[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: ARRL Licensing Proposal

Every Bit of what you say is true but I support the proposed code setup as it
will go a long way i n preserveing the code in testing .
Cw is dead as a reqirement for practical purposes but a lot of hams enjoy it.CW
should be an elective as is packet ,atv , satilite and all our other fun things .

By makeing 5 wds and 12 words the requirements we probably can save the code for
a few more years.
I believe that this will make a upgrade a lot more popular and lessen the "no
code Techs"
As you say it is the no code techs who are doing most of the public safety work
that keeps us in business in congress.
I am involved in a lot of public safety work and the large majority of people I
can call started as "no code techs". Thank god for them!
Another thought is the new stucture will sell a lot more HF radios . Maybe BETTER
L(o)(o)k beyond your noses it is a good deal for all

Gregory S. Williams wrote:

> Well, dozens of opinions abound, and you know what they say about opinions...
> Therefore, I shall offer mine and be done with it...Oh, and you are MORE
> THAN WELCOME to reply to me.  Unlike others I'm willing to put my money
> where my mouth is...
> Please remember that the licensing structure is all simply a PROPOSAL.
> Nothing more, nothing less.  It's almost a given that there will be changes
> to the rough draft before it gets set in stone.  Therefore, there is no
> need to go flying off the handle about how the HAM radio service is
> scuh-REWED now that these "damned CBers" are coming into fertile territory.
> IMHO, the current setup is a joke.  Novices get HF privs but little VHF,
> but the technicians get VHF but not the HF???  Its like playing leapfrog
> with the licenses.  That is ridiculous and it is in need of a change.
> Whether it be subtle as just re-shuffling the names or drastic as cutting
> away at the code requirements, change is inevitable (except from a vending
> machine).  Like all things in this world, we must evolve in order to
> survive.
> Now, how we "evolve" is of course up to us.  Yes, I said "us".  By writing
> to our ARRL representatives (remember, the ones who send you the "vote for
> me" firewood every so often?) and voicing your concerns in a mature and
> sensible manner.  That is what they are there for.  They represent us as a
> whole, and we must let them know how we feel.  Silence can be deafening
> when you choose to stay quiet.
> I personally could care less for the code, but I think it should still be a
> requirement.  I am an advanced class operator who earned my ticket the hard
> way like 99% of us.  I think that the 20 wpm requirement will not leave the
> testing requirement for class A, or extra, or whatever else they will end
> up calling it.  It doesnt matter how hard the test questions are in any
> examination study guide when they give you the answers right there.  The
> code test helps put your mind to work at what you are at the VE test
> session for, rather than "what was that answer in the book?"
> I think the four-tier structure is a great idea.  It eliminates the
> "leapfrog effect" I mentioned earlier.  However, I think a more logical
> approach would be to grandfather the novices into the "class D" level, and
> simply go take their written test with the 5wpm element having been passed.
>  It would give them voice privvies on 2 meters, and that can be bigger
> incentive for them to upgrade.
> After my first field day, I started studying for my 5 wpm to get on 10
> meters, and when i got on 10, I busted my can on the code tapes and
> computer programs to get that 13 wpm code and go on to general.  When I got
> on 20 meters, I busted my can on the written exam to get more privvies on
> the HF bands to work some of those countries I was desperate to talk to but
> couldnt because I wasnt licensed for it.  Unfortunately, personal matters
> and an upcoming funeral...er...wedding has put my Extra Class studying in
> check for now.  But I will do it.  Why?  Because I want to.  I want to EARN
> the right to be able to get on HF and talk with whomever I would like.
> I have heard the riffraff about these "damned no-coders" being a hinderance
> to HAM radio.  Again, that's their opinion.  They are entitled to it.  But,
> speaking as a former "damned no-coder", I can say that I am no different
> from any of you.  I am grateful for the no-code licensing for getting my
> foot in the door, but I took the initiative to upgrade.  The "no-code"
> license got me interested in HAM radio, and it carried me to where I am
> now, not just as an active DX chaser, but also a storm spotter on VHF,
> extrememly active in our local SKYWARN system as a Net Control.
> Speaking of which, As I thumb through my logbook of SKYWARN net activity, I
> see a lot of no-code licensees taking part in weather spotting.  I'd say a
> good 75% of these people who got their ticket after I did are no-code
> techs.  If the no-code techs are such a hinderance, how come they are more
> active in spotting dangerous storms to protect your tail?  It seems that
> even they have a respectful place in HAM radio.
> Yesterday as I read off the proposal over the air, someone commented that
> class D would be known as "Class DUH".  Even now the stereo-typing begins.
> Such close-mindedness is what hinders the service, and NOT the "damned
> no-coders".
> I think we should all look at this objectively, and not bellyache.  There
> is nothing concrete to what has been proposed.  We have been given the
> mold, now how we shape it is up to us.  Let the ARRL know your feelings.
> Even if you are not a member, you are still a HAM.
> Again, just my humble opinion, Iiiiiii...could be wrong.
> I leave my opinion and my abundant cliches to the group for discussion.
> ****************************************************
> *  I once had a life, now I have a                 *
> *  computer and a modem...                         *
> *                                                  *
> *  Gregory S. Williams                             *
> *  ke4hsm@icx.net                                  *
> *  http://user.icx.net/~ke4hsm/index.html          *
> *  http://user.icx.net/~ke4hsm/skywarn.html        *
> *  http://user.icx.net/~ke4hsm/twiar.html          *
> ****************************************************


begin:          vcard
fn:             Dick Doherty
n:              Doherty;Dick
org:            BARC
email;internet: ka1tuz@gis.net
title:          vp
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard