RadioBanter - New ARRL Proposal

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - New ARRL Proposal (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27225-new-arrl-proposal.html)

"Tom W" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

"google blogger" wrote in message
roups.com...

Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the Incentive
License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio.

Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the idea of
the FCC.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed incentive
licensing.

From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html:

"In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a small
minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on
complaints they claim they received from members and operators in
other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an
editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the
Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments.
The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored
to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals
an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in
order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the
General class hams."

Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened.

FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply
"because it
was there". And some did - but not many.

As early as 1958, FCC asked why there were so few Extras. They were
concerned about certain trends in amateur radio they didn't care
for, such as increasing use of manufactured equipment whose inner
workings the ham-owner had only a vague concept of.

FCC asked ARRL for proposals in 1958, and again in 1963. ARRL put
together a
very simple proposal in 1963, *in response to* FCC's request. It
consisted
of just two items:

1) Reopen the Advanced class license to new applicants (it had been
closed
at the end of 1952)

2) Require an Advanced or Extra class license to use 'phone on the 80,
40,
20 and 15 meter ham bands. (back then 30, 17 and 12 meters were not
ham bands).

That was the whole proposal. No additional code testing would be
needed to
retain full privileges. No subbands-by-license-class except those
already
in place for Novices. No new limitations on CW. Existing Advanceds
wouldn't have to do a thing. Existing Generals and Conditionals would
have to take
one additional written test to get their 80 thru 15 'phone privileges
back.

This proposal was nothing new - it was essentially a return to the old
"ABC" system that had existed from the mid '30s to February 1953, and
which FCC
had revised in 1951 by adding Novice, Tech and Extra and renaming the
ABC classes of license.

The 1963 ARRL proposal got an RM number and the commentary began...

FCC looked at that simple proposal, and then asked for more. They got
quite
a bit of response from the amateur committee, and at least 10 of the
proposals were assigned RM numbers. There were at least 11 proposals
with
RM numbers by 1965.

Commentary to ARRL was mixed, to say the least, but a slight majority
were
in favor of "incentive licensing" changes. ARRL and FCC took that as a
mandate...

Out of all these proposals FCC put together ideas and came up with a
proposed
scheme that bore little resemblance to the 1963 ARRL proposal. It was
far more
draconian, restrictive and encompassing than anything ARRL proposed,
and was strongly opposed. Finally a compromise was announced in 1967.

Over 6000 comments were received by FCC on the matter, even though the
number
of hams back then was less than a quarter million and there were no
online
comment systems. The whole process took years (1963-1967).

Most hams then and today are not aware that FCC asked first. But they
did.

And I'll ask the question again:

How did incentive licensing "trash ham radio"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

I recall Hans predicting a 15 wpm code test for Extra as part ot the
ARRL
proposal.....

You recall wrong.

You are correct, sir! I was mistaken. Sorry.

You predicted 12-13 wpm.

To see my actual prediction, do a google group search
on "ARRL BoD platitudes" without the quotes.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

And here it is!

73 de Jim, N2EY

The following is a direct copy of Hans' post in original format:

BEGIN GOOGLE QUOTE:

Reply-To: "KØHB"
From: "KØHB"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
References:

Subject: The Pool
Lines: 23
Organization: Chaos & Confusion
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: .net
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:41:13 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.250.209.220
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1073263273 67.250.209.220
(Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:13 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:13 PST

"N2EY" wrote

Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.

Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for
Amateur
Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
eliminated in this decade.

While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15
politicians
to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on
their
hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East
Overshoe, Iowa
and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership
about
how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really
counts we
actually increased the Morse requirement."

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

END GOOGLE QUOTE

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

You probably realized that Dee D. may be assuming the role of "devil's
advocate" here (by overplaying an idea to generate further discussion).
In other words, we might not want to take her words at face value until
she clarifies what she really means.

So, Dee D., what did you really mean to say above?

Paul, I appreciate your "guidance" in newsgroupism, but let's clear
the board and outline a few things -

1. Double-D has claimed that I am on her "killfile." That means
"she doesn't read any of my postings" for whatever righteous
reasons she has (such as puritanism and syncophancy of
some unclear "amateur ideals").

2. Killfiling may be good for removing those mouthing vulgarities
and obscenities ("deleting explitives" like 'heck' and 'darn') but
it is also an ostrich syndrome, burying one's head in the virtual
sand of righteous thoughts of the "ideal" so that "impure"
thoughts (differences from righteous personal opinions) are
filtered out.

3. Those who claim "killfiling" are irresistable open targets for
commentary, taking pot-shots against the syncophants, the
sanctimonious self-righteous self-propelled "experts" and
olde-tymers's ideas. In Double-D's case she has exhibited
Parentalism, that of treating others not thinking as she does
as "little children needing to be taught the Right way..."

4. Hunting Season is ALWAYS open on the Internet. If you wish
to "guide appropriate behavior," there are several in HERE who
are likely recipients of "guidance and counseling." QED.

5. For proper sanctimonity (sanctimoniousism?) of the self-righteous
olde-tymers, you and the newsgroup ruling triad (are you still one
of those?) should CLOSE the public access here, install a
monitor, demand a showing of "papers" for access. That is the
proper way to Control Thought. An ultimate in Ostrich Syndrome.

6. Obvious Pro-Code Test Advocates do NOT play "Devil's Advocate."
Those are hide-bound olde-tyme-thinking PCTAs who are not
only sanctimonious self-righteous self-important self-propelled
"experts" but are all seriously devoid of a sense of humor. They
are so stuck on the "proper" way to act that their rigidity
collapses in the slightest breeze of independent thought...and
they quickly lapse into anger (sometimes hatred) against the
independent person, oft-times jumping into puerile barbaric
behavior of using personal insults rather than arguing subjects.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum by all that is Google and DejaNews.

7. Independence of Thought is a cherished item in the United
States of America since its beginning a scant 228 years ago.
So much so that it is incorporated into the First Amendment
of our Constitution to make it clear what we citizens can say to
our government. By tradition and independent spirit, we
Americans also cherish being able to pot-shoot politician's
opinions and their political parties. ARRL is a political entity
as well as a publishing house and is NOT any sort of agency
of the federal government; they are more open for pot-shooting
than any feds despite the santimony expressed by their devout
followers of the Church of St. Hiram.

8. "The Devil made me do it." :-)

LHA / WMD

Unfortunately, I overestimated the amount of balls carried by the BoD.
Not only didin't they have the balls to recommend complete elimination
of the Morse exam, but in recommending that Morse testing be continued
for "EXTRA", the speed they recommended was the same count-the-dots 5WPM
which Novices have been passing for over a half-century.

Pathetic!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote
|
| The following is a direct copy of Hans' post in original format:
|
| BEGIN GOOGLE QUOTE:
|
| Reply-To: "KØHB"
| From: "KØHB"
| Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
| References:
|
| Subject: The Pool
| Lines: 23
| Organization: Chaos & Confusion
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
| Message-ID: .net
| Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:41:13 GMT
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.250.209.220
| X-Complaints-To:
| X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1073263273 67.250.209.220
| (Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:13 PST)
| NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:13 PST
|
|
| "N2EY" wrote
|
| Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing
will be
| eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the
past.
|
| Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for
| Amateur
| Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
| eliminated in this decade.
|
| While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15
| politicians
| to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on
| their
| hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East
| Overshoe, Iowa
| and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership
| about
| how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really
| counts we
| actually increased the Morse requirement."
|
| That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
|
| 73, de Hans, K0HB
|
| END GOOGLE QUOTE

KØHB wrote:

Unfortunately, I overestimated the amount of balls carried by the BoD.
Not only didin't they have the balls to recommend complete elimination
of the Morse exam, but in recommending that Morse testing be continued
for "EXTRA", the speed they recommended was the same count-the-dots 5WPM
which Novices have been passing for over a half-century.

