ad: chuckmartin

HamRadioNow: That ARRL Entry Level License Survey

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K4AAQ, Mar 2, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. K2FI

    K2FI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Honestly, the Tech questions are really very easy. I'd like to see them bring back the CW requirement, though. Back when I was first licensed as a Novice it was the 5WPM and wasn't all THAT hard. (Of course, I let my license lapse for many years, but when I got it back as a Tech I was on the air with whatever code
     
    AD5KO likes this.
  2. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The Tech question pool is too large. Each individually is of limited challenge.

    Dave, if the Tech wasn't, well, limiting, then why did you go to Extra? I bet you stayed a Tech for a very short period.

    Techs on the lower bands are exceedingly rare, unfortunately. Almost all are inactive, and limit their activity, if and when active, to HT's on 2M or 440.

    Welcome back.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
  3. K2FI

    K2FI Ham Member QRZ Page

    For what it's worth, as Tech I jumped right onto 15m and 40m CW (and 10m SSB). Even at my super-slow speeds and QRP, I had contacts thousands of miles away and that was amazingly exciting!
     
    WA7PRC, KK5JY and AD5KO like this.
  4. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    The real shame here is that there are other issues that ARRL could be pursuing, and solving those issues would help all of us who are active operators. Instead, they are spending time on this, to the neglect of more helpful endeavors. Like I said earlier, the chances of any of these proposals making it past FCC is very low, based on their earlier rulings on the same subjects. So this proposal doesn't concern me that much. But the waste of time and resources being devoted to this is concerning.
     
    WA7PRC and AD5KO like this.
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The ARRL pulled together a committee of interested parties based on their (the parties) push...I don't see that any ARRL resources , beyond trivial ones,were used. The committee typically got together by powerpoint and conference phone.

    The committee presumably has prepared a set of options for the membership to comment on. IOW they are very interested in feedback.

    I see no diversion of effort, funds. I see no agenda being pushed by the ARRL. I see them doing something reasonable in a very appropriate way.

    What is wrong with that?
     
    KG5ILR and WU8Y like this.
  6. WF9Q

    WF9Q Ham Member QRZ Page

    So, exactly what should the ARRL be doing?
     
  7. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think the word 'arrogant' will show up in their response;-)

    I suggest 'arrogate' as more relevant to the context :)
     
    WF9Q likes this.
  8. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Do you mean, aside from the fact that they are researching an idea that was already rejected by FCC in 2005?

    The problem is that resources are being spent (I would argue wasted, based on the 2005 decision) on something that has no evidence of been needed or useful, when those resources (man-hours, if nothing else) could be devoted to issues that have a potential to help the existing hams who care enough to operate.

    I didn't say there was an agenda. You added that part. ;) My complaint is that the resources should be spent on existing hams who have issues that are being neglected, rather than on some faith-based guesswork rule change, that may or may not add to the number of active/useful/skilled/educated hams in the future.
     
  9. KD4LT

    KD4LT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Just face the ARRL is just a business and they need to keep up the membership to keep it running .
    I may not renew my membership this time around , I well see when at Dayton this year ???
     
    AD5KO likes this.
  10. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Let me offer an example: http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/arrl-indignation.552492/page-2#post-4119118
    See, now you are just baiting. If you had a case to make, you'd make it and defend it, without making (or taking) this personal(ly). Why can't we just discuss the issues here? (Hint: there is no issue here, and FCC torpedoed this idea over a decade ago...)
     
  11. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    For good or bad reasons, it often boils down to the almighty dollar.
     
    AD5KO likes this.
  12. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Let me explain how this works...

    1) The ARRL had many members who put serious independent time, apart, exploring the notion of a new entry license;
    2) These members made a case, informally, with a few directors and asked the ARRL to take on a study;
    3) No good deed goes unpunished:) Those members were set up as a committee for fact finding and feedback, with occassional director input and feedback;
    4) the committee met electronically and gelled out the issues and some options;
    5) The ARRL is well aware of the 2005 decision and made it the onus of the committee to show relevancy for the ideas in 2017. The relevancy ties in to young people and why they aren't getting licenses.

    So where, exactly, is the ARRL at fault in any way? IMO they are being responsive, perhaps a bit skeptical, but are open to being convinced otherwise.
     
  13. AJ5F

    AJ5F Ham Member QRZ Page

    We already have an "entry level license." It's called "Technician" class. That's where I entered.

    If a DUNCE like me can pass Novice, the General (in 1977 when it was harder) and 5 wpm code in one sitting (the first time) IN FRONT OF THE FCC, then anybody ---ANYBODY who is not severely mentally challenged, can pass the current Technician exam. Why are we proposing things that are totally unnecessary?? We just need to be more dedicated to new Ham recruitment.
     
    KB0FKT, KF4ZKU, K1XJ and 3 others like this.
  14. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Because the Tech exams's volumetric inertia drives young people away in droves, and there is a clear data correlation between young people getting licenses and the relative ease of the entry exam in terms of material volume.

    That's not my data. I imagine the committee will make it more public at some point. It has been presented at local clubs here..

    Basically when the tests got longer (in material to study) the number of young people pursuing dropped. The clearest demarcation was when the license manual went from a list of questions and answers to the 'Now Your Talking' series 40 years ago. Went from guide to text book...from lotsa young people to a serious drop in young hams.

    With no recovery to date.
     
  15. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    And yet, all of the ideas that have been discussed in the open still have the same fatal flaws that FCC identified 12y ago. Sounds like wasted time to me.

    By spending time on an effort that has very little chance of surviving into an NPRM while neglecting other issues that affect active hams.

    Which has not been shown, by anybody, to be directly traceable to a licensing issue. People assert that it is a licensing issue, but there is no evidence of that. There are all kinds of reasons people might be inactive on the ham bands, and none of them can be shown to be related to a deficiency in the licensing process.
     
    AD5KO likes this.

Share This Page

ad: Retevis-1