View Full Version : Meaningful Entry Level License
I read the QST article (Jan 2006 pg 75) on the subject yesterday, and thought to myself, now, this doesn’t sound like the worst idea in the world.
For those that don’t know, the ARRL’s proposal would give technician operators some HF privileges on 80, 40, 15, & 10 meters.
80 Meters
CW, RTTY, & Data from 3550 – 3700
CW, Phone & Image from 3900 – 4000
40 Meters
CW, RTTY, & Data from 7050 – 7125
CW, Phone & Image from 7200 – 7300
15 Meters
CW, RTTY, & Data from 21050 – 21200
CW, Phone & Image from 21350 – 21450
10 Meters
CW, RTTY, & Data from 28050 – 28300
CW, Phone & Image from 28300 – 28500
Under the plan, technicians would be restricted to 100 watts on 80, 40, and 15 meters, and 50 watts on 10 meters.
I’ve someone were to come to me and say, you have to make up some “meaningful” and by meaningful, they mean voice on HF, entry level license privileges, I probably would have come up with something similar. My thought seems to be keep the original novice CW segments, and just add some SSB voice segments a the top of 80, 40, & 15 meters, and keeping 10 meters the same.
I might further add some equipment restrictions, both for safety, and to help with signal quality. An entry level test shouldn’t mean you can replace some tubes in an old heath kit and get on the air, who knows what would be coming from that antenna. I’m afraid to operate too close to the edge of the novice CW bands, for right now I don’t have the experience or the equipment to measure my signal exactly, I must admit, I put the faith in the proper function of my equipment. When I hear some of these KB3+ operators on the air with their signal problems on 2 meter FM, it makes me cringe a little thinking about what that same lack of experience would do on 80(75) meters.
And then there is data modes, something I also think should require some experience, with most of the data modes, it just seems to easy to QRM other stations. PSK might be the one exception, that water fall display should help with the whole QRM thing, but simply classifying emissions as data, it could mean anything.
The last bit of controversy I’ll add is that with this new entry level license, I’d keep the Morse code requirements for general and extra. I’d also drop the technician name and call it novice.
Of course, I don’t think there is anything wrong with the way it is now, or the way it was back in 93 when I got my ticket. Well, that is my $0.02, for what its worth (when that expression was invented, $0.02 might have actually been able to buy something).
73
Joe
N3PAQ
KC9ECI
12-17-2005, 04:40 PM
I'd be happy to sell you 2 gumballs for that .02 cents, plus $6.95 S&H.
k0ews
12-17-2005, 04:40 PM
I also think it's a good proposal. Since the code requirement is probably history anyway, it makes perfect sense to give the entry level a taste of HF. That's what they used to do with the Novice. It would let all of the folks who do nothing except repeaters see what they are missing. Not every ham is interested in HF, but a lot are. Giving them a look at what they can have more of would probably get newer hams to upgrade. It's the same strategy used by marketers all the time, and it works.
I am 100 percent against it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Getting rid of the Novice license was lame beyond stupid and well past ignorant.
For some reason, dorks gain positions where they can change rules, and then make the collossal mistake of actually doing so. Sigh.
Actually, a crazy idea that I had, was to make us technicians choose between passing the code or earning something like VUCC with the VHF+ privileges we already have. Then again, I actually like to use the radio and get on the air. I think to me, it is more about experience than just passing a test. Maybe the entry license class should be required to hold it for a year before upgrading, this doesn’t guarantee experience, but it would help.
As for HF, that isn’t all there is to ham radio either. An older ham, extra class, who was sort of an elmer to me had absolutely no use for anything below 400 MHz (in his own words). He was really into ATV and low power UHF voice. He had a lot of UHF yagis.
KF0RT
12-17-2005, 05:10 PM
Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Dec. 17 2005,09:46)]I am 100 percent against it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Ditto here. I note that there is no mention whatsoever of the Advanced class in the article.
