Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ARRL Committee for New Entry-Level License  (Read 18702 times)
WI8P
Member

Posts: 593




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2017, 11:09:00 AM »

Logged
W9ZIM
Member

Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2017, 04:53:58 PM »

That reminds me of the saying, "If you design something so simple that even an idiot can use it, then only an idiot will use it."
Logged
N9KX
Member

Posts: 2060




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2017, 12:27:02 PM »

That reminds me of the saying, "If you design something so simple that even an idiot can use it, then only an idiot will use it."

i think the opposite case works better: "If you design something so complicated that only a genius can use it, then only a genius will use it."

ease of use should be a goal of design, shouldnt it Huh   ...a lot of otherwise smart people use the idiot box (my TV is on right now LOL)...  

as far as the numbers of hams -- i think unrestrained growth must not be a goal or we are logically bound to support the elimination of exams & testing.
sometimes less is more





Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 549




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2017, 12:30:57 PM »

Probably the surest way...if Morse code becomes the main reason that new people become attracted to ham radio?...

Whatever it is that you are smokin,..... can I have some? Wink
Logged
WA2ISE
Member

Posts: 1050




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2017, 01:58:09 PM »

as far as the numbers of hams -- i think unrestrained growth must not be a goal or we are logically bound to support the elimination of exams & testing.
sometimes less is more

Look at the CB band back in the late 70's as to what happens with unrestrained growth.  Though all those AM carriers made for a lot of hetrodyne whistles.  But SSB wouldn't cure the dirty words...    Cheesy
Logged
K0ZN
Member

Posts: 1768




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2017, 03:22:32 PM »

The ARRL is treading on a very slippery slope leaning in the direction of an un-licensed CB like radio service. At some point, when the license is so watered down that anyone one can "pass" it, in reality, it is not a license, but becomes a Permit.   The ARRL is absolutely not going to admit that, but that is where they are going.

The ARRL is not significantly interested in the quality of amateur operators; it is primarily interested in the Quantity of hams. A rough analogy: if the technical competence level of hams doubled but the number of hams halved, the ARRL's revenue stream would plummet as would its staff and clout. The cold fact is that the ARRL is a bureaucracy... a small one, but it is and the nature of bureaucracies is that they want to preserve themselves and/or grow.

Make no mistake, ethically, the modern ARRL is nothing like the early ARRL under Hiram P. Maxim which was very concerned with the technical growth of operators and their operating ethics. Read a QST from the late 1920's....very different world.

The ARRL still doesn't comprehend that the easier anything is to obtain the LOWER its value and the less respect it carries in the public eye.

    73,   K0ZN
Logged
W9ZIM
Member

Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2017, 06:45:55 PM »

That reminds me of the saying, "If you design something so simple that even an idiot can use it, then only an idiot will use it."

i think the opposite case works better: "If you design something so complicated that only a genius can use it, then only a genius will use it."

ease of use should be a goal of design, shouldnt it Huh   ...a lot of otherwise smart people use the idiot box (my TV is on right now LOL)...  

There is a difference between simplicity and ease of use.  Something can be complex but still easy to use, such as a scientific calculator.  So we want things that are easy to use but not overly simplified.
Logged
N8AUC
Member

Posts: 313




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2017, 10:32:43 AM »

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

We DO NOT need an entry level license!

What we need to do is REALLY teach the current Technician license vs the one day/one weekend quicky courses.

THEN, we need to Elmer the new licensees.  Show them there is life below 144MHz.

I definitely agree with this approach.
We don't need yet another entry level license class.
We need to do the ones we have properly and correctly.

The current tech license is easy enough.

