| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Low reenlistment rate
"K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously. With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past. I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them went on to progress and advance themselves as hams. Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams", and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not quantity of our membership. According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more harm than good. Charles, N5PVL |
"charlesb" wrote in message
m... "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously. With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past. I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them went on to progress and advance themselves as hams. Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams", and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not quantity of our membership. According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more harm than good. Charles, N5PVL Sigh. How 'bout this: ever consider that a lot of CBers did, indeed, hear of the new requirements (lower CW testing standards) and decide to get into ham radio for....guess what: FM!!!!!???? When I was "into" CB radio, I was barely ever on AM. There's a whole "other" gang of participants out there on CB--and the mentors of that group are mostly hams. The USB/LSB and, alas, FM--yes, illegal but done--part of CB is an area where you'll find people who are courteous, have "gentlemen's" rules that are followed; where people experiment with antenna design and construction; where an "eyeball" meeting is just as likely; etc. When I was drawn to and got my ticket, you know what the greatest relief was? Being able to turn a radio on and not hear all that hissing, heterodyning, etc.!!! FM is great and that is what I like most about ham radio. HF sucks for all the noise. So, no need/interest to upgrade. And, everyone else was as relieved and impressed with FM also. Listening to HF brings back those days when we had to deal with all that noise. And, it's not a pretty memory. Kim W5TIT |
charlesb wrote:
"K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously. You raise an interesting point Charles. To test the thesis, it would be nice to have a comparison with the numbers of General and above licensees from the same period. With the Technician license being so easy to get, many will take the test to become a tech as a passing whiiim or fancy. By the time their license is up for renewal, they are on to something else. With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past. I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them went on to progress and advance themselves as hams. Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams", and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not quantity of our membership. According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more harm than good. There are a couple thoughts here. "Who cares about the retention rate? It's a free country." Well, how would you like to be a VE, giving up your time and effort on weekends, only to have almost all that work be fro naught? I would not want to do this task unless I thought that most of the students were going to continue. "We gotta have those numbers". Your post points out the not-so-subtle difference between quality and quantity. I'll take a good dedicated ham any day over someone who just gets their license on a lark. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB This is sheer speculation but I would guess that the reason the retention rate is so low is that a lot of the no-code tech licenses were the result of the licensed ham in the family urging family members to get a license so they could stay in touch via 2m as they bog around town since they didn't have to convince the family members to take code. Ten years later, it's a whole different world. There are cheap cell phones that fulfill this need nicely. For use out camping, there are cheap FRS radios. To keep in touch with someone in the next town, there are internet chat capabilities. In a sense, we have come full circle back to where we will only be able to get and keep those who develop an interest in the radio hobby itself rather than using it for personal communications among family members who are otherwise not interested in radio. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Hans Kohb" wrote in message news:9c4988e16225e423b3bfddae4537c98f.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"charlesb" wrote ...... so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. Pure unadulterated bull****, old biker! Try a different lure when you troll, because nobody is gonna bite on this one! With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB Hans, you need to turn off the computer and listen to your radio a little bit. charlesb is right. Steve |
Kim, Hans was pointing out the large (apparent) numbers of *codeless* techs
not renewing their licenses. My guess is that close to 100% of their operation (if, indeed, they did operate) was on FM. As far as the noise on HF, that may be one reason I never cared for contests. I spent time on 40 during the day and 160 in the evening. For the distance, I simply preferred CW. Back in the pre-DSP days, a 250 Hz filter did wonders. Noise? Non-existent. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Sigh. How 'bout this: ever consider that a lot of CBers did, indeed, hear of the new requirements (lower CW testing standards) and decide to get into ham radio for....guess what: FM!!!!!???? When I was "into" CB radio, I was barely ever on AM. There's a whole "other" gang of participants out there on CB--and the mentors of that group are mostly hams. The USB/LSB and, alas, FM--yes, illegal but done--part of CB is an area where you'll find people who are courteous, have "gentlemen's" rules that are followed; where people experiment with antenna design and construction; where an "eyeball" meeting is just as likely; etc. When I was drawn to and got my ticket, you know what the greatest relief was? Being able to turn a radio on and not hear all that hissing, heterodyning, etc.!!! FM is great and that is what I like most about ham radio. HF sucks for all the noise. So, no need/interest to upgrade. And, everyone else was as relieved and impressed with FM also. Listening to HF brings back those days when we had to deal with all that noise. And, it's not a pretty memory. Kim W5TIT --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/03 |
In article , "Kim "
writes: FM!!!!!???? (snipped for brevity) That's one reason, Kim, stated in a way that makes a lot of sense. Here's another: Even before 1991, a considerable number of hams in this area (metro Philly) were friends and family members of hams who wanted a way to keep in touch while mobile. The most common setup was the 2-careers/kids/cars household, where the radio was used for all sorts of "honeydew" purposes. This sort of thing was particularly popular on some machines around here because the culture in this area encourages open machines, deference to mobiles and HTs, and wide coverage. Plus there are so many open machines around here that you can usally find one that's not in use. What really drove that boom was not the dropping of the code test but the availability of inexpensive, small, easy-to-use HTs and mobile rigs. And the proliferation of repeaters, These folks were hams, all right, but their interest in ham radio was not about radio as an end in itself, but radio as a means to an end. IOW, just a tool to do a job, not the main attraction. Trouble is, cell phones now fill those roles. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article ilgate.org,
"K0HB" writes: Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. That rate is so low that the methodology needs examining. IOW, how did the "couple of guys" determine their data? How did they examine the data for every one of those 1,925 licenses? How did they deal with name changes, address changes, and the vanity callsign rule changes? I'm not saying they were dumb or had an ulterior moive, just that their data analysis methods need to be examined. Did they check any other license classes? Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? Here's one - track down those who did not reup and find out why. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Hans Kohb" wrote in message news:9c4988e16225e423b3bfddae4537c98f.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"charlesb" wrote ...... so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. Pure unadulterated bull****, old biker! Try a different lure when you troll, because nobody is gonna bite on this one! Sans the profanity, I agree with your assessment on this part of Charles' comments, Hans, but he's quite correct in another...We went to all this trouble...For what? I also agree with his assertion that we need a better quality Amateur Radio...Not necessarilly more numbers. The "more numbers" aspect certainly seems to support (and I once agreed with) the concept that "there's strength in numbers". But since these licensees ar non-contributing anyway, of what use is it to "recruit" people who won't stick it out and be of some use? I certainly take every opportunity to "show off" Amateur Radio to anyone who's interested, however not everyone wouild make a "good Ham". Granted, not everyone is going to be a Maxim, Clark or DeMaw, but then they don't have to be. It's worth a thought. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
It's too little, too late Hans. Years of keeping the CW requirement and the advent of the Internet as a cheap alternative to Amateur Radio spelled the end of Amateur Radio for those who could see the writing on the wall a VERY long time ago. Add to that a median-age of 67 Yrs for the US Amateur population does not help either - we are LITERALLY dying off. Finally the outrageous cost of ham gear (HF gear) is enough to scare off any prospective newcommer. Who in their right mind wants to spend $2000+ for a Yaesu HF station when for about $400 you can buy a fully equipped "white box" PC with a 56K and DSL modem, and be able to interact worldwide without the use of unsightly dipoles and tri-band beam antennas...? Hans, Amateur Radio is **OBSOLETE**. It's popularity is enjoyed by an extremely small esoteric sector of the populace, and the general public looks at us as a curiosity at best. That is the bottom line . Ken (ex-W3 circa 1985) "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Another ham-bashing Troll.
