically looks fine, but I think the lower edge of the Extra SSB sub-bands should be 3.700 and 7.100 on 80 and 40 meters and make them 50 KHz wide. In addition, I would recommend that the maximum output power be 100 watts on all the Novice bands. It is silly to have a 50 watt limit on 10 and 6 meters since most rigs today run at 100 watts out on these bands. There is no need to have people remember to turn down their power levels on these bands.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WI0T on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm an ARRL member, Passed the 20 wpm code and have
held Novice-General-Advanced and now the Extra class ticket.
I support this move. Refarming of the Novice bands is
sorely needed. CW is not a barrier for good operators,
as demonstrated nightly on 75 meters. Simplification
of the license classes is also overdue.
Ham radio will survive. It will change, like everything
else does, but it will survive.
73 to all,
Rod
WI0T
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N4BRJ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I took Robert's (KB3JZG) suggestion and "My only hope now is that every amateur radio operator contacts everyone of you and lets you know there honest opinion on this subject."
Good Morning,
I just wanted to drop a quick note congratulating you on the new ARRL licensing proposal. This proposal has my full support.
I realize the ARRL will probably catch a lot of heat about this but remember, unhappy people are usually the loudest. There are a lot of us out there who think this is a great way to get more people involved in the hobby in addition to keeping others active.
New blood is definitely needed as I feel the hobby has been hi-jacked by the "Geritol Jet Set" and left to stagnate.
Again, good job and continued success.
Jonathan Baldwin
N4BRJ
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> They didn't waste anytime, did they?
"They wasted nearly a year"
> Notice the date of this announcement was the same
> day they held their election for league President.
"It was the annual ARRL Board of Directors meeting. The meeting is the only place where ARRL sets its policy on issues this touchy. They could have done the same thing last July, but for various reasons weren't yet ready to."
There Marty! Now I'm quoting you, quoting me.
Please voice your thoughts on this inflammatory issue so we can know where you stand.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W9THD on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Limited HF access for new novice class .... good.
Retaining CW testing for Extra class.... very good.
Upgrading existing techs to general without additional testing.... BAD...VERY VERY BAD !!!
de Tim
W9THD
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BYE BYE ARRL. This puts them in the same league as Sarnoff, that is, bite the hands that feed you.
No more $39 from me every year.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WD8WV on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My membership to the League expires the end of February. I have not renewed pending the outcome of their meeting this past weekend. At this time I still am undecided whether to renew or not.
I think the League is heading in the right direction, but I have to agree with some of my Amateur brothers here, I think that the Technician class should be put in with the Novice class as entry level into HF. The Technician Plus has passed a 5 wpm code and therefore should be put in with the General class. Those who took the 5 wpm code and Technician theory also took the Novice theory at that time when we had 6 classes of licenses. So it would seem right to grandfather them into General. The Technician only took the Technician theory and Novice theory with no code at all.
By looking at the numbers, the Technician class still out numbers most of all other classes of license. I feel that is why the League included them in the General category instead of the Novice. The League probably thinks that this will boost their memberships because they were at the bat for the Technician class.
I will support the League on this idea, but I am not 100% on the layout. I am still undecided about renewing my membership to the League. At least the code remains for now. The Leagues proposal should end all debates about the code vs no-code. The Tech's get their way, HF without code and the rest of us get our way, keep the code. The only ones who really have the gripe now is the General class. All the work they had to do to get their General license, written exams and cw, either 13 wpm or 5 wpm. Now the Leage says just take the required written exams and you are a General.
Just my two cents worth.
Juddie WD8WV
http://www.qsl.net/wd8wv
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see it going one of two ways.
1)RF apocolypse-1.8-30MHZ CB! What is to prevent these novices from not buying Amplifiers, going out of their
part of the voice band.
Freebanders will flood the new no code, KnoW nothing test!
Hey folks, it is all about the money! Sell more rigs!
HOWEVER WE CAN HAVE AN ULTRA WIN-WIN SITUATION!
Remember the OLD DAYS. The rig makers made Novice only
rigs.
The rig makers can make a whole series of ultra cheap, ultra fool proof NOVICE RIGS.
The rigs will be hard CPU programmed! The rigs will not be able to transmit where the novices should not be
Upon upgrade, Only then the new ham can buy a regular
Ham rig. All seqments not locked out.
Perhaps this will give Ham Radio the new blood. NCT's can stop complaining.
Remember.......It is ALWAYS about the money!!!!!!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W0QL on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hooray for the ARRL! I believe this will breathe some desparately needed new life into our hobby. It must have taken a lot for a conservative organization like the ARRL to make this move and my hat goes off to them. If we want to stop the lure of computers from taking away our young potential hams, we need to make the barriers to entry no higher than they are for getting into computers. This is a great first step. What could be next? Dell selling software defined ham radios? Boggles the mind, doesn't it. Congratulations to the ARRL.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL hams used to bust my chops for being A QUARTER
CENTURY JUST SAY NO TO ARRL MEMBERSHIP HAM.
Thats right folks refused to join the ARRL for over a quarter century! I see I was proven RIGHT!!!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N5AMZ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I passed the code requirement in '77 and was a novice WD6FVS, as soon as I received my "ticket" I went to the FCC office and took my tech exam and became N5AMZ. In 2001 I was "grandfathered" a General. I am in favor of keeping the code for HF. I am in favor of "grandfathering" the Advanced to Extra. I am NOT in favor of HF for techs who have not passed element 3 and 1. The ARRL has adopted "CQ" magazines support for NO Code and their members feel the same way most here feel for no code.
Yes I'm a Life Member now K0AMZ
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K0RFD on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with just about everything in the ARRL's proposal EXCEPT:
The Element 2 and Element 3 theory exams cover different aspects of Amateur Radio. They are not equivalent. Technicians should not be upgraded to General without passing Element 3. If the ARRL proposal is adopted by the FCC, a whole host of new upgraded ex-Techs won't even be required to know the frequency limits of the HF bands or how ionospheric propagation works. It's a bad idea.
Code schmode. I have no problem with code-free Generals. I do, however, have a problem with knowledge-free Generals.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2DTW on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The no-code novice might not be such a terrible thing if it increases activity on now-unused parts of the bands. However, the NO-CODE GENERAL is QUITE ANOTHER STORY! A reasonable compromise could be to keep the 5 WPM code requirement (a very easy one) for the general license.
I feel that the next step could be elimination of CW subbands altogether.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KB3HJK on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Absolutly correct. I am a current Technician, and DO NOT wish to be handed an upgrade. I want the satisfaction of passing the tests and earning my General. They should at least keep the theory test. Contrary to what some have said, it does contain many questions specific to HF operating, which do not appear on the the Element 2 test. Make the code Extra only, if necessary, but for God's sake do not upgrade Techs automatically!
Like many associations and organizations, the ARRL needs members. This will bring in a surge of new Hams, many of whom will join the ARRL. It strikes me as a self serving proposal for the ARRL.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Come one, come all! CBers, freebanders and anyone who's living and breathing - anyone who has the mental capacity to key a microphone and say DUH! Freebanders can now become legal hams, and bring with them a 40/s9 noise level once the next cycle is in full swing. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Breaker two-zero meters. Breaker two-zero meters. Dis be da worldwide Ratchetjaw Base station a breakin' and a stoodin' by! Ten-four dare, good buddy. You be wall to wall. Tree-top tall! Must be one o' dumb dare base stations a usin' one o' dumb dare leenyor amplificators. RF safety? Duh, wotz dat?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K2IY on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This license structure will maintain or increase the sales of amateur gear, the most important force which keeps HR going.
The new classes do not allow access to 20 mtrs or the WARC bands, preserving them for experienced ops.
New license allows for entry into hobby for people who use HR as a vehicle for other interests like emergency comm. i.e. community watch groups etc.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC2MFW on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm a Tech class and I'm not concerned about the no-code requirement.But I do believe that a test for General class should be required because more knowledge is required to operate on HF.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by by K2IY on January 20, 2004:
"The new classes do not allow access to 20 mtrs or the WARC bands, preserving them for experienced ops."
Its not the new proposed Novice license that most of us have a problem with. Its the automatic upgrade from codeless Technician to General that we're all up in arms over. These codeless Techs would automatically be upgraded to Generals, and yes, they would have access to 20m and the WARC bands. This proposal is opening the floodgates and allowing codeless access to all of HF except for the Extra sub bands.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KB3HJK on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The more I think about this, the more outraged I am becoming. What on earth are they thinking. VHF knowledge is not HF knowledge. This is simply an awful, self serving stance that should be resisted vigorously by anybody in amateur radio with a shred of dignity.
Propagation? What's that?
I called CQ but didn't here the courtesy tone.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W1AI on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> This proposal is opening the floodgates and allowing codeless access to all of HF except for the Extra sub bands.
No-code access to HF is fine with me. It's no-knoweldge access that worries me!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
With all the free give-aways that this proposal is offering, do you all notice that nothing is being proposed to raise the bar on the technical end? I am not at all for eliminating Element 1 testing for either General or Extra, but if they want to drop Element 1 testing for General, don't grandfather anyone, and at least toughen up the General exam and eliminate published question pools. People should be made to work for their tickets. This is becoming a free-for-all. No work, just welfare radio.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AK4P on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>WS4Y: Sad day!
Well said.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC0ECS on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A very fair proposal. I am on the verge of taking my element 1 and element 3 for upgrade to General. Am I upset that I have spent all this time learning Code? Not at all! I will use my new knowledge to attain Extra. Incentive licensing does work...if we have people joining the hobby in the first place. I think this proposal accomplishes both in a fair and considered manner. Well done!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW HAS NEVER BEEN IN A SUB-BAND. I DONT LIKE IT. CW SHOULD BE ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.
Does anyone have an idea which cereal box top the new license will on?? ARRL must have an idea. I thought at one time the ARRL was on our side (hamops) but, now I just have a problem with it. I think they will be disolved along the way, and are too stupid to see it. I read and reread the proposal and it looks like the DUMBDOWN of ham radio is NOW HERE. I am running down to Walmart this morning to see if I can get the first box of cereal with the new license on it.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA2UUP on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nobody from the ARRL asked for the members' opinion. I think that is wrong.
However, this is just a proposal. If it gets to the FCC, I am sure they will have to issue a NPRM and we can submit comments, then. Let's not be rash. However, my e-mail to ARRL to opose this will be sent tonight.
Bert @ KA2UUP
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC0ECS on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Knowledge comes in many forms. By the way, "HERE" as you used in your comments is spelled: H-E-A-R.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sold out by the ARRL again. Is there another alternative to Newington that is not trying to
sell out the service?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by D0RK on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What a Joke! Ceeeuuuummmoan!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by by CWTITAN on January 20, 2004:
"Does anyone have an idea which cereal box top the new license will on??"
So all ashore that's going ashore! Dumb de dumb de dumb de dumb dumb dumb. Get Captain Crunch at your grocery store. Ah Wooooo!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WA5KRP on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NOPE. Go back to the drawing board.
Grant general class privileges to current techs? What the hell is THAT?
WA5KRP
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
DUH! Witch end of da micky-fone does I tawk inta? Da part wid da holes? Or da udder side?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those interested the following can be used to cancel ARRL Membership and subscription.
QST Delivery Circulation Desk
860-594-0338 or e-Mail circulation@arrl.org
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA8VBX on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everyone is worried about allowing the no-code tech's entry to HF here in the US, but wait what about the other countries that have already eliminated code requirements and given access to hf to all, how many hams are there in the US compared to the rest of the world?
No matter what you think it is going to happen sooner or later, like it or not. Look at some of the other suggestions that have been made, some are just as bad.
Some of the proposed changes are good, some are not,but I am glad to see that they did decided to required a code requirement for Extra but I would like to have seen it raised to 10wpm.
I started as a old Novice (one year up or out), General, Advance, and then Extra.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K1RV on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I noticed the same thing when checking out this KB0RE guy.
Perhaps his callsign (if he ever passed an exam!)is really TR0LL. I enjoy the right of Free Speech, but give absolutely no credence to anonymous postings.
I've been licensed since 1962 and have always belonged to the ARRL. As someone who had enjoyed Full operating priviledges as a General in 1963,I lost a lot when "Incentive Licensing" began.
I haven't always agreed with everything coming out of Newington, but I have already voiced my support on this issue. They have put together a very reasonable proposal.
This "Future of Amateur Radio" issue seems to bring out a lot of people full of negativity and nastiness. Are there really people in their lives who like to listen to them talk about anything?
At least I can "turn the dial" if I hear them on the air!
73, Pi - K1RV
k1rv@gis.net
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC8HUU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been reading all of the comments. What are people afraid of?
Change!
CW is a very small part of all of the operating modes and skills necessary. Do we require an examination on every operating mode? Should we make someone demonstrate that they can solder a connector onto a piece of coax? We can go overboard. The testing that is done is a barrier to those that would not want to expend effort getting on the air legally. For the rest of us, once you get your ticket it requires a lot of learning, experimenting, and plain old luck to get contacts. This is a hobby, a pastime, an activity done for fun and possible self education. If you make the barrier too high then no one will enter and it will die. I fully support and welcome the ARRL’s recommendation. Good luck to all of the new ham and I also welcome the technicians to the HF bands. And yes I am one of the so called light extra’s…..
Eddie
KC8HUU
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N6TGK on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm certainly not surprised by some of the comments. It's interesting to note that the "negative" comments being made are the same ones being made back in 2000 when the FCC lowered the requirement to just 5 wpm for all licenses. I see that Ham Radio is still very much alive, to the dismay of the doomsayers I'm sure. I disagree with this proposal entirely. I made my comments to the ARRL. However, a decision was made and I accept that. I'm not going to whine and complain because I didn't get my way.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N1VLQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA2UUP is right, gang, let's don't act too rashly. This is only a proposal, and while many times these proposals go through as written, there have been times when proposals have been amended. So if we act like the well-educated, intelligent, and rational communicators that we are SUPPOSED to be, and make our concerns known, to the appropriate people, at the appropriate time, in an appropriate manner, these issues could be changed. Or, we could all go off, half-cocked, screaming and yelling that the sky is falling, ranting about how the ARRL has sold us out, etc, etc, ad nauseum, and see what that gets us. More hurt feelings, and nothing actually accomplished. Good stuff. Makes me proud to be associated with that "class" of amateur, no matter how many words-per-minute that he or she can copy. "Class" is indeed an appropriate term to use, I'm afraid.
For the record, I see the ARRL's proposal as a neccesary evil, given how the rest of the world is addressing the HF spectrum these days. I do think it is a good thing to retain the CW requirement for Extra, and I think that I like the "New Novice", as described. And yes, like the majority here, I believe that the ARRL made a mistake with grouping current Techs/Tech+ into General, without passing the theory. And that is what I'm going to say in my comments to the ARRL, and the FCC. And if more of us do so, perhaps that one issue can be corrected.
Also for the record, I'm a 13 WPM Extra (what used to be called "Extra Lite"...I wonder what I'll be in the future? "Extra Medium"?) who doesn't actually know CW as well as he should, but who is looking forward to the time when I can dig in and really start using it, and using it better. Because I think it's great, and as we all know, it WILL get through, when nothing else can. The more we remind people about that, and demonstrate that, then we'll be on our way to saving the code. Not by hiding behind regulations.
Take care folks, and have some fun. Try not to lose your voices, while tilting at those windmills....
73
Bruce, N1VLQ
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by NE0P on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now do you think that this proposal, if it passes, is going to satisfy the "I don't like CW crowd?" Maybe for a week or so. Then we will hear about how unfair it is that they are excluded from some frequencies because they don't want to learn code, BLAH BLAH BLAH, and it will be back to the drawing board to eliminate CW all together.
A more reasonable approach would be to grandfather techs to the new novice, since it carries HF phone privledges, and keep the current general and extra requirements the same. That way, people who don't want to learn CW can still get on HF, but 20, 160, 60, and the WARC bands are reserved for those who wish to expend a little effort. Also, the novice license would have to include everything above 50mhz so technicians wouldn't be losing frequencies.
And why no phone band expansion on 20 meters? 14.100 to 14.150 is unused in the US, except for the beacons on 100 and the MT63 calling frequency on 109. At least drop the extra band down to 14.125.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4DXL on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a broadcater you should know the same thing happened in the commercial sector. When I started you were required to have at least a 3rd class FCC Radiotelephone license. The test was given by the FCC field offices. If it was a big high power directional you had to have a 1st class license to read the meters, etc. Now there is no license requirement at all.
One arguement for eliminating the code is why should I have to learn something I have no intention of using? Other countries and serivces have dropped the requirement so what's the point of retaining code. Does it really keep out poor operators? Listen and make up your own mind about that one.
I've passed my General theory and for the last year I have been struggling with the code. I WILL pass it since I want to upgrade to Extra eventually. However I am in favor of the change.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K7VO on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree this is an excellent proposal. Yes, I came up through the old system. Yes, I started with the old Novice license. Yes, I had to pass a 13 WPM code test to get HF priveleges. SO???
Time and technology move on. CW is an excellent hobbyist and historical mode. I still use it with small, portable QRP gear, mainly on 15 and 40 meters. It can be fun, and if those of us who enjoy CW share that enjoyment with others the mode will never die even if it isn't on any test.
Dumbing down? Not hardly. You have an irrelevant CW test going away, but the written test remains the same.
Most ARRL members favor keeping a code requirement, period? That's the opposite of what I'm hearing.
Boycott the ARRL? Who will lobby against BPL and other band threats? You want to cut your nose to spite your face? Fine with me. Most hams with common sense and intelligence will remain in the ARRL because they are still the only game in town when it comes to defending our spectrum.
I'll be writing my Division Director in support of the ARRL proposal and will file appropriate comments with the FCC when the NPRM comes along.
Some of you are living in the past. CW as an exam requirement is little more than a hazing ritual.
Flames to /dev/null
73,
Cait
K7VO
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N3TSN on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think its an excellent proposal, think of all the young amateurs that will get back into the hobby. Including kids. I strongly believe that the hobby will be threatend by two things elmers and old timers
becoming silent keys and lack of interest in Amateur radio by youngsters. Look at what the hobby is competing with: playstation, X box, nintendo, sega, the internet, echolink, FRS walkie talkies, paint ball, school sports, TV, Chat rooms, the list goes on and on for the elmers, when you were 12 to 20 yrs old they had radio and tv checkers and chess and thats about it. Come on lets not be selfish regarding the bands...... use them or we will all lose them.
N3TSN
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by AG4DG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What do you think of my idea?
Eliminate the 5 wpm exam but keep the rest of the exams, license structure, and privileges in place. All No-Code Techs automatically gain Tech Plus privileges. The General and Amateur Extra licenses require ONLY the written exams.
It's simple. All written exam requirements remain in place. And in spite of the red herrings thrown around, the trend has been towards making the written exams harder, as RF safety questions have been added to the question pools in the last few years.
I'm surprised the ARRL didn't propose this, as it would be simpler. I'm not sure if the FCC will like the ARRL's proposal due to the added complications. I think my idea would do more to simplify the FCC's work.
I don't think the 5 wpm exam requirement should be retained for the Amateur Extra license. I think it's unnecessary. (According to the logic of some Morse Code testing defenders, I should be pushing for a SKYWARN requirement because SKYWARN led me into ham radio.) However, I will understand if the ARRL and FCC decide to retain the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license as a compromise.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can anybody tell me where to get a ROGER BEEP,Deluxe triple echo/distortion/laughbox/ultra power mic for a TS-850SAT?
I just want to be on the same level with the new novices!
There is a Door's song that is playing in my mind right
now.
1)It is not light my fire!
2)Not L.A. woman.
3)Breaker, breaker, good buddy, on through to the other side. Not a bad second choice!
HINT: The Movie......APOCOLYPSE NOW sound track, 1 twelve minute song!
HINT: One line of the song is.... This is the.....E...
HINT:Col. KURTZ gets terminated with extreme prejudice,
during the song.
Yes lets be cool about it. Might as well have some jokes. The FCC will hopefully send this one back for a revision!
