ARRL Proposal to Give Technicians More Operating Privileges

Then why didn't the ARRL simply ask for digital privileges to be added to the already existing CW Privileges? I could have got on board with that. Same earned spectrum, just more up-to-date Technology which matches what they have above 50mhz.

There are too many people telling Technicians that without HF privileges, their license is junk.
It's simply not true. It wasn't true 42 years ago, and it's not true now.

 

If your only point is that adding digital privileges is good, I absolutely agree. And that's what the requested rules changes does.

If part of your point is implicitely that adding voice privileges is going too far, I haven't made up my mind about that in the context of the "litmus test" I mentioned, of whether or not that change is favorable in the context of 97.1.

No argument from me on that point. There's a lot of cool things that can be done on VHF/UHF/Microwave. Instead, "we" tend to beat on the point that the most important thing that matters is saying "five nine" to DX on HF.

 

So, you are saying we have a bunch of people that hold a Technician license signed in to the ARRL website to fill out a survey to lie on what license class they held, begged for more privileges on HF, then hoped they'd accept the results, hope they'd bring it to the FCC as a petition, and hoped that no one notices the subterfuge?

The ARRL is an organization that has a membership dominated by people with General and Extra class licenses. That would take quite the coordinated effort for Technician class license holders to pull off, quite a long game to play, and could so easily be discovered.

What do you mean they didn't reveal that information? They posted the numbers of respondents in each license class in the survey results. There were barely enough people responding with a Technician licenses to skew the results. All the Technician license holders would have had to answer in the same way to make a dent. You think the ARRL was in on this? Or, that they didn't notice?

If you believe that this is just a ploy by Technician license holders to get an "easy" path to more privileges then I'm wondering how you believe this to be easier than just passing the FCC exams to upgrade.

 

Not sure why some expect that Technicians have to be the ones to ask for this upgrade.

"We", the higher class licensees, who have the most "invested", should be the ones looking to the future health of the hobby/service.

 

It seems to me that either way those with a Technician license feel on this there are plenty willing to bash them for it. If they are asking for this change then the FCC should not grant it because they are just too lazy to take the tests to upgrade. If they don't ask for this change then the FCC should do nothing as they are not expressing any interest in getting access to HF.

What's happening though is this was a proposal brought to the FCC by a group of people that predominately hold General or Extra licenses. Those with Technician licenses seem largely silent. Maybe because they know they'd be bashed by the "old school" crowd for saying anything.

This is where I believe the ARRL is coming from. I'm guessing that they are quite concerned for the next generation of licensed Amateurs not even bothering to operate on HF. The complaints I see on QRZ seem largely about how current Technician license holders get something for nothing, and no consideration over how a newly licensed Amateur might view Amateur radio once they see their call signs posted on the FCC website.

How much longer will we keep the entry level license where their introduction to many HF bands is CW only? Is that the kind of introduction we want them to get?

 

The reply was written by the new legal team at ARRL....including some directors (methinks).

 

General Class here. Soon to be Extra (took a 20 year hiatus) I am in favor of this proposal.
I got into Ham radio after seeing my uncle's QSL cards from all over the world. I wanted to work DX.
When I was licensed in the late 80s, I got in on the "Novice Enhancement" program that gave new licensees some privileges on 10 meters SSB. Yes, 10m is awful now, but in 1989, you could work the world on 10m SSB. If I knew I would be relegated to CW only, or rag chewing on a 2m repeater, I doubt I ever would have buckled down at age 11 to take the test.

Making the hobby more inclusive, while still maintaining standards is a good thing. The more demand there is out there for Ham gear, the more we will see manufacturers deliver fancy new toys for us to buy. A good way to keep up demand is bring in more Hams, and get em on HF.

 

When will we know the outcome?

 

No way to know at this point. Sometimes FCC proceedings can take years. Sometimes just months.

 

I have an Extra class license and I am in favor of this petition for RM.

It's no surprise that few Techs but many higher licenses like me would respond to the survey.

I am and have been active on HF for decades and feel it is now essential to enable an increase in average amateur HF band utilization for several important reasons.

I believe most Techs are ill-informed about the benefits of HF, and that is mostly not their fault.

To achieve the more HF ham activity objective I want to make a stronger invitation for Techs to sample modern HF operation.

Provide them with more opportunities to hear, contact, and be mentored by us higher class license colleagues, remotely, OTA, on HF, and as a consequence, inspire incentives to upgrade, and increase their commitment and investment into HR.

73, John, WØPV

 

Modern.......?

compared to what?

Just exactly HOW is phone operation on 40 meters more "modern" than phone operation on 10 meters?

 

For obvious reasons practical daily usage of 10m should not be considered as a meaningful HF experience, especially for newcomers. An original justification for the Tech allocation on 10m was not to give them HF experience but rather just a back-handed attempt to decrease the under utilization of that huge band.

Restricted to the use of Morse code only on HF is not a modern practice either, hence the recommendation of an option for some narrowband P-to-P HF digital.

 

It's up to the FCC. They have been known to... take their time... in rulemaking actions. There is no set schedule.

 

More modern compared to CW.

So, the entirety of HF can be experienced between 28.0MHz and 28.5MHz?

The FCC will let people operate a 200W SSB marine radio on HF by filling out the right forms and including a few bucks for processing, no testing required. I think we can allow a few bits of HF for those with a Technician license to operate a 200W SSB radio. Again, if anyone claims that a Technician license does not properly prepare an Amateur to operate such a radio then that is the fault of the people doing the testing, that would be the Amateur radio community, and not the fault of the FCC.

Also again, how long does anyone expect the FCC to keep Technicians limited to CW only below 25 MHz?

 

The ARRL said they want FCC to disregard all the comments on RM-11828 !! That is from ARRL
front page .