Assuming that he means what he says, the guy must be an utter moron... One of those who thinks that ham radio and the Internet "compete" with each other, as if they were rival communications carriers going after the same market... What a dope! Charles Brabham, N5PVL "Y letter Y" wrote in message ... It's too little, too late Hans. Years of keeping the CW requirement and the advent of the Internet as a cheap alternative to Amateur Radio spelled the end of Amateur Radio for those who could see the writing on the wall a VERY long time ago. Add to that a median-age of 67 Yrs for the US Amateur population does not help either - we are LITERALLY dying off. Finally the outrageous cost of ham gear (HF gear) is enough to scare off any prospective newcommer. Who in their right mind wants to spend $2000+ for a Yaesu HF station when for about $400 you can buy a fully equipped "white box" PC with a 56K and DSL modem, and be able to interact worldwide without the use of unsightly dipoles and tri-band beam antennas...? Hans, Amateur Radio is **OBSOLETE**. It's popularity is enjoyed by an extremely small esoteric sector of the populace, and the general public looks at us as a curiosity at best. That is the bottom line . Ken (ex-W3 circa 1985) "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Jim,
We might also check the Social Security Death index .. :) I check it daily. If my name isn't in there, it's gonna be a good day :)) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article ilgate.org, "K0HB" writes: Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. That rate is so low that the methodology needs examining. IOW, how did the "couple of guys" determine their data? How did they examine the data for every one of those 1,925 licenses? How did they deal with name changes, address changes, and the vanity callsign rule changes? I'm not saying they were dumb or had an ulterior moive, just that their data analysis methods need to be examined. Did they check any other license classes? Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? Here's one - track down those who did not reup and find out why. 73 de Jim, N2EY --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/03 |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Well, there ya go, Hans. One of your subjects heard from. Any further questions? Dick Anybody can have their post answered by a troll. What, did you think that Hans was troll trolling, or something? Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim " writes: FM!!!!!???? (snipped for brevity) That's one reason, Kim, stated in a way that makes a lot of sense. Here's another: Even before 1991, a considerable number of hams in this area (metro Philly) were friends and family members of hams who wanted a way to keep in touch while mobile. The most common setup was the 2-careers/kids/cars household, where the radio was used for all sorts of "honeydew" purposes. You and Jim (Hampton) mentioned this and I had completely forgot about that aspect! And, it was also one of the reasons I so easily got my husband interested--as soon as I began mentioning how neat it would be to stay in touch better than with a mobile phone--which back then was cost prohibitive. 'zactly. And it's not a new idea, either - back when long distance phone calls were prohibitively expensive for most people, there were *some* hams whose main interest was keeping in touch with family members who were all over the country - or world. This sort of thing was particularly popular on some machines around here because the culture in this area encourages open machines, deference to mobiles and HTs, and wide coverage. Plus there are so many open machines around here that you can usally find one that's not in use. What really drove that boom was not the dropping of the code test but the availability of inexpensive, small, easy-to-use HTs and mobile rigs. And the proliferation of repeaters, I concede, now looking at it that way. Nothing to concede, Kim. Your "FM" story is one source of new hams. My "honeydew" story is another. I don't think any trends in amateur radio have a single source/reason. These folks were hams, all right, but their interest in ham radio was not about radio as an end in itself, but radio as a means to an end. IOW, just a tool to do a job, not the main attraction. Trouble is, cell phones now fill those roles. 73 de Jim, N2EY Absolutely. Probably one of the biggest reasons we (my dear and I) haven't been all that driven/motivated to get the equipment back into the vehicles. Exactly. On the one hand, almost everyone sees a cell phone as a "necessity" these days, and the calling plans and good (not great, but good) coverage make them the comm tool of choice 99% of the time. Plus, "installation" consists of putting the charge cord in the cigarette lighter socket. Putting your ham gear in the truck is a whole different story unless you want to do the lighter socket/magmount thing. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Rich M" wrote in message ... "charlesb" wrote in message m... Another ham-bashing Troll. Assuming that he means what he says, the guy must be an utter moron... One of those who thinks that ham radio and the Internet "compete" with each other, as if they were rival communications carriers going after the same market... What a dope! Charles Brabham, N5PVL I feel he makes an interesting conjecture Charles. Consider: If one were to set up two PC's with full internet capability & CD-ROM burners, and six feet away, two HFham stations with control op's at a hamfest. Next you invite 10 young people (14-17 yo) at random who have no previous exposure to ham radio from the crowd to choose which items to explore and operate. Which of these two setup's do you think that in the end-game, the greater percentage of young people would choose to bring home if they had the option to do so? (My guess is they'll want to download MP3's from Kazaa or Morpheus instead of calling CQ on 10 Meters thru a microphone) - If you can find any teenagers who are not already familiar with that stuff... Maybe you could find a few in an economically depressed area, might be worth a try. Most teenagers I know are already up to speed on the Internet stuff. It's old hat to them, the kind of stuff they see anywhere and everywhere, including at school and home. My guess is that they would show more interest in the ham gear, because at least it would be something new, that does something different. Also, a surprising number of teenagers today are seriously interested in public service. They want to do something good. For these teens, ham radio has endless potential and yes it most definitely does excite their interest. So you can take your "The Internet is more interesting that Ham Radio" attitude, fold it up so that it is all sharp corners, and... Well, I'm sure you figure out something to do with it then. The only point that anti-ham troll has, Rich, is the one on top of his head. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