One or two more "dumb-downs" and we'll have what the ARRL really wants: Key-down contests at Dayton. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
73, Rob
ae4fa
12-18-2005, 02:56 PM
Okay, someone is gonna have to define "meaningful" to me. Apprently, the definition has changed.
I found my Novice license privileges very meaningful. It allowed me to QSO with other hams across the nation, and even some DX - all while running about 35 watts out to a simple antenna.
It also afforded me the easiest way imaginable to build operating skills.
And, it afforded me an incentive to learn more about electronics and radio, as well as build those operational skills.
That's plenty meaningful.
I think that the word "meaningful" is now coded to mean "easy."
Sad.
KD8CHM
12-18-2005, 03:05 PM
No go for me... tsk
I received my QST yesterday and took a look at the editorial from Dave Sumner.The ARRL has been asking for something like this since 1997. My impression is that they are attempting to somehow set right the problems caused by the NCT license which has been identified by the ARRL as a dead end (see March 1997 QST).
Very recently the ARRL formally asked the FCC for instant upgrades to General for the Tech/Tech+ classes but was turned down. They asked for upgrades to Extra for present Advanced class holders as well as a whole new beginner class license which would have pretty decent HF privileges. Again, the FCC turned it down.
So what do we do?
The editorial in QST sounded more like a plea than a proposal (at least to me) as this has been asked for several times and the ARRL can not seem to figure out why the FCC did not and will not act on it.
I was, and still am a supporter of a new beginner class license that would grant privileges on HF as well as ALL VHF and up privileges and have no problems with the potential operating privileges cited in the article. I do have some problems with the power levels cited for several reasons.
1. They will not be able to be enforced
2. The 10 meter power limit at 50 watts is actually a large reduction in privileges for the Tech+ (and Novice) on that band
My largest problem with the whole concept is that for all of the eulogization the ARRL was giving to the Novice licensee, they did not see fit to include them into the "plan". Believe it or not there are about 28,000 Novice license holders out there and the ARRL completely ignores them when it comes to being included in any proposal they make to the FCC. I should also note that all of them have passed the very dreaded 5 WPM code test.
The plan, as outlined in QST would be a much better idea than an instant grandfather to General, but lets make it inclusive instead of exclusive, and why we are at it, lets make the written exams for General and Extra much broader in scope so when upgrade time comes no one can say that it was a free ride to General or Extra.
So lets get it all over with. Novice, Tech and Tech+ get to be in the beginner class (we need a better name for it) with all the HF privileges outlined in the QST article, All VHF+ privileges, and have the same power privileges the everyone else has. (a Tech can use max legal power now on his or her privileges) AND we grandfather the Advanced to Extra unless Advanced licensees on an individual basis choose to keep renewing as an Advanced for whatever reasons.
Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays
George
K3UD
Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Dec. 18 2005,07:56)]Okay, someone is gonna have to define "meaningful" to me. Apprently, the definition has changed.
I found my Novice license privileges very meaningful. It allowed me to QSO with other hams across the nation, and even some DX - all while running about 35 watts out to a simple antenna.
I find the novice privileges meaningful as well. I think that those who wish to sell ARRL memberships and amateur radio equipment thing meaningful means “phone on HF without having to learn Morse code”. Of course, the novice privileges do include phone on HF, from 28.3 to 28.5 MHz. I guess they consider the Phone QSO’s I made to Venezuela, Aruba, Washington State and my local area from Maryland meaningless http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. Not to mention the 4 CW contacts I’ve managed so far on 40 meters.
I’m still new to HF, but I certainly don’t consider my privileges meaningless, but it seems like the ARRL does. And let’s face it, if (when) they drop the Morse code test, the novice privileges will loose some of their meaning for those who are set against learning the code.
For those that are dead set against it, tell us why. I think I could be ok with it if the right precautions were made to keep the signals clean and the operators and passers by safe. I’m not exactly for it, again, I don’t think it was broke since before they created the no code tech ticket, but they keep trying to fix it.
73
Joe
N3PAQ
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 18 2005,08:28)]I received my QST yesterday and took a look at the editorial from Dave Sumner.The ARRL has been asking for something like this since 1997. My impression is that they are attempting to somehow set right the problems caused by the NCT license which has been identified by the ARRL as a dead end (see March 1997 QST).
...
George
K3UD
You know, I think the NCT is broken too. Back when I wanted to get my ham radio license, the NCT was an option, so I took it. If only they would have made me pass the code, I would have had all the novice privileges. I missed two sunspot cycles where 10m was great, for one. Also, no, I've got work, XYL, harmonics, a house, and all that goes with it, it doesn't leave much time of the radio, when back in 93 all I had was time on my hands and a 2 meter HT. So far, I've managed 16 phone QSO's, mostly during the 10m contest, and 4 CW QSOs since I passed my Morse test in late October. Mainly due to lack of operating time (yeah, I should get off the message board and on the air, but I can stop typing for 10 minutes in the middle of something and then come back, can’t exactly do that btwn words during a QSO)
73
Joe
N3PAQ
Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Dec. 17 2005,10:04)]For practical purposes, the General will become the entry level for HF. It already is to a large extent. I don't think there are very many Novices & Tech Plus's left who actually use HF, and any more, I don't think very many people stop after passing Tech and Code.
Thus with General becoming a de-facto entry route to HF, there is no need for yet another entry-level HF license.
Amen brother! Shouldn't there be some incentive left in "incentive licensing"? The bigger question is what was wrong with the old system?
I agree that the old Novice HF privileges were pretty awful but if you weren't happy with those little slices of HF, then that became your incentive to upgrade to General. In April 2000 (before the 13 and 20 WPM code tests were dropped along with the Novice and Advanced written tests), there were 111,337 Generals and as of this past July according to the census here on qrz.com, there were 139,251 Generals. It seems to me that since nearly 28,000 hams have figured this out, the system isn't broken so why do we need to fix it?
We are about to lose the CW testing requirement so it would appear as if the ARRL now saying that a 35 question multiple-guess test, for which all of the questions and answers are in the public domain, to go from Technician to General in order to get HF privileges is too much of a barrier to overcome? Looks like the ARRL must think you Techs are too stupid to figure out how to upgrade on your own.
The other thing the census numbers show is that there has been a net loss in the number of licences in that same time period. This being the case, it goes to show that the easier they make it, the more hams we are losing! Sounds like they are proposing changes for the sake of change, not to help out ham radio in any way, shape or form.
Scott NØIU
For me, the biggest issue with the ARRL proposal was the automatic upgrade of Techs to General. I agreed with NCTs having HF access. I would have preferred it in segregated band segments for enforcement ease, but I would have not been heart broken with NCT HF access.
I disagreed with the logic that removal of code testing will attract younger applicants. Young people could care less about HF as even their toy walkie-talkies today look like cellphones (Hasbro). Take a little hand-held that looks like a cellphone, has text messaging, and can swap pictures and put it on 70CM instead of FRS and with the NCT test you MIGHT have a chance to draw young folks. The problem is we're applying 1950 logic (free HF access) to a 2006 problem. There will always be young people who are drawn to telegraphy because it is a "code" they can learn.
But this is spilled milk at this point. The entry class is dead, telegraphy testing is dead, real testing is dead, good amateur practice is dead, long live Amateur Radio! The ARRL needs to add a black band across their logo for their part. Instead of build concensus and filing petitions, we're witness to how far off the League leadership is from reality. Next step is the digital spectrum grab.
When all is said and done, some day hence people will look back on the Novice class as our greatest success in bringing people into the service who will contribute, and the NCT as the most disasterous. (Note: Before the cards and letters start, I am speaking of the NCT license not the people.)
KF0RT
12-18-2005, 06:15 PM
It seems to me that we've had an awful lot of debate to solve this "problem."
Maybe it's time to start at the beginning with two simple questions: Is there a problem? And if so, what is it?
From everything I've heard and read, the issue is that there just arent enough amateur radio operators and half of the present licensees have no "meaningful" privileges. Every proposal to this has been the typical quantity-over-quality solution of making things easier. More privilege for less work.