Have a crummy day
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K9PO on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It has been said that a happy ham is a bitching ham.
The ARRL has made many a ham 'happy' today.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
UNBELIEVEABLE.
If you feel as strongly as I do about this, VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS. Call Danny at the ARRL membership desk and RESIGN YOUR ARRL MEMBERSHIP.
I DID!
Here is the number:
1-860-594-0200
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K4FAU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know that the ARRL and NCI did nothing prior to testing the water with the FCC....
anyway ...
good job ARRL in having the vision to look forward ...
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to dumb down amateur radio!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I propose the formulation of a new organization, with its principal objective to oppose the "dumbing down" or the "CB-ification" of ham radio.
Its name is the American Ham Association.
Membership is ONLY open to NON-ARRL members.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposal
|
|
|
by DUPANOUS on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Congratulations to the ARRL for taking such a progressive stance!
Now, here's what'll happen...
The FCC will adopt the ARRL recommendation making only one modification.
They will drop the code testing requirement for ALL classes of amateur license.
Mark my word.
DJ
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey W9WHE, perhaps I should send the NEWINGTON CON old boys club some real NYC Harlem CRACK to smoke!
Then, maybe they could come up with a slicker scam to sell!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by AD5X on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the ARRL came up with a good compromise. There isn't a solution that will satisfy everyone, and any compromise will make many people unhappy. My hat is off to the ARRL for taking this step.
And BTW - I was asked for my input by the ARRL.
Phil - AD5X
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WR8D on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just don't agree with any type of no-code hf privilege. As for being a member of arrl i dropped out along with many others a few years ago.
I had actually thought they would come around and make a stand but its clear now that the "all mighty buck" is the driving force here. Sell more radios at what ever the cost to the bands...get more endorsements etc. Quantity...not quality thats what they're after.
John WR8D
"thats a big 10-4"
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New License to Keep up biz
|
|
|
by NE1Z on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Simple: Drop the stupid !@#$%^%$#@! code instead of agonizing over it.
One class license for everything, DC-daylight with a single test.
Simple to implement, simple to track & puts an end to "class" seperation & endless "my class is bigger than your class"!
That would be too simple!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" of Amat
|
|
|
by KD2KU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look at the numbers-
Currently
Tech........280,115
Tech Plus....69,472
Novice.......39,884
General.....145,851
Advanced.....84,921
Extra.......106,842
Club..........8,797
Total US....735,882
I think there might be 84,000+ Advanced holders that love this proposal. (Including me) :-)
And 39,000+ Novices, 249,000+ Tech, Tech plus who will too.
That is reality.
As far as "lids" are concerned- they've been with us since Day One. The class of licenses they hold mean nothing.
The CB cracks also make me chuckle- many hams today got their start with CB.
For those who are upset and want to resign from the ARRL- who will fight the BPL issue... you? That's a laugh.
Hey folks... it's a hobby where there is ample room for your own niche. It is what you make it.
Be happy.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K5UJ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Overall I think this is a good move. It isn't exactly what I would like but we all can't have things just the way we want them can we? For example I'd like to see the Extra requirements continue to include the 20 wpm cw test. Ignoring that, we desperately need an entry license with HF privleges. For too long new hams have been relegated to VHF where the rigs for nonFM modes are few, expensive, and complex, and homebrewing and kit building are difficult compared to the options for HF both new and used. Many new hams stick with FM and loose interest and let their licenses lapse because there is a disconnect between them and veteran hams who are more likely to be primarily HF operators.
Oh sure, the usual outcry. It's been there every single time there has been a renovation of the license classes in the U.S. going back to WWII and B4. ARRL has been raked over the coals regardless of their position. Back when they were devoutly anti-nocode (remember the communicator license?) they were lambasted for that. Now that they are proposing a no-code license for HF they are getting it from another faction. How about Incentive Licensing? There are still a few OTs who get a dig into the ARRL for that even now.
When I was taking my examinations, the old timers of the day (many now SKs) smugly told me how easy I had it, not having to draw schematic diagrams and answer essay questions for my tests. 30+ years later nothing has changed. The guys who were tested along with me are smugly talking to the new hams about how they had to take a 20 wpm cw test and novice, general, advanced and extra elements to make it to the top. Here's two things that have not changed and probably never will: Negativity and cheap superiority.
Rob Atkinson
K5UJ
ARRL Life
Extra since 1975
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K2GW on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>They didn't waste anytime, did they? Notice the date of this announcement was the same day they held their election for league President.
Considering that the entire ARRL board directors only meet in person twice a year, it makes sense that a whole lot of things get voted on at those dates each year!
Actually, the ARRL proposal is really just building on the restructuring proposal they made in 1998 but that the FCC couldn't entirely implement in 2000 because of the now obsolete ITU rule.
73
Gary, K2GW
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W2BSA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see!!! All of you folks want to leave the League because of ONE issue. One hit wonders I see. The League is YOUR lobbying group folks!!! They are the one's who spend their time on Capitol Hill and at FCC headquarters keeping everyone else's hands off of our piece of the RF spectrum. You want to lose Amateur Radio altogether??!!! Then, quit the ARRL in droves. Go ahead and let it fold. There won't be a code-no-code arguement anymore because there won't be any amateur radio any more. Why, you ask???!!!! Because the League wasn't there to protect our spectrum and the commercial interests got everything we have. YES, FOLKS!!! EVERY COMMERCIAL USER LOOKS AT OUR BANDS AND COVETS THEM FOR THEIR USE WITH US GONE!!!
Think about it,
73,
Bill, W2BSA
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5UJ wrote "Now that they are proposing a no-code license for HF they are getting it from another faction."
Its not the proposed codeless Novice license that has everybody up in arms over. Its dropping Element 1 testing for General and grandfathering codeless Techs up to General with no test that has us all seething. Free rides and entitlements that one doesn't have to work for abound in the Welfare States of America.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC2MFW on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Probably a cool down period is called for on the matter.It's a proposal and is likely to see future changes.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We need to start a new organization called PCI, Pro-code International to lobby for restoration of code proficiency testing worldwide.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC9AWS on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good for the ARRL.
For all some of those constant belly-achers who beleive that everyone else has to do it the way they had to, well times are changing! What do you want? To sit there when you're 90 and listen for someone else to call CQ, and they all died before you. Being able to read code doesn't make you a better amateur, it's just something you can do. You can't do alot of things that others can do, or can you do everything.
As for the CB stuff, how many hams got their start in CB? Welcome them into amateur radio, just like you were, if they convert over. Since you went into amateur radio, do you still do the things that you did in CB?
Now for the purity of some amateur radio operators, the ones with 3.5 KW amplifiers, the ones that only constantly talk about their prostrate problems, and the know-it-alls with no practical experiences. Could it be that you are some of the reasons for the decline in amateur radio? I'm sure that you blame it all on someone else. Shorty you will be able to blame it on someone that hasn't passed the code!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W4TLG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Other than the automatic Tech. upgrade (I think they should just be given the new Novice HF priviliges), this is a decent proposal.
I predict an added benefit to all the new HF activity by Novices and Tech/Generals: Local club activities and VHF/UHF repeater operation will also be revitalized. What's one of the most interesting things to talk about (or listen to) on local repeaters? HF operating! How conditions were last night, what DX was on, what the weekend contest was like, what antennas you're experimenting with, etc....HF is the traditional common denominator that makes local ragchewing fun for many hams (remember what 2m FM was like in the "good old days" in the 70's and 80's before hams were split into code/no-code groups?). This proposal would give useful HF priviliges to ALL U.S. hams.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W7CXA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been licensed for 47 years. I started with a Novice license in 1956 which was only good for 1 year and non renewable. I then got a General, and later an Advanced. I upgraded in 1981 to an Extra Class, taking the test in the FCC office, and also passing a 20 wpm code test. Call me a sour puss if you want, but I object to all these "Freebie" upgrades. I worked hard through the years for my license. I feel all those upgrades are not that. The rest of us are being "Downgraded".
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by NE0P on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Suppose you have worked for the same company for 20 years. You earned a college degree. Went to some continuing education courses. Learned the ropes of the firm, and now make a decent salary. Just yesterday your firm brings in a new employee. He is a high school graduate, with no college experience. No work experience in your area either. He starts out at the same salary you are now making.
How would you feel? Cheated? Like this is somehow unfair? Why? His salary in no way affects your salary? It doesn't affect any of your accomplishments.
But be honest-how would you feel? Would you be happy for him? Welcome him with open arms?
Now you know how many of us older timers (I am 37, licensed since 1980) feel, as we see people who have taken many less exams, and expended much less effort learning material than we did, being given the same amount of spectrum as we have.
Kind of puts it in perspective a little
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down"
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This measure may indeed insure the survival of amateur radio. But they should also apply the former 200 watt novice power limitation across the board to all phone bands except for mobile and DX contacts. Ducking as I dodge the flames.................!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by G0GDU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whilst it would appear that the majority of US amateurs who are prepared to publish their thoughts about changes in Amateur Radio and knocking the ARRL, a large part of the rest of world seem to be taking advantage of the relaxed entry requirements and getting on with enjoying the hobby. Is it not time you started to behave like mature adults instead of squabbling children.
What is wrong with the requirements changing. How many of those who think it is wrong to make change learnt to drive before it was necessary to have a driving licence - did that make them better or worse drivers than those who now have to take a driving test?
Is it really the ARRL who are relaxing the entry requirements or is it that they are just the agents of a higher authority who set the rules and regulations?
I presume that those who voice their opinions on EHAM are not representative of all US Hams. Those who say they will now give up the hobby seem to be shooting themselves in the foot, who else will lose out if they give up. Those who threaten to leave the ARRL surely only weaken the representation of all US Hams.
I read the proposals with interest because they seem to mirror what has been in place in the UK since the beginning of 2003. What we have now are three class of licence, i.e Foundation, Intermediate and Full. These provide the following privileges:
Foundation - power imited to 10W on all frequencies up to 440MHz except 10m band; excludes FSTV
Intermediate - power limited to 50W, access to all frequencies
Full - power limited to 400 W, access to all frequencies
Whilst the UK has gone to a three class system from what was effectively a five class system our new scheme seems to mirror the scheme now being introduced in the US with the exception of a Morse test for the highest class.
Since all non-code licence holders in the UK now have access to the HF bands the world does not seen to have come to a halt as many seem to be predicting and activity on some bands seems to have increased.
Whilst I am one of those UK licence holders who persevered to pass the Morse test I do no begrudge anyone who obtained additional privileges by being around at the right time. I’ll still work anyone who makes the effort to get on air and will still continue to train Foundation and Intermediate licence holders.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W2DUG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> W7CXA wrote:
> I worked hard through the years for my license. I
> feel all those upgrades are not that. The rest of
> us are being "Downgraded"."
And you gained all the benefits your hard work afforded you: you learned, you improved your skills, you made lots of interesting contacts, you elmered a few folks, maybe, and you enjoyed yourself for a long time.
Those who receive the proposed "instant upgrades" (if implemented) will not have those same benefits unless they, too, put in the same hard work you did.
It does NOT devalue YOUR license and YOUR experience.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
NE0P, I can understand what you are saying, but I hope that no one takes out their frustration on the new people entering AR. New people have no control over the tests they take to enter this hobby. Certainly, everyone who is upset about this ARRL proposal should make their feelings known where it counts-- to those who are the architects of this proposal.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W6DLP on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great job ARRL!
It's about time, just when I was ready to give up on radio. While many people may cancel their ARRL membership, I plan on renewing mine, thanks again guys! Can't wait for my warm reception on those HF bands, be nice boys! hehe
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W3JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL proposal is a step in the right direction. It needs tweaking, but it isn't hopelessly flawed.
The principal deficiency in the League's proposal is the retention of telegraphy testing for the Extra class of license. I understand that there are hams out there with an "I worked hard to pass this requirement; now, everyone else should too," attitude about the Morse code. I also understand that telegraphy is an obsolescent (at best) form of communication and that the requirement for telegraphy proficiency has been removed from the International Radio Regulations. Keeping telegraphy as a requirement under these circumstances changes it from a legitimate skill to a hazing ritual.
The Commission is legally bound to regulate our hobby in the interest of the general public--not us as hobbyists. It doesn't matter if a majority of current Extras want the telegraphy requirement left in place. What matters is whether or not the FCC views Morse code as an unnecessary barrier to new persons joining the hobby or upgrading.
Still, if the ARRL proposal were adopted in toto, I believe that ham radio would be better off than it is today.
One last comment about testing ... Back in the '60s, I got a First Class Radiotelephone commercial license. The test was brutal. When I upgraded from Tech to Extra, I found that the General and Extra exams were trivially easy. Of course, they shouldn't be to hard for a EE who's been working over 30 years. However, I could not have passed the 21st-century versions of Elements 3 or 4 when I passed my commercial exam. I didn't know enough theory back then. We OFs who think the exams are too easy should look at them again as we would have when we were newbies.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4FFG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I don't give a s**t either way about taking the General test. I've already passed it once, and I can pass it again. Element 1, however, was a different story. Oh well. Obviously, there now might be a chance that I won't have to take the Element 1 test. Good or bad, we'll all wait and see if the FCC accepts ARRL's proposal.
Now, if the FCC DOES accept the ARRL proposal, and all current Techs are upgraded, why does that automatically make us bad HF operators? That instant assumption really pisses me off. None of you know me, or know what kind of operator I am. So all of you who are forming instant opinions can kiss my ass! You want me to pass a tougher theory test? Fine. Have at it.
And for the ones who say that the ARRL didn't ask for their input - bulls**t! There were plenty of opportunities to provide feedback. I received several emails and other correspondence from ARRL headquarters, and the ARRL Great Lakes Section Manager. I always responded in some manner. If you are an ARRL member, and didn’t respond, tough. It’s like voting: if you don’t vote, you can’t bitch.
I congratulate the ARRL leadership for having the balls to stand up to the establishment and have the courage to promote their proposal. I am now, and will continue to be, an ARRL member.
Don Imhoff, W4FFG
Paducah, KY
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W3JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, that more of us had an attitude such as G0GDU's!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W3JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, that more of us had an attitude such as G0GDU's!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To G0GDU:
There is a major difference between licensing in the UK and what is being proposed here in the USA. Even though you dropped your code testing for HF, you Brits still have to work for your licenses. Your exams are a lot more comprehensive than ours and you don't give your applicants the questions and answers to memorize ahead of time. Brits actually have to know their stuff to pass your tests. That's not so here in the States. The written tests here in the States are a joke. One can take enough practice tests on QRZ to ace any exam without knowing anything about radio and electronics. Any proposal to eliminate Morse testing needs to have a provision to make the theory exams more comprehensive and more serious, like you have in England.
Here's an analogy for you. How would you feel if all Foundation licensees were automatically upgraded to Intermediate with no test?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N3TTN on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote: "Suppose you have worked for the same company for 20 years. You earned a college degree. Went to some continuing education courses. Learned the ropes of the firm, and now make a decent salary. Just yesterday your firm brings in a new employee. He is a high school graduate, with no college experience. No work experience in your area either. He starts out at the same salary you are now making.
How would you feel? Cheated? Like this is somehow unfair? Why? His salary in no way affects your salary? It doesn't affect any of your accomplishments.
But be honest-how would you feel? Would you be happy for him? Welcome him with open arms?
Now you know how many of us older timers (I am 37, licensed since 1980) feel, as we see people who have taken many less exams, and expended much less effort learning material than we did, being given the same amount of spectrum as we have.
Kind of puts it in perspective a little "
Here's a slightly different perspective: Amateur radio is a hobby, you don't need a college degree to enter the ranks, and you don't draw a salary for operating your equipment. Now, another perspective: The ARRL plan is only a PROPOSAL, and the FCC is under no obligation to include any of it in a future restructuring or realignment of the amateur service. If I had to place bets, my guess would be that the FCC will pay little if any attention to the current proposals or petitions that have been put forth. That being said, I am planning to take the element 3 test very shortly, and will follow up with the element 1 test within a month or two after that. If the code testing should be dropped in the meantime, I will simply upgrade within the framework of the new regulations. Oh, and with regard to welcoming the new employee with open arms, I would simply be glad that my own job had not been sent to Kuala Lumpur. 73 to all.
N3TTN
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To G0GDU:
There is a major difference between licensing in the UK and what is being proposed here in the USA. Even though you dropped your code testing for HF, you Brits still have to work for your licenses. Your exams are a lot more comprehensive than ours and you don't give your applicants the questions and answers to memorize ahead of time. Brits actually have to know their stuff to pass your tests. That's not so here in the States. One can take enough practice tests on QRZ to ace any exam without knowing anything about radio and electronics. Any proposal to eliminate Morse testing needs to have a provision to make the theory exams more comprehensive and more serious, like you have in England.
Here's an analogy for you. How would you feel if all Foundation licensees were automatically upgraded to Intermediate with no test?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2BSA writes:
"The League is YOUR lobbying group folks!!!
Nope. Not anymore. I called Danny at the ARRL today and CANCELLED my membership. The ARRL no longer speaks for me.
"You want to lose Amateur Radio altogether??"
YES, FOLKS!!! EVERY COMMERCIAL USER LOOKS AT OUR BANDS AND COVETS THEM FOR THEIR USE WITH US GONE!!!
Utter nonsence. UHF/VHF mabe, but not HF. There are very few (if any) commercial enterprises lining up for a piece of the HF spectrum. Its way too fickle to be commercially reliable for most uses.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let us get the facts straight.
The ARRL ABANDONED US when it proposed "dumbing down" and "CB-izing" our hobby. I am neither the first, nor the last, to cancel his ARRL membership. And if (when) people desert the ARRL "in droves" so be it.
I'm quite sure the ARRL did a $$ calculation on the number of resignations vs. the number of new members. The ARRL has voted with its wallet. AND SO HAVE I.
I QUIT THE ARRL.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W9WHE, do you think the ARRL cares whether they lose pro-code hams. For every one of us who leaves, there will be 10 no-coders to take our place. That's why the ARRL sold us down the river. It's all about membership and money. I'm sure Hiram Percy is spinning in his grave. This is not what Mr. Percy formed 90 years ago.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KF4AU wrote:
>>but what really gets me -- why is it that no one complained that the rest of the world, 31 countries to date, has dropped their code requirement and no one complains<<
The same pissing and moaning pro-code crowd has also been bragging about all the brand new QSL cards they're getting from all the new hams on HF now from around the world. Hypocrites all of them. Let them go away, they won't be missed that's for sure.
73
Dave
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WD0M on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4FFG's comments are interesting - with all the ** words included in his response, I see he will fit right into the OF's group on 80 meter phone. I'm not quite sure why comments pro or con need to resort to words you wouldn't say to your mother. Then again, I guess as a charter member of the OF club, that's another change in society that I just don't understand.
I've expressed my opinion in the past, and did so again today in a missive sent both to the ARRL and to the FCC:
******
"Ladies and Gentlemen,
"I am deeply disappointed in the ARRL's latest license restructuring request to the FCC. I am very tired of seeing MY hobby "dumbed down". Memorizing the questions instead of actually learning anything was first, followed by dropping CW requirements for access to HF bands. OK - the FCC chose to do that based on the recent WRC, and ARRL is not responsible - directly. But the ARRL has supported that position, to the dismay of "old poops" like me. First licensed in 1961, I actually had to read books and learn the answers through application - now it's rote memory and you're guaranteed of passing. Only 5 wpm for CW as an EXTRA class??? Come on guys - what the heck is "extra" about 5 wpm?? My dog can almost do that with her tail!
"To those who now are being "given" an upgrade, instead of earning it, your position will be popular. To those of us who actually had to learn and demonstrate our abilities, you've become detached. I'm disenchanted with the leadership of the ARRL - and that of the FCC. You are out of touch with the hams who have brought the ARRL thus far, and you've sold out - compromised your standards - to the point that the pride I once held in being an extra class licensee has almost brought me to the point of abandoning the hobby.
"I still have the FCC Engineer in Charge certification of my accomplishment for earning extra class hanging on the wall from 21 years ago. My license now means little compared to what it once did. I am considering cancelling my membership and sending my license back to the FCC."