Rich M wrote: "charlesb" wrote in message m... Another ham-bashing Troll. Assuming that he means what he says, the guy must be an utter moron... One of those who thinks that ham radio and the Internet "compete" with each other, as if they were rival communications carriers going after the same market... What a dope! Charles Brabham, N5PVL I feel he makes an interesting conjecture Charles. Consider: If one were to set up two PC's with full internet capability & CD-ROM burners, and six feet away, two HFham stations with control op's at a hamfest. Next you invite 10 young people (14-17 yo) at random who have no previous exposure to ham radio from the crowd to choose which items to explore and operate. Which of these two setup's do you think that in the end-game, the greater percentage of young people would choose to bring home if they had the option to do so? (My guess is they'll want to download MP3's from Kazaa or Morpheus instead of calling CQ on 10 Meters thru a microphone) I won't argue with your basic premise, Rich. You are absolutely right. And if a similar number of adults were chosen, a whole lot of them might get excited at how much porn they could download. But I don't see that as a good comparison. For most people, computers are a hobby, but not a technical one. Most computers today are sold bundled with pre-setup hardware and software, and all you do is plug them in, get an isp, and off ya go. Most of these people would not be interested in the amateur radio station even if there were no computer in the same room. They just don't have the technical interest. You just keep plugging away to catch that 1 in 10 or 100 people that will be interested in the ARS. If I were to hazard a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if the low retention rate was due to the number of non-technical people who got their technician license, and then had no real interest and therefore no reason to renew their ticket, as they probably hadn't been on the air since soon after they got their license, or as soon as there was general cell phone coverage. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Sunday 07 September 2003 11:09 am, Rich M wrote:
Consider: If one were to set up two PC's with full internet capability & CD-ROM burners, and six feet away, two HFham stations with control op's at a hamfest. Next you invite 10 young people (14-17 yo) at random who have no previous exposure to ham radio from the crowd to choose which items to explore and operate. Which of these two setup's do you think that in the end-game, the greater percentage of young people would choose to bring home if they had the option to do so? (My guess is they'll want to download MP3's from Kazaa or Morpheus instead of calling CQ on 10 Meters thru a microphone) Consider: It's 1955 and you set up the 2 ham stations above and 6 feet away you set up some baseballs, bat's, and gloves. Next you invite 10 young people (14-17 yo) at random who have no previous exposure to ham radio from the crowd to choose which items to explore and operate. Which of these two setup's do you think that in the end-game, the greater percentage of young people would choose to bring home if they had the option to do so? Amateur radio is not now or ever has been for "normal" people. It's for the techie's, geeks and nerds. Where do the young techie's, geeks and nerds look for information? The Internet. What kind of information will they find? Almost nothing but bitching. Really, in all my hobbies that I check out on the net I have never see such a nasty bunch of adults acting like 8 year olds. I know it's a vocal minority making the noise but it doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. The internet should/could be one of the best things to ever happen to Amateur radio. And it falls on us to make it happen. -- John R. Marshall The Hotrodding Network is Back! http://www.hotrodding.net |
"Brian" wrote in message om... "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, though it pains me to do so, I would suggest censuring amateurs such as DICK, Larry, Steve, Bruice, Kelly, and Jim as they continually put forth the idea that an amateur that is not versed in Morse is an incomplete amateur. Nevermind that this amateur can do PSK31 and FSTV. Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words, so if Jim can send a thousand real words (not ARRL numbergrams or Q-signals) in the space of one FSTV image, ... maybe he shouldn't be censured. Just maybe. Get back with me if he passes. Furthermore they exhibit a throwback mentality, which just annoys me. OK, you've got your marching orders, as far as you can march on a boat. So be off with you, Master Chief. Brian/N0iMD I doubt that those who dropped out did so because of these people, this newsgroup, or the activities of hams on the air or on the internet. It's unlikely they even know about this newsgroup let alone frequent it. They are probably people who lost interest years ago due to the fact that they were not into radio as a hobby but simply to talk to spouses and children around town. As cell phones became cheap and service improved, there was no reason for these people to continue in the hobby. We probably also lost some due to lack of elmering but if they don't let us know they are out there, we can't find them to elmer. Some of those hams never got even a 2m handheld let alone another radio. They never followed up by joining a club to get more exposure to ham radio and elmering in ham radio. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"charlesb" wrote in message m... "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously. With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past. I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them went on to progress and advance themselves as hams. Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams", and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not quantity of our membership. According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more harm than good. Charles, N5PVL I totally agree with you Charles. It is obvious they didn't really care about the ARS. As far as I'm concerned....GOOD RIDDANCE !! We don't need quantity. We need quality. Dan/W4NTI |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "charlesb" wrote in message m... "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously. With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past. I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them went on to progress and advance themselves as hams. Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams", and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not quantity of our membership. According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more harm than good. Charles, N5PVL Sigh. How 'bout this: ever consider that a lot of CBers did, indeed, hear of the new requirements (lower CW testing standards) and decide to get into ham radio for....guess what: FM!!!!!???? When I was "into" CB radio, I was barely ever on AM. There's a whole "other" gang of participants out there on CB--and the mentors of that group are mostly hams. The USB/LSB and, alas, FM--yes, illegal but done--part of CB is an area where you'll find people who are courteous, have "gentlemen's" rules that are followed; where people experiment with antenna design and construction; where an "eyeball" meeting is just as likely; etc. When I was drawn to and got my ticket, you know what the greatest relief was? Being able to turn a radio on and not hear all that hissing, heterodyning, etc.!!! FM is great and that is what I like most about ham radio. HF sucks for all the noise. So, no need/interest to upgrade. And, everyone else was as relieved and impressed with FM also. Listening to HF brings back those days when we had to deal with all that noise. And, it's not a pretty memory. Kim W5TIT Sounds like Kim need to operate a cell phone. Dan/W4NTI |
Brian,
If (just if) you are referring to me, my comment was the cw had virtually no interference and I enjoyed it. I have not been in favor of keeping the cw requirements; I would, however, like to see some exams that might: 1) be slightly (not severely) more difficult. 2) not have the questions and answers published. PSK31 is one mode that seems to have quite a bit going for it. Personally, I like the idea of any mode (ascii, amtor, rtty, psk, packet) that does not require the intervention of a human to keep the information as close to 100% accurate as possible. A good cw operator would likely be close, voice is more suspect (especially of transcribing difficult names/addresses), but any mode which can keep the human out of it is likely (at least in my opinion) more valuable for certain traffic. Of course, sstv may be invaluable in other areas. No one mode is 'ideal' for all situations. I could, of course, ask you to send just one frame of fast-scan tv via moonbounce - but, as noted, no one mode is ideal for all situations :) BTW (and here it comes - I'm putting on the asbestos underwear), I did join NCI a long time ago. I simply cannot justify the necessity of cw. It has been pointed out that in the event of a electromagnetic pulse due to a nuclear blast, most, if not all, modern gear (computers included) would be toasted. Yes, perhaps the tube stuff would survive, but I suspect that would be the least of anyone's problems if they were in the area affected by the emp. Most likely they would not be incoming missiles, they'd be planted somewhere by terrorists and if you were to experience emp, you'd likely be toast seconds later by the blast and nuclear radiation anyways. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Brian" wrote in message om... Hans, though it pains me to do so, I would suggest censuring amateurs such as DICK, Larry, Steve, Bruice, Kelly, and Jim as they continually put forth the idea that an amateur that is not versed in Morse is an incomplete amateur. Nevermind that this amateur can do PSK31 and FSTV. Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words, so if Jim can send a thousand real words (not ARRL numbergrams or Q-signals) in the space of one FSTV image, ... maybe he shouldn't be censured. Just maybe. Get back with me if he passes. Furthermore they exhibit a throwback mentality, which just annoys me. OK, you've got your marching orders, as far as you can march on a boat. So be off with you, Master Chief. Brian/N0iMD --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/03 |
|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message om... "K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, though it pains me to do so, I would suggest censuring amateurs such as DICK, Larry, Steve, Bruice, Kelly, and Jim as they continually put forth the idea that an amateur that is not versed in Morse is an incomplete amateur. Nevermind that this amateur can do PSK31 and FSTV. Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words, so if Jim can send a thousand real words (not ARRL numbergrams or Q-signals) in the space of one FSTV image, ... maybe he shouldn't be censured. Just maybe. Get back with me if he passes. Furthermore they exhibit a throwback mentality, which just annoys me. OK, you've got your marching orders, as far as you can march on a boat. So be off with you, Master Chief. Brian/N0iMD I doubt that those who dropped out did so because of these people, this newsgroup, or the activities of hams on the air or on the internet. It's unlikely they even know about this newsgroup let alone frequent it. Since this is their daily bread, I would dare say that DICK, Bruice, Kelley, Steve, and Jim know about aqnd frequent this news group, DEEEEEE They are probably people who lost interest years ago Perhaps, but they must beeeee hurd. due to the fact that they were not into radio as a hobby but simply to talk to spouses and children around town. They've never mentioned children, cept DICK who claims grandchildren. As cell phones became cheap and service improved, there was no reason for these people to continue in the hobby. We probably also lost some due to lack of elmering but if they don't let us know they are out there, we can't find them to elmer. No $hit, $hurlock. Ever hurd of the Novice Subbands? You might as well call them Novices' because that's all the attention they got. Some of those hams never got even a 2m handheld let alone another radio. They never followed up by joining a club to get more exposure to ham radio and elmering in ham radio. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE According to DICK and Kelly, there was more mentoring going on than you could shake a baton at. |
Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate?
