New ARRL Licensing Proposal

[K2STV]

It is with great disdain that I now read about the ARRL's proposal to "give away" the great fraternity of amateur radio operators to a class with minimal requirements.

Why not do away with the amateur radio licence all together and call it a Citizen's Band. That way we'll get back the 27Mhz Band!

I, as many others wanted to be a ham more than anything else, and we worked our way up the licensing system class by class. I am now an extra, but I feel that I did not deserve it, but got it by the stupidity of the ARRL watering this license class down.

When I started in ham radio the ARRL had a handfull of publications and there were approximately 250,000 hams. Today the ARRL sells everything plus and there are over 600,000 hams. Yeh, this hobby is really dying!

Ditch the ARRL as they are just as useful as AARP.

[K9STH]

WPW:

Unfortunately, the ARRL lost contact between many of the "higher ups" and the membership a long time ago! I gave up on the ARRL about 25 years ago (after being a member for abut 20 years) and haven't felt that I made a bad decision at any time since I dropped my membership.

The ARRL has done some good over the years. However, the position that the Board of Directors and the headquarter's staff have taken on certain subjects have, in my opinion, been been detremental to amateur radio more often than what they have proposed and/or supported have helped.

Of course that is my opinion. Others obviously disagree with me. Then there are those "die hards" that have been trying to change the ARRL from the "inside" and have not, as yet, been successful.

I have been "party" to a number of correspondences on the latest licening proposal made by the ARRL. Frankly, there is a lot going on "behind closed doors" that I would not like if I were still an ARRL member. However, since I am not a member, I believe that I am in no position to criticize internal politics. As for their public proposals, that is a different matter! Anything that the ARRL recommends to the FCC is definitely "open" for discussion by any licensed amateur radio operator. And that means whatever is "good" and whatever is "bad".

Glen, K9STH

Wow Glen,

I thought you were an ARRL member... I have read & heard about the shake-up years ago in the late 60's but I was not a ham back then... I have been a member for a while now and I do like many of the puplications the league puts out, but this proposal stinks... I am really going to have to think out whether I will renew my membership when it comes due... I am leaning on the "don't bother" side but I hate to lose QST... Time will tell I guess...

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Jan. 28 2004,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to lose QST...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It might be at your local library.

[WA2ZDY]

I just think it's kinda funny . . .

In the mid 60s, ARRL championed incentive licensing which nearly tore ham radio apart at the seams. Of course they kinda tried to distance themselves from that stand once the unpopularity among hams was out in the open.

Twenty years later, suddenly the same organisation was all for reducing standards. Novice enhancement, no-code tech . . . now this idea.

I don't know if any of these ideas were for the better or worse, and it's not relevant to my post. What is relevant is the 180 degree U-turn made in a relatively short period of time by such a large and at one time influential organisation.

Here's what I look at for a reason. I may be wrong, this is solely my personal opinion, ok? And in fact, it's based only on my own little hairbrained thinking.

Reduced standards should equal more &quot;hams.&quot; More hams could mean more members. And more radios sold. Thus more advertising. All of this? Equals more MONEY. Hmmmm . . .

Has ham radio been sold out? I don't know. I only have my personal opinion. I know 680,000 &quot;hams&quot; should be better than 250,000 hams from the revenue standpoint.

Ideas?

Chris,

Membership revenue ARRL for Dec each year listed.

1996 #4,407,387
1997 #4,771,837
1998 #4,618,380 # #(see that drop, wasn't there a proposal hr)
1999 #4,653,937 # #(oh, oh flat, got to get 5wpm through)
2000 #4,667,274 # #(5wpm in, starting to recover)
2001 #4,853,737 # #( not bad ,dumb down= +186,463)
2002 #5,083,353 # #(dumb down=+229,616)
2003 #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif???

2003, my guess is it's flat, time for a new proposal to save amateur radio. Good until the next time revenues are flat or falling.

No ideas here.
Marty WB2RJR/7

I have a listing of number of hams from 1925 to 2003 and their % of US pop, but it gets messed up when trying to post. Post it later, may have to type it all instead of paste. No time now.

