Final Band Plan Accepted today by the ARRL

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by W5UAA, Jul 24, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
  1. NK8I

    NK8I Ham Member QRZ Page

    I seems ridiculous to assume what new hams see or want. Young hams don't know what's like to not have the internet, they have the WWW to tell them all about what privileges come with each ticket.

    There's a new generation that wants to build stuff, portable qrp tranceiver kits (cw operated) seems to be whats driving interest in HF.

    What the hobby doesn't need to project is that HF is a place for digital messaging when that offers very little to people who've had a smart phone since they were little.
     
    K9MOV, K0UO, KX4O and 1 other person like this.
  2. N1FM

    N1FM Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    ARRL: You've got questions?

    Who needs scientific data?

    We've got hunche$, gue$$e$, and hundred$ of thousand$ tied up in lobbying and legal fee$!



    It won't be long now. Wait for it....

    [​IMG]
     
    K0UO and K0IDT like this.
  3. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Is it? Seems rather clear from the trends that many licensed Amateurs see no need to get access to HF because, as has been pointed out numerous time, if they want access to HF then all they need to do is pass a simple exam.

    Is that not assuming what newly licensed Amateurs see in upgrading?

    By this logic there's no convincing these people of any need for an Amateur radio license. If a smart phone gives them 24/7 access to worldwide communications then there is no need for any Amateur radio license. But it appears that many hundreds of thousands of people have got a license, and kept it, since the introduction of the smart phone.

    This ARRL petition is not necessarily assuming what newly licensed Amateurs expect from Amateur radio. What it is doing is matching the content of the exams to the privileges granted. Did not the Element 2 exam cover voice and digital communications? Did this exam not also cover operation on 80, 40, and 15 meters? Then why are we not allowing voice and digital communications for Technician license holders on 80, 40, and 15 meters? To create an "incentive"? How well is that working?

    The Technician license is a mess. It's got nonsensical restrictions on privileges, all from 70 years of patchwork of changes based on the idea that Morse code is still the primary mode of communications for Amateur radio.

    It's time to start over. Grandfather the Technician and General licenses and create new licenses in their place. Have the privileges based on allowed equipment, like any other licensing, instead of trying to craft an "incentive" with bits and pieces of bandwidth being held back arbitrarily.
     
  4. W5MOY

    W5MOY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well from a new Generals (one week today) perspective I think it is a bad idea giving additional privileges to techs. I got my general license because I wanted on the HF bands, I am now starting to study for my Extra because I'm seeing portions of the bands that I want to work and can't right now.

    The incentive to upgrade is there with out giving techs too much of a taste of the HF bands. Had I been given permission sooner I would have been a bigger bumbling idiot than i am now. The VHF and UHF bands are a great place to start getting your feet wet in the hobby and i don't see any reason why that would need to be changed. Its the area for beginners like I was with no one around to learn from need to be because it limits their contact to people who are mostly in close proximity, and gives the chance to find someone to learn from. Sure I've learned a decent amount from youtube and books, but those conversations and meetings with people close to me and with by far more knowledge than I have has taught me much more.
     
    KD0CAC and K0UO like this.
  5. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yet beginning hams have almost always started on HF, and been allowed to make mistakes. And it's that way pretty much world wide.
     
  6. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Okay, come up with a new license structure, justify why it's a good idea, and write an FCC petition. You only have to convince the FCC it's a great idea, will reduce their administrative workload, it's in the public interest, and will benefit the amateur service as a whole. Simple? Be ready to fight the arrl for starters and do some historical research on what happened when the old A, B, C licenses were replaced with "incentive" licensing. If you have 10 or so years to waste on the project it might get a hearing. You should also consider convincing current licensees to back it before submission, strength in numbers goes a long way, but it's like herding cats.
     
    KA0HCP likes this.
  7. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    The answer to this question is for the FCC to provide expanded statistics showing upgrades from one license to the next in their daily/monthly/annual figures.
     
  8. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    What makes you think I haven't been working on a new license structure? Rather than go through what I have been doing in getting a new license structure I'd like to ask a few questions of those that believe nothing is wrong. Roughly every decade since the end of World War 2, when the FCC re-opened Amateur radio to start transmitting again from the wartime ban, they've made some changes to Amateur radio licensing. Some changes have been bigger than others. It's been nearly 15 years since the last change, and that was only a few years after making a much larger change. The question I have is, just how long should we expect the FCC to do nothing?