IIRC, most VEs give the code test using farnsworth method. That is, 13
wpm characters
spaced at 5 wpm rate. Harder to count the dahs dots. Idea is that one
can get faster
at code quicker, as you learn the sounds of letters instead of counting
the dots.

Way back when, I had to receive and *send* with an FCC provided straight
key 5wpm.
I think that the FCC found that nobody ever failed sending if they could
receive, so they
dropped the send test.

Alun wrote in message . ..
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
I see no benefit in giving over 7125-7150 to phone. 7075-7100, for
example, would be the same size and in a more useful place. Moreover,
it would harmonise Region 2 US hams with US hams outside R2.

This will crowd the CW/digital/data modes too much since there are so
many US hams. It would be better to wait for the other treaty changes
from the conference to take affect and synchronize Regions 1 and 3 with
Region 2. You do know of course that the treaty now requires
broadcasters to move out of 7.1 to 7.2 and that this will become an
exclusive amateur allocation.

Of course I do, but do you think they will really move?

Yes. They agreed to it in the treaty.

Some may, but I think some of them never will.

Why?

Many countries are reducing or even eliminating their SWBC operations.
The others have agreed to move, and they have about 3 years to do so.

In the 60s and 70s, SWBC was so crowded that some countries moved
*below*
7100. Complaints from ARRL and others to the various State Departments
got them to move. The only real failure of the "Intruder Watch" of
those days
was the woodpecker, which was an OTHR system. It was made to move by
other means ;-)

I don't recall the timing but it is
required in the treaty.

Three years or so IIRC. Maybe before FCC drops Element 1.

Perhaps someday, the ITU will open up the 7.2
to 7.3 to the other regions. In the meantime, 7.150 to 7.200 could be
a worldwide phone allocation. This is actually more space than either
of the suggested proposals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I'm assuming that this will happen anyway. I just meant that 7075-7100,
where of course there is already phone, would be more use to phone ops than
the proposed 7125-7150, where there isn't.

If the USA opens 7075-7100 to 'phone, all that will happen is the DX
'phones
will move still lower in the band to get away. There are already some
on 7050
and lower - and many of them are in R2!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in news:c2356669.0401191008.a3c8376
:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1

Summary:

3 classes of license: Novice, General, Extra

The _only_ merit to that is that testing was free for Novices, so
it would reintroduce a free licence class.

Not part of the proposal as I read it.

As I understand it, the law providing free testing for Novices
remains on the books. Hence, it really does matter what the entry
level licence is called. If it is re-named 'Novice', then the test
is free.

No, it's not part of the proposal, and having since read the whole
thing on the ARRL web site, it appears that the league haven't
thought about this particular wrinkle, as they say that the name is
still open and it could be called something else.

Unless K0HB is mistaken, no such rule exists in Part 97. And since
no new Novices have been issued in almost 4 years, it's a bit of a
moot point.

But it might be a nice thing for VECs to do...

As best as I can follow it a statute made testing free for Novices, and a
later administrative decision closed the class to new entrants.

No such statute exists. If it did, it would be in Part 97.

Obviously
the FCC don't have to include in Part 97 a rule giving free testing for
Novices whilst there are no Novice tests, but if they re-started Novice
testing it would have to be free. I admit I could be wrong, but that is how
I understand it, unless someone can show me proof to the contrary.

The nonexistence of something cannot be proven. There used to be a
rule in Part 97 that Novice tests were free.

The new Novice would replace the existing Technician class as the
entry level exam. It would have less power and fewer VHF/UHF
privileges, but more HF privileges.

Provided the new class that happened to
be called Novice had Tech Plus privileges and they had to pass
the current Element 2 I would have no trouble with that

Why?

I thought the old Novice was too easy

Why? The old 20-25 question Novice I took in 1967 at the age of 13
was adequate to keep me out of trouble, even though my first station
was homebrewed from junk parts. And that Novice license started me
on the path to Advanced in about a year, Extra in about 3 years and
BSEE in a little over 8 years....