******
Despite my opinion, best wishes to the newbies who may soon enter the world of HF SSB ops. Please read and adhere to the amateur's code before jumping in. Here's your chance to change things for the better.
73,
Joe
WD0M
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K0RGR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I can see from a lot of the outraged responses that the fear that someone will get a freebie overrides all common sense. The concept of compromise for the common good is apparently dead in some quarters.
Perhaps, FISTS will reform itself into a new organization - "Folks Imploring New General Exam Requirements" or 'FINGER' for short. They will 'FINGER' ARRL and the rest of the ham community for the next 20 years!
It is time for peace to come to the Balkans. Everybody has something they would change in the proposal.
Why no Element 3 test? Because Element 2 and 3 are of very similar complexity. After the merger, these two elements will be combined into one. I suspect this is suggested in order to keep the process simple for FCC. Remember, we can't track the 'Tech +' anymore because it would cost FCC too much to reprogram their computers.
Why 50 Watts on 10 and 6? If you do a little study, you'll see that 100 W on those two bands can easily exceed the RF Exposure limits. By limiting them to 50 W or less, they won't have to include the RF exposure information on the Novice test. Don't blame ARRL, blame FCC for this one. Don't like it? Go get the General and you can fry your neighbors with 1500 W.
Why 100 W for Novices on HF? Well, that's less than the current Novice limit on HF. The argument many years ago for raising it so high was that a lot of rigs in those days could not easily be operated at reduced power (back when we used input instead of output measurements). I suspect they looked at what's out there today and saw that most rigs today run 100 W. I'd prefer to see 50, too, but I can live with what's proposed.
I support the ARRL. Those of you who say you were not asked are being disingenuous. I was polled and also sent personal letters to my Director.
According to the CQ Magazine's poll, the Extras were the one group most strongly in favor of eliminating the code requirement for General. A big majority in all the polls I saw, however, asked that the code test be retained for Extra. With the enhanced Extra priveleges in the proposal as a continuing incentive to upgrade, I think we will ensure that the code lives on this way. Hopefully, FCC won't just drop Element 1 entirely, which is what most of us expect them to do.
This proposal is a return to sanity - a structure very much like we had in the 50's and 60's, with powerful new features. It will be good to have 'Novices' around again, with an upgrade path. We will all have an opportunity to contribute to the new exams - and new set of curricula, so we should be able to make them more technically oriented and more relevant to the real world.
Hopefully, FCC will act on this swiftly, as there will be a long leadtime in creating new test materials for the Novice and the new General. Meanwhile, Technicians who are planning to upgrade will feel like they are in "limbo" until FCC moves.
|
|   |
|
ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham radio
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WD0M:
Don't just "consider" canceling your ARRL membership. Do it. I cancelled today. And I encourage all that feel strongly to do the same. SEND A MESSAGE.
.._. .._
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WA1RKA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading this proposal,and having been licensed since 1964 you can guess that I am pro-code. However, lets do a reality check,the FCC will do what they want in regards to eliminating or retaining the code. If the requirment is dropped then,it will have to be accepted by all the current license holders.At least this proposal does keep a CW requirement to upgrade to Extra, and like others I feel an increased code speed requirement should have been included.
I notice that one person commented that 84,921 Advanced holders who probably would be happy about the auto upgrade to Extra, you can make that 84,920 as I have always belived you get what you earn. I have had my Advanced for 30 plus years,and if the Extra had given me more than just a little more space on the bands I would have upgraded long ago. My Incentive to upgrade in 1972 was a desire to run SSTV and at the time it was limited to the Advanced and Extra portions of the band.
73
John
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by VE2DC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Cancelling ARRL membership is STUPID!!!
Who else can effectively represent YOUR amateur radio interests. Hell, I'm a member of ARRL and I'm not even American! There was no way they could please everyone... this seems like a fair proposal.
Get a grip on reality...
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KB3HJK on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RGR states
>Why no Element 3 test? Because Element 2 and 3 are of very similar complexity. After the merger, these two elements will be combined into one.
I did not see anything stating that Element 2 and Element 3 content were to be combined. If that were the case, with the exam containing HF material in addition to VHF/UHF, it would be less objectionable.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A month ago I threw my first renewal letter away, now I might sign up to be a life member. Serious.
--... / ...--- , darn I meant 73
Dave
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Who else can effectively represent YOUR amateur radio interests.<<
The same pro-code crowd has been preaching to the no-code crowd that we need to pitch in and help with the BPL battle, that's the real issue. It's like a mom now taking a toy away from a two year old. WHHHHAAAAAAHHH!!!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N2PMB on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IT'S TIME TO GROW UP FELLOW HAMS--
The only operators that do not like this proposal
are those that had no choice. They had to learn
Morse Code to obtain HF privileges. What percentage
of those operators perpetuated their code skills once
they passed? Who's to know. What good was being forced to learn them if they were never forced to
keep showing proficiency? If it was always so important to learn then why was it not equally important to make sure operators at least retained
the minimun skills. The answer is because the Morse
Code was a tool to weed out people from entering the
hobby. Most old time operators felt that if you cared enough you would pass the Morse Code test. Well then maybe we could make the same argument about other facets of the hobby. Maybe we should have to take
satellites apart, retune repeaters, bend steel with our bare hands to prove we are truly interested before granting a licence. Furthermore, how many operators would have learned the code if they had a choice and it was optional? What about all those potential opertors through the years that maybe couldn't grasp
the Code or became frustrated trying to learn. They
were penalized and prevented from entering the hobby.
We also need to overcome the--I had to learn and
pass the Code so you should have to--Well everything
in life is not always fair
Nobody is going to ruin this hobby! There is no evidence to support the fear that new comers will not
respect or appreciate the hobby as well as those who were required to pass the Code Test. You can perpetuate
arguments for and against the Code as a requirement,
but no matter what view you have, no one can argue the
fact that if you pick up the microphone to talk and theres no one left to talk to, the hobby would be very boring!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To the ARRL cancellers out there: did the person you spoke with at the ARRL say they'd refund your dues?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only GOOD thing I see in this, is that maybe BPL will loose out.
Maybe if we have a sudden increase of hams, BPL might not be too popular.
It would also be more paletable, if the new novices
could only buy Novice rigs. Something like those rigs that cover 10-12 meters only.
Just like when I was a Novice, it was 75W and XTAL control.
The rice box rig makers can make el cheapo rigs, that
have the band, mode,power restrictions built into firmware. Did anybody even think of that? Why did not the ARRL think of that?
What will prevent a new novice from buying a 10-160M
rig with a HENRY EXPORT AMP. It is more of a danger to the new novice than other hams.
73 MIKE
73 DE MIKE
|
|   |
|
ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham radio
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VE2DC writes:
"Cancelling ARRL membership is STUPID!!!"
Actually, belonging to a group that so fundimentally opposes what I believe in is "stupid".
Proposing to "dumb-down" ham radio is "stupid".
For what reason do we "dumb-down" ham radio? To expand the market for HF radios? To keep AD revenue flowing? So a bunch of "I want it but won't work for it" whiners can have everything without erning it?
That may be the Canadian way, but its NOT the American way. In the US, you get what you earn.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N1VLQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Respectfully, sir, what's to prevent anyone from purchasing one now? Not having a ticket? eBay lets you get right around that, quite nicely, if one seriously wants the amp. Worrying about all these new Novices going out and buying Kilowatt amps shouldn't be such a big concern. Kilowatts=Kilobucks, friends. I doubt it will be much more of a problem than it already is.
The on-the-air operating activities should be anyones concern right now, but again, that hasn't been stopped by the current system, or the system before that, anbd so on. We'll allsurvive this folks, as will ham radio.
The old adage still applies, "be part of the solution, not part of the problem."
73
Bruce, N1VLQ
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG6PIR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading all of the replies I have read some good ones and some bad ones. I think it is good to have entry level privileges on HF. I know the only reason I started to learn Morse code was to get the HF privileges but now I am to fare gone to stop studding. What some of the readers are missing and I know will piss off some others is the fact that this proposal is just a proposal. Also in the proposal I have not heard one response talk about once this goes through that everyone no matter what there level will have 5 WPM lifetime Morse credit. So there goes the code/no-code debate out the window.
I have been studding CW for about 4 months now and I am having problems hearing the code sent at 15 WPM for the characters with spacing to bring it to 5 WPM. The biggest problem I have with the current 5 WPM system is the character speed is so high I am having a difficult time hearing the different between the dit’s and the dau’s. Now if the speed was a true 5 WPM then I would have no problem passing the test. While I am on the subject here is my two cents. Why is the Morse code test they way it is? What I would love to see is first make sure the person can copy code at a true 5 WPM and then have the person send at 5 WPM. To me it does no good to copy if I can not send.
I will continue to study the Morse code until I can copy and send at 15 WPM with spacing for 5 WPM.
I do not think the ARRL speaks for everyone who has a HAM license but I do believe that having someone who can speak for you is a good thing and because there is no one else I will still support ARRL because they are the only big boys on the block who can carry any influence at the capital.
john 73
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KB8DLI on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a licensee from the late 80's, now a Tech Plus, who just passed Element 3 this pass Saturday (therefore a General), I am not against the "no-code" novice idea for HF. I do believe it can help the hobby. Plus it still gives General and Extra class holders areas of the frequency spectrum all their own, and assures that they can choose to associate or not with the Novices on the low bands. I also like the idea very much of keeping the 5wpm code for the Extra.
I do however strongly disagree with the automatic upgrade from Tech or Tech plus to General, instead of giving them "New Novice" status and privilages. I can't understand why the ARRL would go that way and not the latter.
I hope the League will reconsider that aspect of the proposal!!
73's
KB8DLI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Instead of studying CW, I've been refreshing my skills on the three foreign languages I already speak. HI!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nobody questions the FCC? What is COLON POWELLS kid have to do with this?
Remember nothing is black or white.
My press experience tells me there is one heck of a ""BACK STORY""!
The wise man never shows his front or comes out of his bag. The wise man reads much on matters that others
are simply blindsided by.
There is a deep throat in this Washington D.C. Garage!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4FFG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To quote WD0M:
"W4FFG's comments are interesting - with all the ** words included in his response, I see he will fit right into the OF's group on 80 meter phone..."
I doubt it, I'm not old enough to have a problem with incontinence yet... And, I hope that when (if) I do get that old, that I'll have more dignity than to talk about it.
But I am curious, WD0M, why did you single out my reply? My response is no more appropriate nor inappropriate as the others who are "outraged." Maybe it's because I'm vocal enough to voice my point of view? Should I have used the ** words? Probably not. My response was emotional. If that's wrong, then I apologize.
I'd like you to read the rest of my earlier reply: Why does everyone think Techs will be bad HF ops? Lack of experience? Probably. I'll admit that I lack HF experience. But, I can learn. And I listen more than I talk. The operating rules/expectations are easily obtained, plain as day, and easy to understand. Why is there an assumption that Techs can't follow the rules that are in place?
Don Imhoff, W4FFG
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" of ham
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4FFG writes:
"Why does everyone think Techs will be bad HF ops?"
They won't all be bad ops. However, let's face it, the harder you work for something, the more you cherish and appriciate it. The fact that so many will get so much for NOTHING will reflect in how they treat the provelege. Disagree? Then look at 11 meters. No effort, no respect.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If California recalled the governor what is to keep the amateurs from doing the same to the ARRL Leaders. Time to replace them?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" of ham
|
|
|
by W4FFG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE writes:
"They won't all be bad ops. However, let's face it, the harder you work for something, the more you cherish and appriciate it."
Believe it or not, I agree with you. And, if I have to learn cw or take the General test to get on the HF bands, so be it. I can pass the theory test, the code is something else... Eventually, I'll get it. I'm just not getting it now.
But, once again, my point was missed. I wasn't talking about "fairness" or working for something. I'm talking about the knee-jerk reactions, and the trash-talking going on about the (possible) General Class upgrade that the holier-than-thou crowd seems fit to preach.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG6OXA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[tfic]It's just a massive conspiracy to get our defective president on HF and further brainwash the masses into voting for him in November. I take him for the CB type, don't you?! Boooo CB![/tfic]
I guess my opinion about 24 hours after reading the ARRL bit is: Being granted HF access should mean you know what to do, where you can transmit, what precautions to take, etc, just as the technician exam does. I tried taking a General practice exam (using common sense and guessing on unknown questions) and failed. 19 correct, 16 not.
Also, a minimum profeciency of code should only be required if you intend to transmit in a Continuous Woodpecking-only section of a band. If you're only able to send 5 characters, not words, per minute (under non-practice conditions), I bet you'll be sorely disappointed when your CQs are met with silence.
For the sheer fact that I failed the practice test, I don't think I should be upgraded automatically to General; if I am, it wouldn't matter anyway. I think expense (or the time it takes to either build a station/earn enough money to put together a commercially built one) is the major barrier to ham radio, not the exams! Even if I studied hard and got my General, would I be able to utilize my expanded privileges? No! I'd still be operating in the 2 meter/70 cm bands because I can't afford an HF setup and I have dismal luck at winning giveaway contests.
Maybe if more people get licensed, the manufacturers may bump up supply to meet the increased demand, and prices may lower. God only knows how the economics would work.
As an aside, imagine the horrific expense of the FCC having to print up new licenses for the shifting classes and the massive computer processing effort...
73,
John (not an ARRL member, by monetary lacking)
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by W4FFG on January 20, 2004:
"I'd like you to read the rest of my earlier reply: Why does everyone think Techs will be bad HF ops? Lack of experience? Probably. I'll admit that I lack HF experience. But, I can learn. And I listen more than I talk. The operating rules/expectations are easily obtained, plain as day, and easy to understand. Why is there an assumption that Techs can't follow the rules that are in place?"
It has little to do with following rules. Should we grant licenses to CBers who may be able to follow rules and be good ops without having them first take a test? I think you would be ticked off if the FCC all of a sudden decided to give CBers ham licenses and put them on an equal plane with you with no test. Wouldn't you say "Hey, wait a minute. I had to take a test for my license. Now, some CBer is granted a license with no test just because he agrees to follow the rules of Part 97." I'm sorry. The honor system doesn't work on ham radio. Neither does cereal box licensing. People need to earn their licenses and their upgrades. Like I said earlier, I have no problem with the proposed new no-code Novice license for entry level. I do have a problem with dropping element 1 for General and a free upgrade with no test for all the codless Techs. At least replace Element 1 with a tougher written test for the General, with no published question pools. People need to earn their privileges. No honor system and no free rides.
|
|   |
|
ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" of ham rad
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just wait till the CBers see the results of NCI's efforts.
Whine, complain, and put up a big enough stink and you too can have HF priveleges! Look for the "Roger-beep" CB crowd to follow in NCI's foot steps. After all, why not? Whining & complaining seems to be working!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by NE0P on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
it was written:
"They
were penalized and prevented from entering the hobby.
We also need to overcome the--I had to learn and
pass the Code so you should have to--Well everything
in life is not always fair"
Exactly! So if you, for whatever reason, cannot pass a code test, too bad. Who said that life had to be fair? You just said that it wasn't. So why all this whining about how it isn't fair that some people cannot operate HF.
In addition, we don't need the ARRL. FEMA has come out opposed to BPL, and they carry much more weight than the ARRL does. To continue to fund an organization that you don't believe in is stupid. How else can you let the ARRL know how opposed you are to their mission? You can phone or email them, like they would really listen or care. The only message they understand is money, so we must vote with our pocketbooks.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KD8IO on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I feel the ARRL has lost its mind.I thought the league was for the hams, but I see clearly now they are looking out for theirselfs only..I hope other Amateurs cancel their membership as I did. I am not wanting no part of an organization that wants to change the ham bands into CB.We have enough idots and non license people on what we worked hard to get.
I worked Dam hard for my license I hate to see them not mean anything, or refered to as cereal box license.I feel all the hams should show up at ARRL headquarters on their doorstep to protest this stupid proposal.The ARRL needs to take their collars and ties off and spend more time listening to the bands instead of begging for money.Marconi has probably turned over in his GRAVE.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG6PIR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Contrary to those who may want to turn this into a code/no-code debate or a confrontation between old guys and new guys, neither of those are the issue. I have not heard any major complaints about either of those issues from ARRL members.
The issues, as I see them, are
1) The ARRL asked for input on the code/no-code issue and received that input. They did not ask about giving General tickets to those who had not passed a General written test.
2) The ARRL saw fit to have a non-recorded vote on the proposal, thereby raising the suspicion that ALL of the Board members agreed to subterfuge. That is not how a representative body should act, especially when they knew they were dealing with a controversial subject.
3) The excuses used by the ARRL to rationalize their decision were not backed by anything but conjectures.
4) Some of the rule changes proposed are unenforceable. That is what led to the CB mess.
5) The ARRL blatantly proposed at least a short term "dumbing down" of the Amateur Radio Service. I have seen no evidence that the ARRL membership has ever supported that, but have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.
6) If the ARRL petition is accepted as is, US amateurs currently holding General class licenses would find themselves in the same position as the no-code UK amateurs - unable to operate in CEPT countries. The difference being that the current Generals can currently operate there and HAVE ALREADY PASSED ALL APPLICABLE TESTS!
7) At least one SM stated that the decision to remove Morse testing from the General exam was to allow upgrading Technicians to General. Assuming that is true, they got the membership's wishes backwards! And after such a long wait?
I'm sorry, but this is not a code/no-code issue at all. It is simply evidence of an ARRL Board of Directors out of touch with its membership and out of control.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IT SHOULD HAVE READ NO ELEMENT ONE TEST FOR ALL LICENCE CLASSES. OTHERWISE it is probably the best COMPROMISED SITUATION to satisfy the majority of amateur population. the idea is good but it didn't go far enough.they I SAY AGAIN THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID REMOVAL OF ELEMENT ONE FROM THE TEST ROSTER PERIOD. othrwise the docket appears "OK". 73 TOM N2NZJ
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The OMs getting the freebie upgrade, you have been around. I have mixed feelings as do some of you.
You will learn on the air. Some of you want the freebie. Some of you really want to earn it.
My real concern will be the inrush of some wanna be outlaw FREEBANDERS. Thier Give away Novice ticket is just what they have been waiting for.
Another scenario.
Many couples get NCT tickets just to save on cell phone bills. I hear them all the time on 2M. No interest in being a ham. Just, hey dear pick up a quart of milk!
The No CW, No nothing new novice ticket could be an extension of the 2Meter husband and wife FRS like service!
You will have people that have no real interest in ham radio at all!!! They just want a multiple band 100W
SSB/FM GMRS like service!!!!!!!!
I am concerned it will be a flashback to 1977, when the CB craze hit. Maybe they will dig up VAN Mccoy to write another CONVOY trucker folk/rock music song to boot!!!
IMO the ARRL had a few good idea's. However they just gave too much away!
Yes, it could be positive too, for the kind of people that believe in the ham radio operators code.
I have spoken to many fine NCT's on 440. They have mucho electronics experience. They ,I do not resent.
Yes, I am sure the new novice will bring in many fine people. Ham radio could be part of America's lexicon again.
I am at a major engineering university.
The kids getting their first degree in BSEE, have no idea that ham rsdio exist's!
I show the kids my Ham and commercial tickets. They ask me if I work for one of the alphabet agencies!!!
These new BSEE's cannot even solder!
I show them my Yeasu VX-5. They ask is that the latest radio's you spooks from the alphabet agencies use!!!!
So the new give away Novice could be bad or good.
THE KEY...They must have clubs and elmers!!
However many pointed out that the generation X slacker chump punks, do not want to be tought!!!
Yes as another poster said, the wise man is part of the solution and not the problem.
If this grand new plan was done right, it could be a new age for ham radio. Otherwise it will just be almost 30MHZ of HF CB FREEBAND !
It will also bring in some real skells and mutts!
Drug Dealers will not limit thier activity to just below 11M. They will have 80M, perfect for long haul traffic!
My hats off to the staff of EHAM. I know all of you are ultra hard core pro ARRL. Does the EHAM staff Blindly accept what has been cast down from Newington Conn.