73, de Hans, K0HB Hansl: Yup. 1. - Return U.S. Amateur Radio licensing standards to Pre-Restructuring levels, including 5, 13, and 20 WPM code testing for Novice, Gen/Adv, and Extra-class licenses. 2. Tell the entire NCTA to sod off. 3. Get the ARRL to plow every dime's worth of it's net worth into a national, televised advertising campaign. Get ham radio into the public eye, and stress the FUN, not the public service (i.e. the work and worry). 4. Get the ARRL to enlist the assistance of any and all celebrity hams in the accomplishment of #3 above. 5. Get the ARRL to stop pandering to the Welfare State mentality (related to #1 above.) 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Unclaimed Mysteries" wrote in message ink.net... Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Better pay. Oh come on, now! Cut me a little SLACK! Hams could never be paid enough for what they do. They're "priceless". - And that's no joke! Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
K0HB wrote:
Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Somehow the numbers don't seem right, or at least I don't understand them. For the months of February through June, 2001, when most of these licenses should have been expiring, the AH0A web site gives these numbers: Renewals: 7380 Expiries: 2623 Grace Period Renewals: 810 Cancelations: 645 While the 1,880 number might be right, the 1,925 number almost certainly isn't. The above suggests that about 10,000 Technician licenses came up for renewal in the 5 month period, or about 2,000 per month. The AH0A data shows the service has averaged about 1,500 new Tech licenses per month over the past few years, with the monthly new license total seldom dropping below 1,000. As the code-free Technician license was reputed to have more popular in its first few years of existance than later on, it seems extremely unlikely that there were only 400 new Tech licenses issued per month between February and July of 1991, especially when 2,000 per month ended up expiring 10 years later. My guess would be that between 80% and 85% of those licensed as no-code Techs in that period are still engaged enough to have renewed their license. This isn't entirely out of line with other license classes. If you picked a random group of Extra class amateurs (who, I assume, would tend to be older) only 75% to 80% of them would be around 10 years later. Dennis Ferguson |
You have a point, Dick. I wouldn't have a problem retaining CW for the
highest class; I just don't see it as *absolutely* necessary for all amateurs. There are times I think I have a handle on how things should be; then, when I get a question concerning the length of a dipole from an extra class licensee, I begin to really wonder. My own belief (and it is personal opinion) is that all extras could not be renewed at the end of their term. To gain a new extra (and, indeed, any new extra class licensees), the person would have to be certified in emergency communications - including participation in groups. Also, for at least that highest class of license, the question pool and answers should not be published. Questions as to resonant frequency, lengths of dipoles, Ohm's law (and, come on guys, something a little tougher than a simple series or parallel circuit), and such should be randomly generated at each exam (same program made available to VEs, just that each exam would be unique). Answers should be fill in the blank and accurate to 3 places. At least that way we could ensure that at least one group of amateur operator would be helping to justify the existence of all. BTW, I am not certified and would hope to be able to become so sometime in the near future (new job and finally straight days). Once that level was achieved, the license would be renewable provided current participation/certification were to be presented. After age 65, it would be renewable with no further requirements for life. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Jim, as you probably know, Johnny Johnston, former longtime head of the Amateur and Citizen's Division at FCC, has stated in his own comments to the NCVEC petition-which he helped to draft- that no amateur not skilled in radiotelgraphy can accurately be considerred an expert, an Extra class. So it looks like NCI is against the very concept. That should come as no surprise, though considering. After all, it's only a "hobby". Dick --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/03 |
|
"charlesb" wrote in
m: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Well, there ya go, Hans. One of your subjects heard from. Any further questions? Dick Anybody can have their post answered by a troll. What, did you think that Hans was troll trolling, or something? Charles Brabham, N5PVL Charles, You are a troll. Have you started to patrol this newsgroup in addition to the packet ones? When anyone asks a question, I love your response. The "go back to CB" posts are not welcome by anyone, broadcaster. I love being accused a troll by the troll when I told you to knock it off. Now, more people think that you are a troll. I KF'd you only in the packet newsgroup. Have fun over here too. Bill |
worth into a national, televised advertising campaign. Get
ham radio into the public eye, and stress the FUN, not the public service (i.e. the work and worry). 4. Get the ARRL to enlist the assistance of any and all celebrity hams in the accomplishment of #3 above. 5. Get the ARRL to stop pandering to the Welfare State mentality (related to #1 above.) 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, I don't care about what you think. I am tired of trolls like Charles that respond with hostility to newbie questions as he often does on the packet newsgroups. Don't you think it is time to act a little more courteous? If you don't have anything to say then do not say anything. Furthermore, if you do not like the amatuer service then go online to the ULS and resign. Are you afraid of taking the measly 5 WPM code test over again, if you change your mind? Do you drive a truck all day with a wireless connection and laptop? There are so many vile and wasteful posts by you in addition to the others. Just cool down for awhile Bill |
Whatever.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL "Moron William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message . 3.44... snip You are a troll. Have you started to patrol this newsgroup in addition to the packet ones? When anyone asks a question, I love your response. The "go back to CB" posts are not welcome by anyone, broadcaster. I love being accused a troll by the troll when I told you to knock it off. Now, more people think that you are a troll. I KF'd you only in the packet newsgroup. Have fun over here too. Bill |
"K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate? 73, de Hans, K0HB Sound like COMPLETE BULL**** to me. CITE and VERIFY your sources before posting misleading crap like this - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN |
(stewart) wrote
Sound like COMPLETE BULL**** to me. http://www.earth2.net/fcc/petition/ Argue with them, not with me. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
|
Larry,
This is sort of what I have been saying all along. There are plenty of people out there that might be interested, (regardless of the state of testing methods and requirements) but are unaware that amateur radio even exists!!!! Of course the argument that "kids" are running to internet is true. Ya can't run to something if you didn't know it existed in the first place...... I don't know if they should plow every dime, but there definitely needs to be a good percentage of the annual budget for PROMOTION, or a good offense to use a sports term. The other funds other than expenses of doing business, should obviously be for defense, i.e methods of alerting FCC officials as well as elected members of the congress and senate as they DO have influence on the various departments/commisions etc. including the FCC. This should not only be an ARRL effort but it should also extend to other organizations as well as on the immediate local level. I have said it before and I will say it again, I bet for somewhere under $100,000, I (or others) could make wonderful PSA commercial, and even a full 30 minute show that could be place on a medium that could be aired over radio and television, make enough copies of these to get to the radio and television stations, and cover the cost of shipping to them as well for that amount. 100 grand is a smaller chunk of change, looking at the big picture. Radio and television are REQUIRED to air a certain percentage of these PSA's of their broadcast day. 3. Get the ARRL to plow every dime's worth of it's net worth into a national, televised advertising campaign. Get ham radio into the public eye, and stress the FUN, not the public service (i.e. the work and worry). Excellent idea. And using a good cross-section of existing celebrity hams, as well as getting other people that are celebrities involved and licensed as well would be a good thing too. 4. Get the ARRL to enlist the assistance of any and all celebrity hams in the accomplishment of #3 above. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "William H. O'Hara, III" writes: Larry, I don't care about what you think. Larry, ask the troll about my "broadcasting", if you want a giggle. The guys at rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc all got a good laugh out of this individual's ranting over there, but finally it got old and we ran him off - apparently to roost again over here. If his behavior at the other news group is any guide, he will not move on until he has been thoroughly humiliated, setting himself up as the butt of public ridicule here. Well, I say the sooner it starts, the sooner it will be over and we'll be rid of one more troll. Ask the guy about my "broadcasting" career... That ought to get him off to a good start. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