And there were many many Novices like me. If an entry level license
keeps the newbies out of trouble and inspires them to learn and do
more, isn't that just about perfect?

Well?

Think about it - what exactly *should* an entry-level license do? If
it insures that newcomers know enough to keep out of trouble (on the
air, anyway,) gives them a sample of what amateur radio is about, and
inspires them to learn and do more with ham radio, isn't that just
about perfect?

I don't see very many people having any great difficulty with the present
Element 2, so why does it need to be easier?

Present Element 2 is for the VHF/UHF-centric Tech. The more balanced
"NewNovice"
simply needs a different test.

The privileges would be more
than the old Novice as well.

Yep - and much less in some ways than the Tech.

Each license level needs a test tailored to its privileges and intent.

Current Element 2 is very VHF/UHF centric, and so are current
Tech Plus privs. The goal seems to be to strike more of a balance
between above and below 30 MHz privileges.

So change the question pool, but don't dumb it down

How do we define "dumbing it down"? If 35 questions are adequate for
all amateur VHF/UHF at full meat-cooking power, plus 200 watts on
parts of HF, shouldn't 25 be adequate for the limited privs proposed
for the Novice?

How much is it reasonable to expect a newcomer to learn in order to be
turned loose with ~100 watts on parts of HF and ~25 watts on parts of
VHF/UHF?

To put it another way, why shouldn't the Techs have all those proposed HF
privileges, since they have passed a test with more questions than that
proposed?

It would be reasonable for exiting Techs to keep their existing
license name
and VHF/UHF privileges, *and* get "NewNovice" privileges on HF.

5 wpm code test retained for Extra only

Predictably, I do have a problem with that.

Me too. Should be at least 13 and preferably 20 wpm. Sending and
receiving.

Won't happen

Probably not, but it's still a good idea.

Morse skill testing for voice privileges is illogical and should
be dumped.

It's no more illogical than testing theory in order to be allowed
to use manufactured equipment.

Not in my opinion

It's the same argument used against the code test. Why *must* a ham
learn all that theory to use manufactured, approved gear with no
critical adjustments? Heck, most ham gear today won't transmit out
of band unless modified!

Moreover, it can be now,
since it has not been required by the ITU for the last six
months.

FCC will most probably just drop it completely.

I think they will too

Unfortunately

Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra,

OK

Why OK? Why not simply carry the Advanceds as a separate class,
as has been done for the past 3 years and 9 months?

Can't stand loose ends

What's the problem? FCC kept the Advanced on the books from 1953 to
1967 even though no new ones were issued and the license conveyed no
additional privileges at all.

Do those loose ends really cause any problems?

Confusion?

Whose? Not FCC's!

Besides, Element 4A had most of the harder questions anyway.

Not really. I passed old Element 4A back in 1968, at the age of 14,
between 8th and 9th grades. I wasn't even intending to try it - I was
at the FCC for the 13 wpm code, and the examiner said "why not try
Advanced while you're here?". So I did.

How hard could it have really been if I passed it first-time under
those circumstances?

Techs and Tech Pluses get free upgrade to General

Not OK in this scenario, given my comments above

Agreed - but why is it OK for Advanceds to get a free upgrade to
Extra, but not OK for Techs and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade
to General?

What is the fundamental difference that makes one freebie OK but
not the other?

As I see it, the new Novice would be a replacement for the Tech,
which is already pretty easy

Exactly. But that doesn't answer the question. You want Advanceds to
get free upgrades to avoid ~82,000 loose ends, but not Techs and
Tech pluses, who would
amount to ~322,000 loose ends.

I don't see why one and not the other.

'Phone image subbands for 80/40/15 widened slightly

Good.

Bad.

Some phone below 7100? No? Why not?

That space is needed for CW and digital modes.

Better to keep those on the Novice freqs and refarm more useful
spectrum to phone

Why reward the most spectrum-inefficent modes? Why not digital
voice?

It has worse S/N performance than SSB

That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used,
doesn't it?
Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform
SSB?