The Novice license was made renewable and then was discontinued. The code requirement was removed from the Technician license and the Advanced license was discontinued. The testing was moved from the FCC to volunteers and test answers were published. The code requirement was dropped to 5WPM for all classes and is about to be dropped entirely. The waiting period for the Amateur Extra license was abolished. The requirement for at least some on-air acivity in order to renew was also dropped.
This resulted in an increase of total licensees from about 275,000 in the early 70's to about 680,000 today. And when the number of licenses shows a slow decline, it's met with cries that "the sky is falling" and we absolutely MUST do something about it.
In N1RL's column in the January QST, 1992 and 2003 surveys were cited that show that "nearly half of the licensees in the latter poll indicated that they are not currently active in Amateur Radio" and that "more than a quarter of Technicians responding in 2003 said they'd never even been on the air." Nowhere in the article is it mentioned WHY this would be the case -- it is just assumed that the fault lies with the licensing structure and that "meaningful licensing privileges" would cure this "problem." I, for one, have seen nothing that backs this assumption up with "meaningful" data. Nor am I aware of any real "problem." Where is this data?
When this is debated here on QRZ, I hear statements alluding to all of the commercial interests that would just LOVE to pay the FCC huge sums of money to have a piece of the amateur HF allocation. What nonsense, but we somehow must protect ourselves by being big enough to fight it!
Coincident (or is it?) with the lowering of testing standards in all levels of Amateur Radio in the U.S. there has been a lowering of technical knowledge and operational skill in practice. I see this virtually every time I tune to the 'phone parts of the HF bands or to the Q&A forum here.
Not so long ago, testing provided a significant barrier to obtaining an Amateur Radio license. If you went to the trouble of getting your "ticket," you knew quite a lot about Amateur Radio before your privileges arrived in the mail, and probably had every intention of using those privileges. Today, the license is so easy to get that you can get it now and worry about whether or not you'll use it later. The difference is simply one of commitment. Like so many other areas of life today, it just doesn't take much commitment. And also like so many other areas of life today, quantity wins over quality. It's better to have 700,000 amateurs than 300,000 GOOD amateurs.
So, before we proclaim the sky is falling because there are 100,000 NCT's who have never keyed a microphone, let's ask ourselves if this is a problem and if so, maybe do a little more research into why they got their licenses in the first place. To the ARRL, it seems a huge problem that there are so many inactive amateurs (maybe because it represents prospective members?). To me, it's a huge problem because we let 100,000 people in who apparently had no clue what they were getting into.
Right now, the raw numbers are driving policy and that's NOT what will make Amateur Radio the best it can be. The act of making it easier to get in and upgrade may have swelled the ranks, but it has not improved things for the average active Amateur Radio operator.
73, Rob
k4kro
12-18-2005, 08:46 PM
KF0RT wrote:
Quote[/b] ] Today, the license is so easy to get that you can get it now and worry about whether or not you'll use it later. #The difference is simply one of commitment. #Like so many other areas of life today, it just doesn't take much commitment. #And also like so many other areas of life today, quantity wins over quality. #It's better to have 700,000 amateurs than 300,000 GOOD amateurs.
So, before we proclaim the sky is falling because there are 100,000 NCT's who have never keyed a microphone, let's ask ourselves if this is a problem and if so, maybe do a little more research into why they got their licenses in the first place. #To the ARRL, it seems a huge problem that there are so many inactive amateurs (maybe because it represents prospective members?). #To me, it's a huge problem because we let 100,000 people in who apparently had no clue what they were getting into.