    I believe this is a worthwhile question because at the time of the last two changes the FCC made plenty of hints on changes to come. When the number of license classes was halved from six to three then FCC made hints that they expected people in the grandfathered license classes to upgrade fairly quickly. It was, after all, an incentive license structure and so there should have been an incentive to upgrade. How well has that worked?

    There must be some rules that the FCC follows on the role that Amateur radio fills. Not all of these rules are necessarily written down for all to see. When it comes to fulfilling the role of encouraging the advancement of the radio art how does the current licensing fulfill that? I'm thinking that when it comes to Amateur radio being a means of providing emergency communications that it fails miserably when more than half of those licensed are only minimally equipped (in both skillset and hardware) to operate on HF.

    I believe that the status quo will not last. The FCC set things in motion on modernizing Amateur radio licensing a long time ago. They tolerated a lot of BS from the Amateur radio community through the decades, especially when it came to Morse code testing. They tried to get a "no code" license since the 1960s but the Amateur radio community revolted. They gave up on getting "permission" from licensed Amateurs in 1990. This was then doubled down on in 2000, and made it about as clear as could be in 2007 that they did not care about Morse code knowledge among licensed Amateurs.

    Incentive licensing died sometime around 1985, or at least how incentive licensing was envisioned in the 1950s and 1960s. They tried real hard to get people interested in operating above 30 MHz. It worked. Now it's working so well that few bother to get licensed to operate below 30 MHz. So, again, how long does everyone expect the FCC to do nothing about Amateur radio licensing?

    I believe that expecting the FCC to cater to the whims of those that wish to be buried with their Advanced and Novice licenses will not continue for much longer. How will the FCC act on this? If their actions on commercial licensing is any guide then it's that Advanced will renew as General and Novice will not be allowed to renew at all. This will likely come with other changes. The ARRL and others have already given the FCC enough to work with over the years on making the case for some changes. The FCC has also dropped plenty of hints on where they want to go.

    What I've been begging for people to do, and pleading for people to do, is not go back to battle over ground already lost. The FCC is not going to bring back Morse code testing. What they might do though is allow for an endorsement on the license stating Morse code proficiency. Make a case on how this is needed to comply with IARP reciprocal licensing since Brazil still has a Morse code proficiency requirement.

    What I'm also seeing a lot in comments submitted to the FCC with every petition opened for comment is endless Technician bashing. The FCC is not going to make any changes to the written testing, that's the responsibility of the VECs and the question pool committee. If there's something that needs to be fixed then be very specific on how to fix it or the FCC will simply ignore it. If you want more question on the exam then say specifically how many there needs to be. If the Technician grants too much in privileges then be specific on where that is.

    This gets into any proposed changes to Technician privileges, the FCC has stated over and over again that they will be very reluctant to make changes to the privileges of any existing class of license. I believe it would be far easier for the FCC to justify a new license class to replace Technician than to try to fix whatever anyone believes is wrong with Technician.

    There's going to be people that will exclaim loudly that nothing needs to be changed. Again, just how long does everyone expect the FCC to do nothing? There are people feeding the FCC ideas on changing the licensing, and with each proposal and every passing year it's harder to maintain the status quo on this.

    I believe the "nothing's wrong" crowd needs to stop screaming about how nothing is wrong long enough to think about what is right. Think about what is important to you in the current licensing and fight to keep it. You cannot just say everything is equally important in keeping the same, that will not stand when there's another group saying something has to go.

    One more time, how long does everyone expect the FCC to do nothing about Amateur radio licensing? There will be changes coming. You can let the FCC know what you believe is important to keep or claim everything is equally important, which means that everything is equally unimportant.
     
  9. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    That does not show how effective incentive licensing is today because it says nothing about the goals incentive licensing is supposed to achieve.

    Without a stated goal behind incentive licensing then there is no means to measure the effectiveness. Stating that the goal is to get people to upgrade is nonsense because there is still the matter of why the FCC should care if people upgrade. The goals should give guidance in how the question pools are constructed at a minimum. As stated over and over again by the critics there's a simple means by which to increase the rate of upgrades, simplify the testing to the point that it's little more than a giveaway. Claiming that the basis and purpose from Part 97.1 provides guidance is nonsense, it's far too broad to give any meaningful measure of the success of incentive licensing.
     
  10. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Of course it provides information on how effective incentive licensing is.

    It does not provide TOTAL knowledge about effectiveness. Still, more information is helpful.

    You wander off into absurdity in service to your disdain for the present license structure and the proposals.

    -No, the FCC does not have to set upgrade goals or attempt to actively manage them. The FAA has similar license structures, and does not have goals for license upgrades nor attempt to force or manage them.
     

Share This Page