You have not put in your personal pro ARRL bais. That is good journalistic practice and standards.
I would not mind hearing what the EHAM staff's perspective is.
I am sure your computers are really swamped, on this day of shock! I am sending in a donation for the extra
electricity and tolerance!
This is a day of shock!
73 DE MIKE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W7DAM on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This certainly cheapens the General license I had to work for. Getting a license now means little more than paying a nominal fee and drooling on the table.
I'm sure the HF radio manufacturers love it, though.
Dave
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by NJ0E on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i don't envy the arrl directors; they were to be
villified no matter what they do. they had a "no win"
situation.
i think that it's a mistake to automatically upgrade
technicians to generals.
i think the extra class radiotelegraph exam should be
in the range of 12-16 wpm; a level of proficiency
that anyone could rightly be proud of, and a level
at which one would remember the characters even if one
didn't use the mode for a while. the problem with
5wpm is that you will soon forget the characters if
you don't use it soon after passing the test.
the radiotelegraph code provides a way in which a
large number of radio amateurs can participate in
activity the high frequency bands with each occupying
a small bandwidth. if everyone wants a 2500 hz slice
for ssb, we will soon find our high frequency
spectrum allocation intolerably crowded.
it's also alot of fun, a fact which sometimes gets
lost in all the din over whether it should be tested
for or not.
i think the level of the technical exams is about
right, but the question pool should not be released.
the fcc used to publish an outline of the subjects
covered on each element, and the arrl, ameco, and
other publishers developed their study materials
around those outlines. the ncvec should adopt a
similar tactic.
scott nj0e
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KD7VDB on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
this is BS if your gonna do anything make the general class code free and dont do anything else!!!!!!!!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KD7VDB on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
this is BS if your gonna do anything make the general class code free and dont do anything else!!!!!!!!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KG6PIR on January 20, 2004:
"Contrary to those who may want to turn this into a code/no-code debate or a confrontation between old guys and new guys, neither of those are the issue. I have not heard any major complaints about either of those issues from ARRL members.
The issues, as I see them, are
1) The ARRL asked for input on the code/no-code issue and received that input. They did not ask about giving General tickets to those who had not passed a General written test.
2) The ARRL saw fit to have a non-recorded vote on the proposal, thereby raising the suspicion that ALL of the Board members agreed to subterfuge. That is not how a representative body should act, especially when they knew they were dealing with a controversial subject.
3) The excuses used by the ARRL to rationalize their decision were not backed by anything but conjectures.
4) Some of the rule changes proposed are unenforceable. That is what led to the CB mess.
5) The ARRL blatantly proposed at least a short term "dumbing down" of the Amateur Radio Service. I have seen no evidence that the ARRL membership has ever supported that, but have seen lots of evidence to the contrary.
6) If the ARRL petition is accepted as is, US amateurs currently holding General class licenses would find themselves in the same position as the no-code UK amateurs - unable to operate in CEPT countries. The difference being that the current Generals can currently operate there and HAVE ALREADY PASSED ALL APPLICABLE TESTS!
7) At least one SM stated that the decision to remove Morse testing from the General exam was to allow upgrading Technicians to General. Assuming that is true, they got the membership's wishes backwards! And after such a long wait?
I'm sorry, but this is not a code/no-code issue at all. It is simply evidence of an ARRL Board of Directors out of touch with its membership and out of control."
======================================================
None of this was done properly by the ARRL. Each division took a poll. In my division, the question was clear-cut. "Should the U.S. eliminate Morse Code (CW) requirement for amateur radio licenses? Yes or No." The results of the poll in my district were in favor of keeping the Morse requirement. In our division, we were also told to make our opinions known to our division manager. This I did by e-mail on 10/8/03 and again on 1/8/04. My division manager didn't reply to either e-mail.
It's really funny that the ARRL took a nationwide poll regarding refarming the Novice sub bands a few years ago, and asked how things should be redistributed. Yet this was not done with a far more important issue. Before the Board met and decided what to propose to the FCC, a nationwide referendum should have been held. All ARRL members should have been asked multiple questions regarding the code issue, like was done with the Novice sub band refarming issue a couple of years back. At the close of the referendum there should have been a text box for comments and feedback. The results of this referendum should have been published on their site. Then, and only then should the ARRL have approached the FCC with a proposal. I feel this was all done in secret and ramrodded through without member approval. That is why I, and many other ARRL members are madder than hell about what was done.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KE4CQW on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello all,
it looks like the cat's out of the bag and someone just sprayed it’s raw behind with turpentine cleaner. Hi hi for all you old timers who know about stuff my father has told me about the past. I am trying to figure out a graceful and non political way to voice my opinion.
To save you time in looking up my call sign I am a technician class license who would benefit from the proposal if it is changed. But before you go gripping and groaning please hear me out.
First off I am in principal against the change, I agree with the hobby lacking a growth but sometimes I think we have a knee jerk reaction but what we need is a good look and a calm passion to our hobby. Most people are looking at this as a down grade for ham radio but I think in ways the growth would great but I think we should temper the changes. If you give the upgrade I think it should be in a test format and a time based upgrade requirement …. (Granted I just *&$%$#^ off the pro code group) Some people like me think CW is a mode and will always be a mode, but it is also history to ham radio. I vehemently oppose removing it from ham radio totally. It has and will always serve a purpose to ham radio but not to me. I have never been much on CW it does not interest me but that is me not everyone else. Some form of upgrade test would be nice nothing to over the top but also base the HF license upgrade on time and operating habits of the person. Go back to requiring a positive contact log (ie qsl cards) to prove activity. Then at designated intervals the upgrade could be applied for and granted if the test was passed and the contacts verified.
Sorry to $%^* off the pro code group but I am willing to bet the 75 % of the “code” group could not pass the test that they are licensed at now. One other option is change the re-licensing requirements from the FCC. I say chance it to renewing every 5 years and require that a total test to be taken and passed not just a simple file a letter to the FCC. Then I bet the hobby and the pro coders would be screaming for a different view….. Oh well that’s my humble opinion on this explosive subject. Talk to all of you on 6 meters. 73 all Moe KE4CQW Code or nocode I still will talk to everyone.... QRP RULES!!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG6OXA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH said: "Many couples get NCT tickets just to save on cell phone bills. I hear them all the time on 2M. No interest in being a ham. Just, hey dear pick up a quart of milk!"
What the heck is a ham, anyway?!!! Dictonary.com defines our meaning as: A licensed amateur radio operator.
If the couples have licenses and they operate radios for non-commercial use, then they are hams. Period. Don't bash people when you use a closed-minded and incorrect definition.
WA2JJH also said:
"The No CW, No nothing new novice ticket could be an extension of the 2Meter husband and wife FRS like service!" Nothing is quite like FRS, with a disgusting range of only a mile under normal conditions, 2 miles if line of sight (good if you live on the prairie). Assuming the new novices use HF, they will have an exponentially longer simplex range than UHF (FRS) or VHF (2M); quite an extension!
And the last nugget of pyrite (fake gold) from WA2JJH:
"You will have people that have no real interest in ham radio at all!!! They just want a multiple band 100W
SSB/FM GMRS like service!!!!!!!!" If people want to conduct radio communications for non-commercial purposes, then who are YOU to stop them? Just make sure they know what they're doing through elmering and exams, and set them free to work within the Part 97 guidelines. But I think that's too little to meet facist standards.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KH6OO on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL has got it almost perfect. EVERYONE WINS! My renewal is as good as in the mail.
KH6OO
(Extra Lite)
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KA0ABC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'M BAAACK !!!!!! beep beep beep roger beep 10-4 Good buddy
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K2PGB on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Do we get 11 meters back ?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N5VFF on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KC0ARF....
Christian,
Thank you for your intelligent and well considered response to this contentious issue. I fully agree with all your statements. You have skipped the abundant vitriol and replied with honesty, intelligence, forethought, and wisdom.
Should this proposal, or one like it, be adopted I look forward to seeing you on HF.
73/N5VFF
A fellow technician, network engineer, and experimenter
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I voiced what I felt earlier and I still feel the same way. I think the ARRL has come up with a idea that is about as good as it gets. I support them. Lets face itall the arguments are going to be for nothing if we don't get young blood in our hobby. In 20 years there won't be many hams arguing about anything most of us will be dead. I hope this helps. As for as giving away things that has been going on for over 25 years. Every ham who got there ticket before 77 or 78 could be mad at the rest of the hams because they didn't have as hard of time getting their tickets. For you youngester that is when the FCC quit requiring that you had to copy code for one minute solid and put in a 10 question mulitple choice test for the code. Then they turned around and did away with the sending part of the test. This all too marked the end of ham radio. That is life. Get over it. As for as work goes that to has changed. When I started in Accouning 30+ years ago it was paper and pencil and you had to know what you were doing. Now you punch some numbers in a computer and it comes out. You have to know nothing. Am I mad at the new kids. I have too many other health problems to add new ones from worring about this. I just hope that I live long enough to retire and there will be someone to talk to on the radio. As for as the ARRL goes it is the only game in town folks. Yea the president was elected for the third time with no one running against him. Most of the section managers win with no one running against them. Instead of dropping out if you don't like it get involved.
Terry
WB4QNG
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well if there was a request for opinion from the Division directed to me it never arrived. As far as I can tell I had no input in the decision making process. I doubt it would have made any difference anyway.
HQ Leaders need to be replaced or there needs to be an alternative to the ARRL!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KE4CQW on January 20, 2004:
"Sorry to $%^* off the pro code group but I am willing to bet the 75 % of the “code” group could not pass the test that they are licensed at now. One other option is change the re-licensing requirements from the FCC. I say chance it to renewing every 5 years and require that a total test to be taken and passed not just a simple file a letter to the FCC. Then I bet the hobby and the pro coders would be screaming for a different view….."
I have a formal education in electronics and radio communications, along with an FCC 2nd Class Radiotelephone License with Radar Endorsement. I would have no problem passing an Extra exam again. Neither would I have a problem passing a code test again.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I FOR ONE SEE A LOT OF GOOD IN THESE CHANGES.they the A R R L HAD TO take a stand on this highly controversial MATTER. as you all know whatever new law or RM proposal is presented usually 50% ARE FOR IT,and the other 50% are against it. ( I AM FOR IT.) The only exception being it should have EXCLUDED ELEMENT ONE PERIOD. quote CHANGE IS GOOD. YOU'LL SEE THAT WHEN THIS IS APPROVED. 73 TOM N2NZJ ARLS # 807
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess since nearly all the astronauts for NASA are no-code techs (check their call signs in the FCC database) they can start talking on the amateur HF frequencies too. I wonder if the pro-code diehards would ignore a "CQ" calling from the space station on an HF frequency since the privilege was just given to them? They are currently bragging about all the brand-new QSL cards they're getting for their collections from all the hams in other countries that dropped the code requirement.
Hypocrisy? Double standards? Big bunch of babies?
All of the above!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose another way to dilute the amateur
|
|
|
by K8JX on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The Amateur Radio Service" A technical service pool of self trained operators. So with this change and the attendtant reduction in theory, the service diminishes either further,cause, " We don't want to overwhelmed the poor examines with expecting them to actually know something about electronics and communications and how to put this knowledge into practice.
I think a good boycott of both the ARRL ( they really should be looking after not only our interests, but the service too) and the FCC. Thats right. start a nice letter campaign to change the commission itself. This is getting to be utterly rediculous. This country needs engineers, not users!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KA0ABC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO: KA0ARF
He sure doesn't know much about solid-state transceivers when you have high mismatch of 1.5 or worse. They cut back on power.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG6OXA, SIR....You took me totally out of context.
I know darn well what the ranges are of GMRS and FRS.
Let me clarify....A whole group of people that have NO INTEREST in the traditions of ham radio, will just
have very powerfull, frequency agile transceivers!
OK, is that simple enough for you.
Your sophestry does not cut it. Go ahead call me a facist! You also left out all my good points. About how
Ham radio could be part of the American Lexicon it used to be!
IMO husband and wife teams should pay the $75, and go GMRS! It is better for them anyway. The radio's are cheaper, and they do not have to be bothered with a test or hams that are into ham radio.
Hey Popeye, my passport says U.S. of A on it too!
What you call my fools gold perception is just as valid as your free radio for all attitude!
I think Uranium hexaflouride is a better inorganic chemistry description of me. Iron Pyrite, get real(HI-HI).
Hey, if your idea is a bunch of random people being able to run around and talk on their new fangled legal 100W multiband multimode CBs, call me IRON PYRITE RF FACIST! I guess your into RF anarcy. Hey man thats cool! You are entitled to your opinion!
You left out, what I said about it could be a good thing. New people that want to be HAMS, and not use HAM radio to save on CELL PHONE BILLS!!!! In fact I think the FCC says that is illegal!
73 nothing personal. Today is a day of absolute shock!
This was just an unexpected thing we thought the ARRL
would come up with.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.-- .... .- ....
-- -.-- / .--. .-. . -.-. .. --- ..- ... / -.-. --- -.. .
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by AB2PN on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John KG6OXA/N6ATF Said:
“It's just a massive conspiracy to get our defective president on HF and further brainwash the masses into voting for him in November. I take him for the CB type, don't you?!”
I personally think you need to grow up a little more. Shame on you for your comment re: The President of the United States of America. If you like him or not he is still the president and you should have decency to respect his position and the office he holds.
There have been other Presidents that I have not liked either but have had the decency to show them the proper respect for the office they hold.
I would find it a real honor to to speak to the President on HF, and I'm sure if he was on HF we could solve the whole BPL issue real quick too.
When you get a bachelor's degree from Yale and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard then come back and tell us how defective he is till then I don't think your words carry much weight.
Now run along little boy I think your mommie is calling.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OXA:
Lighten up on Mike JJH. Besides, we love that purdy camo outfit you're wearing in your profile. Of course that pattern won't help you a bit in his part of the world.
PAN
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by NI0C on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wouldn't even think of dropping my membership in ARRL just because I don't happen to agree with every detail of their latest proposal. If it weren't for ARRL ham radio would not exist. So count me as a loyal ARRL member who has sympathy for the leadership walking a tightrope.
However, I do feel that FISTS offered a much better proposal, which I supported in comments to the FCC. I also predict that the NCI whiners will claim that requiring 5 wpm for even an extra class license is somehow unfair.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KE4CQW on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by AG4RQ
"I have a formal education in electronics and radio communications, along with an FCC 2nd Class Radiotelephone License with Radar Endorsement."
Congrats on the educational standards and commerical license. I too have a a Degree in Electronics and work for the worlds leader in Hazardous Duty Robots for the military and commerical customers. But I know to many hams around here (Knoxville TN) that admit that they could not pass the current license class test if given today. So it's a wash..... what do we do??? When I started at the company I work at you had the understand drawings and have soldering skills and such. Now they spoon feed production with work instructions and teach military grade soldering. Am I upset.... no I am proud of the changes, we went from a 3.5 million $ company to +50 Million $ but changing the old standard was hard but the proof is in the pudding. I think if they do change it will bloom and in a few years this will be a joke. But till we have a change in heart it's all doomed to fell. I myself will not go to the HF bands for a while if they change it. I like were I am at, 6 meters is great for QRP's. Personaly I think the leagal limit should be a 100 watts but hey that's a different post... :-) 73 Moe KE4CQW
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG6OXA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2JJH in quotes, my replies in context:
"Let me clarify....A whole group of people that have NO INTEREST in the traditions of ham radio, will just
have very powerfull, frequency agile transceivers!
OK, is that simple enough for you." If you want to talk about tradition, talk to Tevye.
"Your sophestry does not cut it. Go ahead call me a facist! You also left out all my good points. About how
Ham radio could be part of the American Lexicon it used to be!" I didn't call you a facist, but when people talk the way you do, they are too easily mistaken as such.
"IMO husband and wife teams should pay the $75, and go GMRS! It is better for them anyway. The radio's are cheaper, and they do not have to be bothered with a test or hams that are into ham radio." That's not for YOU to decide, or any government agency. GMRS radios that you find in most stores are cheaper, in price and quality. They cannot be used for long-range communications; the radios that can, are just as expensive or more than ham radios. You say you know about FRS and GMRS, but do you really?
"Hey, if your idea is a bunch of random people being able to run around and talk on their new fangled legal 100W multiband multimode CBs, call me IRON PYRITE RF FACIST! I guess your into RF anarcy. Hey man thats cool! You are entitled to your opinion!" I think as long as they act within FCC guidelines present and future, they should be allowed to do so. You seem to disagree and think the end of civilization will come from this. That is overly cynical and I think attitudes like that are the reason people keep writing articles about ham radio being "doomed" or "dying".
"You left out, what I said about it could be a good thing. New people that want to be HAMS, and not use HAM radio to save on CELL PHONE BILLS!!!! In fact I think the FCC says that is illegal!" Then you think wrong. It's not illegal, though I bet the cell phone industry would like it to be!
I love ham radio. Not even a landline telephone can give me the sound quality and reliablity I demand from my communications equipment. Ham radio can. Do I, or would I ever use it improperly? No.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KI4DJE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Being new to HAM has some disadvantages in making an arguement. As a Communications NCO in the US Army, I have had years of experience in the HF arena. As a new Tech class licensee though, I am trying to learn code so that I may upgrade and chase that DX. I do have limited privleges on HF as a MARS operator in training, but it is definately not the same. I think maybe it is time for us to all face the facts as they are. It seems to me that HAM is dying a slow death. As with any type of organization, without new blood, the organization will die a little with each old timer who passes away. Do we keep the code and go down with the ship or do we trade it in to pay for the tranfusion that we desparately need?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PHILIP, TNX for the gesture of our little L.C.N.
Looked at this chumps profile. Why did I even bother
to respond. It is a 19 year old kid.
Hey kid, when you grow up, you will know the 1960's
idealism you hold so dear, was a lie!
To Quote GRACE SLICK of the SAN FRAN band Jefferson
airplane(circa 1968)
To qoute""Like, we all thought if we took the right DRUGS, read the right books, and hung out with the right people we were going to change the world""
Kid,first thing I was taught in EMT training is.....
Your not going to save the world!
After seeing your photo, all I can say is a picture is worth a thousand words!
73 no hard feeling kid...you will learn
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> This certainly cheapens the General license I had to
> work for.
Why? You did the work. You earned the license. That's what should matter to you.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG6OXA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
AB2PN, are you focking blind? If you read the tag that I put around what you quoted me saying, you would have seen "tfic", which means Tongue Firmly In Cheek! It did not mean "please flame the hell out of me." I respect people who earn it. You just lost your chance to do so.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes I do know GMRS and FRS. Check my profile.
You asked to be flammed. There is a joke I do not even have to say!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC4EOE on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Welcome to the 21st Century. Everyone will profit from this. The ARRL will get a chance to increase membership. The FCC will get a shot at more enforcement dollars in fines. The Big Three radio manufacturers will make a fortune in sales. The lesser companies will see profits rise also. The Hamfests will be super crowded and now maybe you can actually get rid of all that junk you have been hauling to them year after year. The best part of it all is we get to fry new fish on the nightime 75 meter ragchew meets. I foresee a great time on Ham Radio for the future. See you all in Orlando...
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N5QDY on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, the new idea proposal WAS a bit shocking.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to upgrade to general class should simply take the general class exam. I'm AM for making general class no code. But if you're a current tech or tech-plus, why not take the general written exam. It's a breeze, for goodness sake, but it does have very important perspectives which need study. Just drop the code.
I'm still in shock. I feel like there's way too many priviledges on HF for the new folks. Again, I feel that current techs and tech plus should *take the general written exam*. Period.
I'm still just shocked.
Scott
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG6OXA on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JJH, you think I'm a 19 year old kid? I'm actually a 18 year old cranky old man at heart who likes to dress like a rent-a-cop and is "generally" avoided by shady characters. The 60's may as well be the 1800s to me, but I'm sure you have a much closer relationship with that decade! [not an old-dude joke]
I don't intend to save the world, not even the world's only superpower can do that!