Is it possible that a lot of the NCT's that got "easy tickets" never wanted most of what amateur radio had to offer but just a "consumer communicator" opportunity that would allow casual communications with friends and family? If the FCC had created a valid and viable UHF or VHF CB service such as Australia has then this could have prevented the problem we now have. Also, it could have helped to alleviate the problems we have with intruders on 10 meters. The real problem we face isn't a matter of code/no code or testing or license classes but one of sensible accomodation of radio users. The FCC has refused to create a sensible, viable alternative to 11 meter CB and amateur radio. If 100,000 NCT's never went on the air then it must be because amateur radio wasn't what they really wanted in the first place. Why should we encourage these hordes of non-serious users to join our ranks other than to be a revenue source for the ARRL and the VEC's?
kb2vxa
12-18-2005, 08:58 PM
Re NY7Q;
"I am 100 percent against it."
I'll bet you wrote that song for Groucho Marx.
Here we go again with another mix of the usual code/no code debate and the OFs vs. new ideas or dinosaurs vs. mammals if you prefer. Frankly I don't shiv a git so that's all I have to say about it.
KF0RT
12-18-2005, 09:50 PM
Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Dec. 18 2005,13:46)]If the FCC had created a valid and viable UHF or VHF CB service such as Australia has then this could have prevented the problem we now have.
And, what problem would that be?
73, Rob
KB9YCO
12-18-2005, 10:13 PM
Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Dec. 18 2005,15:46)]...If the FCC had created a valid and viable UHF or VHF CB service such as Australia has then this could have prevented the problem we now have. Also, it could have helped to alleviate the problems we have with intruders on 10 meters...
We have them, it's called GMRS, MURS, and FRS. If someone wants to just buy a radio and use it without indulging in the technical aspects of the hobby then they can. GMRS is a good example, 50 watts, repeaters, and so on. MURS is starting to gain some popularity with 2 watts and a limit of 50 feet between feedline and antenna, 2 watts can get you pretty far at 50 feet (though it's funny because where I live it's mostly hams using ham equipment in MURS, which they wouldn't admit I'm sure, and out of the calls I recognized on ham frequencies, most of them are generals or above). Either way, simple radio is available to those who want it.
Also, you can't tell me that the majority of people in CB are 'invading' 10 meters, that's just not true. Just because there are a few morons that go up there, and get heard, doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean it's a majority of CB operators.
Probably they never should've gotten rid of an entry level type license like the Novice class, and then made Technician something more akin to the General type of license. That makes much more sense than the current structure. Besides, if you look back at the tests themselves the current Tech test is much closer to the old General test in content. Though I am no fan of multiple choice question and answer tests the amount and things that you should know to pass the Tech test now are not close to what entry level Novice licenses were, excepting code of course since that is no longer a requirement for techs, the current 'entry' level license has more information on it. Therefore by not giving technicians some HF privileges they went backwards in structure and giving people an interest in the entire spectrum at an entry level.
k4kro
12-19-2005, 02:46 AM
KF0RT wrote ...
Quote[/b] ]And, what problem would that be?
Well, here I am, again, sitting here wondering why I bothered to write a post here if nobody is going to read and understand it without either being perplexed or going off on a tangent and reading something into it that isn't there.
KB9YCO wrote ...
Quote[/b] ]We have them, it's called GMRS, MURS, and FRS. If someone wants to just buy a radio and use it without indulging in the technical aspects of the hobby then they can. GMRS is a good example, 50 watts, repeaters, and so on. MURS is starting to gain some popularity.......
You' ve got to be kidding. Do you expect somebody to take 500 mW 8 ch., FRS or 2 W 5 ch. MURS seriously? #Do you expect the average user to purchase, install and maintain a repeater for GMRS or even pay the $80. license fee? I agree that GMRS could be a viable alternative with #more channels and less power. There could be something better than this gap-toothed conglomeration of channels with contradictory rules and restrictions.
KB9YCO also added ...
Quote[/b] ]Also, you can't tell me that the majority of people in CB are 'invading' 10 meters, that's just not true. Just because there are a few morons that go up there, and get heard, doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean it's a majority of CB operators.
Where did I say that a majority in CB are invading 10 meters? My point is that if the FCC created a legitimate alternative to 11 meter CB then it would reduce the possibility of illegal incursion on the 10 meter band. But most importantly, it could be a viable alternative to those who just want to talk and not be bothered by the rest of amateur radio.
