You should have waited until after the FCC decides what to do with the
ARRL's "suggestion". Yes, I am a Tech and was furious when I seen that they
were wanting to grandfather the Techs to General with no written test. Just
because the ARRL suggested it, does not mean that it is set in stone yet.
FCC may have other ideas. Don't forget that the ARRL does not consist of so
many X number of board members at meetings. You and the rest of us as
members have a say in these matters also. More than likely they got input
from alot of other people and tallied it all up. Yet, I still would like to
know where the idea came from about grandfathering techs with no test.
73's OM
Ticked also, Mike KC2JGA


"Roger Gt" wrote in message
m...

"Dr. Anton.T. Squeegee"
wrote in message
...
In article
nk
.net,
says...

I canceled my Leage membership after their
first restructuring proposal for
amateur radio. Now, after seeing their new
proposal, I wish I had NEVER
been a member! Seems the Arrl philosophy is
that: if ham radio is to
survive it MUST sound like CB.


Tee'd Off

Seems to me like you're getting mad at the wrong
people.

Ham radio, like Life itself (I've said this
before, and I'll
probably end up saying it again), is a mirror.
You get back EXACTLY what
you put into it.

What you hear on the air is a reflection of the
PERSONALITY of
each INDIVIDUAL operator. It has NOTHING to do
with how hard they
studied for their license, or how much they
know, or how many letters
they have after their name.

If ham radio is declining in the "quality" of
what's heard on the
air, it's because of poor operators making life
miserable for the
newbies, apparently all because of some
misguided sense of loyalty. To
what or to whom this loyalty is directed, I have
never understood.

Let me ask you something: Have you ever made
comments on the air
that were derogatory to someone who was new to
the hobby? Have you ever
adopted an air of superiority in the presence of
a newbie?

If so, then YOU are part of the problem. If you
do not feel you
can be civil to a new operator (remember, there
was a day when NONE of
us had ever seen a microphone or transmitter,
let alone operated one),
then simply ignore them and move on to something
else.

The "Death of Ham Radio" has been predicted by
many others for
many years. Yet, the Amateur Radio SERVICE
endures to this day.
Different from what it was ten or twenty years
ago, yes, but it endures.
This tells me that new licensees aren't the prob
lem, and it tells me
that the ARRL isn't the problem.

What I see as the REAL problem are those
"veterans" in the HOBBY
who have become so obsessed with their own ideas
of whom is superior to
whom that they will deliberately make life on
the air miserable for
anyone who doesn't measure up to their own
standards. I think such
people would be doing much better to offer
polite-but-firm correction to
operating errors, and be willing to SHARE their
knowledge as opposed to
zealously guarding it like some grumpy dragon
guarding their hoard.

You may not like the ARRL for whatever reason.
Fine. That's your
choice (I'm proud to be a 'Lifer' myself). But
would you find it so very
hard to remember and respect "The Amateur's
Code" that they publish? It
dates all the way back to the League's founding,
and the days of Hiram
Percy Maxim (without whom we wouldn't even HAVE
Amateur Radio).

Chill out. The only things that will truly kill
amateur radio are
forgetting its origins, WHY we have it today,
and more anger and hatred
at newbies just because they have an easier time
getting licensed than
some of us did.
--
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)

Right on!!!!

Like the Radio school at Ft Gordon Ga? Where
students were already learning CW and Radio theory
in classes, and at K4WAR the guys got together and
studied for their license with instructors from
the school. Like you were going to fail with all
that help? Vs the determined blind guy who
learned it on his own? Like is not Fair, it is
what you make of it!

K7DUP......

"Mike" wrote:
(snip) Yet, I still would like to
know where the idea came from
about grandfathering techs with
no test.


I think you meant to say no "additional" written test, Mike. I suspect the
idea comes from the fact that the current Technician license already allows
HF access with the simple addition of the code test. In other words, the
current Technician license exam already covers much of the material needed
for HF access. Therefore, it makes more sense to grandfather them into a
license class with HF access than into one without. Of course, that's just
my take on it. If you really want to know why ARRL decided to do so, ask
them.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Mike" wrote:
(snip) Yet, I still would like to
know where the idea came from
about grandfathering techs with
no test.


I think you meant to say no "additional" written test, Mike. I suspect
the
idea comes from the fact that the current Technician license already
allows
HF access with the simple addition of the code test. In other words, the
current Technician license exam already covers much of the material needed
for HF access. Therefore, it makes more sense to grandfather them into a
license class with HF access than into one without. Of course, that's just
my take on it. If you really want to know why ARRL decided to do so, ask
them.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


I agree with that answer. I had to take both the Novice and Tech written to
get my Tech no-code. So what? I think it's a great idea to get on HF!!

"Lloyd Davies The GREAT TIME LORD" wrote in message
.. .

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Mike" wrote:
(snip) Yet, I still would like to
know where the idea came from
about grandfathering techs with
no test.


I think you meant to say no "additional" written test, Mike. I suspect
the
idea comes from the fact that the current Technician license already
allows
HF access with the simple addition of the code test. In other words, the
current Technician license exam already covers much of the material
needed
for HF access. Therefore, it makes more sense to grandfather them into a
license class with HF access than into one without. Of course, that's
just
my take on it. If you really want to know why ARRL decided to do so, ask
them.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


I agree with that answer. I had to take both the Novice and Tech written
to
get my Tech no-code. So what? I think it's a great idea to get on HF!!