Your supposed knowledge of GMRS and FRS radios is suspect if you think cheapo bubble-pack GMRS radios (that CANNOT access repeaters) come anywhere close to the range and specification of most ham radio handhelds (that CAN access repeaters and therefore have a superior range). This is my final post.
73,
John
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YES SCOTT, A day of shock it has been!!
Still trying to come up with a good name for it.
Terrible Tuesday sounds good for now.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Rent a cop. You would not last 2 seconds in NYC.
Which water gun copy is you side arm. Is it a Plastic
Berreta 92F, Sigsour 230,232. Which Sig is 9mm and which one is a .380?
We have GMRS repeaters in NYC. The $60 motorolas
work just fine into the GMRS repeaters.
I have worked on commercial H-T's. Like the Saber Astro, Mt-1000, the old MX series.
Gee you just got your ticket a week ago! I guess your a real pro by now!
Before you bash someones experience, get you intel down.
As for you rent-a cop attire, you like more like a perp,skell,or Mutt.(Mutt is federal for skell)
I guess you knew that by now.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by VE2DC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE says: Proposing to "dumb-down" ham radio is "stupid".
"Dumbing down" is your narrow-minded charecterization of bringing amateur radio licencing requirements into line with current practice. Does knowing CW mean that you are "smart"... no more than learning how to juggle or any other skill one might care to master. Nor does using it automatically mean you are a "good" ham... 5 minutes in some of the pileups will convice you of that. The whole CW debate is a "much ado about nothing". If you like CW, do it, but let others make up their own minds as to what modes they like to operate.
By resigning from the ARRL you just shoot yourself in the foot... and that's a shame for both you and the ARRL.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K1IR on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm guessing that several hundred hours of effort have been invested in reading and writing all these comments. Imagine if those hours had gone into recruiting new hams with ANY kind of license, or teaching new hams how to be valuable members of our great community, or writing articles for eham that would contribute to a positive image of our avocation.
73,
Jim K1IR
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KD7PEH on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a current Tech who stand to gain greatly from the ARRL proposal I would like to add this comment. I whole heartedly agree with the decision to remove the Morse Code requirement for all but the Extra class. I however do not agree with granting current Novice, Tech and Tech + license holders with General privilages without proving their technical knowledge through successful completion of a written exam equal to that of the current General exam. I do not believe that the intent of the WRC was to "dummy down" amatuer radio, but to bring it more in line with the skills necessary to proficiently communicate via the means and methods of the 21st century.
73,
Brian Dews
KD7PEH
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KE4CQW on January 20, 2004:
"Congrats on the educational standards and commercial license. I too have a a Degree in Electronics and work for the worlds leader in Hazardous Duty Robots for the military and commercial customers. But I know to many hams around here (Knoxville TN) that admit that they could not pass the current license class test if given today."
I may have taken my commercial exams back in 1981 and 1982, but I took my Extra exam slightly less than 2 years ago. I doubt that things changed that much in 2 years that I couldn't pass it again. I did ace it in '02. BTW, 6m is a waste. I bought a 6m rig last July. Since then I've experienced very minimal 6m activity. Most of the time, the band is closed up tight as a drum. I'm still waiting to experience the spectacular band openings that are spoken about in these forums. I feel like I threw my money out on the 6m radio.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N0RTU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, Like this is a big surprise, right?
JUST A WORD TO THE ROCKET SCIENTISTS AT THE ARRL....
You had better DAMN WELL be prepared to un-do what you are about to do. Have you thought that far in advance? I'll wager you have not!
If anyone knows of a way to get rid of the arrl, NOW IS THE TIME! To get rid of this BOIL(spelled arrl) on the buttocks of ham radio, I would gladly open my billfold! This would DEFINATELY be a worthwile investment!
I dropped my affiliation with this "organization" years ago because of this so called "progressive" way of thinking. I'm damn glad I did! Nowadays, we have more than a few "Extra" class hams who know almost nothing at all about radio, can't copy by ear the Morse for "SOS", and think that all answers to their radio questions and problems can be answered with their Visa Cards!
As far as I'm concerned, we can thank the arrl for this!
When the day comes that the arrl as an organization is no more, and has been laid in its proverbial grave, what I'll do on that grave will most certainly NOT pass for flowers!
Mike
N0RTU
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4CNG on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those of you that are leaving the ARRl, don't let the door hit you on the ASS on the way out. For the rest staying, and supporting, there is not another group representing us anywhere. There are also a large group of "Complainers" that have posted way too many times, your time is UP. The Entry Level License and all of it's baggage sounds and will work very well. The "Incentive Licensing" issue never worked, me included, I told the ARRL to "Go to Hell" in 1966". I have rejoined and support their efforts on this 100%. Look at "Enhanced SSB", and they are just right back in the early 1970's when FM Repeaters became the storm. They need time to get things straight, both from the membership, and management. They have done it right and this is right, unless you want to not have your Ham Ticket in the next 20 years.
Good Luck
Steve W4CNG
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W4QEC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I passed the thirteen words a minute and Adv. test,
but I'm still don't respect advanced and Extra class
operaters.I passed and upgraded my license and I could
-n't get any advanced or Extra class operators
to come back and qso.I got flustrated and just decided
I had to be in a click to talk to the HF type and
to be in the click you had to run a minuim of 1,500
watts.The material I studdied said min. to make
qso, am I not wright.I've heard ADV. and Extra class
operators cuss and cut a fool as bad or worse than
Techs.I just believe the ones complaining is afaird
of some one stepping on thier toes for unruley acts
that they are doing on the HF bands.I believe that
HF needs these Techs in on HF to police the unruley
things going on.THis will clean up the HF's bands.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K3UD on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4CNG,
Some time during the Incentive Licensing debate in the mid 60s there was a letter in the correspondence section which simply said:
To hell with the ARRL
At the time I could not believe it was even being printed. I guess you were not the only one... unless it was your letter :)
Like you, I dropped out of the ARRL for a number of years, then came to me senses.
73
George
K3UD
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K3UD on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4CNG,
Some time during the Incentive Licensing debate in the mid 60s there was a letter in the correspondence section of QST which simply said:
To hell with the ARRL
At the time I could not believe it was even being printed. I guess you were not the only one... unless it was your letter :)
Like you, I dropped out of the ARRL for a number of years, then came to me senses.
73
George
K3UD
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KA0ABC on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO: W4CNG
Hey good buddy whats your 20? Where do I get one of dem dos ham licenses for free beep beep o var to you good buddy your wall-to-wall 60/9 at my crib. beep beep 10-4
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KD2KU on January 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by AG4RQ on January 20, 2004
"I have a formal education in electronics and radio communications, along with an FCC 2nd Class Radiotelephone License with Radar Endorsement. I would have no problem passing an Extra exam again. Neither would I have a problem passing a code test again."
Where have you been all these years? The 1st and 2nd RT licenses were "dumbed down" long ago to one class "General Radiotelephone license"- and issued for life.
Code- oh gawd... some people can play golf- I could never hit the same ball twice. It is a learned skill and not everyone can master it. I knew hams who could copy code in their head that no longer sounded like code. I considered them "code Savants". They were just not "normal" people. They were downright weird.
:-)
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N8MMZ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gloria in Excelsisdeo! Reason reigns!!
I am going to hang on to my old Yaesu FT-102 for my dad (a retired radar engineer, now consultant) and my FT-7 for my brother (an Air Force acquisitions officer for US. Space Command) - both of whom are interested in the hobby, very academic, but too busy to learn a new language due to their career paths.
I sincerely doubt that they will bring the CB'er stuff to the bands.
I also have a new incentive to offer my busy graduate student buddies at Georgia Tech, many of whom have wondered about that big black box on my desk! Many of whom also became disinterested at the thought of having to learn morse code - they were too busy focusing on their studies to put forth the effort. I can't blame them for that decision.
Bravo ARRL!
73's
N8MMZ (13WPM General)
Jonathan
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N9ESH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey! What about 20-Meters? Shouldn’t the newcomers have a taste of that band too? Sure smells fishy to me.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KA0ABC on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO: N8MMZ
Soon to be a five-star general ZERO CODE I gardueighted from grade 8. Whooooppeeee
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by JN3XCV on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by W9WHE on January 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"Utter nonsence. UHF/VHF mabe, but not HF. There are very few (if any) commercial enterprises lining up for a piece of the HF spectrum. Its way too fickle to be commercially reliable for most uses."
Not even VHF, The stuff that is being worked on starts with 5MHZ bandwidths. Data is the thing of the future and OFDM is one of the prime modulation techniques. The smallest OFDM proposal that is commercial uses 256 carriers with one coming from Korea that uses 2048 carrier OFDMA in a minimum 10MHZ channel. Our VHF bands are too small. The coveted areas are 700MHz to about 3 GHz.
73
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KD2KU on January 20, 2004
"Where have you been all these years? The 1st and 2nd RT licenses were "dumbed down" long ago to one class "General Radiotelephone license"- and issued for life."
I never had a General Radiotelephone License (GROL). I never renewed my 2nd class RT Lic. (P2-7-15540), so I never had the dumbed down lifer GROL license. Due to the fact that I no longer was using it, I let it go. I wasn't going to pay the fee for a lifetime license if I was no longer going to use it.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W5GNB on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Rather than call this the new "NOVICE" class, it should be corectly titled as the "CB-PLUS" class of license!!
I never thought I would live long enough to see the day come but I guess it's almost here!!!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KK7AC on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4YJR;
Nice touch on the dits and dahs on your post...you had to look those up didnt you? And responding to a CQ call on HF while in outter space? - I dont know how well an HF signal below 15 meters will propagate since HF BOUNCES off the ionsphere... poor at best, and better space communications would happen best in the UHF and above spectrum. But then again you probably would not know that since you have never operated a sky wave mode. Just an observation. -KK7AC
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KB2SVU on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WELL I THINK THAT BEFORE THE ARRL OR THE FCC MAKE THERE MOVE TO UPGRADE TECH AND TECH +, TO GEN THEY SHOULD UPGRADE ALL GEN WITH 13 WORD PRE MIN TO A HIGH CLASS SO NOT TO BE IN THE SAME CLASS WITH THE 5 WORD PRE MIN, IT LOOK LIKE EVERY TIME THE ARRL MAKE A MOVE TO DO SOME THING IN THE AMATEUR BAND THE GEN'S ALWAY GET THE END OF THE STICK. I THINK IF THE TECH AND THE TECH + ARE GOING TO BE GRANDFATHER TO GEN CLASS THEN THE GEN WITH 13 WORD SHOULD BE GRANDFATHER TOO. I KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO HEAR SOME THING ABOUT THIS.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
MORSE CODE IS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL OF MODES.it is only as every radioman knows only the first MODE of many to FOLLOW. it should not be a test REQUIREMENT.the rm proposal SHOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED FULL ERADICATION OF ELEMENT ONE PERIOD. the only reason they left the requirement stand was to satisfy a certain special interest GROUP ONLY. ( APPEASEMENT ) I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME. no one is looking to ERADICATE CW THE MODE.JUST THE TEST REQUIREMENT ONLY.CW IS GOOD MODE to those who use it ENJOY IT. AS THE REST OF US ENJOY OUR FAVORITE MODES AND BANDS. i hope this RM passes it will be a revelation for the betterment of hobby.QUOTE ALL MODES ARE GOOD. 73 N2NZJ TOM ARLS # 807
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
0) It's a hobby, people.
1) The Vandals are not at the gate. At the peak of the CB craze in 1974, there were 10 million licensed CB users, and even more that hadn't bothered to license. Based on the best information available, there are around 100,000 CBers in the US.
2) The ARRL couldn't just propose HF privs for the entry license -- they tried that once and the FCC turned them down flat.
3) It is not a 'fact' that more ARRL members were in favor of keeping element 1 then against it. No one, except possibly the directors, has any idea where ARRL members stand as a group.
4) If the ARRL makes any more money as a result of this, it will simply be because they did part of their job: attracting new people to the hobby. In itself, there's nothing wrong with this.
5) It's a hobby. The way you 'work' for it isn't by taking tests, it's by getting on the air and participating.
6) The ARRL did listen to members. True, it took a little effort to get them to do so, and I think they should have been more proactive, but, after enough prodding, the directors did solicit input.
7) If the issue was so important to you, why wait for the ARRL to ask for you opinion? I didn't. I wrote to my SM who put me in touch with my division director. Email is easy.
8) By the way, if the FCC petition does get acted on, you'll have another chance to express your opinion -- directly to the FCC.
9) Element 2 and 3 cover the same aspects of amateur radio. Element 4 does as well. The major difference is how much material is covered for each aspect.
10) There isn't going to be a huge influx as a result of the change. The people you're afraid of have all moved to the internet, 'cuz it's easier and cheaper for what they want to do.
11) There aren't any commercial spectrum users lusting after the HF bands. Commercial broadcasters are moving *away* from HF -- which is part of why it was so easy to get the 40m agreement.
12) Deciding whether to join, stay, or leave the ARRL on the basis of this one action is short sighted.
13) Whether there's an influx of hams in the US or not isn't going to have any impact at all on BPL. Even if the ham population tripled, it would be a tiny constituency, when compared to internet users.
14) Would those who claim that in the US you get what you earn please explain Paris Hilton to me.
15) Anyone can buy any amateur radio. The people who "freeband" aren't going to care if the licenses are restructured.
16) I don't know about you, but the things I cherish most are *not* the things I work hard at. They're the things that come as a complete surprise -- like a special sunset.
17) It doesn't matter to me if other people have to take the same path to a destination I do. If there's reasonable case for dispensing with license testing, then it should be dispensed with. There are many roads to any destination.
18) It's not unusual for directors to vote by voice. Roll call votes are pretty uncommon.
19) By the way, the board did everything it could to make it seem that there was support for code testing among the membership -- up to and including a poll that was biased in favor of code.
20) People who want a "GMRS/FRS FM" license could already get one with the tech license.
21) Division directors aren't "headquarter's leadership". They represent their divisions and only meet face-to-face twice a year.
22) The actual definition is: Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
It doesn't say you have to be fully trained before you start using the service. It says you have to be interested in learning about radio techniques.
23) By the way, most of the *service* provided by amateurs is provided in VHF/UHF by people with tech licenses.
24) Ain't nothing in regs that requires one to be interested in the "traditions" of the hobby.
25) By the way, we *did* change the world. And those of us who were paying attention weren't surprised when it didn't change the way we wanted it to.
We furthered civil rights for minorities. We got the candidate presidential selection process out of the back rooms and into the hands of the people. We made the first real steps to environmental awareness. We helped get the US out of Vietnam with fewer casualties than would have happened if we hadn't protested; a war, by the way, that we died in by the thousands. We pushed back the tide of anti-woman attitudes that arose in the 50s. *We* put a man on the moon in 10 years -- something dubya doesn't think can be done now in less than 17.
Anyway, you're all just jealous 'cuz we had the best sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. ;) (and the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all.)
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0RTU, I have no great love for the ARRL. However it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The ARRL created this plan. They will have to be the
ones to be held accountable for the in rush of the new
Novice class. It will be their resposibility to see that the new novice will be orderly.
I do not like it as much as you! There are something like 700,000 hams. Maybe 175,000 are ARRL members.
I guess this is the day everything came to a head.
The grand promise of a ham radio as a proud hobby again or 30MHZ of CB will be the ARRL'S legacy.
Funny how the usual ARRL brass guy(not mentioning his call) has not checked into EHAM today.
He is the dude that likes to arrow quote. Can never say he could be wrong! Comes across like the imperial wizard of ham radio, and all of life in general.
Did the president of the ARRL even comment on this terrible Tuesday?
NO!
Machevelli was right! The Art of war by sen su states that when out-numbered, retreat!!
Unfortunitly, there are the only reps we have. A viable choice would be nice.
I have not given a red cent to the ARRL for over 25 years. That is my right. I could careless what the lifetime hard core ARRL bullies will say to me.
Everything the ARRL has done in the past 25 years, I did not like! NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE PRESSURED OR GUILT
TRIPPED! In fact the more they bully, the more people get turned off!
Few months ago, I was ready to rejoin the ARRL.
Then I was cuasticly lambasted by the arrow quote king of the ARRL on EHAM. FAHGETABOUTIT!
I guess the ARRL will have all the new Novices to get money from. So their money problem is solved.
The NRA is a lobby! The ARRL would like to think they are the NRA of ham radio.
The president of the ARRL seems more level headed than the arrow quote king.
You get more flies with honey than regents grade glacial hydrochloric acid!
I guess it is good that the EHAM staff are not lambasting free speech on said issue.
Your Niro of Rome idea visa-vi ARRL is cathartic, and perhaps thereputic to many!
A founding father of psch said this....Yes I should forgive all my ememies.....only after I visualise them hanging to death from a tree.
Give time, time. See what goes down.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC9FAC on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>VAN Mccoy to write another CONVOY...
That's C.W. McCall. I remember that.
Frightening, huh?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok, time out. Lets go down to the local bar (pub) have a few drinks, tell some jokes, listen to some old music, and then pick up the blood letting in the morning.
KG6AMW
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK marty, I do agree with your Paris Hilton angst.
What is the lyric..Money for nothing and the chix for free. That is show biz.
You do have to apply for a GMRS lic. Even an extra ticket gives you NO right to operate on GMRS.
You simply goto the FCC website. Give them your credit card number. Then in minutes, your GMRS Ticket and callsign gets printed up on your computer printer.
FRS 500MW No lic of course. You can also use speech encrytion on FRS
BTW I had my fun too in the late 70's. I am not a TED
Nugget/Gordon Liddy hybrid!(HI-HI)
73 DE MIKE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What's REALLY going to be funny is when
A) The ham population in the US continues to decline.
B) The VHF/UHF bands are completely vacant because everyone is on HF.
and
C) Nobody really cares.
What then?
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K7FD on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's never been a better time to check out:
http://www.fists.org
73 John K7FD
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N7ORS on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is my take on it:
Where do you think the potential future Hams will come from? I believe a large proportion of them are surfing this Web and if they are at all interested in Amateur Radio they are reading all of your posts and "taking it all in". By reading attacks and flaming posts from experienced Hams they form opinions about acceptable behavior.
Ask yourself where have you observed politeness, comraderie, and encouragement from other Hams? It ain't on a web site...The answer is on the amateur bands. It can be found there every day on every band.
Should we not practice a small amount of restraint and diplomacy on a public forum that is viewed by "The Public". Oh, you thought this was a private debate site? Wrong. It is a public forum and what you post here not only reflects on yourself but on the amateur community as a group.
Think about it. Why would you act one way on the air and then throw away all principles of being a gentleman (or woman) when you jump on E-Ham?
When you are angry about something you don't attack fellow ops on the air...why engage in flame wars on E-HAM.
If you don't like a policy you all know the avenues to have your concerns heard. Once you hit that post button you can't take it back. Being a Ham is "never having to say your sorry". "Ask not what Amateur Radio can do for you. but what you can do for Amateur Radio".
We are better than this. Let's show the Public.
Disclaimer: I am not a Preacher, I just play one on E-Ham.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N2PMB on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO ALL MY FELLOW AMATEUR OPERATORS:
Please call a truce-I've already voiced my opinion
and I've read everyone else's opiopn. We need to stick
together no matter which side of the debate your on.
Some of the comments are cruel and sarcastic. Let us
all remember that we are already a minority. Very few
people outside the ham community understand the love
of the hobby. Instead of arguing and bickering--lets
pull together and assist the FCC,the AARL, ad ourselves
by nurturing new operators to respect the hobby and to
keep it proud so no one comming in ever develops a "CB"
mentallity. WE Police the bands and we will teach new comers to do the same!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7ORS, hate to admit it, you are very right!
I guess not even the EHAM folks that put up with our
crap, know how many are non hams. They are watching!
It could be a huge number. Future hams are forming opinions. There might be many SWLers too.
I guess they see a very strange picture.
73 DE MIKE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KD7YOE on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great Idea ARRL !!! They showed they are ready to enter the 21st century.
To the amateur who said he wasn't asked for his opinion, BULL! We were asked many times and I gave them my opinion. I'm glad they listened.