Yep!  What we will definitely get is a license that is designed to significantly increase the number of new ARRL members, and new radio equipment buyers!  Money talks, bupkiss walks!!    Shocked

And nothing says "I love you" like a nice thick stack of dead presidents. This is probably closer to the reality of what the current thinking revolves around.
Logged
K2OWK
Member

Posts: 1273




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2017, 05:59:29 PM »

How about a Technician class license, made easier then the original Novice, with no code. Oh wait we have that now. I read where some 7 year old passed the tech. test. How much easier can you make it. I have an idea lets have no test or license required. We could call it the Citizen Band where anything goes. Oh wait we already have that. I have an idea for the ARRL to make more money and get more members. Let them open there membership to the CB operators. They could call it an entry level license with no test ham radio. This will make everyone happy except the real ham operators who studied to get there license. I would also recommend that the ARRL change its name to the anything goes radio band (AGRB). They will make a fortune, which is what they want. They have abandoned the real ham operators to increase there net worth. I will not renew my membership, because they no longer represent me or my hobby (electronics and radio communications).

Just my opinion.

73s

K2OWK
Logged
N8AUC
Member

Posts: 313




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2017, 09:57:09 PM »

How about a Technician class license, made easier then the original Novice, with no code. Oh wait we have that now. I read where some 7 year old passed the tech. test. How much easier can you make it.

Shortly after I passed my Novice test in 1978, at the ripe old age of 17, I read an article in CQ magazine about a 4 year old kid who passed HIS Novice test, including the morse code test required at the time. Of course, his mom and dad were both hams, so that might have provided a little encouragement.

But yeah. Good question. How much easier CAN you make it?



Logged
W9ZIM
Member

Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2017, 05:51:02 AM »

Of course 4- and 7-year olds passing the amateur radio tests are the exception rather than the rule.
Logged
K1LEM
Member

Posts: 300




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2017, 11:18:15 AM »

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

We DO NOT need an entry level license!

What we need to do is REALLY teach the current Technician license vs the one day/one weekend quicky courses.

THEN, we need to Elmer the new licensees.  Show them there is life below 144MHz.

You said that one right. What brain with three neurons firing could NOT pass the General Lite.
The IQ levels already sound like CB. Huh
Logged
KC4ZGP
Member

Posts: 1637




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2017, 01:44:57 PM »


The question of the year.

How many people are unhappy with the A.R.R.L.?

How many still give them money.

Sorry that's two.

_ _ ... ... _ _

Kraus
Logged
WW7KE
Member

Posts: 577




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2017, 04:38:40 PM »

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

We DO NOT need an entry level license!

What we need to do is REALLY teach the current Technician license vs the one day/one weekend quicky courses.

THEN, we need to Elmer the new licensees.  Show them there is life below 144MHz.

A good way to do that would be to give Techs (and the few remaining Novices) digital privileges in their parts of 80, 40, at 15 meters.  Say, 3550-3600, 7050-7125, and 21050-21200.  I doubt there is much Tech interest in CW. 

But at the same time, restrict the lower 50 kHz of 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters to CW only, so that those who like it can use it without the potential of digital operations drifting downward.
Logged

He speaks fluent PSK31...  One QSO with him earns you 5BDXCC...  His Wouff Hong has two Wouffs... Hiram Percy Maxim called HIM "The Old Man..."  He is... The Most Interesting Ham In The World!
K1LEM
Member

Posts: 300




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2017, 02:18:16 PM »

 Here is my experience. I thought time space and my young fascinations would be shared by others who were into technology.
The Professor who over saw a senior electrical engineering lab, allowed me to ask the 15 students to get a nocode tech license. The reason was a field trip where we would broadcast our trip on a ham frequency from Mt. Mansfield.
Now, most of these students were cooperative, but one female student refused to do it claiming it was unnecessary. She got an exemption. The remaining 14 got techs and the call signs were from the series N1Y**.  They showed no real enthusiasm outside of just doing it because they wanted a good grade in the lab and over all were cooperative.

Ten years later not ONE renewed the license. Point here without too much philosophy .. hams are born not made. You cannot make your children into one. Yes, they will take the exam, but will never operate. They do it to please you. So what breathing person today is intimidated by the already worthless tests. You may just as well be honest ARRL and drop any testing. In my opinion with the violations I see of part 97, the entire test should be about part 97 and operating procedures. 10_FOUR Cool
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!