ARRL Entry Level License Committee Report July 2017

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by NN4RH, Aug 2, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KY5U

    KY5U Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You're kidding right? They only tried this recently when the ADS users were joined up to vote in bulk. The ARRL never asked the members in the past before submitting a petition. They have no legal duty and their motto is "Step back and let us do the thinkin'"

    People wrote petitions precisely because the ARRL didn't socialize the idea with the members. People were left to try to write their own. Same for regulation by bandwidth, same for the big Winlink ADS frequency grab petition.

    Kurt, you actually know little about the recent past and what happened before you got your no code license. You seem like an OK guy. Many of the posts from 2007 are still here in the archive if you care to look. See how we were complaining about the ARRL not asking for input....

    Here's my comment on the Regulation by Bandwidth ARRL petition:

    ...On RM-11306: The Commission should be aware that the ARRL did not seek a vote of members before filing this petition. In fact, many Board members promised that members would see a bandplan before the petition was filed. ...ARRL continues to make policy behind closed doors. Without fairness, there can be no trust. Without participation there can be no consensus.” - Charles L. Young, Jr., AG4YO, Cantonment, FL
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
    NK2U likes this.
  2. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow, such self-contradiction in one paragraph. :)

    You don't come here to seek input. You write endless paragraphs about why everybody else is wrong, including the Commission in their own orders. And the honest truth is that their opinion is the only one that counts. And the only argument you haven't offered up is one that that counters theirs.

    What do I want? I want the League (and others) to stop recycling failed ideas and then arguing with others about it as if they have merit, as if they will somehow become successful by brute force. Failing that, I come here to watch people bang their heads against the "failed idea" wall because it's an interesting sociological trend. I'm not mocking you. You are self-mocking when you do things like that after my (and others') repeated reminder that you are chasing failed ideas without modification. And when you go to talking about "FCC" and "CW credit" you slid even further from the realm of realistic goals for the 2017 FCC docket.

    Did you miss the part where FCC said that the General test was "easy?" Do you think they are somehow going to be convinced that the General test has become "difficult" between 2005 and 2017? Really? If not, then any discussion of license restructuring is absolutely meaningless, because it means that any reasonable adult has no barrier to a General license, which gives them full access to all modes on all bands at full power. As long as that is the case, FCC has absolutely zero reason to restructure ham licenses.

    On a larger scale, it's laughable that ARRL would "poll the membership" about anything, because the outcome is meaningless. Even if 100% of the ARRL membership supports anything, they are still a tiny minority of US hams, and so the outcome means nothing. "100% of ARRL member support X, Y and Z!" So what? What does that vast majority of the rest of licensed hams think? ARRL's membership is irrelevant if you want to talk about any kind of statistical model.

    My intention isn't to mock you, but I do laugh out loud when I read most of your stuff. I'm sorry if you feel mocked, but it is funny when read in context of the regulatory reality.
  3. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    So, I wasn't too far off in my recollection.

    I know ink was put to paper and fingers to keyboards but I'm not so sure there was a lot of controversy. The FCC made their decision that Morse code wasn't necessary for Amateur radio in 1990, by 2006 I suspect that was pretty well established. So, yes, a lot of people didn't bother to comment. I'm not sure I'd say they didn't care, at least not all of them, I'm pretty sure a large portion saw the change as inevitable.

    I believe we're getting to another point where another change is inevitable. The FCC has been dismantling the incentive licensing piece by pieced pretty much ever since 1990 and the Technician license. It's about time to finish that dismantling.
  4. AF4CQ

    AF4CQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    That has been going on for years. Extra class is a prime example.
  5. AF4CQ

    AF4CQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    What a joke.
  6. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Didn't you just say I should take my proposal to the FCC instead of discussing it here? I'm still not sure what you want and I'm pretty sure you don't know what you want either.
  7. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, since you won't listen to anyone here telling you that FCC has already rejected these ideas, and since you can't be bothered reading the links that we posted showing you that FCC has already rejected these ideas, if you will simply take them to FCC yourself, then they can tell you first hand that they have already rejected them, and save everybody, yourself included, a lot of typing. Do you understand now?
  8. NK2U

    NK2U XML Subscriber QRZ Page


    NO! I APPRECIATE it that YOU said it! Thanks for proving my point!

    de NK2U
  9. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, I don't. If this bothers you so much, and you believe this discussion to be a fruitless endeavor, then why not just walk away and let the rest of us discuss? You've made it clear that the FCC has rejected restructuring proposals in the past and I've made note of that. Where we seem to differ is that I believe there's been sufficient changes in the world and Amateur radio to revisit this while you do not. That's fine, I can agree to disagree. What I don't understand is your desire to repeat your point after I've made note of your statements and that I simply disagree.

    I got it, you believe this is going nowhere. I disagree. Now, those that agree with me that something needs to change then lets discuss what form that change might take. Those that believe this is fruitless have had their point heard and there is no need to bring it up again.

    I do believe this does need serious discussion and it seems the ARRL agrees, we just disagree on details. Since this thread has gone on for 50 pages and three weeks now it seems a lot of the original line of thought has been lost. If I get motivated enough I may just collect my thoughts into a more structured proposal and offer it somewhere on QRZ for comment and discussion. I could send it directly to the FCC as you suggest but I believe it would be best to have some people look at it first if only to check for proper grammar, spelling, and formatting.
  10. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    You just answered your own question. It's fruitless. It's more League-induced strife in the community. The battle was fought and lost. It's time to hang it up. Just like with ARPA. The battle was fought and lost. It's time to hang it up. Instead, the League insists on inspiring well-meaning but misguided people to create endless fruitless argument that just makes people angry with each other. It's pointless, because it's over.
    Maybe so, but there have been no changes to the core concepts upon which the FCC made its arguments, and you have not offered any evidence or new arguments on those points. And that's where it would matter.

    And further, FCC was very clear that they consider the current licensing system to be easy and accessible to everybody. That means they see no barrier between anybody and a full-privileges license. That hasn't changed between the R&O and today. They saw it as easy in 2005, and it they will still see it as easy today, and as a result, they have absolutely no justification nor public need to change the licensing structure.

    So, 51 pages later, the point still stands -- there are exactly zero reasons for FCC to change their position from the 2005 R&O, or even to reexamine the issues, and nothing that has been said in 51 pages even challenges their core reasons for the decisions in their R&O with any new facts from 2017. All that ARRL has done is make a lot of people unnecessarily angry. Again.

Share This Page