73, Marty WB2RJR/7

[KD7WHQ]

Please do.
I was thinking of joining, but I'm starting to think my NRA membership is more productive, and I might save a bit.
Any input to sway me?

[K0RGR]

There is only one national organization that is devoted entirely to Amateur Radio.

There is only one national Amateur Radio organization that has a presence in Washington, D.C. looking out for our interests.

ARRL is an important member of IARU, which looks out for our interests around the world.

ARRL has an extensive field organization, real people that you can talk to. I believe most Directors are quite willing to come and meet with clubs in their divisions, and most have open roundtables at their division conventions. I've exchanged email with the ARRL President and others more than once. Did Charleton Heston ever offer to help you with a project?

No matter what position ARRL took in this matter, they were going to be damned by somebody, and I believe they really worked hard to come up with what they believe is a proposal in the best long term interests of the membership.

I'm going to be honest. There's a lot of people flapping their gums about people being 'real hams', and calling people names like 'NCT' and much worse. In my opinion, part of being a real ham is being a member of ARRL and participating in the organization. That's the only real Amateur Tradition that's been a constant since the earliest days of radio. Everything else changes. If you can't afford the membership, where do find the money to buy ammunition for your arsenal?

[kc7jty]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD7WHQ @ Jan. 28 2004,23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please do.
I was thinking of joining, but I'm starting to think my NRA membership is more productive, and I might save a bit.
Any input to sway me?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The visual in my mind's eye of Charelton Heston holding that long arm over his head and saying &quot;From my cold dead hands&quot; still makes all my hairs stand up straight. Always keep your priorities in proper order.

[KD7WHQ]

The issue wasn't the membership fee.
It just seems to me that quite a few people here have reservations.

I'll send it in, believe me.. I was just looking to see what some people were thinking..

[k9kjm]

I belong to both the NRA and the ARRL.
And as stated elsewhere, They both have
serious problems....... I sure do not agree
with everything either one puts forth.
BUT, Each one is the &quot;Only game in town&quot;
to protect our rights!

Other than the wrong headed idea to &quot;give&quot;
no code techs general class licenses without even taking the general written exam, (I think ARRL got so badly burned in the 1960's incentive license affair that this time they will not even consider common sense of what needs to be done, And have gone off the deep end in the other direction)
Other than the no code giveaway to general, I do agree
with the ARRL proposal. Lets face the facts. The times are changing and ham radio needs this change.

I have been thinking about whether or not I will renew my league membership for a while now... I just have been teetering on the edge of &quot;yeah or nay&quot; for some time now... But now I am seeing things more clearly.... I have read many many posts from ARRL management right here on QRZ.com... While I can understand their thinking with respects to the direction they are taking the ARRL (and in some respects, ham radio itself), I do not agree with a lot of what the league does (it's not just this proposal thingy they whipped up).... I think my mind is made up not to waste any more money on it... When renewal time rolls around for me, we'll see if I feel the same about it.... But for now, they've as good as lost a member....

Glen said:
&quot;I have been &quot;party&quot; to a number of correspondences on the latest licening proposal made by the ARRL. #Frankly, there is a lot going on &quot;behind closed doors&quot; that I would not like if I were still an ARRL member.&quot;

What might that be Glen? I need to know. I just hate it when these meetings behind closed doors happen without me.

73

Jim

[K9STH]

Jim:

You are just going to have to find out from your sources. I gave my word that I would not tell!

Now, I know that this sounds like &quot; cop out&quot;, but, like the newspaper reporter's &quot;confidential sources&quot;, if I reveal my sources then I lose them and I am &quot;out of the loop&quot;!

You do know that the vote on the &quot;new proposal&quot; was not recorded even though the more &quot;mundane&quot; votes were. That is not good! However, as I said before, since I am not an ARRL member then I have no right to complain about internal matters. But, when the actions of the League affect anything other than internal matters (like FCC proposals) then those actions are most certainly open for comment.

Glen, K9STH

Glen,

The vote on THIS one was not recorded even though 'mundane votes' were?

THAT tends to incite me to be a tad angry.

Why? Because when the big debate occured (AFTER the Contesting community found out about it and raised a BIG public stink which forced the ARRL to delay it for discussion the vote was taken and THAT vote was 'not recorded' but toher 'mundane votes' were recorded.