Dick Carroll wrote
Nicer than usual no-code page, Hans. It's empty! Then your browser must be broken. I just went there and copied the material quoted below. (This is just the first few paragraphs of the proposal --- I am not endorsing the proposal, but found the "re-enlistment rate" information troubling.) 73, Hans, K0HB Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Rulemaking under Part 97 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Revise License Classes, Privileges, and Examination Requirements Related to the Amateur Radio Service Docket No.__________ To: The Commission PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Submitted by: Robert G. Rightsell, AE4FA Post Office Box 1492 Lexington, SC 29071-1492 , Harry A. M. Kholer, N0PU 9125 Arvin Place St Louis, Mo 63123 , Petitioners. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Introduction This petition addresses the following areas with respect to the Amateur Radio Service: 1. Consolidation of license classes; 2. Frequency and Mode Privilege reallocation; and 3. Examination Requirements. Petitioners have designed this Petition with the goal of reducing the Commission's workload and streamlining the Commission's record-keeping requirements, as well as those of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators, Volunteer Examiners, licensees, and candidates for license. Petitioners suggest that implementation of these proposals would provide encouragement to all Amateur Radio Service licensees to take advantage of educational opportunities and individual experimentation, thus further enhancing their ability to contribute to the radio art. 2. Background and Discussion 2.1 Consolidation of License Classes Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925 new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. Petitioners' research shows that 1,880 of those licenses have not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only 2.3%. Petitioners' further research using the Universal Licensing System search function was blocked because licenses are shown as 'active' until the expiration of the grace period, and there is no provision for search using multiple date parameters. However, based on this limited data, one of two conclusions may be reached. Either the no-code licensing provision did not attract individuals with any depth of interest in radio communications, or the lack of access to frequencies below 30MHz frustrated those newly licensed individuals to the point of giving up. Given either interpretation, Petitioners suggest the no-code Technician experiment did in fact attract larger numbers of people, as was initially hoped, but apparently did not offer sufficient opportunity for them to expand their knowledge and skills, nor did these individuals bring long-term benefit to the Amateur Radio Service. On December 30, 1999 Report and Order, the Commission stated, 'We observe that the primary difference between the Advanced Class operator license and the Amateur Extra Class operator license is not the difficulty of the Amateur Extra Class written examination but, rather, the 20 wpm telegraphy examination which, as we explain below, we are eliminating as a requirement to obtain the Amateur Extra Class operator license. We also agree with NCVEC that the difference in authorized frequency privileges between the Advanced Class operator license and the Amateur Extra Class operator license is minimal and does not alone warrant maintaining two separate license classes in the future.' The Commission declined, at that time, to 'undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the amateur service operating privileges and frequencies' until the amateur community reached consensus. The Commission also left orphaned the Novice class amateur radio license. Petitioners suggest there is overwhelming consensus in the amateur community that these two orphaned classes should be integrated back into the mainstream of the amateur community. 2.2 Frequency and Mode Privilege reallocation On December 30, 1999 the Commission released its Report and Order revising the Amateur Radio Service license structure and International Morse code testing requirements. The Commission declined, at that time, to 'undertake a comprehensive restructuring of the amateur service operating privileges and frequencies' until the amateur community reached consensus. As stated in 2.1 Petitioners suggest there is overwhelming consensus in the amateur community to merge the two orphaned classes. This action will streamline the Commission's record keeping needs and simplify the maintenance of frequency and mode privilege allocations. Upon merging the Novice and Technician as well as the Advanced and Amateur Extra license classes, considering the ITU action and the growing consensus among the Amateur community, given the no-code VHF only Technician experiment has attracted far fewer dedicated, long term operators than desired, and noting that a significant number of new entrants into the Amateur Radio Service have a strong interest in new technologies and digital modes, it seems only reasonable to modify the frequency and mode allocations for the new, consolidated, Technician class. Petitioners have examined the history of U.S. frequency allocation. It appears that the Commission has always tried to protect the new, inexperienced, operators from their own lack of experience by putting their privileges away from the band edges and by limiting them in power output. Examples of this are the Novice allocations on 80, 40, and 15 meters and the Novice and Technician Plus allocations on the 10-meter Band. Since the HF spectrum is the area in which international communications are prevalent, these allocations minimized the possibility of interference to other services. The amateur community generally agrees this procedure is in the best interest of the Amateur Radio Service. 2.3 Examination Requirements On December 30, 1999 the Commission released its Report and Order revising the Amateur Radio Service license structure and International Morse code testing requirements. At that time, the Commission reduced the telegraphy examinations from three elements to one, and set the number of written examination questions required at 35 for Technician, 35 for General, and 50 for Extra, and left to the National Council of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (NCVEC) the task of the specific mix and makeup of written examination tests. The Commission did, however, encourage the Amateur Service to strive to 'attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise.' Further, the Commission specifically addressed its desire to 'provide an incentive for licensees to continue the educational opportunities offered by amateur radio as The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) requests, will continue to provide an incentive for amateur radio operators to advance their communication and technical skills,' and to encourage individuals in the Amateur Service to become 'trained operators, technicians, and electronic experts.' The Commission also said, 'In reaching this decision, we note that one of the fundamental purposes underlying our Part 97 rules is to accommodate the amateur radio operator's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.?' The ITU has, in its 2003 Conference, left to individual administrations whether candidates for the Amateur Radio Service should demonstrate proficiency in International Morse code. The ITU also adopted the following new language in Provision 25.6: 'Administrations shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station. Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R M.1544.' There has been great debate in the amateur community over the retention of code testing. Petitioners observe that, in most of these discussions, the issue of technical competence arises as a major point. There appear to be three groups in these discussions, one which advocates complete elimination of code testing. A majority of this group either advocates increasing the difficulty of written elements or concedes that it is necessary. A second group advocates nothing short of retaining code testing as a 'make or break' element. Most members of this group agree the current written test elements are seriously deficient. The third falls in the middle ground on the code issue. Amateurs in this group also agree that the written testing elements should be enhanced to adequately assess a candidate's knowledge and ability. Based on these observations, Petitioners see a need for continued International Morse code testing, but do not believe code testing should be the main determining factor. Similarly, Petitioners see a need for more comprehensive written examinations. Petitioners have attempted to objectively analyze activity levels for the various modes in three categories, International Morse code (CW), Phone (primarily SSB), and Digital (all types) on the high frequency bands. The complete study, prepared by Mr. Walter B. Fair, W5ALT, is included with his permission as Attachment A. The following paragraph in the conclusion section of this report should be noted: "Based on the analyses presented below, it appears that the CW issue in ham radio is often based on emotion rather than fact. The data do not indicate an overall decrease in CW activity. The argument being used by CW opponents that CW is dying seems to have no merit. On the other hand, the argument that relaxing the CW test requirement to 5 WPM would lead to the destruction of the Amateur Radio Service does not seem to have merit, either. The data show that when the code testing was relaxed in 2000, CW activity remained stable in the following years. Therefore, if more newer hams started using SSB, the same percentage also started using CW. I interpret that to mean that most hams will use the mode that meets their objectives, whether it is CW or not. Of course, there will always be vocal minorities in both the pro and con CW camps." Petitioners suggest as a single mode of operation International Morse code is alive, well, and apparently used by a large portion of the Amateur Community. Especially in light of the major role the CW mode plays in international communications, Petitioners suggest that eliminating International Morse code testing altogether would be a tremendous disservice to the U.S. amateur community. Following the elimination of Amateur Radio Service testing at Commission Field Offices, the concept of Certificate of Successful Completion of Examination (CSCE) was introduced. The system of CSCEs is now pervasive, and presents a significant paperwork and record-keeping burden on Volunteer Examiner Coordinators, Volunteer Examiners, licensees, and candidates for license. 3. Scope of Proposals 3.1 Consolidation of license classes 3.1.1 As per paragraph 2.1, Petitioners suggest it is time to consolidate the Novice and Technician and Technician Plus licenses into one Technician license. This would allow the Commission to simplify record keeping and bring the orphaned Novice licensees back into the Commission's license progression scheme. The upgrade procedure would be automatic immediately and the new license issued at the normal renewal time. 3.1.2 As per paragraph 2.1, Petitioners further suggest it is time to consolidate the Advanced and Amateur Extra licenses. This would also simplify the Commissions record keeping and upgrade these operators who have all passed examination elements with requirements higher than, or equal to those required today. The upgrade procedure would be automatic immediately and the new license issued at the normal renewal time. 3.2 Frequency, Power, and Mode Privilege reallocation; 3.2.1 Petitioners recommend that the newly revised Technician license should have privileges as outlined in paragraph 4.2 below. This allows in general: .. 1. 80 meters: CW and data privileges on 3600 though 3750 kHz. This is an increase of 100 kHz of bandwidth and the addition of data modes to the present Novice allocation. 2. 40 meters: CW and data privileges on 7100 through 7150 kHz. This adds data modes to the existing Novice allocations. 3. 15 meters: CW and data privileges on 21100 through 21200 kHz. This adds data modes to the existing Novice frequency allocations. 4. 10 meters: CW and data privileges on 28100 through 28300 kHz. This represents no change to the existing Novice and Technician Plus allocations. 5. 10 meters: CW and Voice privileges on 28300 through 28600 kHz. This is an increase of 100 kHz of bandwidth to the existing Novice and Technician Plus allocations. 6. Above 30 Mhz: All frequencies, modes, and power levels as contained in the current regulations. 3.2.2 Petitioners recommend that power limitations be placed on the newly consolidated Technician Class in the same fashion as has been historically imposed on the lowest beginner class of operator license in the allocated HF frequencies. This limitation protects other users of the HF spectrum from inadvertent errors commonly made by the inexperienced operator. Petitioners recommend a 200 Watt limit for the Technician class license on all frequencies below 30 Mhz as indicated in paragraph 4.2.3. 3.2.3 Petitioners recommend, upon merging the Advanced and Amateur Extra license classes, that the newly revised Amateur Extra class be assigned all those privileges allowed the present Amateur Extra class license. 3.3 Examination Requirements 3.3.1 As per paragraph 2.3, Petitioners suggest it is time to review and make certain changes to the Element 1 (International Morse code) testing requirement. In light of the ITU's actions it is indeed time to regard the International Morse code as another mode of operation equal to but of no greater importance than any other mode. As demonstrating competence in other modes is not necessary to gain access the HF frequencies, it occurs to the Petitioners that it is time to remove this as an absolute requirement. Petitioners suggest, however, that International Morse code testing should be continued as part of the overall license examination for good reason, as discussed in Section 2.3.3. 3.3.2 It is believed by the Petitioners that the International Morse code remains a viable, valuable, and popular mode. See the discussion in 2.3 above. When all else fails in emergency circumstances, International Morse code remains as the only useable option. CW is also an "International Language", by which, peoples of the world who have differing spoken languages can communicate efficiently. Petitioners note that written examinations for all classes include questions designed to ascertain a candidate's knowledge of various modes. This petition proposes that, while written examination questions are sufficient to evaluate a license candidate's familiarity with the basic concepts of other modes, such testing is not sufficient for International Morse code. Petitioners recommend that testing of International Morse code be continued but that such testing should be integrated into the overall test score in a more equitable fashion. It is recommended that the Element 1 test should be scored such that the longest string of continuous characters should be counted (with numbers and punctuation being weighted as two characters) and such count, up to a maximum of 24, should be then divided by two and the result added to the score of the written examination. This test would be available to all candidates for every class of license. 3.3.3 As per paragraph 2.3 it is further believed by Petitioners that is time to increase the number of written test items required to successfully indicate competence at all license levels. Petitioners have analyzed current and previous question pools developed by the NCVEC and found that the current examinations do not assess candidates' required knowledge of technical matters and the Commission Rules and Regulations as thoroughly as in the past. This due, in large measure, to the limitation of actual test question numbers for Technician and General at 35, and for Amateur Extra at 50. To its credit, the NCVEC has responded to this limitation by greatly expanding the number of questions in each question pool. Petitioners suggest the actual test questions, however, have been significantly more slanted toward procedures, and less toward technical competence and regulations. This is due to the limitation on the number of actual examination questions. Petitioners present the following examples: .. 