ARRL Proposal to Give Technicians More Operating Privileges

Huh? are you saying that General and Extra class holders are asking for it?

 

It looks like half the operators around here where I am want nothing more than just general repeater usage. Lots buy a cheap handie talkie or they might spring for a dual band mobile and call it a day. They want nothing to do with HF and are content with the occasional tropo ducting DX. There are a few that maintain a HF station and actively operate on the HF bands but they are by no means the majority.
I can see this proposal sliding downhill fast. You can't upgrade someone who wants to sit still.
As far as the Techs complaining about not being able to work HF, they got all sorts of stuff on CW and digital mode already, all they have to do is take one test of 35 questions out of a possible pool of around 425 questions and they are good to go.
I have to admit for me talking to YV5ENI on 10 meter phone got me motivated to upgrade as fast as I could study.

 

Yes. Look at the survey the ARRL did in preparing for this petition. Those holding General or Extra made up easily 80% of the responses.
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/2017 Board of Directors/July 2017 Reports/_25 1707-ELL.pdf

This petition is not a demand by those with a Technician license demanding more HF privileges.

 

The survey put out by the ARRL had a slant to it that meant there was only one outcome. Saw right through it and did not participate as thousands also did not.
The fact is if there was a desire for use of HF by Technician class licensees, then they had and still do, have avenues of opportunity for such exploration.
It's not that CW is old and outdated, because it's not, but rather a matter of perception by those that do use the mode. A bit more receptive of newer applications and an acceptance of those using such applications is needed.

Have fun
73
Gary

 

AC0GT just pointed out that 80% of the respondants are General and Extras. So Tech would at the most be only 20%. It seems to me Techs aren't pushing for this.

 

If you don't get OTA at all, why would you possibly be interested in a survey? Chances are you don't know about it. Chances are the many Techs who have 'checked out' don't have the ARRL in their headlights.

We live in a society where many, if not most, people feel that they cannot affect changes. That doesn't mean that the changes shouldn't be made. It also doesn't man that if those changes are made, that they won't take advantage of it.

73
Chip W1YW

 

You don't know that , that is a supposition on your part.

"...survey was posted on the ARRL web site on February 8th and also included in that week’s ARRL Letter that went to more than 100k members. We generally expected to receive 500-1000 responses. Within the first day that total was exceeded. Within a few days we had more than 4,000 responses. The final total from the open survey showed 7,891 responses..."

7891 of more than 100,000

Less than .08% of the arrl MEMBERS even bothered to respond. How do you KNOW the license class of those 7891 respondents?

Bottom line: the arrl knows exactly what license class each respondent held,...... and they chose to not reveal that information.

 

Also, take into account the licensees that are not members of the ARRL.

 

The questions are available. There's no "slant."

 

Everyone has a chance to comment however they want, ARRL member or not, by filing Comments on the FCC proceeding.

 

Agreed, but using a ARRL survey as reasoning for or against an issue is a inherently flawed notion.

 

I note that the ARRL filed a Reply Comment on this proceeding: ARRL Reply Comments Stress Need to Update Technician Privileges in a Digital World

Unlike the original Petition, which was rambling, poorly argued and poorly supported, they did a pretty good job with this Reply Comment, clearly making a couple of key points:

This should not be about hurt egos of people licensed decades ago. This should be about whether the changes are favorable or not to the Basis and Purpose of Part 97. That always gets lost in these threads.

 

Then file a Comment saying "Using an ARRL survey as reasoning for or against an inssue is a(n) inherently flawed notion". FCC has to read all this stuff. I doubt if the FCC is paying much attention to QRZ threads.

 

My comment is meant for those in this thread that have been trying to use the survey numbers as fact instead of "a trend".

 

Understood.