VERY STRANGE... indeed!

BTW.. it would be interesting (maybe RJR could do this) to post the OFFICIAL number of amateur licensees (by class) PRIOR to the 1967 '(dis)Incentive Licensing' official start up through TODAY.

It would ALSO be quite interesting to see next to the implementaion year, a comment IF a major restructuring proposal was approved and implemented by the FCC.

It would be EYE OPENING I suspect... (esp in the years following 67/68) to see teh DROP in licensees and the S L O W and long upward trend to return to those levels.

As Arte Johnson used to say in the TV Show 'LAUGH IN'

&quot;VELLLLLY INTELLLESTING!&quot;

73
Chuck K3FT
First ticket 1968
'Been there, lived through it, survived!'


My ARRL membership comes up for renewal in November.. Decision is currently 'under advisement'.

It is a &quot;cop out&quot; Glen. Saying there are &quot;meetings behind closed doors&quot; is nothing more than an inflamatory statement.

All the committee meetings are scheduled by the respective chairpersons far in advance. I am in the loop on all of them. The Executive Committee meetings are called by me. The last one was in Winsor, CT and the one before that was here in Dallas. Both were reported on the ARRL web.

You do not have to be a member to read our by-laws. They are on the web. Motions that change the by-laws do have to be recorded. Motions that do not change by-laws are not recorded other than passed or failed. This has been SOP for years.

Jim

[KG4ZLB]

Why oh why does everyone throw their toys out of the pram about this issue ? Face it guys and gals, evolve or die, don't use the bands and someone else will come and take them away from us, dont make the change and we stay out of step with the rest of the amateur world.

The falling number of users in the UK gave rise to a new entry level licence about 18 months ago; result - over 8,000 new hams using the bands. Magnificent forethought.

If you dont like the proposals then send your ticket back, don't renew your subs to the ARRL, do whatever but please stop bleating! And to save anyone from looking up my callsign, I am an NCT, BUT I have the General written as well. Just a matter of time anyway.

Jim,

While, I, as a member of the ARRL, do understand 'SOP' and all that those initials entail..

The basic fact that you HAVE to had known that such items as this one would MOST CERTAINLY result in a LARGE and OVERT response from the Amateur community both within - and without - the ARRL.

The fact that many Directors have commented, publicily, as to the fact that the debate and resulting decisions WOULD be touching ' the third rail' of Amateur Radio's subway tracks proves that it was WELL KNOWN that THIS issue was special and deserved to be treated OUTSIDE the 'SOP'.

THIS, alone, would tend to make one WANT to have recorded votes IN THIS CASE so as to recognize the extreme sensitivity that the issue is surrounded by.

THAT would have - perhaps - mollified or deflected those who make comments about 'The ARRL STARCHAMBER' and all those other things you have to put up with.

But it does seem rather strange that TWO VERY VOLATILE issues (removal of long-standing content from QST (contest) and THIS one.. were 'not recorded' yet others were leaves a VERY bad taste in the mouth of ARRL members.

One would think that the basic notion of 'knowing that you are touching the fuse to a VERY large stack of dynamite' would cause one to make an exception to the SOP.

Ahh well. what's done is done.

We will await the FCC's actions. If they enact it.. then we'll wait and see what happens. Hopefully it won't introduce the 'doomsday' scenarios that the pessimints envision.

K3FT

[ky5u]

It might suprise you but I think nobody ought to quit the ARRL and I urge everyone to JOIN!!

Then, identify the officers not doing a good job and make changes. # I respect Jim alot, but its time for the league to start voting the will of its memebrs instead of what a few people THINK is the will.

Jim, I did what you asked and spoke to Frank Butler. #His mind was made up last November. #I hoped you would at least poll the membership. #You didn't . I hoped your proposal would make sense too. #I don't care that you didn't do what I proposed, but I do care that your proposal dumps on General class operators. #If you fixed that, I might be able to swallow my pride and support you.

This is not personal. #Frank is a GREAT person who is a credit to the hobby. #I have spoken to you and believe you to be an outstanding leader. #I am just disappointed with you both. #You guys have yourselves convinced you are right and are too proud or pompous to listen to anyone else. #You guys could be perfect leaders but for this flaw.