KD7YOE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N7UQA on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: N7ROS
I am also sick and tired of the bigoted comments on this site. I came into the ranks from CB, I came in from the no code tec path. I don't let the bigoted comments get to me, I have been an Extra for some time now, I am also a VE, I go to ham fests and I am an Elmer. To any non-hams who may be reading, don't let the naysayers discourage you. If you put forth the effort, you'll enjoy the hobby as much as I do. Guys like me will welcome you to amateur radio.
73
|
|   |
|
Hurray! Thank you ARRL
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you ARRL!
This is a good thing for the future of Amateur Radio.
You have my support.
---Bonnie KQ6XA
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KD8IO on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All I want to say to all HAMS is.
How many times has the ARRL ever emailed you back when you write them for any reason ????
Boys you had better wake up and smell the ARRL.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N7UQA on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh please...The ARRLs proposal is just one of many that have been sent in to the FCC. I'm sure they have received a billion e-mails over this.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K1XV on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Will undoubtedly be opposed by inflexible old timers, with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. We should not let amateur radio die with them.
Face it, code is great for those who like it or acquire a taste for it. While it should never be banned (like spark gap), it has no relevance to modern day communications outside amateur radio. If amateur radio is supposed to reflect state of the art technology and operating practice, why must we remain mired in mandating proficiency in now obsolete operating practices and modes? Morse is not used by military, marine, or any other non-amateur service any more.
Go for it, ARRL. And this is from someone who passed the 20 wpm code test, can copy 30 wpm, and was first licensed in 1962.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K8KAS on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Does it really matter any longer, just give them the dam license, their already clueless on what used to make someone a HAM. ARRL, what a joke.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KI4BSL on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, don't I feel great...took my element 1 and 3 last Saturday. Looks like I could have waited and gotten the "prize" without any work at all. It almost makes you sick; the upper license classes should be attained by hard work, and that includes a CW test even for General class in my opinion. I studied for months for that CW and theory test. Now everyone that has the plain ol' tech license will have the same privilages I do. Thanks ARRL!
I just hope that they are doing what is best for us amateurs, and I hope that maybe I just don't see it at the moment.
73 to all,
KI4BSL
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KB3JZG on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well a day after I sent my email off to all the directors and presidents of the ARRL, I expected nothing less then not hearing back from them which I have not, and Ill refuse to give them another dollar of my money. I agree with quite a few others here that HF is going to turn into 23mhz. And dont give me that bull that the ARRL is going to stand up for me with BPL, they wont. They will get some kind of "offer" they couldnt refuse and end up selling out like they are selling out now, besides what difference is BPL going to do when HF is going to be turned into 400 channels with upper and lower sidebands... One thing is for sure, there ARRL must be hopeful for a "few" new memebers, and I guess the manufacters are just spinning thinking about how many new radios they will be selling...And dont think this will do anything for the price of these already overpriced behemoths except that what will always be true price*demand=BIG PROFITS... Yea, thanks ARRL, you fooled me into joining your club, but at least my eyes are open now.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> However, it makes NO SENSE to give General Class
> licenses to people who have only passed the much
> simpleer Technician exam. Current Tech and Tech Plus
> licensees should be converted to Novice.
Let me offer a personal viewpoint. Right now, after the last restructuring, the entry-level license is the Technician. Compared to the entry-level license that got me into radio, a Novice license with a 3.5 page study guide, http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/novice63.html, today's Technician license requires a 200-page study guide to really learn the underlying material -- the easiest way to pass the tests.
I have to note that I don't believe I would have entered ham radio at age 13 if W1BNB had handed me a 200-page book to study instead of a 3.5 page virtually no-technical-content study guide. And I am sure the old timers of my era were proclaiming that amateur radio was ruined for letting in the likes of me.
Right now, that Tech license essentially gives that new amateur exposure only to his or her local VHF community. In some areas, that provides support and encouragement; in other areas it does not. The only operation that most of them can do easily is VHF repeater FM. Sure, some who have the abilility and location to put up a big antenna can do VHF+ weak-signal work, or satellite, but their ham-radio universe is very limited.
Yes, with Morse code, they can get seriously limited access to parts of HF that are so deserted that they are on the plate for "refarming" to use the spectrum term, but that has not proven to be a successful way for hams to become active on HF. And on HF, with a simple wire in the trees, hams can build stations easily that are capable of worldwide communications at 100-watt levels.
Having an entry point that is much more difficult than the old Novice, more difficult than the more recent Novice and very limited for most in practical application has led us to a state where youth is not entering ham radio; most who get licensed today are not in their teens and where most who enter ham radio do not get active in any sense of the word.
Contrary to the proclamations of some, ham radio is not withering on the vine, but it is aging. If steps are not taken now to ensure that there is new blood, eventually, those proclamations will be true.
By my view, those are the valid reasons to want an entry-level license that truly is entry level.
The ARRL proposal limits power to 100 watts on most HF bands, and to 50 watts on 28, 50, 144, 222 and 420-MHz allocations. The New Novice proposal does not allow operation about the 70 cm band. The power levels were selected to be below the levels that the FCC requires to do an RF-safety evaluation of the station, thus mimimizing the number of RF-safety topics that would have to be considered for the exam.
IMHO, all of these factors are related to the reasons to merge the Tech, Tech+ and General license classes. First, if the reasons for the change to offer significant HF access to all licensees, to eliminate the balkanization that comes from segregating new hams to spectrum where they are not part of the "action" that is important to most of us HF hams, then taking steps to bring them into mainstream amateur radio is, IMHO, important.
There have been a number of different Technician exams given over the years, with older ones being exactly equivalent to General, and newer ones being not so drastically different in technical content than the General, and certainly as technical as the General exam of my era (1964), that I passed after studying no more than the 16-page chapter in the ARRL study guide.
I have learned far more about amateur radio by operating than by studying, so getting hams on the air is the best teaching tool we have. This would not work without some fundamental background, so the old Novice exam I took, for example, should not be enough to warrant merging the Novice into the General privilegs. But, IMHO, the scope of the Technician exam is enough. Yes, they haven't been tested in things like the band edges, but those are about to change, and few could seriously think that this isn't something a new ham could solve in about a minute.
What are the alternatives for Technicians? Taking away privileges, and doing so was the biggest fault in the incentive licensing restructuring that happened last century. If the Technicians were going to be merged into the New Novice, who would want to tell the Technicians doing weak-signal work and design on 1.2 GHz; 3.3 GHz; 5.6 GHz; 10 GHz and 24 GHz, just as examples, that their contributions to amateur radio on that spectrum are no longer required? Who would tell the Technicians that are working as we speak on developing protocols for amateurs to make use of 802.11 equipment under Part 97 that they will wake up the next day and not be able do continue? Who would want to tell the Technician doing moonbounce that tomorrow, he has to cut his power back to 50 watts?
When the FCC did the last restructuring, they chose not to merge most license classes. Instead, they permitted people to continue to renew Novice and Advanced licences. They actually did merge Tech and Tech+, but they kept the need for a separate code test and separate privileges. So the simplification of 6 license classes left us with 6 license classes. The "legacy" license types were orphans, and, from all indications, virtually all of the Novices were doing nothing with their licenses and the Advanced was the most inactive of the "mainstream" amateur classes. IMHO, I agree with ARRL that it is time to put that behind us and no longer keep such orphan, ill-used license classes in the structure of amateur radio.
With all of that in mind, I can understand why the ARRL chose to recommend that the Tech, Tech+ and General license classes be merged. It is not a perfect solution, but in the patchwork quilt of what has become the most most convoluted and balkanized amateur radio structure in the world, it is, IMHO, the best choice.
How well it could work is up to the amateur radio service more than any other factor. As these new hams come to HF, with enthusiasm and start in their eyes, they will have the same dumb questions I had after passing that dumbed-down Novice exam of the 1960s. If we offer help and encouragement, this can work, and they will do what we all want them to do, learn and grow within amateur radio. If we offer the anger and discouragement some have offered here, it will all be for naught, and any change, and perhaps amateur radio, could fail.
Just my personal views, guys, but those who know me well know that I call them the way I see them. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by COMMGUY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
sweet now i can get my license now and get a full code license for 12 bucks. heh. . . echo mic on worldwide channel radio. what is ssb stand for?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 3) It is not a 'fact' that more ARRL members were in
> favor of keeping element 1 then against it. No one,
> except possibly the directors, has any idea where
> ARRL members stand as a group.
If you were to ask 10 hams what to do with code testing and restructuring, you would get 12 different answers. Actually, from all I have seen from my cubbyhole in the ARRL Lab, the split appears to be pretty close to even. If there were a "majority" view, it would probably be that the question of Morse code testing is not at the top of the list of the important issues facing amateur radio today.
> 4) If the ARRL makes any more money as a result of
> this, it will simply be because they did part of
> their job: attracting new people to the hobby. In
> itself, there's nothing wrong with this.
One cannot talk about ARRL "making" money without talking about how it will spend that money. The League has a paid staff (underpaid, by most standards), but there are no stockholders, so minor variations in the ebb and flow of finances, all that comes in translates directly into programs to benefit amateur radio. Take a look at the ARRL web page index to get a good idea of what ARRL does with this "made" money.
> 8) By the way, if the FCC petition does get acted
> on, you'll have another chance to express your
> opinion -- directly to the FCC.
And I sure encourage hams to do so. I see value in having amateurs gather behind the compromise that ARRL put together, because the alternative is to have such a convoluted mix of proposals that the FCC decides for us -- and we have seen the result of that. But hams who agree or disagree with any or all of the convoluted mix of proposals that are on the plate right now SHOULD make their views known to the FCC.
> 11) There aren't any commercial spectrum users
> lusting after the HF bands. Commercial broadcasters
> are moving *away* from HF -- which is part of why it
> was so easy to get the 40m agreement.
But there ARE unlicensed users of spectrum lusting after our HF bands, so activity is critical, IMHO, to retaining effective use of them.
> 13) Whether there's an influx of hams in the US or
> not isn't going to have any impact at all on BPL.
> Even if the ham population tripled, it would be a
> tiny constituency, when compared to internet users.
It would make a big difference. Right now, the BPL industry is claiming that there have been no reports of interference from their trial areas. Not true, btw, even though many of the trials are small, but in Briarcliff Manor, NY, even though the system covers about 5 long streets, there are hams in the trial area. Unfortunately, not a one is active on HF, so we don't have a "real" interference case to report from that trial area.
In Potomac, MD, 15 watts of transmitter outside a house in the trial took the modem down. 100 watts a half-mile up the road did the same. If there were lots of active hams, the unlicensed folks would be looking to other spectrum and technology to make sure their stuff worked.
> 16) I don't know about you, but the things I cherish
> most are *not* the things I work hard at. They're
> the things that come as a complete surprise -- like
> a special sunset.
Or a winning lottery ticket! :-) The value of amateur radio to me is not in how hard I worked at getting licensed -- it is the value of my access to spectrum and the value of what I can do with amateur radio. We all got access to the WRC bands a few years back, with no additional requirements. They are among our most valued bands of all, and the conduct of hams there seems to me to be better than on some of the bands we had to work to get.
> 18) It's not unusual for directors to vote by voice.
> Roll call votes are pretty uncommon.
The general rule in any organization is that once an organization makes a decision, the proponents and opponents support it. We do that with the law of our land, for example. I don't agree with every law, but I support the principle of law, because without law, we have anarchy.
> 19) By the way, the board did everything it could to
> make it seem that there was support for code testing
> among the membership -- up to and including a poll
> that was biased in favor of code.
The "passion" here tells us clearly that there is support for code testing among ARRL membership. The ARRL proposal included code testing for that very reason. There is also support to eliminate code testing altogether, or any number of variations in between. That is the nature of the substance from which compromises are made.
> 21) Division directors aren't "headquarter's
> leadership". They represent their divisions and
> only' meet face-to-face twice a year.
The ARRL Directors set ARRL policy. They meet as a body twice a year, with separate major committees also meeting at other times of year. The headquarters staff does not set ARRL policy, under the leadership of Dave Sumner, they carry it out. The Board does not generally get involved in the details of doing that (micromanagement is left to Dave, and even then, he hires good managers who hire good staff).
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by G0GDU on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Adding to my earlier post.
To AG4RQ,
If a decision were made to upgrade all Foundations licence holders to Intermediate without further test, I guess I would accept that this as being progressive and that whilst I may have been required to complete the Intermediate test things have moved on. I would hope that I would not consider myself superior to those who have been upgraded in this way. This is much like having personally passed a Morse test at 12 wpm, I was not overly concerned or disturbed when the requirement was initially reduced to 5 wpm and has now been removed completely.
I do not exclusively use CW, but am thankful for being able to its advantages when the going gets tough, an SSB signal on my frequency does not bother me when using CW but can the same be said for the SSB operator when I use CW? The majority of hams I speak with do not see the removal of the Morse test requirement as being the elimination of the CW mode, in fact some no-code operators are making the effort to learn Morse now is not a mandatory requirement for operating on the HF bands.
Your explanation as to the way examinations work in the US explains to some extent the feeling about dumbing down, but why does this require vitriolic comments often ending up with a code / no-code debate. Surely we all entered this diverse hobby because of personal interests and would all wish to see it continue and grow in the future. Is being a Ham about the way we obtain our licence or about our wish to communicate by radio. The nature of the debates in eham and similar forum surely do more to turn away potential hams from the hobby than to suggest that these people are representative of those with whom they may wish to communicate.
In the UK, it is required that candidates for all classes of licences now have to undertake a prescribed course of tuition before they can sit the examination. All Hams now have to start at the foundation level and progress through the Intermediate level before they can acquire a full licence.
The technical content of the requirements for each level is progressively more complex. There are publications where candidates are able to review typical examination questions, but the official pool of questions is not published. As a trainer/examiner I obviously have sight of the questions asked but the question papers have to be returned after the examination. The questions asked in each examination do vary, so that it reduces the ability of a candidate to memorise the answers unless one has access to the entire pool.
To some extent we have already experienced this type of change in the UK. Yes we had some die hards who oppose change but on the whole these changes seem to have been accepted.
When the Novice licence was replaced by the Foundation and Intermediate licences, all Novice licence holders were upgraded to Intermediate. It’s fair to say the technical examination now required for the Intermediate Licence is comparable to that originally required for the Novice licence, but the upgrade did give them a significantly greater access to bands with an increase from 5W to 50W. Whilst a Class A Novice licence originally had limited access to the HF bands, the Intermediate licence enabled access to all HF bands.
When the Foundation licence was introduced it gave access to all HF bands except 10m, a privilege not at that time enjoyed by the Full and Intermediate Class B (no-code) licence holders. Some of the class B licence holders saw the Foundation licence as a way of getting onto HF bands without having to pass a Morse test. Although they were exempt from attending a training course and taking the Foundation Licence exam they did have to a Morse assessment to prove their ability to send and receive but with no minimum speed requirement.
As a consequence a number of the M3’s operating up to July 2002 were Class B Intermediate and Full Licence holders and proved their ability to communicate on the HF bands using only 10W. Since the removal of the Morse test requirement a number of these have now reverted to their old class B calls (i.e. G1, G6, G7, G8 and M1 three letter calls) which permits them to operate as Full licence holders on all HF bands with 400W and as a consequence will now give up their M3 calls.
When first licensed as G6NUM I was, as a no-code operator, restricted to 50 MHz and above, in effect 144 MHz and above since 50 MHz and 70 MHz allocations only became available after I had passed the 12 wpm Morse test.
During my time as a class B licence holder I was able to use my station “for the purpose of self-training in communication by radio telecommunications”. I learnt a lot about communications and operating, which helped immensely when I was able to migrate to the HF bands.
Unlike the Foundation licence training course I had no formal training or practical experience in operating procedures before I was licensed, I had to learn by my mistakes and with the help and understanding, thankfully, of those I met on air.
To KG6PIR
It is not correct to state that no-code UK amateurs are unable to operate in CEPT countries.
Since the requirement for a Morse test as removed in July there is no distinction between those who have passed a CW test and those who have not.
Anyone holding a Full licence is permitted to operate in a CEPT country; this always being the case whether or not they had passed a Morse test. It is true however that anyone holding a Foundation or Intermediate licence, whether or not they passed a Morse test, is not permitted to operate in CEPT countries.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by AB6MH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read the proposal and immediately sent my ARRL VE badge back to them in the mail. I also will let my subscription expire on the 31st of March. The ARRL does not speak for me any longer. Even if this proposal isn't adopted by the FCC ... I know where their head is at. They are looking at more hams, more money ... by way of increased membership! The dumbing-down of ham radio at its finest!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Everything the ARRL has done in the past 25 years, I did not like!
Why do you not like:
The RFI program
The Big Project - amateur radio in the classroon
ARRL's support of scouting
ARRL's support of SAREX
Product Review testing
The ARRL Technical Information Service pages
Just to name a few examples.
Oh, and if you prefer that I use quotes instead of arrows so that you and others will know to which parts of your post I am responding, I will try to remember to do so. It is just that arrows are the convention on most discussion boards, so they are generally well understood.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> How many times has the ARRL ever emailed you back
> when you write them for any reason ????
I have 9,000 sent mails in my 2003 Sent Mail folder, about half of which are correspondence with members. The ARRL Lab in toto responded to 11,000 inquiries last year. This doesn't count other staff.
If you email ARRL and don't get an answer, that is not right. Try again, because email does get lost, and if you still don't get an answer, email your ARRL Division Director with a complaint, or me. (It ain't my job, but I will help anyway).
I do have one suggestion. Do not leave the subject blank, with "Hi" or "URGENT BUSINESS PROPOSAL" as the subject line, or anything else that can be confused with spam. I will go to work soon and there will be 300 spam message in my INBOX and the ONLY way I can get things done is to clear them quickly. I choose to do it by hand because I will do a more accurate job than the spamblocker programs, from what I have read.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That's fine Martin, AB6MH. Go away and take all that bitterness and narrow-mindedness you have with you. You won't be missed. Myself and many others now will take over where you left off and with a little more tolerance and open-mindedness than you have. I'm personally looking forward to everyone being on the same side for a change....hopefully. Oh yeah, are you going to tear up any QSL cards you get from new hams with new HF priviledges? I'll make sure you're on my list.
73
Soon to be ARRL Diamond club and life member :o)
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Well a day after I sent my email off to all the
> directors and presidents of the ARRL, I expected
> nothing less then not hearing back from them which I
> have not, and Ill refuse to give them another dollar
> of my money.
You should have sent the email to your own Division Director and, if you wish, cc'ed the President and Vice Presidents. Normally, the Prez and VPs would defer to the Director to make a response. In seeing the long list of recipients, each would probably assume that you were not in his Division, so would not presume to speak for other Directors.
They sometimes do, though, although I would imagine they are more than a day behind. Before jumping to the conclusions that ARRL doesn't want to hear from you, give it a reasonable amount of time and direct your member input to your Director. I suggest that you forward a copy to your Director, telling him that you really would like to hear his views on what you had to say.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Don't just "consider" canceling your ARRL
> membership. Do it. I cancelled today. And I
> encourage all that feel strongly to do the same.
> SEND A MESSAGE.
If your local electric utility decides it wants to try BPL, can we tell them that they can't do it in your town, except on your street.
I am always disheartened when I am working on finding ways to use ARRL resources to do things that I believe are critical to the future of amateur radio when I see someone bragging about taking some of those resources away.
73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> That's why the ARRL sold us down the river. It's all about membership and money.
Those that made the decisions don't get to keep any of the money, so I am not sure how you can justify that one.
In what way were you sold down the river? What privileges will this take away from you? I will be able to to continue to do whatever I have been doing in ham radio. Will not you? The difference is that instead of seeing a continuing gradual decline in on-the-air activities in ham radio, we might see some fresh enthusiasm.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good morning Ed,
Looks like we might be on the same team in the not too distant future after all. I had thrown away my first membership renewal form but now my renewal and my wife's is guaranteed. Plus there is a good chance of me upgrading it too.
As I've already mentioned, looking forward to the benefits that the 31 plus other countries are already enjoying and no it hasn't destroyed or turned ham radio into CB abroad so think of a different excuse people.