I heartily agree... read on.

If you ever had to struggle through the period
of no-voice novice, you might never wish that
particular chore on anyone. I got my first Novice
in '75, and let it lapse due primarily to the lack
of voice priviliges (and no manuals for the
boatanchors I'd been given). CB was just a lot
more fun.

I got my second novice in '89, man, what a
difference! Sunspots were coming on, 10M
was hopping, and I worked for a commercial
radio shop. That's what Ham Radio is all about,
for me.... not hazing, but graduated challenges.

The greatest concern, and one which I don't think
has been addressed in this thread yet, is the fact
that our spectrum is in danger. We need more
occupants to help occupy it... and HF voice
priviliges are the only carrot left to put on the stick.
This is a graying hobby.
__
Steve
KI5YG
..

In article , " Stephen Cowell"
writes:

If you ever had to struggle through the period
of no-voice novice, you might never wish that
particular chore on anyone.

I had a no-voice, nonrenewable, nonretakeable Novice back in 1967.

Had a great time with it.

I got my first Novice
in '75, and let it lapse due primarily to the lack
of voice priviliges (and no manuals for the
boatanchors I'd been given). CB was just a lot
more fun.

I've never been on cb. Ham radio seemed like way more fun.

I got my second novice in '89, man, what a
difference! Sunspots were coming on, 10M
was hopping, and I worked for a commercial
radio shop. That's what Ham Radio is all about,
for me.... not hazing, but graduated challenges.

Hazing?

The greatest concern, and one which I don't think
has been addressed in this thread yet, is the fact
that our spectrum is in danger.

It's always been in danger. Other services have always looked
at our allocations and asked why they couldn't have some.

We need more
occupants to help occupy it... and HF voice
priviliges are the only carrot left to put on the stick.

We have 683,000 US hams today. That's about 2-1/2 times
what there were back when I got started in 1967. If the
bands aren't crowded, it's because existing hams aren't
on the air, not because there aren't enough hams.

This is a graying hobby.

Think about why.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , " Stephen Cowell"
writes:


If you ever had to struggle through the period
of no-voice novice, you might never wish that
particular chore on anyone.


I had a no-voice, nonrenewable, nonretakeable Novice back in 1967.

Had a great time with it.


I got my first Novice
in '75, and let it lapse due primarily to the lack
of voice priviliges (and no manuals for the
boatanchors I'd been given). CB was just a lot
more fun.


I've never been on cb. Ham radio seemed like way more fun.


I got my second novice in '89, man, what a
difference! Sunspots were coming on, 10M
was hopping, and I worked for a commercial
radio shop. That's what Ham Radio is all about,
for me.... not hazing, but graduated challenges.


Hazing?

There is no qualification that someone, somewhere, somehow thinks is Hazing.


If the proposed plan to upgrade Technicians to General happens, will
not those who test afterward be able to claim that their (presumably)
more difficult test is "hazing"?

I would. If I were a prospective new ham, I wouldn't be thinking about
one-time "adjustments", the history of Ham radio, or anything like that.
I'd hear about the new tests, and be annoyed at the seeming
discrimination or "hazing".

I'd probably call the whole thing an attempt by old time hams to keep
new people out of the avocation. That is what it would look like.

This about time for Bill to chime in with one of those "life is a bitch,
and then you die" comments. After which point I as a prospective ham,
would then apply the arguments he uses against him.


The greatest concern, and one which I don't think
has been addressed in this thread yet, is the fact
that our spectrum is in danger.



It's always been in danger. Other services have always looked
at our allocations and asked why they couldn't have some.


We need more
occupants to help occupy it... and HF voice
priviliges are the only carrot left to put on the stick.


We have 683,000 US hams today. That's about 2-1/2 times
what there were back when I got started in 1967. If the
bands aren't crowded, it's because existing hams aren't
on the air, not because there aren't enough hams.

ahhh, get more people on HF argument. Sorry, that argument doesn't
work, because there is a way to get even *more* people on HF by simply
giving licenses away. Maybe we should look into registration for ham
licenses when we get our drivers license?

And I don't know about others, but when I tune through the bands, there
is plenty to listen to. Now that the cycle is winding down, 75/80 gets
downright crowded in the evenings.

Ludicrous mode on:

Maybe the new influx of Hams can do something about making poor
propagation on 10 meters go away. And what's the deal with 20 meters? It
goes away in the evenings just when I sit down to do some serious
hammin! First thing they have to do is petition the F.C.C. to make it
illegal to have bad propagation........... ;^)

Ludicrous mode off...

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:
In article , " Stephen Cowell"
writes:

I got my second novice in '89, man, what a
difference! Sunspots were coming on, 10M
was hopping, and I worked for a commercial
radio shop. That's what Ham Radio is all about,
for me.... not hazing, but graduated challenges.


Graduated challenges = obtaining a Novice license for the second time.

Hazing?

There is no qualification that someone, somewhere, somehow thinks is Hazing.

As used in regard to amateur radio licensing, hazing may be considered
to be anything that one thinks he can't do or simply refuses to do.

Dave K8MN