AG4YO,

If the league would have polled it's members, (ALL of it's members) and published the results of that poll, and then acted on those results, I definitely would not give my membership standing a second thought regardless of how the poll came out...

BUT, they didn't... A very sad day indeed.... I see no reason to support them anymore... The damage is done and cannot be reversed.... Voting in all new officers at this point in time won't help... The damage is done, period.

Of course you may say &quot;But the FCC hasn't acted on it yet&quot; at which point I would say, &quot;So what!! The league proposed a MAJOR rules change WITHOUT even asking their members.... &quot;

Why would I want to spend money on an organization that has it's own agenda without even considering what it's PAYING members are thinking???

nuff sed.............

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5jbp @ Jan. 30 2004,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a &quot;cop out&quot; Glen.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, Jim, I'll tell you what is a cop out.

A cop out is when your Director tells you that he supports the Board decision, but won't tell you whether he voted for it or not.

A cop out is when your Director tells you he has to check his information before answering why Board decisions were made. Then says its because he didn't remember the dates.

A cop out is when you ask for details of the reason that the ARRL proposal won't affect IARP and CEPT permits, the League officials say it won't be affected, the ARRL, RSGB, FCC and OFCOM web sites all show documentation that shows the permits will be affected. Then you are told basically &quot;We'll get back to you&quot;, but no one does and the contradictory information remains.

A cop out is when you ask specific questions to find out what your representatives had in mind when they voted and are told &quot;I have nothing more to say on the matter.&quot;

A cop out is when your representatives respond to requests to consider additional information before filing an FCC proposal by saying they will not accept comments from the members.

Jim, I respect some things you have done in the past, but the ARRL fell down on its responsibility to its membership on this issue. And it is still your watch.

If you want to convince me and others that you have our concerns at heart, then start explaining - and tell the Directors to do likewise.

If you can't do that, that is a cop-out.

73,

[ae4fa]

Ah, gee, Walt. There you go spouting logic, common sense, the fruits of critical thought, and all that other non-sensical stuff again.

Bad habit.

But I suppose it is because - - - - what's the phrase, Jim?

Ah, yes . . .

Walt, you just don't understand the BIG PICTURE.

Only certain, select, and seemingly untouchable individuals can possibly understand the BIG PICTURE.

Right, Jim?

There plan did not work a couple of years ago. What is to say it will work now.

KC0RJC

[ae4fa]

Jim?




Jim?




Are you there, Jim?




We sure would like to hear some straight talk, rather than the schmooze job - and without the cute debating tactics . . .



Gosh, here's something novel. Why don't you come out with an apology and a reconsideration of that idiotic proposal?

[KC8QMU]

Jim,

What about those surveys you say were sent out? Apparentley it wasn't just me that didn't recieve one. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[KG4ZQZ]

- it is somewhat amusing to see all the angst and anguish over the licensing issues... but i wonder, if one is an Amateur Extra already, why worry?

- for me, the important thing to worry about is getting more folks into amateur radio, and ensuring that new hams or people interested in becoming a ham find a welcome and nuturing environment...

- a 5 WPM CW test is not a big obstacle... if one cannot learn CW at 5 WPM and pass a simple exam by copying 25 characters in a row (where punctuation counts for two characters), then an amateur radio license should be a secondary concern to much more important personal issues...

- one of the youngest Amateur Extra class licensees is 7 years old! and there are many that are only a few years older... while these adolescents are certainly the exception, learning, testing, passing, and climbing the rung of the current FCC amateur radio license ladder should pose no problem for 99.9999 of potential licensees...

- the FCC will do what the FCC wants... while the ARRL may have some input and political pull, i'd bet dollars to donuts that amateur radio ranks quite low on the list of priority issues at the commission...

- my only recommendation is to be a good ham: be friendly, helpful and understanding of those interested in amateur radio... be encouraging and supportive when a fellow ham is studying to upgrade... and be willing to share the information, courtesies and customs of ham radio operation..

- you may not agree with the current attitude of 'entitlement' prevalent not only in amateur radio but throughout society today, but the only person, persons, organization or entity to blame is the amateur radio community itself...

- the onus of the future of amateur radio is on you, the individual...

- just my $0.02..

[kc8fcw]

As a member of the NRA and a in the process of reupping
my lapsed ARRL membership, I think both groups are
worthwhile # Both working to protect rights for American
Citizens. Bottom line: if you dont agree dont join

Al

[nz3m]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4ZQZ @ Jan. 30 2004,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- for me, the important thing to worry about is getting more folks into amateur radio, and ensuring that new hams or people interested in becoming a ham find a welcome and nuturing environment...
.

- just my $0.02..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Can you welcome and nurture a ham who is calling CQ on your SSTV or other digital mode because they think it's 'noise on the band tonight&quot;.

I'm not talking about dropping the code, that's a lost cause. Just don't try to take away the CW portions of the bands. That would really upset me

What I'm talking about is the tech to general &quot;bump&quot;.

I think they should learn HF first. Again, don't get me wrong, there are some very skilled technicians out there. I'm worried about the others. I doubt they would complain about taking the general theory anyway. Mr. Haynie says the tests are the same, but they are not.

Dave

To KG4ZQZ and others who hold similar views.


Please stop and take a minute to look beyond the words and understand the foundational issues that myself and others who are quite upset/concerned about this latest ARRL action are REALLY addressing.

The MAIN issues we are addressing are far beyond with what you wrote about. #They deal with the deeper and foundational issues of ..

ARRL's APPARENT lack of interest of either providing 'straight talk and information' OR opening issues up for debate and discussion amongst their membership BEFORE making a decision.

ARRL's MULTIPLE actions (over the many years) where by they ACT on ideas that THEY believe will benefit the ARRL and its' membership BUT will have a DEEP effect on the ENTIRE amateur radio community. They do this without FIRST assessing and solicitng input from those who will be affected by their actions.

In other words.. they act on what THEY believe is right.. but ther actions have a WIDER sphere of effect upon others who are NOT part of their group.

THAT is one of the crux issues... They don't actively go out 'into the community of the WHOLE' and proactively solicit input BEFORE producing proposals or voting on things.

They MAY publish a note or request in QST.. but THAT is not 'actively soliciting' anyone. It's passive and depends TOTALLY on someone seeing it AND also the 'word of mouth' in getting folks aware of what's going on. #PROACTVE ACTIVE solicition means ARRL get's the word out via many venues.

Trust me.. LOTS of clubs and groups would GLADLY distribute the ARRL's request for comments to the general amateur radio population if ONLY the ARRL would simply take the basic action to get the ball rolling.

It is a fact.. undisputiable.. that the ARRL's voice is LOUDER nad STRONGER in D.C. and with the F.C.C. that most of us are.

That FURTHER requires that they excercise DUE DILIGENCE in soliciting as much input from the ENTIRE affected universe of ham radio licensees than just those inside the ARRL.


THAT is the crux of WHY we are upset.. and WHY you are reading/hearing such an uproar from the folks out here.

73

Chuck K3FT

The ARRL has done (and DOES DO) many good things. This is ONE area they fail - miserably - at doing well.

[trjohn]

Anyone owning a Transceiver may it be Ham Radio ,CB
or two cans with a string, they use it to communicate
and communications are very important to exchange ideas and information.

Now when we talk about testing for a license is this some material that we study just long enough to pass
the test and then go on our way? Or is this a start to
further our knowledge to become better communicators?

I know the tests can not detect if the person taking
it retains infomation afterwards and my point is,on
most of the Ham Bands below 30Mhz some of the
operators holding higher class licenses behave as if
they never took the test or didn't retain or choose not
to perform to the class license they hold.So what really
needs to be done,is that when your license expires you
have to retest to see if you retained the info needed for
the class license you hold.

I think the Ham hobby is all about money now and
if this hobby is to stay alive we as Hams need to come up with different standards on what questions should be on the test and a mandatory class on what is expected
of a licensed Ham operator after the test.

And this is just my opinion.
Terry KC0CUL 73's

[WR6G]

I am almost ready to give up on amateur radio. I completely disagree with making Techs Generals and Advanced operators Extras. I have friends who are to lazy to study and upgrade and they tell me this is exactly what they are waiting for. I just upgraded to Extra and now I find out it would have been given to me free of charge. I wouldn't have wanted it that way to begin with. I believe in earning something. It is meaningless if you don't! It seems to me that if the HF bands are loaded up with inexperienced radio operators, we may lose old operators like myself. I guess the 10Khz bandwidth proposal, is so you can run those wideband CB amplifiers that splatter so well. I can tell you right now, ARRL will not be getting any more of my money. I will read CQ magazine from now on!

Chris KF6VF #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[KC8QMU]

I don't agree with it either Chris, (except making Advanced class hams Extra- after all they took a harder written exam than the current Extra and had to pass 13 wpm code), but I wouldn't let it ruin your fun. I know I'm not! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N0WVA]

The ARRL suckered me into wasting my money on them, too. But not any more!!

[ae4fa]

Hey, doods, hold on.

If enough of us get together, we can force a change in the organization. If ya quit, you're just waving the white flag.

Did you know that only 3 of the 15 directors faced any opposition their last time around? And that some haven't faced opposition for several election cycles?

That's what got us into this mess - apathy. And, apathy ain't gonna get us out!

Mobilize! Take the ARRL back to what it is supposed to be!

[K9STH]

Prior to incentive licensing effective 22 November 1967, the holders of an Advanced Class license had held the highest class of license that was possible to obtain at the time! The Extra Class was created in 1951 but it had no additional privileges. At the same time the Novice Class and Technician Class were established.

Those who were reassigned an Advanced Class license held the old Class &quot;A&quot; license which was the highest possible license that could be obtained. At the same time the old Class &quot;B&quot; license was renamed General Class and the old Class &quot;C&quot; license was renamed the Conditional Class. Between 1951 and 1968 (when the first &quot;round&quot; of incentive licensing went into effect with reduced privileges) the top four classes had full privileges. Then, on 22 November 1967 incentive licensing took effect with the first reduction in privileges taking place on 22 November 1968. Depending on your class of license unless you held an Extra Class license, your HF privileges were reduced by from about 10 percent to over 50 percent!

Thus, the older Advanced Class licensees got &quot;screwed&quot; in 1967. There have been numerous petitions to the FCC since 1967 asking for full privileges to be returned to those who held full privileges before incentive licensing. The FCC's reason for not returning these privileges was that it would not be &quot;fair&quot; to those people who had gotten their Extra Class licenses. At the inception of incentive licensing there were considerably less than 10,000 amateurs who held that class. However, well over 150,000 amateurs lost privileges. It is my contention that it was much less &quot;fair&quot; to those over 150,000 amateurs who lost privileges than it was &quot;fair&quot; to those well under 10,000 amateurs with Extra Class licenses that did not lose any privileges!

The FCC did offer to rescind all but a narrow band (10 KHz if I remember correctly) on the 80, 40, 20, and 15 meter CW bands. But, the ARRL not only did not inform the membership of this but the ARRL definitely petitioned the FCC NOT to rescind the privilege reduction! This fact was published in the back of QST in the old very small print which virtually no one ever read! This was published after the FCC had made the decision not to rescind the first round of privilege reductions and the ARRL took credit for the FCC dropping this plan! I was not even aware that this had taken place until less than a year ago when I was looking through some old QST magazines. I &quot;ran across&quot; this in the very small print! There have been some others who post on this site who have also come across the fact that the ARRL petitioned the FCC to keep the reduction in privileges!

For anyone who held a Conditional Class license or higher prior to 22 November 1967, the &quot;upping&quot; of the Advanced Class to Extra is just a start at restoring what was a &quot;slap in the face&quot; of those amateur radio operators. To be &quot;fair&quot;, the FCC should immediately upgrade to Extra every amateur who held a Conditional Class and higher license to Extra. This would only be a &quot;start&quot; to try to &quot;make up&quot; for the over 36 years that those people have been denied privileges unless they upgraded. As I said before, those people who held the Advanced Class of license prior to 22 November1967 had previously held the highest class of license that existed at the time of issuance.

Glen, K9STH

[K0RGR]

My Dad was a pre-war Class A, later Advanced, who never got his Extra. He was pretty philosophical about it. According to him. the pre-war Class A exam he took looked easier than the General test I took. He always said there was a lot more invented between the 30's and 60's, and since he was there, I never disagreed with him.

He wasn't too concerned about the loss of priveleges, even though he was primarily a CW operator and would have enjoyed the bottom 25Khz., even though he noted that it was mostly empty even back then. I think he could have passed his Extra easily, but he never found the time to study. Those who condemn ARRL forget that FCC wanted to combine the Advanced and General licenses some years prior to Incentive Licensing, and ARRL fought against that.

My Dad's been dead for 20 years, now. How many pre-war Class A's are still among us? Dad was licensed as a kid and he would be 85 now. Incentive Licensing happened 37 years ago. That's more than a generation.

I favor ARRL's plan to roll us into 3 classes with a real entry license. That means combining the 'Intermediate' classes into one class, and the 'Full' licensees into another.

[KD7WHQ]

My dad (W7UZB) made Advanced in 1957, or was it '56?

At any rate, I believe the advanced class SHOULD be rolled into extra. The reasons cited above, are exactly the ones I base this on; the test was considerably more complex, and the code speed was substantially higher than the current element 1 and 4.
And, as I fed back to the FCC, if the ARRL proposal is the one adopted, element 3 should remain a requirement for general. No flat across automatic upgrades on adoption of the new scheme.
Bear in mind, I'm one of those no-code techs http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

But, as I said in another thread (or was it this one? I've lost track with so many), we have no clue as to what the FCC is going to put out in their notice.
Could be one, could be the other, a mix between, or could be something completely out of left field..

[K0RGR]

Yes, perhaps the FCC will resurrect their own 1974 proposal to create a codeless 'Communicator' license, but this time it will be one 20 question exam for all the marbles.

The commission has repeatedly stated their desire to see a maximum of 3 license classes. If you accept the League's research and logic, you agree that we need a new entry level. That means everybody else gets squeezed into the remaining two. Based on my own experience with the Advanced test of the late 60's, I would never agree that it was in the same league with the Extra I took in the early 70's, or even the General I took in the mid-60's. But, I have no problem grandfathering the Advanced licensees to Extra now, in order to make for a cleaner license structure. At least the Advanced licensees made some effort above and beyond the General level, just as more recent Extras have.

The same is true for Tech to General. Many of the things I see people saying should be required aren't even on the current General test. Historically, the Tech and General were the same test. The current dichotomy has only existed for a short time.

[k8ny]

Yes, there was a time in the not so distant past that the ARRL represented most amateurs but sadly they have succumbed to the whims of the the non-achievers of our current culture.

As they all say now: &quot;whatever&quot;

Ciao,

Robertone

[ae4fa]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you accept the League's research[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I won't buy a pig in a poke. #And, since the ARRL has been unwilling to publish this &quot;research,&quot; I don't see how anyone in his right mind would accept it!

[N1XHF]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2STV @ Jan. 27 2004,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is with great disdain that I now read about the ARRL's proposal to &quot;give away&quot; the great fraternity of amateur radio operators to a class with minimal requirements.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I have seen this a lot. I don't remember anywhere in any of the FCC rules and regs were it says Amateur radio is a &quot;fraternal order&quot;. Ham radio is a hobby for all to enjoy not a fraternity. As far as I remember it is open to all not just a select few like a frat which of course is a &quot;click&quot; . Sometimes it does look like a fraternity due to the constant hazing of other hams for things they should or should not be doing and the the license structure of what I like the call the cast system or the &quot;three class click&quot;. If you do want to look at ham radio as a fraternity keep in mind even they are too changing (or fading away) with times. Just 2 years ago during home coming I visited my old frat during pledging and the program the new &quot;brothers&quot; have to go through was a cake walk compared to mine. But change is sometimes for the good, and as far as I know nothing is being &quot;given away&quot; you still have to earn it..... Just not in the way you or I want it.