1. Individuals who achieved the 1997 Technician license had passed two written examination elements totaling 65 questions, of which fifteen (23%) were in the area of Commission Rules. Technicians today encounter a total of just 35 written examination questions, only five (14%) of which are in the Commission Rules category. All five may be answered incorrectly, plus four more in other areas, and the candidate will still achieve a passing score. 2. Of the 65 total questions in the Novice and Technician examinations in 1997, there were four questions dealing with propagation. In the current 35 question Technician examination, there are only two. 3. The Novice and Technician examinations in 1997, combined, had ten questions (15%) dealing with electronic theory and components. The current Technician examination has just three (8%). 4. A person achieving a General class license in 1998 encountered a total of 95 test questions. Of those, nineteen were in the Commission Rules category. A person-achieving General today faces 70 questions, eleven of which fall in that category. 5. The cumulative examinations necessary for a General class license in 1998 contained seven questions dealing with propagation. The cumulative examinations necessary for General today contain only five propagation questions. 6. The 95 questions leading to a General class license in 1998 included thirteen (13%) on electronic theory and components. The 70 questions leading to General today include only six (8%). Petitioners' comparative research of prior question pools was incomplete because neither the NCVEC nor, apparently, any of its entities maintain them as archive material. Fortunately, some of the question pools of interest were recovered from non-official sources. Future studies undertaken as part of rule making proceedings would benefit from their prolonged availability. The increasing complexity of the radio art, combined with the elimination of Novice and Advanced licenses, have outstripped the ability of a 35 question examination for Technician and General, and a 50 question examination for Amateur Extra to sufficiently evaluate a candidate's operational and technical qualifications. Petitioners suggest that increasing both the number of questions required for each class and the minimum passing scores, as well as assuring a technical and regulatory focus are reasonable solutions. The testing requirements as outlined below would restore the number of examination questions and the number of required correct answers to an approximation of the pre-April 15, 2000 requirements for Technician, General, and Amateur Extra licenses. Petitioners have observed a widespread recognition in the amateur community that the current examination structure allows individuals who learn published question and answer material quickly to rapidly advance in license class without gaining real understanding of the underlying material. Therefore, this proposal incorporates a requirement for minimum experience in each class of license prior to advancing to the next. Petitioners suggest this will provide practical experience, encourage experimentation and help develop well trained operators, technicians, and electronic experts. 3.3.4 Petitioners suggest it is incumbent on the Commission to mandate the specific mix of topics, number of questions, and minimum passing requirement for all Amateur Radio Service written examinations. It is not, however, necessary at this time for the Commission to develop the actual question pools. This task could very well remain in the hands of the NCVEC. Petitioners recommend a written test length of forty-four questions for the Technician license (each question scored as two points) and eighty-eight questions for the General and Amateur Extra license (each question having a value of one point), with questions to be divided into six categories as indicated in paragraph 4.3. The final score for the license examination would be the sum of the Element 1 exam and the score on the written portion giving a total possible of 100 points. A total cumulative score of 75 points would be the minimum passing grade. This method of integrating the Element 1 test and the written examination allows two paths for progression within the Amateur Radio Service; first, for the technically talented individual to obtain an amateur license in the upper levels of the service without the absolute necessity of learning the International Morse code and second, the more traditionally skilled communicator to receive credit for his extended capabilities, thus bringing into balance the mandates of 47CFR97.1. 3.3.5 Given the composite nature of the examinations suggested by Petitioners, there would no longer be a need to issue CSCEs, and to continue their issuance would in fact be impractical. 3.3.6 Petitioners recognize there have been thousands of CSCE documents issued by VEs and that the holders of these documents should be credited for the hard work the CSCE represents. Petitioners recommend that the holder of an Element 1 CSCE issued prior to the date of the Commission's Order in this matter be credited with 12 points in lieu of the Element 1 examination. Petitioners further recommend the holder of an element 3 or 4 CSCE issued prior to the date of the Commission's Order in this matter be credited with 65 points in lieu of the respective examination. 3.3.7 Petitioners have analyzed the existing testing procedure and believe this proposal offers the most balanced and seamless integration approach possible. Considering the following scenarios, it will be seen that it offers more options for individuals to enter the Amateur Radio Service while assuring the individual has the knowledge necessary to properly control a radio station with minimum opportunity for causing interference to other services. Candidates scoring the maximum 12 points in the Element 1 portion of the composite examination will need 63 additional points to obtain a license. For the Technician license this would require 32 out of the possible 44 questions. This would be 72.7% correct necessary to pass. For the General or Amateur Extra, it would require 63 out of the possible 88 questions, or 71.5% correct to pass. Both figures indicate that the candidate has at least minimum knowledge to properly control an amateur station and should be eligible for a license. Candidates scoring a zero in the Element 1 portion of the composite examination will need 75 additional points to obtain a license. For the Technician license this would require 38 out of the possible 44 questions, or 86.3% correct to pass. For the General or Amateur Extra, the minimum correct would be 75 out of the possible 88 questions, or 85.2% correct to pass. Both figures indicate that the candidate has a superior knowledge to properly control an amateur station and, though he does not demonstrate any skill with International Morse code, should be eligible for a license. In the case of a CSCE Element 3 holder, the candidate has two options; he may take the Element 1 portion of the composite examination and add the score of this exam to his allowed 65 points for a total score. Should this candidate fail to obtain the minimum necessary 10 points, he may elect to take the new Element 3 portion of the composite examination and use the sum of the scores on the Element 1 and the Element 3 portions to qualify for a license. |
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: It's self-evident that a radio amateur who has no Morse code skills is not a fully qualified radio amateur, particularly for HF/MF amateur operation. That's a plain and simple fact. What is it about plain and simple facts that so confuses NCI members? Duh!!! We know you are confused, Brian. "Duh!!!" doens't indicate a lack of confusion My point exactly. We know you are confused, Brian. Why does it have to be "particularly for HF/MF operations?" Because that's where Morse operation by amateurs is most common. If a lack of Morse code skills renders one less than a fully qualified amateur radio operator, It does. Get over it. So does lack of a lot of other skills. I would think "praticularly for VHF+ operation" would have been more appropriate for the very reason you gave. That makes no sense at all. We know you are confused, Brian. Duh!!! again. Exactly. You keep proving my point for me. Thanks. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com