AND FINALLY ...
KB2VXA flatulated ...
Quote[/b] ]Frankly I don't shiv a git so that's all I have to say about it.
We can only hope this is true!
But really, guys. I take time to read and try to comprehend each post you write. Please be polite enough to slow down and read mine.
Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Dec. 18 2005,17:13)]Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Dec. 18 2005,15:46)]...If the FCC had created a valid and viable UHF or VHF CB service such as Australia has then this could have prevented the problem we now have. Also, it could have helped to alleviate the problems we have with intruders on 10 meters...
We have them, it's called GMRS, MURS, and FRS. If someone wants to just buy a radio and use it without indulging in the technical aspects of the hobby then they can. GMRS is a good example, 50 watts, repeaters, and so on. MURS is starting to gain some popularity with 2 watts and a limit of 50 feet between feedline and antenna, 2 watts can get you pretty far at 50 feet
People do not think of this as CB. As someone else mentioned these services are short range communications services. Originally CB was created with short range commercial communication in mind for small business. The original intent of the FCC was subsequently hijacked by the growing influx of users. The main attractions to personal use of CB were:
1. Being able to get on the air without taking a test.
2. Having personal communications between family members.
3. Being able to play Amateur Radio without needing to learn anything, and co-opting some ham radio protocalls.
4. Being able to be part of emergency communications networks
5. Having the capability to install CB radios into vehicles as well as the ability to purchase full 5 watt portables in order to enhance your communications ability.
6. And the most popular benefit of all, being able to shoot skip.
Add to this the popularity of CB clubs which were a lot like ham radio clubs, Magazines devoted to CB, callbooks and QSL cards.
Had the FCC started this as a vhf service, it most likely would not have caught on due to limited ranges and the inability to communicate over large distances with low power AM vhf equipment, especially if the FCC did not allow directional gain antennas. Class B CB in the 460 MHz region was already established before Class D CB became a reality, and there were very few takers which led to the creation of Class D.
As to the problem on 10 meters, during the recent 10 meter contest there were quite a few english speaking 'freebanders' operating between 28.000 and 28.300. I listened to them for a while and could tell that they were not hams from other countries.
73
George
K3UD
K0RGR
12-19-2005, 04:09 AM
I'm not as enthusiastic about this proposal as I was the new entry class, if the code requirement for General is going away. If the General code requirement stays, then yes, this is the way to go. I am in favor of giving NCT's some non-voice HF priveleges, at reduced power levels. In a way, that would be very much like bringing back the old Novice license. Instead of doing CW, they'd be doing PSK31 with reduced power.
The thing I don't want to see is bad habits learned elsewhere being propagated first to 2 meter FM, and then to the HF phone bands. If we encourage a brief stop in a region of non-voice modes on the way, we will tend to decelerate this sort of dementia from taking hold. Since FCC is dropping the code tests altogether, and adopting the 'Novice Band redeployment' under the previous NPRM, which will give Novices and Tech+s access to the General HF bands, it is a small leap give the existing NCT's those priveleges and give them the digital modes, too.
I am pretty disappointed in what has happened to ham radio. I feel like I have been duped. I feel like a parent whose child has asked for a puppy. You know how it works. They promise to feed the dog, take him on a walk every day rain or shine, clean up after the dog makes a mess in the house and so on. We all know this is a big fat lie, but we want our children to be happy and most parents ultimately give in despite the fact they know they will be the ones taking care of the dog. Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, it is almost as if the ham radio community at large was asking for a puppy in the form of the No Code Tech license. Our kids promised to take care of the puppy, so what was the reasoning behind asking for this change in licensing? Probably one of the most often-heard reasons for creating this new class was that it would remove the barriers to ham radio. After all, we are not bound by international treaty to demonstrate Morse code proficiency for VHF and above. We were told that there are a lot of good folks out there who desperately want to get into ham radio, but find it difficult to learn the code. Once you remove these barriers, they promised we would see an explosive growth in ham radio now that incoming hams were no longer forced to learn an archaic mode of operation. (Oddly enough this was about the same time that Ronald Reagan challenged Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking in front of the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, exclaiming: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") The ham radio community was telling us, “Tear down these barriers!” and we bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Admittedly, for a time, there was a significant influx of hams, but they were not upgrading. During the decade of the 90’s, ham radio was becoming very bottom heavy with No Code Technicians. In order to upgrade to General (or even “downgrade” to get the Novice HF privileges), this involved demonstrating Morse code proficiency. Once again, the millennium was closing out with that familiar cry, “Tear down these barriers!” and once again we were handed the same line of garbage that the 13 and 20 WPM code tests were keeping people from entering ham radio and keeping them from upgrading. Oh, and while we were at it, eliminate the Novice and Advanced tests because they were barriers, too. Once again, on April 15, 2000, we obliged.