Old Novice subbands replaced by additional CW/data
and 'phone subbands on 80/40/15. Novices also get privs on 6,
2, 222, and 440

See above

Please clarify.

I see no benefit in giving over 7125-7150 to phone.

25 kHz more.

7075-7100, for example,
would be the same size and in a more useful place. Moreover, it
would harmonise Region 2 US hams with US hams outside R2.

Hams outside Region 2 will be getting 7100-7200 anyway. Let them
harmonize with us.

US hams outside R2 already have 7075-7100 phone

Only because they don't have 7100-7200. US hams outside R2 are rare
enough to be conidered "DX" anyway.

Read it again. *US* hams outside R2

I did. As they get 7100-7200, any reason to have 'phone below
7100 goes away completely.

Only when:-

1 - all the broadcasters have moved, probably circa the year 2100;

Why do they *all* have to move? And the timetable is 2007, IIRC

and

2 - all the countries have 7100-7200, which might almost take as long

I think you just want to have 7075-7100 regardless of what would
happen.

Novice power level set below that requiring RF exposure
evaluation

OK

Agreed.

Novice test to be 25 questions on "basics",

Not OK

Why not? Current Element 2 is only 35 questions! And it has a lot
more ground to cover, including all amateur VHF/UHF bands and
modes, power up to "meat cooking" levels (love that WK3C phrase)
and much more.

By reducing the entry-level privs, 25 questions should be enough.

With that power limit you could take out the RF exposure questions,
but I think the test is already easy enough.

To a beginner, it's not so easy.

My XYL passed Elements 2 and 3A, and she has no real interest in radio.

That's one example.

General to be
derived from Tech and General, Extra pretty much as-is.

What do you actually think of this proposal yourself, Jim? You
don't say here.

See above. A few good ideas and a few bad ideas. Obviously the
work of a committee looking to give everyone something they want,
but not giving anyone everything they want.

What will FCC do?

First off, they may just go for the "new Novice", in an effort to
attract more new hams.

Re-naming the Tech as a Novice would make the test free under
existing law. That has some appeal.

See above about the "law".

Second, they will probably just dump Element 1.

Agreed

Third, they will probably not hand out free upgrades because it
costs them little or nothing to keep the closed-off classes.

I think that for some reason their computers are only set up to
handle 5 classes of licence, but I guess that works out as there
won't be two types of Tech anymore (this is also the reason why
they aren't recorded differently right now).

Incorrect!

Before restructuring, their computers handled 6 classes of license
(Novice, Tech, Tech Plus, General, Advanced, Extra). In fact their
computers *still* handle 6 classes! So there should be no problem at
all.

And as Tech Pluses continue to be renewed as Techs, expire, and
upgrade, that class will disappear completely.

I personally am not in favour of keeping closed licence classes,
though. I think it is better to move on.

I agree, but not at the price of giveaways just to make things look
neater.

Better that than the only possible alternative - taking privileges
away

But is there really any reason not to simply continue those license
classes? That's a much, much better option than freebies or removing
privileges.

No it's not. If we abolish them we can sort out all the subbands.

Why are the subbands a problem?

How would you feel if it were decided to give all existing hams
except Novices a free upgrade to Extra, then have just two classes -
"Limited" (new name for Novice) and "Full" (everybody else)?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I would be OK with that only if the Techs got only a limited licence.

Why would Techs be singled out for a limited license? They have full
privs above 50 MHz.

I
would have no problem with giving Generals a full licence.

By your reasoning, there's no reason to have the Extra, then. Nor its
test.

Correct.

So you're for reducing the *written test* requirements for a full
privileges license.

Bad idea.

Of course, to be
fair you would have to extend that to Techs with old Element 3.

Where ya been, Alun?

Techs with old Element 3 (licensed before March 21, 1987) can get a
General
license *today* with no additional testing. Just show up at a VE
session with
proof of such license, fill out the 605 and pay the VE fee. Instant
General.
And if such a ham can pass the Extra written (might as well try, the
same
VE fee buys that test too), they get an Extra.

Been that way since April 15, 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY