Ham Talk Live! Episode 199 - State of the Hobby Survey

I am surprised no one has brought up the INCENTIVE LICENSING (IC) debacle of the 1960's. You should think long and hard about it, because at some point soon--2 years? 3 years?--it will be revisited (see below).

IC was an attempt by the FCC to get Part 97 operators more in-line with the mission statement, specifically on being a 'technically skilled pool'. The objective was to give EXTRAS the most privileges and scale down through the license classes. It was an 'incentive' to enhance and attain the technically skilled pool of same.

But that's not how it played out. US hams, in general ignored the REASON for the incentive, because the way it was acheived was PUNITIVE: allocation on certain modes--especially phone--were taken away from those already using them. At that time no NEW mode allocations were added.

SO the 'incentive' was to get back what you already had.

Pretty dumb.

What it DOES point out, today, is that the FCC has the capacity to take the mission statement of Part 97 seriously and act 'punitively' when we don't live up to it--by taking away allocations. It will again 'incentivize' us to execute the mission statement.

The way that problem manifests TODAY is the likely 250,000+ US hams, almost all techs, that NEVER GET ON THE AIR.

How will the FCC deal with it? First, in the next few years, it will require Part 97 licensees to provide evidence of on the air activity in, say the last year. It will use that data to extrapolate what bands need to be reallocated, in part or full. It will also drop licenses of those who do not show activity.

ALL of us a very aware (so READ this please, before you say it will never happen) that the FCC is understaffed and can't check up on all Part 97 licensees. What the FCC WILL do in the future, IMO, is execute a thinly sampled spot-check without notice to provide an 'on the air activity report' at any time, presumably by some random choice amongst the various license classes. This 'incentivizes' ALL Part 97 licensees to maintain such a report, even though few are asked over a given year (say). It also , as I said, becomes a data base for judging where allocations are being used, as a means to take allocations of spectrum away when it is sparsely used.

WIll this happen? I'm saying it is the most logical outcome, in part because it SOUNDS like it is encouraging us to get on the air--revisited IC-- but really its a survey of allocation use, with punitive likelihood. But, it IS objective and thus allows US to 'participate' in the decision process.

Yes, I assume that those that cannot show an 'activity report' will have a certain amount of time to demo OTA use, and then (after)their licences will be revoked..

OK, chew on that. Our 'hobby' (sic) is always required to prove its worth....

 

A couple of questions:

1. When did the transition from hobby to service occur? (I find no mention of the transition date)

2. Who are we serving and how is this serving taking place?

 

I did read what you wrote and I still say it will never happen.

@W1YW, maybe if you stopped equating a hobby to an unlicensed service then our ability for Amateur radio to "prove its worth" would be far less difficult. You should think long and hard about that because some time soon, maybe 2 or 3 years, the FCC will look into incentive licensing and decide that if so many people are equating a hobby to an unlicensed service then perhaps the FCC will re-allocate some Amateur radio spectrum to those licensed by rule. There is no such thing as an unlicensed radio service, there are explicit licensing like Amateur radio, and there are implicit licensing like in Part 95 where people are licensed by rule.

If you want to protect Amateur radio from this then stop equating hobbies with not needing a license.

 

If you want to 'save ham radio' stop calling it a hobby.

 

I can't BELIEVE you are a VOLUNTEER EXAMINER and don't know the answer to 2!

Its just....APPALLING!

 

Well, who do you think we are required to serve? This isn't about me, or about VE's, it is a question about activities that amateur radio operators do. Who do we serve when we chase DX, or participate in contests or ragchews? Who is being served when we call or answer CQ?

I know you want to make it about me, and how "bad" I must be as a VE, but lets just stick to the discussion, OK?

 

Your question indicates lack of knowledge on a KEY ASPECT of Part 97. Is that "bad"? You are required to understand the definition of the "service" of Part 97 as one who is expert in its passages.

Your assertion that we "serve" as individuals--that is asking: 'who do WE (as licensees) 'serve'-- is indicative of this lack of knowledge.

YOU NEED TO READ Part 97, and READ THE PRIOR RESPONSES by myself and others that address that (bogus) question.

You shouldn't, IMO, go into a VE exam as a person giving the exam, under the auspices that those taking the test are in a "hobby", and "serve" someone, and uphold the "Amateur's Code"--with its "unswerving loyalty".

That...is... FRIGHTENING.IMO.

When did you last get certified and who certified you as a VE? Are you unwilling to tell us?

 

I will state again that this isn't about me. If we are required to "serve" then what is that "service" and who do we serve? It is a simple question, really. If you don't have an answer, just say so.

 

I told you to review Part 97. It's not my obligation to make sure that a VE is cognizant of Part 97.

Again: WHO certified you??

WHAT are you asked to know about the "service" of Part 97 as your certification?

And you are wrong: it's about Part 97; It's about you, as a VE, showing a working knowledge of Part 97.

 

This isn't about me. I have read part 97 many times, and I don't see anything about service of any sort being required. I have seen the word "voluntary" used, but we can be a ham, and never volunteer any sort of service, and still retain our licenses. If fact many never volunteer any sort of service to anyone. So I don't see where we are required to "serve".

 

The SERVICE sets directions for licensees under the mission statement. It them sets obligations of knowledge and practice of the licensee via rules and regulations and technical specifics. This is manifest as a passed 'test' for the classes of licensees.

WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS?

There is no DIRECT "serve" to anyone by an individual licensee. ALL licensees are obligated to "SERVE" the American public by paragraph 1 above. That is, we "SERVE"--as a WHOLE-- by being a pool of skilled operators; EC; international relations; and enhancing the radio art.

When the WHOLE fails to meet the mission statement, this invites review of privileges reserved for the SERVICE. This invites LOSS OF ALLOCATIONS for the SERVICE.

WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS?

 

Yes, that is true. Amateur radio is a "service" like all other radio services. And it requires certain responsibilities, as do the other services. But we are not required to serve anyone, other than ourselves.

None of these things preclude amateur radio from being a hobby, which it is today, and always has been. Any activity we do as a amateur radio licensee is under the auspices of that hobby activity. 99+% of what we do is a hobby, even the service we occasionally provide is a part of that hobby, since we do it because we want to, and we are not paid for those services rendered.

 

Part 97 does not contain the word "HOBBY".

Part 97 does not contain the word (sic) "Pasttime".

Part 97 does not contain the word "Loyalty"

Part 97 does not teach, through various examinations for licensees, ANY of the above words.

 

This is true. But it doesn't preclude amateur radio from being a "pastime" or a "hobby", and it certainly is to hundreds of thousands of people world wide. It is also true that the word "service" as used in part 97 primarily relates to "communications services" or "radio services".

 

I find this thread quite amusing. There appears to be a lot of trolling going on but I'm unsure of who is trolling and who is being trolled. Keep it going though, I'm here to be entertained.