73

[N2ACX]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif As, it seems, with most, organizations etc they all start out with good intentions but shortly fall prey to special interest groups and pressures from those that would benifit from their endorsements etc.
At one time I thought the ARRL was ok, I guess around 1960's, but then all too apparent signs began showing thru the articles and editorials.
In my opinion as it looks to me the ARRL has many who have reached their levels of incompetence's,bowed to the wishes of Radio Manufacturers, and have decided to endorse the giving away amateur radio licenses in every box of any product anymore just so that the sales of equipment lines the pockets of the wealthy, along with the fact that many egocentric hams love seeing their calls in print for some reason and seem to support any organization that will print them.
The ARRL is a &quot;white elephant&quot;, useless as the United Nations and willing to give away anything for a buck. I will never join this organization and would urge anyone else not too also, unless they change their outlook on various issues, this last issue was the last straw, it broke the camels back for me. Just the idea of bascially giving the licenses's away and allowing autoupgrades without further testing is an outrage. I'm sure as with all &quot;companies like this, there are those who are dedicated to doing the &quot;right thing&quot;, but are out-numbered.
And Life goes on, the radio manufacturers are going to sell you outdated junk till their inventories run out, then the big swtich to all digital will occur resulting in a complete replacement of every piece of ham gear in the USA, wow sounds like the manufacturers are &quot;Stalling for Dollars&quot; to me. And the ARRL wants everyone to have a &quot;Gimmie&quot; amateur radio license!
I for one like ALL the &quot;Modes&quot; of communication, from PSK31 thru and including that horrible unmentionable, code, CW,interrupted carrier wave transmission.
I don't have much in the way of equipment, but I enjoy all that I do have.
Hey ARRL? why havent you lobbied for digital capabilites to be a standard in Amateur Radio Transcievers, we could have had it for 10 years now, could it be the poor consumer again is being &quot;milked&quot; to death, revision by revision, ,model by model as always?
It would seem again the ARRL wants all these new hams given licenses and auto-upgrades, so they can buy all the old, outdated equipment that the Manufacturers are sitting on.
Warning to the Amateur operator like with those that are still buying analog televisions, &quot;Don't buy them&quot;, wait till it's all digital, and the price comes down&quot;Don't let them sell you the &quot;converter&quot; nonsense, thats an ole trick anymore.Remember the SSB &quot;slicer&quot;? UHF converter?
73 and long live &quot;Ham Radio&quot;, thanks to all amateurs, lets get active on these allocated frequencies before we really do lose them piece by piece.
Gary

[kb9yta]

From reading the pro arrl statements on here by some, it sounds as if the arrl is cult like. As if its the one true church or something. If the arrl was non profit and werent so commercial I would join. I'm thinking about joining fists they sound much more humble.

[N5CTI]

Here's my take on the whole thing (building on Bob AE4FA's prior post):

1. The ARRL is indisputably the largest and most influential Amateur Radio organization in the U.S. As such, they undoubtedly have the greatest influence of anyone or any organization on FCC actions regarding Amateur Radio.

2. The only way for an individual to point an organization in the right direction is to be a member. If you're dissatisfied with what they do, speak up. If you don't like what your Director is doing, vote in a new one. If necessary, run for the position yourself. Use the many complaints you have and hear here as your platform.

I can see how some folks may have tried to influence the ARRL's direction from the inside, and failed, might want to give up on it, since it would be apparent that their respective philosophies differ too much. But quitting just because you dislike one proposal, or even a bunch of proposals, is giving up without trying.

If you don't like what the ARRL did with this proposal, or how the Board of Directors went about it, voice your opinion, both to your Director and to other ARRL members in your Division. If there are others who agree, then you'll contribute to the creation of opposition. If there are enough of you, someone will step forward who espouses your positions who will want to challenge your current Director. Then the membership in your Division will decide the next time elections are held. If the majority agree with you, you'll make a change. If you're in the minority, then you won't get your way...which is the way it should be.

This is the way you make things more to your liking. Whinging and whining on web sites, even on the air with your friends, isn't going to accomplish much. You're not going to influence the ARRL very much from the outside. If you want to change it, you've got to join it, then speak up.

Sorry for the rant.

[K9STH]

YTA:

The ARRL is a 501( c )(3) corporation which makes it a non-profit entity. You can donate and take a &quot;tax write off&quot;, etc.

However, I have not been a member since the 1970s and don't intend to renew any time soon.

Glen, K9STH