73
Dave
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by WW8WV on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SIMPLE...MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT WALKS!!!
I agree with most in saying that the TECH's should only be given novice priv's. But to give them General and then give them the Advance protion on some bands. I don't even know what to say, the HELL with it.
I had already removed myself from the ARRL because of all the junk mail they were sending me asking for more and more money to help fund projects that I thought my dues were already going towards. If all I wanted was a magazine, I would have subscribed to CQ! I was thinking of rejoining the ARRL but I will have to think about 10x's as much now.
And as to W1RFI's repeated posts. I think what he is doing to limit RFI and BPL is very important work and needs to be supported if not by money then by contacting your local polliticians Etc... And If the ARRL were putting my membership dues toward that then I would rejoin today but I will not do it for just a magazine subscription. And I will not do it and support the "DUMBING DOWN" of the hobby.
This is a clear ploy for more membership which = more money. and again, MONEY TALKS AND BULLSHIT WALKS!!
Jeremy Lewis
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N8UW on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks, W1RFI, for being part of the community's discussion.
AE6IP wrote:
5) It's a hobby. The way you 'work' for it isn't by taking tests, it's by getting on the air and participating.
True today! I got my licence by self study in 2002, and was confused when 2 cousins who are longtimer Extras expresssed great pride that we had 3 of us at the family reunion. They took pictures. I had looked at the licence as a simple entry requirement, like driving. I hope getting a licence isn't the thing folks are most proud of in their radio career! I now know it was a sense of accomplishment in the 20 WPM days, and I recaptured that with the W1AW code proficiency program.
How many of us CW ops are like me, code in the military and electronics in college? I didn't have to work for my licence (other than learning about regulations and modes like moonbounce I'll never use, but still enjoy reading about). The work was already done, for professional reasons.
On a selfish view, 125 kHz for CW doesn't take away any of my hangouts, and I may QSO some new folks. I think CW will continue to thrive. Sure, I'd like the FISTS proposal more, but the FCC isn't going to impliment it. The ARRL did the reasonable thing, and I will continue to support the only organized voice we have with my membership.
Chuck, Vegetarian Ham
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N2MG on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI wrote:
> It is just that arrows are the convention on most
> discussion boards, so they are generally well
> understood.
Using arrows is the preferred method as readers can more easily differentiate the responses from the original.
IMO, your posts are highly readable...unlike some.
73 Mike N2MG
webmaster
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
MG and RFI, for the record. I do not mind arrow quoting when it is for Ham Radio issue's.
I have just found RFI arrow quotes more than anybody else!
However when RFI gets into arrow quoting on peoples favorite flavor of ice cream, the philosophic,and good old opinions.....That is where I draw the line.
Of course your both life long ARRL members, so you will back each other up on anything!
73 nothing personal MIKE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by NJ0E on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KI4BSL:
quote:
---------------------------------------------------
Wow, don't I feel great...took my element 1 and 3 last Saturday. Looks like I could have waited and gotten the "prize" without any work at all. It almost makes you sick; the upper license classes should be attained by hard work, and that includes a CW test even for General class in my opinion. I studied for months for that CW and theory test. Now everyone that has the plain ol' tech license will have the same privilages I do. Thanks ARRL!
I just hope that they are doing what is best for us amateurs, and I hope that maybe I just don't see it at the moment
-------------------------------------.
endquote:
it's not a waste of your efforts at all.
plug in your key, fire up your transceiver, and join
us down in the cw segments of the hf bands for the
most fun that you can have in amateur radio.
no exaggerations from here.
like you, i worked on my cw skills to pass the
radiotelegraph elements because i wanted the mode
and spectrum privileges. but the real prize was
in fact the radiotelegraph proficiency itself.
the others will never know what they're missing.
see you in the cw bands.
73
scott nj0e
99% cw
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't see how anyone's ditching the ARRL is going to help amateur radio, unless they have the money and the resources to do more than the ARRL and have the strength in numbers to implement their vision of what amateur radio should be. Sending back a badge or calling the ARRL and cancelling one's membership may send a message, but I don't see how it's gonna help anyone get their way unless they have a better plan in mind and the resources to get it done.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by K3UD on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello Ed
Glad to see someone using the term "orphan licenses" other than myself :)
The only thing I do not understand about the the ARRL proposal is why all classes of the Technician (Tech+, Tech with code and no code Tech, get grandfathered to the General class while the Novice, and I imagine there are still some who are on the air (I talk to several on 10) gets to initially populate the new Novice class.
I also do not understand why an existing Novice would need to lower their power on 10 meters (unless there will be something like a Novice + class for existing Novices) Anyway you look at it, this is a reduction, albeit small, in privileges that has been already earned.
I would certainly like to see the board ammend its proposal to include all permutations of Tech and the existing Novice class to be put in the New Novice Class. This class has a good amount of new privileges for everyone in the mentioned existing classes. This seems to be the largest concern of those who are posting and I think that this may make the proposal more acceptable to those who have some valid concerns about it.
73
George
K3UD
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KD7KUN on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree we should never change things from how they were. I've seen that in my profession; people graduating now a day have it way to easy and shouldn't even be considered professional accountants. Why in my day we didn't have computers or calculators, we had to do everything on columnar paper and calculate all our formulas by hand. Yes, those were the days of professional accounting and anyone that uses a computer or calculator shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an accountant...their nothing but lazy good for nothings who got a free ride!
Sounds pretty professionalpretty mature? Doesn't it? I suppose could invoke phrases like most accountants prefer using columnar paper, etc.; without citing scientific surveys to support my argument. That would make my point of view sound even more mature.
I would never make a comment like this to anyone coming out of college nor would I put down any of my colleagues in such a manner. The times have changed, they are no less intelligent than me; they just had the advantage of using better tools than I had available when I was learning the profession. Would I ever require an employee of mine to prove they are capable of doing something that they have no need for (such as calculating out present values, economic order quantities, or fully diluted earnings per share on columnar paper without the use of a calculator)? The answer would be no, it is not efficient and isn't done these days since we have tools that make the job more accurate AND efficient.
As for those who wish to live in the past, please feel free to do so BUT dont belittle others who have met their license requirements in a different way than you. However, if you feel it is your job in life to belittle those who were licensed under different rules than you; please do us all a favor and turn in your licenses; you have proven that you are incapable of following the Amateur Radio Code of Ethics and are unable to contribute positively to the service.
The Radio Amateur is:
CONSIDERATE....never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others.
LOYAL.... offers loyalty, encouragement, and support to other amateurs, local clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in the United States is represented nationally and internationally.
PROGRESSIVE... with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station and operation above reproach.
FRIENDLY... slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration for the interest of others. These are the hallmarks of the amateur service.
BALANCED... radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to family, job, school or community.
PATRIOTIC... station and skill always ready for service to country and community.
-The original Amateur's Code was written by Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, in 1928.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N2MG on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH wrote:
> MG and RFI, for the record. I do not mind arrow
> quoting when it is for Ham Radio issue's.
>
> I have just found RFI arrow quotes more than anybody
> else!
> However when RFI gets into arrow quoting on peoples
> favorite flavor of ice cream, the philosophic,and
> good old opinions.....That is where I draw the line.
Well, when someone wants to address specific issues in a post, the only way to clearly indicating to what each response is referring is to separate and mark the original text. Arrows are highly effective.
> Of course your both life long ARRL members, so you
> will back each other up on anything!
>
> 73 nothing personal MIKE
Hmm, nothing personal? That's definitely a personal statement - it suggests that Ed and I have some kind of behind-the-scenes relationship that causes us to immediately rally to one another's cause without regard to the specific issue at hand.
I know everyone loves a conspiracy, but it still amazes me that folks get ideas like this...
Mike N2MG
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KI4CRN on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sounds like a good fair approach trying to satisfy a wide variety of feelings on the issue
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
MIKE N2MG, your OK. You do have a good sense of humor!)
Yes, I am big on conspiracies!!!!
Most people like me that have worked in Broadcast News, do become conspiracy junkies!(HI-HI)
Paranoia sometimes, is simply just knowing all the facts!!
73 and have a nice day DE MIKE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K2IY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So the ARRL supports this proposal, new hams enter the hobby, join ARRL, QST circulation increases, QST Mfr advertising increases etc. Afterall, what new ham is going to purchase a $1000 HF rig plus station accy's if he doesnt't have operating privelages on a spectrum of the HF bands (80, 40, 15, 10)?
Just as BPL is about making money, so is this.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W8MW on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like everything about the ARRL plan. When the major overhaul called incentive licensing happened in the 60's privileges were taken away from most of us. The message to the average ham who had already been granted full privileges: We decided you are not smart enough, motivated enough, dedicated enough. Jump thru some new hoops and earn back what we took away. Thus was born a pecking order that too many people took way too seriously. Pride in personal accomplishment became blurred with arrogance. Decades after the fact I remain convinced none of that was good for amateur radio.
What I perceive in the ARRL plan is a long overdue correction to poor decisions of the past that divided the amateur community and fueled elitist attitudes. If Techs are grandfathered to General, I am one Extra saying that's great. We need you on HF. We trust you to get up to speed on the regulations and good amateur practice applicable to this spectrum. It won't be that big a leap for most who are already good hams.
I like the proposed inclusion of new operators into mainstream HF frequencies. The thinking of the past was let's put them somewhere they can't do any harm. A foredrawn negative. Finally, a positive approach that recognizes new HF operators will grow faster by being in the game rather than sidelined to a restricted holding area.
Amateur radio in the US is recognized as a component in homeland security. Our ability to provide emergency communications is the most tangible service we offer the public. The ARRL proposal allows the amateur service to deploy all of its available resources when emergency nets are established on 75 and 40 meters. By permitting HF access to every licensed amateur, we will finally be in a position to apply critical mass when needed. This will make the amateur service stronger and more relevant to the public interest. ARRL leadership has set the stage for this to happen. They have my total support.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WD8WV on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been watching these comments on this particular topic. I myself made my two cents worth known. I have discussed this with fellows on the radio, even on 2 Meters. I spoke with a Technician just last night and he agreed with me. He feels that the Technicians should not be grandfathered into Generals. Even though he is a Technician he doesn't like the idea. He thinks that putting the Technician in the proposed Novice class would be the right way to go and to grandfather the old Novices and Tech Plus into Generals. He also feels that the code should be kept at the General level. Now this came from a Tech.
I was think how many Novices would you have if this proposal goes through, NONE. Why just get a little when you can get it all. Testers would come and take the exam for Novice and then General. Forget being a Novice and only have a little portion to talk on, go straight to General and get it all.
This discussion will go on and on for days, right now I printed this discussion so I could read at my leisure and see that it is already over 78 pages long.
A few of my good friends, KD8IO and WW8WV have posted their feelings and I can understand their disgust with the League. It does seem that we are dumbing down the hobby and that the League is always asking for money.
Again this is a hobby and in all hobbies we try to strive for improvement both in ourselves and how we use our hobby. In this hobby one of the improvements is overcoming the obstacles, whether it be code or written exams. Does it make us better operators? Well, in some cases maybe, but it does make us have a better respect for our hobbies and those who have went through the same steps to get there.
Again, I feel the following:
NEW NOVICE: TECHNICIANS AND NEW HAMS
GENERAL: TECH PLUS AND OLD NOVICES AND GENERALS (5 WPM CW REQUIRED)
EXTRA: OLD ADVANCED AND EXTRA
Again this my two cents worth.
I also want to thank Ed, W1RFI for taking the time to come and make his comments and feeling known. I would like to see Jim Hayne post his comments, tell us what he fells and why the League went in this direction.
73
Juddie D. Burgess WD8WV
http://www.qsl.net/wd8wv
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N3TVV on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been a Ham for almost 10 years and have always been happy with the privledges that I got,because I know that I earned them.
Although,everyone will gain some bandwidth from this proposal,My suggestion would be to upgrade the current hams and keep the 5 wpm for the General and Extra class licensees .This way everyone gets something and it would keep some separation between the 3 license classes and prevent clutter on the bands.
I do realize that not everyone is capable of learning code,some people just don't get it.Which is why I Agree with new license class,but,We Need To keep Some Standards in the hobby and Not give into LAZY AMERICA ,because,people are getting lazier,by the day.
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ENOUGH,YOU WILL WORK HARD AND DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET IT !!! Yes this includes ham radio.
LET's face it! You'll never please everyone,but,a good compromise using common sense is a good start.
That's my point of view....
Eric T Bott
N3TVV
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KB2YYO on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This really is not a bad proposal. I do believe however that current Tech and Tech Plus licensees should be required to take the wriiten element for General. I read in an earlier post that Technicians ( Tech Plus also ) who just passed their written exam almost passed the written exam for General right after completing their test, that means they failed. Each license upgrade introduces more theory and knowledge required to pass the test, it teaches you what this hobby is all about and makes you respect the hobby that much more. Some of this will be taken away. I will welcome them among us however. We need more younger people in Amateur Radio and the proposal the ARRL has put forth I believe will encourage more to join. It's much too easy today to turn on a computer and chat with someone else on the other side of the globe and not even need an antenna. Let's get these people in the hobby first and the entice them to study and learn more. Who doesn't want to learn more about their hobby ? . And for those of you who are discontinuing their membership to ARRL, GOOD, you won't be missed. The ARRL is our main representative for the protection of the radio spectrum we enjoy. I think the ARRL has done a good job, and though I don't completely agree with this proposal it is a step in the right direction. And for those of you who have their Tech or Tech Plus license please study up and upgrade before this goes into affect, you'll be glad you did and learn a little more about your hobby. And for those of you who will wait it out and have the license handed to you, that's ashame but welcome anyway. 73
Mark
WA2MO
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AD6WL on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A survey on this subject is being conducted at Yahoo Groups. You do have to be a member to participate, but anyone can join.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QRS-CW/surveys?id=11602651
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by D0RK on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This just in!!! ARRL's newest publication "CB Lingo Made Easy".
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KG4TZY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey, I got a win-win proposal. Since us no-code techs don't know morse, you all can simply go to the CW subbands and use your beloved CW. Wow, you get to use your hard earned skill and don't have to talk to a single no-coder.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by N4LI on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Overall, this isn’t a bad proposal. There are strengths and weaknesses to it, but I am of the opinion that there is no “correct” plan out there.
As a bedrock rule, we must realize that there is nothing mystical about HF; it’s just another part of the spectrum. We allow entry-level operators on VHF, why not HF? Sure, the possibilities for QRM by an unqualified operator go nationwide, but arguably, VHF QRM is just as concerning, if not more. After all, emergency communications would most likely be above 50 MHz, where the No-Coders currently live.
While many are concerned about the CB-izing of the bands, I find that argument hollow. After all, the current Tech test is well within the grasp of anyone; 2m hasn’t become the wasteland that many had feared. And, as has been argued, what if Husband and wife want to use their 2m radios to coordinate trips to the grocery or soccer logistics? Great! As long as they operate properly and legally, they are more than welcome on our repeater.
My main concern is the auto-upgrade of current Techs. I have taken both tests, and I must say the General test was much tougher than the Tech. Heck, I missed a question on the General! One could certainly argue cogently that the Tech test as it sits does not provide the background that may be needed to operate full-legal limit on the worldwide bands.
As far as rolling the Advanced Class guys into Extra? Great. That is fair. And, I applaud the continuation of CW testing for Extra. This level of license should require some effort. It is, after all, “Extra,” right?
But, whether the FCC will agree to even keep Element 1 for Extras is questionable. The Commission really wants to get out of the Code business. So, what Mikey and his partners will do is anyone’s guess.
The ARRL has taken a pragmatic track here – trying to satisfy as many of their constituents as possible. I am not sure they have succeeded. But, we all must realize, change is coming; we should embrace it.
Peter, N4LI
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KF9Z on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why do we care what the other countries are doing? When do we base what America does with its own sovereignty on what other parts of the world choose to do? That is the problem with America. We tend to place far more weight on what other countries do/did. WHO CARES! I want code retained for HF access. Why do I care what 31 other countries are doing? Last time I checked they are not AMERICA!
Geesh...get real. If you must remove the HF code requirement I would expect the ARRL/FCC to require a much harder written test. Why do we continue to give things away with little or no work? Beats me. My kids are not brought up in an environment where you get what you want provided you bitch long enough.
And for the ARRL circulation desk...I would cancel my sub now if I would be given a refund for the unused QST copies I will not receive. The ARRL has not done for me what I paid them to do. They roll over for the big radio manufactures and take one in the can for all the no-code technicians who now get GENERAL privileges. Please. This indeed is a sad day for our once proud hobby.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KA0ABC on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Right on ARRL. Good proposal. Free ride ham radio licensing. Oh, BTW ARRL can I get a free engineering degree from M.I.T.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI writes:
"If your local electric utility decides it wants to try BPL, can we tell them that they can't do it in your town, except on your street"
I wasn't aware that was the ARRL's decision, but I may be confused. In any event, sure Ed, go ahead, green light them. At this point, why not?
What's the difference between QRM from BPL and QRM from a Super-power-overdrive em, MK-III delux power microphone driving a roger-beep reverb box into a Copper Electronics super-splatter 1KW amp?
After all, rumor has it that the next ARRL proposal will be to grandfather in all 11 meter ops to 20 meters.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA0ABC You want a EE degree from MIT!
Well if the ARRL can sell us out, I am selling copies
of my degrees.
You must be a lic. Ham to be able to purchase one of 3 degree's I have. OK The masters will not be granted till this May!
1)EE not from MIT $39
2)BME-Bio-medical engineer-$39
3)MSBME-Masters Bio-medical engineer-$39
I think the price is the same as a QST?
Just kidding, your remark was so funny and on the money. The Gimmi generation ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|   |
|
ARRL Proposes dumbing down ham radio
|
|
|
by W9WHE on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, now that the ARRL has betrayed us, what we need to do is file negative comments with the FCC, just as was done for BPL. Be frank and articulate. Cite the 11 meter disaster. Explain how 11 meters is useless because of the lack of standards and how dumbing down Amateur radio will have similar results. Above all, be rational and provide explanations. Encourage your friends to do the same. Discuss the need to file negative comments on the air. Repeatedly. E mail and write your congressman.
You know that NCI will be getting out the support, so we must show how this is bad for Amateur radio and even homeland security.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What everyone is forgetting is that ARRL's proposal is only one of many submitted to the FCC for consideration. I do not recall how many there are, but I believe it is a dozen of them.
And another thing is that the FCC is going to do what the FCC wants to do with this codeless HF issue. The ARRL certainly doesn't tell the FCC how to run it's agency and the proposal is simply that: a PROPOSAL!
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W8VOM on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember...The ARRL does this all for YOU :-)
Perhaps (some) of the Advanced and NCT's like this plan but for most existing General class Op's,the proposal is a slap in the face! No additional Theory?
The ARRL is so caught up in this BPL SCARE they have lost touch with most of the Ham population! Most of us knew from the start that BPL would never see wide scale use in the USA. It is a poor investment just like this new ARRL proposal is a poor investment in our future. While it may bring more people to HF (as if we need more people on HF)what price do we pay if this proposal is adopted? W8VOM
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes dumbing down ham radio
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>what we need to do is file negative comments with the FCC<<
Right...I'm sure with all the "nice" things most of you have been saying about them lately, especially Kathleen Abernathy, I'm sure your comments will get the rightful attention that they deserve.
Get another one of those famous "form letters" going on the Internet again.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by K0RGR on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2MO - yes, the new Techs who had not studied for the Element 3 exam did fail, by not more than 3 questions, each. At least one of these questions was about the General band edges, which doesn't even belong on a decent test. So, for the other two questions, which probably involved full-wave bridge rectifiers, this is not worth arguing over. For most of its existence, the written exam for Tech was the same as that for General. I screamed loudly when they split it in two - this was done so Techs could avoid learning the General band edges. Instead, they got stuck having to memorize all the VHF/UHF/lower microwave, plus Novice band edges - all information that doesn't really belong on a test of one's technical competence.
