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

RE: License restructuring (via ARRL Web site)

To all:

Concerning the restructuring proposal, I filled out the form at the ARRL
website (www.arrl.org) and received the following response from my director
within 30 minutes.  Talk about response time!  :-)

Anyway, My comments were that I felt (as I had posted last week) that this
was a good proposal, with the exception of leaving 20 wpm for extras and
putting the novices at class D with the 5wpm element towards Class C.  Here
is his response.  Apparently, the ARRL BoD actually IMPROVED an earlier
proposal by the FCC itself.

>Hi Greg:
>Thanks for your comments. Well, I agree on the cw, but, to achieve
>streamlining the Board felt that we should have 12 wpm for the
>class for advanced and extra both. I did propose a 4 tier system
>with the current cw levels but the debate settled on 12 wpm
>which is more in line internationally. Then I suggestes we at least
>kick the extra up a bit above 12 wpm, but then again, to achieve
>a streamlining the group didn't think we should do that.
>I then fought to get the Board to agree that if the cw is lowered
>then we would mandate that the exams be tuffened to compensate.
>The Board agreed. You see, the problem that I don't think folks
>realize and what I have highly recommended we tell people is
>that the indications we have gotten for months is that the FCC
>wants to go to fewer licenses. The Board voted against license
>restructuring the past 2 Board meetings prior to this one.  
>Then about 3 or 4 weeks ago we heard the FCC was about to release
>its proposal as part of their Biennial Review. We heard they
>were looking at 5 wpm, 3 licenses, maybe 4, and a codeless HF
>provision. It was awful. We had to act to at least give them
>an alternative on record. Greg, they could still come out with
>their own and I would also suspect that a number of other groups
>will now amke proposals. While I don't necessarily like it,
>change is coming.
>But, I guess one of the points I want you to undertsand is that
>we don't think we are going to have the luxary of having a lot
>of different features. The FCC seems to want to make it as 
>simple as possible so we have to keep that in mind. Even though,
>for example, I argued to maintain a higher speed for extra, I
>knew, as a practical matter, that the idea would not fly since
>it added an element of distinction to the 4 tier system that
>I suspected would not be accepted by the Board given the 
>notion that we needed to look at streamlining as much as
>This is a tuff issue. I had gotten probably 150 letters the 
>past 2 years on this issue and almost all 150 had different
>ideas on what we should do. I just hope now that the FCC
>was about to propose something that we have achieved of
>heading off the awful thing we heard they about to do.
>Thanks for your comments and concerns.

I decided to leave anonimity for my Director.  However, this is apparently
a larger deal to do with the FCC rather than the ARRL.  

So what more can be done?  The way I see it now is...it could have been
worse, and there would have been nothing the ARRL or we as HAMs could've
done to stop it.

Responses?  (Preferably private).
*  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          *
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org