Lowering the code requirements may have sounded like a good idea at the time, but if the intent was to increase our overall numbers, it did not work! This last attempt to give ham radio a shot in the arm was a dismal failure!
In April 2000, there were 678,539 amateur licenses. As of July 2005, that number has dropped to 675,274, which is a loss of 3,265 in the last 5 and half years. Digging a little deeper into the numbers by class, those with HF privileges (General, Advanced and Extra) grew by 33,464 while the "entry level" (Novice, Technician and Tech Plus) licenses have gone down by 36,729.
These numbers tell me that the entry-level people have taken advantage of the code reduction by upgrading, but that has left a huge hole in the entry level. Assuming that the loss of 3,265 licenses is from Silent Keys and people letting their license expire, the bottom line is that we are not replacing them with new hams and there is a net loss in our numbers. Reducing the code speed and eliminating two license classes has not resulted in any sort of growth in ham radio! All it has done has shifted the entry level into the HF level.
So you see, there was no altruistic motivation behind the reduction in code speed as a means of bolstering the ranks of ham radio. If nothing else, these numbers should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only motivation for reducing the upgrading requirements was so that existing entry-level licensees could get in without taking the Novice written test and upgrade without having to learn higher speed CW and not having to take the Advanced written test.
I don’t know how to accomplish this, but what we need is a way to get people into this hobby, not continuously easier and easier ways to upgrade within it!
George K3UD further analyzed the numbers in this way:
Actually the number of unexpired licenses (not including club licenses) is 663,533 and has been on a steady decline since the all time high of 687,5500+ In April of 2003. This is a loss of almost 25,000 licensees in 2.5 years.
Remember, when considering trends in licensing, one has to look at a ten-year span since that is the term of the license. Because there were such a high number of hams in 2003, this means that there was a major influx of hams in 1993 and the numbers started on a downward spiral when those hams did not renew!
And still the question is asked over and over again why some of us are so upset. We gave you what you wanted in terms of eliminating the “high speed” code tests and two whole license classes. You promised a growth in our numbers, but have failed to deliver! Now you want "more meaningful" entry-level HF privileges. Guess what? The puppy just soiled the carpet. Now go clean it up!
KF0RT
12-19-2005, 02:25 PM
Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Dec. 18 2005,19:46)]KF0RT wrote ...
Quote[/b] ]And, what problem would that be?
Well, here I am, again, sitting here wondering why I bothered to write a post here if nobody is going to read and understand it without either being perplexed or going off on a tangent and reading something into it that isn't there.
Sorry, didn't mean to be contrite. I read your post, and while you mentioned a problem, you didn't identify what that problem is.
So, let me try that again:
What do you see as the problem? That is, what exactly is it we're trying to cure?
Now, if it's the lower operating standards, the lower level of technical knowledge and maybe the slight encroachment of CBers into 10 meters, then we agree. And if this is the case, would you agree that the last 30 years of FCC rule changes haven't helped?
73, Rob
KB9YCO
12-19-2005, 04:32 PM
Just so you know N4UJF, I did read what you wrote, and I never claimed that you said anything about a majority of CB operators, that was a response to the overall issue, and I have seen that claim here many times before.