Much ado about nothing - just another excuse to complain because somebody somewhere might get a small 'freebie'. Life is much too short for this, and if it causes you to cancel your League membership, that is harming ham radio, not helping it. Take your marbles and go home.
Now, I will inject another controversy, however. Should the new Novices have distinctive callsigns like we all did 40 years ago? I think it would be a great idea. That way, new Novices can avoid higher class curmudgeons on the air by only calling other Novices, if they choose to do so. They will know they're talking to another newbie.
This can be done very simply by having FCC add a footnote to the table of callsigns, to the effect that Novices must add the letter "N" to their callsign prefix. So, KC2XYZ becomes KCN2XYZ. Again, just like the original Novice where WN6XYZ became W6XYZ after upgrading to Tech or General.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4DXL on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VK Going No-code on 1 January, 2004
Finland Drops Morse Testing November 1, 2003
Papua New Guinea latest to drop Morse requirement (excerpted from The ARRL Letter)
Luxembourg Grants CEPT Class 2 Licensees HF Privileges, Effective Sept. 18, 2003
Singapore Removes Requirement for Morse Code Examination for General Class Licence (From the website of the Singapore Amateur Radio Transmitting Society (SARTS))
RAC Survey Shows 2/3 of Canadian Hams Want Morse Requirement Dropped
That pretty much says it all.
CHANGES!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4TVL on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Boycott the ARRL? Hell, I've been boycotting the ARRL since their 1969 Incentive Licenseing screw up.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4TVL on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Boycott the ARRL? Hell, I've been boycotting the ARRL since their 1966 Incentive Licenseing screw up.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N8ZC on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that ARRL is just doing what they want to do without concideration of what their members want or think.
If 'Amateur Radio' needs a shot in the arm to stay healthy and alive, then do so by not giving away the farm.
By giving so many privileges to an 'entry class license' and to just let exsisting 'Technician and Tech Plus' licenses just start using the 'General class' bands is just asking for trouble.
OK fine... the 'No Code' issue isn't going away. So, why not give the "new" novice class the same privigleges as the former 'Novice Class' and let them work on 6m, 2m and 70cm. And learn about RF safety as well.
Then for all the 'Technician and Tech Plus' licenses holders, have them take a writen exam restructured to reflect some kind of 'know how' in radio, without a code exam.
People tend to not respect things in life that are just given to them. So let them earn the privledge of "Amateur Radio".
Well that is my opion on the subject.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all those who think all CHANGE is good.
1)Do you like the CHANGE in health care insurence!
2)Do you like the CHANGE in medical treatment.
A GP check up used to last an hour, today it is 15
minutes!
3)Bet all of ya love the CHANGE in customer care!
Bet you love being on hold for hours!
Bet you all love how RADIO SHACK changed!
4)The Taliban wants to CHANGE the U.S.A!
So, cha-cha-cha-changes!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N3LJS on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let the ARRL members vote on it, then send in to the FCC.
More hams buys more radio's and that's more members for the ARRL. We need another voice in Washington.......
Rob
|
|   |
|
Current Techs and Tech plus should take General Wr
|
|
|
by N5QDY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello--
I'm getting over being shocked.
I can handle most of the proposal. The one thing I'm *totally* against is grandfathering in the current Techs and Tech plus class into General. I think these people should at least take the General written exam. The exam is a breeze, but there are some very important concepts that need to be learned from the study material. HF is infinitely more complicated than VHF/UHF operation. I've been a General since July, and I have really had to work to be a good operator on HF. This would not have been possible if I had not had some grounding gleaned from preparing for the General written exam.
Again: ****Current Techs and Tech Plus' should have to take the General Class Written exam.****
I think this is one area where some negotiation would be successful and prudent.
Current Techs and Tech Plus': Are you up to the challenge of the General Written? :)
Scott
N5QDY
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N3LJS on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look down the road, say 10 years. FCC says to the ARRL.
No one is using the CW portion of the bands. So guess what we are going to do. If you don't use them you are going to lose them!!
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Threatening to cancel ARRL membership is not the answer. They are worth supporting despite
what you feel about the proposal.
I think it commendable that they are in favor of keeping the 5 wpm for extra, even though anyone
should be able to pass that with a little effort. The FCC is leaning toward removing it altogether.
Would that really surprise anyone?
The ARRL is just as frustrated as hams are about having to tap-dance to all segments of
amateur radio, and not step on anyone's toes. Everyone cannot be satisfied.
It seems the "big worry" is that Amateur Radio will self-destruct because of all this.
I'd like to quote Will Rogers (at least, I think it was Will Rogers):
"It's amazing how long we've been going to hell in a handbasket, without actually getting
there".
Lighten-up. Keep your ARRL membership, or join if you're not a member.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N8HDJ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What are they trying to do with our hobby??
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes dumbing down ham radio
|
|
|
by KC7MM on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My sincere thanks to AE6IP and W1RFI for their positive attitude and comments.
Most of the important decisions in life require some form of compromise. The proposal the ARRL has come up with is full of compromise, and I will support it 100%.
I am amazed that some of my fellow hams believe that the ARRL makes its decisions only to increase its income. Most people working for the ARRL do so as volunteers. They don't get a salary. Those who are salaried are paid a pittance of what they are worth, considering their professional experience and educations. I am lead to believe much of their devotion to amateur radio is based on their love for it, not for personal gain. And as far as I know, the ARRL doesn't sell shares, so there are no stockholders to receive any dividends and thus benefit from the supposed fortune rolling into Newington's coffers.
I doubt that any major electronics corporation is getting rich on its miniscule amateur radio division. In fact, the opposite is probably true. Ham radio for them is a money pit. So until someone can show me verifiable proof that there is a plot to increase cash flow to industry and the ARRL, I will lump the naysayers in the same group as the alien invasion theorists (crackpots).
I suggest we all get behind the ARRL and support its license restructuring proposal proposal.
Dale KC7MM
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
hey, who wants to be in a club with split tails like kq6xa??? I sure don't. she is a example of the "new ham", and we all know what that is....no work, no work, no work, just gimmie gimmie gimmie some more welfare.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes dumbing down ham radio
|
|
|
by K2IY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So let's see; with the new Novice entry class license, you can purchase any Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu etc hf/vhf/uhf transceiver and operate it on any phone band Except 160, 20 or WARC bands.
More hams = More potential xcvr sales = More QST ads = More ARRL revenue. Get it folks.....It's the money stupid.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by K7VO on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CWTitan, what does "split tails" mean? Why the attack on Bonnie in particular and nobody else (including me) who support the ARRL position?
Last I heard Bonnie was an RF Engineer with more knowledge and technical expertise than 99% of the male ham population. She could pass any test you could throw at her.
I am not a new ham by any stretch and I support the ARRL proposal. Oh, and read my previous post: I came through the old (as in before no code) licensing sysem. Based on what I've seen on this forum the standards of amateur radio can't possibly be hurt by this proposal. Some of you are already as low as you can go.
-Cait
K7VO
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm a "new" ham (licensed just > 1 yr.) and I surely don't want anything "given" to me that I didn't work for. Don't paint all of us with one broad brushstroke of your unflattering opinion.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W4FFG on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CWTITAN:
"hey, who wants to be in a club with split tails like kq6xa??? I sure don't. she is a example of the "new ham", and we all know what that is....no work, no work, no work, just gimmie gimmie gimmie some more welfare"
Split tails?!?!?
Dude, you need to get with the times. I may swear like an ex-sailor (which I am) but that comment is totally inappropriate. But, what else should we expect from a person who hides behind an anonymous name.
As far as her work ethic, who the hell are you to pass judgment? She does, after all, hold an Advanced license. Which, by everyone's agreement, is a worthy accomplishment.
In my opinion, you are an ass.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W8VOM on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To some the ARRL is a RELIGION ! If that be the case,I am Proud to be counted among the Heretics.
Many ARRL members defend thier "Religion" right or wrong and that is the *real* danger. W8VOM
|
|   |
|
RE: Current Techs and Tech plus should take Genera
|
|
|
by W2DUG on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The one thing I'm *totally* against is
> grandfathering in the current Techs and Tech plus
> class into General. I think these people should at
> least take the General written exam. The exam is a
> breeze, but there are some very important concepts
> that need to be learned from the study material. HF
> is infinitely more complicated than VHF/UHF
> operation. I've been a General since July, and I
> have really had to work to be a good operator on HF.
> This would not have been possible if I had not had
> some grounding gleaned from preparing for the
> General written exam.
> Again: ****Current Techs and Tech Plus' should have to take the General Class Written exam.****
> I think this is one area where some negotiation would be successful and prudent.
> Current Techs and Tech Plus': Are you up to the challenge of the General Written? :)
-----------
I figured the most likely scenario following the WRC-03 changes was that the CW requirement would be dropped, but the written testing would remain as it is. To me, that makes the most sense because it establishes the understanding of some of the regulatory and technical issues introduced by HF applications. I was surprised when I read the ARRL's proposal for the "instant upgrade", but I would certainly not argue against it, especially since I have already passed the General written (however I did not take the code test within the required year following the written exam).
But it also occurs to me that, like some of the policy changes Bush is currently pushing, the proposal itself--regardless of whether or not it is actually passed--is the part that provides all the necessary political leverage...in this case, I would wager that the ARRL feels the potential gain in "auto-Generals" (hence potential gain in membership) outweighs the potential loss of curmudgeons, and it would be, after all--at least from their standpoint--to the benefit of the hobby. In Bush's case, his suggestions supporting immigrants are designed to get the immigrant vote even if Congress does not pass the resolutions. Likewise, I believe the ARRL's stance is designed to "get the Technician vote", if you will, even if the FCC denies the proposal.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
w4ffg, what can I say??? sometimes truth hurts. I am from MO. and a retired Navy Chief. and I love being an ass.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Split tails"... yecch! I actually had to look that one up to find out what it meant. Apparently I hang out with a much better class of person than CWTITAN does. Do you hate women, CWTITAN? Sure sounds like it to me!
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by W9JCM on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can't believe that I just re joined the ARRL. I want my money back. Why in the hell should techs and tech plus class guys get a FREE upgrade to general privs? This is lunacris, oh yes lets keep the same written test for extra but make them take 5wpm to get it? Are these guys on crack? My biggest beef isnt the code I figure eventually they will change that. ( I am a real 13wpm general) But its the free upgrade for techs to get all gen. privs without even testing that is B.S. They should have to atleast take a written exam. Everyone else did. And the Novice should have only qrp power out on HF not 100 watts. It wont pass anyway from the word I hear they read this and had a good chuckle at it back east. I hear all the lazy people on repeaters cheering this proposal. HA, guess what its not going to happen this way.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WA1RKA on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a question for the Legal Minds out there,which in light of this recent proposal may be appropriate to ask at this time.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt the CW testing requirement a part of International Law or a Treaty of some kind? If so wouldnt it take an act of Congress to change that part of the licensing system. As I recall from 8th grade civics(which was many years ago) only Congress can change a Treaty or Internationl Regulation that the U.S is a signatory to?
73
John
Wa1rka
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ya know....I am going to join the ARRL!
WHY YOU ASK?
Simple, just so I can have the satisfaction of leaving the ARRL after 1 month!
Then I can call the ARRL. I can then curse them out worse than a DRUNKIN SAILER on the FOURTH of JULY!
Get my Money back. I can finally say hey....I am an ARRL member doing this!
73 and laughs DE MIKE
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W2DUG on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt the CW testing
> requirement a part of International Law or a Treaty
> of some kind? If so wouldnt it take an act of
> Congress to change that part of the licensing
> system.
Actually, it took an act of the World Radio Conference in the summer of 2003 (WRC-03) to remove the international treaty requirement for CW proficiency on HF, and to leave it up to each country to determine their own testing requirements. Where have you been the last 6 months?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W3FHW on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Folks,
It looks to me like the ARRL has gazed into their crystal ball and figured out the FCC is planning to delete the code requirement for all Amateur classes and this compromise proposal is the ARRL's effort to salvage some portions of the bands for the Extra folks that want the code testing to continue. The ARRL is giving up too much in this proposal for it to be fight. Does it look like the ARRL is trying to hold on to it's members by "buttering both sides of the bread"?
This proposal, if adopted by the FCC, could increase the ARRL's membership by appealing to both the code and no-code factions of our hobby. It could also increase the Amateur ranks.
Let's back up a little bit and say this ARRL proposal is not adopted and the FCC deletes the code requirement for all Amateur classes. Then the ARRL would be rendered mute in it's efforts to salvage some code segments of our bands and it's a good chance the ARRL membership would dwindle while the Amateur ranks would still increase. It's a win-lose situation for ARRL membership and a win-win situation for Amateur Radio membership.
Do you think Dollars are playing any role in this effort by the ARRL?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by W1RFI on January 21, 2004:
"> That's why the ARRL sold us down the river. It's all about membership and money.
Those that made the decisions don't get to keep any of the money, so I am not sure how you can justify that one.
In what way were you sold down the river? What privileges will this take away from you? I will be able to to continue to do whatever I have been doing in ham radio. Will not you? The difference is that instead of seeing a continuing gradual decline in on-the-air activities in ham radio, we might see some fresh enthusiasm.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI"
Ed, does it have to take away privileges from me to make me upset over this proposal? The attitude of "it doesn't take away anything from me, so I don't care" is a very selfish attitude to take. This proposal is a slap in the face to anyone who took a code test, especially those who currently are Generals, and worked to get where they are. In a way, it DOES take something away from me. I had to EARN my privileges. I had no free rides. I never wanted any free rides. When I upgraded from Technician to General, I had to take a code test and a written test for General. Now, I see it's OK to just hand those privileges to those who didn't work for them! Fine business, there Ed. Because I had to take a code test for General, I feel that I did more work to obtain my General than I did to obtain my Extra with no further code test.
I came to this hobby through CB. I got into CB in 1977. I remember what things were like on 11 meters during cycle 21. Mostly during 1979-1982, noise levels on all channels were 40/s9 - even on SSB. Granting a free upgrade to General to the masses of codeless Techs will result in the same mayhem on the HF amateur bands. The first thing that came to mind when I read the ARRL's proposal was the solid 40/s9 noise levels on 11m during cycle 21. It wasn't much better during cycle 22. Even if these Techs keep their operations clean, when it comes to worldwide propagation, massive QRM cannot be helped. This will create immediate overcrowding on the HF bands. It will get worse as the hordes of CBers and freebanders decide to go "legal" and get their cheapo General toilet paper licenses. Opening the floodgates will create multi-band CB. All of HF (amateur bands) will resemble 11 meters. The ARRL doesn't understand this. It wouldn't matter how much I try to convince them of this either. They have their mindset. Sometimes, it takes looking at something from a different perspective. Those who came from CB see things a bit differently than those who never experienced CB. It is said that history doesn't often follow the path of common sense. Well, common sense is seriously lacking in Newington.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by W3JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RKA:
Yes, the telegraphy requirement came from the International Radio Rules which the US has a treaty obligation to follow. Under the treaty, those Rules are set by the ITU. The ITU has now dropped the requirement for telegraphy testing. Individual nations are now free to test or not test as they see fit.
If the FCC determines determines that it is in the public interest to drop telegraphy testing, they may. The Congress would only get involved if they wanted to pass a law mandating that the FCC keep or drop the requirement.
73 de W3JJH
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by WI4NDS on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Additional Comments:
When the No-Code Tech was passed and folks started coming on 2 Meter around Central Ohio, I heard a number of incidents where they were treated very harshly and/or flat ignored when they tried to join a conversation. They were also harrassed when some of them were having a QSO among themselves repeatedly. The people misbehaving were licensed Extras, Advanceds, and Generals who had there tickets a long while and had written against the proposal. A number of these No-Code Techs have not been heard on the air since. Is it any wonder!
I pray we do not have another situation like this should this proposal go through. These people brag about being superior to CBers, then turn around and act like snobbish trash. There was no purpose in trashing 11 Meter ops and certainly there was no place for their behavior anywhere, much less on the air.
For those who want their own special club for those they consider "The Elite", please take it off the air.
Amateur Radio is a diverse community and if you do not wish to be among a diverse community and treat people fairly, then silence would be appreciated and appropriate. You do not have to like change, but that is no excuse for such inappropriate behavior as harrasing those you consider "inferior to yourself".
Also, please familiarize yourself with Part 95. Deliberate interference is a violation which can result in fines and the revocation of your license. The Amateur Community must do its best to catch these people and see to it that they are brought to justice from here on out.
From what I have seen over the past almost 16 years licensed, hams can quite often be their own worst enemies and detrimental to the future of Amateur Radio.
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL Proposes "dumbing down" ham ra
|
|
|
by W3JJH on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Granting a free upgrade to General to the masses of codeless
>Techs will result in the same mayhem on the HF amateur bands.
Why are so many folks making statements like this offered with no proof?
Let have a show of hands. How many of us were first licensed as No-Code Techs? OK, now, those of us who have upgraded, keep your hands up. The rest of you can relax.
Of those of us who have passed a telegraphy test, how many were lids before they learned the Morse code but became polite, efficient operators because they learned Morse code?
Why is no one's hand still raised?
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by WW3S on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free Reply
by N3TTN on January 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Quote: "Suppose you have worked for the same company for 20 years. You earned a college degree. Went to some continuing education courses. Learned the ropes of the firm, and now make a decent salary. Just yesterday your firm brings in a new employee. He is a high school graduate, with no college experience. No work experience in your area either. He starts out at the same salary you are now making.
How would you feel? Cheated? Like this is somehow unfair? Why? His salary in no way affects your salary? It doesn't affect any of your accomplishments.
But be honest-how would you feel? Would you be happy for him? Welcome him with open arms?
Happens in the nursing field all the time....new RN's just out of school are not only being paid the same, they are getting their student loans paid off...
If you are lucky and don't mind working weekends, you can take 2 12 hr shifts on Sat/Sun and get paid for 40hrs....
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WI4NDS wrote: "I pray we do not have another situation like this should this proposal go through. These people brag about being superior to CBers, then turn around and act like snobbish trash."
I've known people like this. Seems they are so lacking in self-esteem that they have to effectuate some by putting others down. My mom used to tell me that we cannot raise ourselves up more than a few inches by walking on the backs of others.
|
|   |
|
ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free
|
|
|
by N3TTN on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WW3S wrote: "ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free Reply
by N3TTN on January 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Quote: "Suppose you have worked for the same company for 20 years. You earned a college degree. Went to some continuing education courses. Learned the ropes of the firm, and now make a decent salary. Just yesterday your firm brings in a new employee. He is a high school graduate, with no college experience. No work experience in your area either. He starts out at the same salary you are now making.
How would you feel? Cheated? Like this is somehow unfair? Why? His salary in no way affects your salary? It doesn't affect any of your accomplishments.
But be honest-how would you feel? Would you be happy for him? Welcome him with open arms?
Happens in the nursing field all the time....new RN's just out of school are not only being paid the same, they are getting their student loans paid off...
If you are lucky and don't mind working weekends, you can take 2 12 hr shifts on Sat/Sun and get paid for 40hrs.... "
James, I think you had better go back and read the entire post, you are quoting the guy I quoted (NE0P), and somehow I don't think he would appreciate you attributing his comments to me. Just thought you should know.
73, N3TTN
|
|   |
|
RE: ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on January 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by WI4NDS on January 21, 2004:
"When the No-Code Tech was passed and folks started coming on 2 Meter around Central Ohio, I heard a number of incidents where they were treated very harshly and/or flat ignored when they tried to join a conversation. They were also harrassed when some of them were having a QSO among themselves repeatedly. The people misbehaving were licensed Extras, Advanceds, and Generals who had there tickets a long while and had written against the proposal. A number of these No-Code Techs have not been heard on the air since. Is it any wonder!
I pray we do not have another situation like this should this proposal go through. These people brag about being superior to CBers, then turn around and act like snobbish trash. There was no purpose in trashing 11 Meter ops and certainly there was no place for their behavior anywhere, much less on the air.
For those who want their own special club for those they consider "The Elite", please take it off the air.
Amateur Radio is a diverse community and if you do not wish to be among a diverse community and treat people fair | |