You stated:
"The FCC has refused to create a sensible, viable alternative to 11 meter CB and amateur radio...
(second post)...it could have helped to alleviate the problems we have with intruders on 10 meters..."
You're blaming 10 meter invasion on the current CB band, yet it is by far a minority of people that go into ten meters and cause problems. There is no way to justify illegal activity, and it will happen regardless of what the structure is. So making a connection between alternative bands and illegal users makes no sense since there are 10 zillion CB radios out therem good luck trying to get rid of that. If they would've made it different 30 years ago I would be in agreement with you, but that just didn't happen, and it won't change now.
I would agree that the structure is non-sensical, and could be better for GMRS and MURS as well. You are correct in saying that most people will not pay $75 for a license when some of the junk radios they sell cost a fraction of that. But if it's someone that really wants a repeater type of set up for family and utility use there is plenty of commercial equipment available and in most areas of the country enough space (though Chicago-Milwaukee is getting pretty filled up.) I also think if you set up a proper station 2 watts at 50 feet in VHF can get you pretty far, though I think they should've had more than five frequencies for MURS to be truly effective.
You then go on to state:
"If 100,000 NCT's never went on the air then it must be because amateur radio wasn't what they really wanted in the first place. Why should we encourage these hordes of non-serious users to join our ranks other than to be a revenue source for the ARRL and the VEC's?"
That says to me that because someone doesn't do HF then they aren't really serious or interested in radio. I wonder if you realize the vast amount of modes and activities going on in the bands above 50 MHz and the skills it takes to be able to embrace them all (I would imagine that you do.) Just because someone hasn't yet upgraded, or in some cases doesn't have as big an interest in HF and prefers digital, satellite, repeaters, etc., etc., does not mean that they aren't knowledgeable about radio, or serious about learning more. Those are generalizations that I think defy the diversity of reasons that people seek out amateur radio. Regardless of what some hardliners may think it isn't only HF. I know higher class licensees all the way up to extras that spend just as much time, sometimes more, in VHF, UHF, etc.
I hope this clears things up for you, and I do appreciate anyone that has a concern for the present and future of amateur radio regardless of whether we agree on everything in question.
still a general should get 100 watts on 10 meter,,,,radios come with 100 watts leave it as is.
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ Dec. 19 2005,06:14)]George K3UD further analyzed the numbers in this way:
Actually the number of unexpired licenses (not including club licenses) is 663,533 and has been on a steady decline since the all time high of 687,5500+ In April of 2003. This is a loss of almost 25,000 licensees in 2.5 years.
Just to update the numbers a bit.
We are presently at 661,704 as of 12/18/05. This is a drop of 25,846 from the 4/2003 peak number.
73
George
K3UD
Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays) to all and the best of the New Year.
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Dec. 18 2005,11:15)]So, before we proclaim the sky is falling because there are 100,000 NCT's who have never keyed a microphone, let's ask ourselves if this is a problem and if so, maybe do a little more research into why they got their licenses in the first place. To the ARRL, it seems a huge problem that there are so many inactive amateurs (maybe because it represents prospective members?). To me, it's a huge problem because we let 100,000 people in who apparently had no clue what they were getting into.
73, Rob
The key to the success of Amateur Radio may be in getting many of the other 200k+ NCTs that do key their mike to cease doing it and quit. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
KF0RT
12-19-2005, 09:51 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 19 2005,14:46)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Dec. 18 2005,11:15)]So, before we proclaim the sky is falling because there are 100,000 NCT's who have never keyed a microphone, let's ask ourselves if this is a problem and if so, maybe do a little more research into why they got their licenses in the first place. To the ARRL, it seems a huge problem that there are so many inactive amateurs (maybe because it represents prospective members?). To me, it's a huge problem because we let 100,000 people in who apparently had no clue what they were getting into.
73, Rob
The key to the success of Amateur Radio may be in getting many of the other 200k+ NCTs that do key their mike to cease doing it and quit. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Now yer talkin'!
73, Rob