RM-11828: FCC invites comments on ARRL petition to give Technicians HF phone privileges.

Discussion in 'Amplitude Modulation' started by K4KYV, Mar 15, 2019.

ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: l-BCInc
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
  1. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't recall proposing that myself. If you can find me writing such then perhaps I mistyped, you misunderstood, or I simply changed my mind.

    I don't recall proposing that. I do believe that if General has passed the material needed to get access to all bands, all modes, and at power levels equal to Extra then they have all the theory they need to access the frequencies held back for Extra. That is different than upgrading to Extra, since only Extra is allowed to proctor exams for others to upgrade to General and Extra.

    If it's still "working" then why is the ARRL trying to fix it?

    Saying it's always been this way is not an argument. What is the goal of incentive licensing? How does the current license structure achieve that? How is success of incentive licensing defined? We cannot know if it is working if the goals have not been defined in a measurable way.

    I did not say "the material is identical". I pointed out that the theory of operation from one end of 10 meters is identical to the other end, same for 15, 40, and 80. The questions on Winlink and Pactor did not come until well after those modes came into existence in the 1990s. I have a General study guide from 2007 and I could not find any mention of Pactor or Winlink in it. Perhaps I missed them but I couldn't find it. Saying that the questions were not in the Technician question pool is not an argument, many licensed Amateurs today were not tested on it. If that's the argument then we'd have to remove privileges to these bands from half the people licensed now.

    The theory on phone modes for HF is the same as that for above 30 MHz. The questions in the pool changes some year to year but the theory is based on physics, which doesn't change. If Technicians are unprepared to operate on the HF privileges already granted then that's been a failure in the question pool for a very long time.

    So... Technicians are the kind of people that eat Tide pods? Insults are not an argument.

    I'm fine with my Extra. If there is a test the FCC wants me to take to stay where I am then I'll take the test. I don't see what I propose as any kind of "free stuff", I see it as correcting an error in the privileges granted. If we are to restore the concept of "incentive licensing" then we need a new incentive. I don't believe that this ARRL proposal is creating any kind of incentive, but it is on the right path to correcting errors in the privileges granted. I'd like to see them take it to it's logical conclusion.
    K7JEM likes this.
  2. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Then why can we not make the same assumptions for those with a Technician license? They passed all the theory for 10, 15, 40, and 80 meters, same as those with any other license.

    I don't propose giving similar privileges to Advanced or Novice since those are "dead" licenses. If the goal is to create a greater incentive to upgrade then I see nothing better than to grant more access to 15, 40, and 80 meters to those "lowly" Technicians. If this pisses off those with Advanced and Novice then all the better in my mind.
    K7JEM likes this.
  3. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    I had to cut and paste to get past the wall of text, but it is verbatim.

    "I don't recall proposing that myself. If you can find me writing such then perhaps I mistyped, you misunderstood, or I simply changed my mind."
    You did not write the proposal. I never said that.
    The most recent proposal to grant Extra privileges to Advanced was this one:
    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107291444927672/Advanced Class amateur license CW.doc
    by Jeffrey H. Siegell
    There were more, dealing with Advanced VOICE spectrum too.
    It can be researched in the FCC data base. There are quite a few of them over the years.
    FCC dismissed these without issuing a rule number, based on incentive licensing, and "We've always done it that way."

    "If it's still "working" then why is the ARRL trying to fix it?"
    Their motivation is not my concern any more.
    Maybe its their financial problems, unrelated to the health of amateur radio or the public good.
    The recent BOD elections changed 5 out of 6 directors, a clear demonstration that amateurs think ARRL was going in the wrong direction.
    I hope the NEW BOD succeeds, and finds more appropriate HOA legislation, which IS a real barrier to participation in amateur radio, much mores so than the license structure.
    I hope they come up with a better, more widely supported RM-11828 and 16-239 too.
    Currently, they are just ineffectively tinkering with it, in the belief of "If its not broke, fix it til it is."

    "Saying it's always been this way is not an argument. What is the goal of incentive licensing?"
    It sort of is an argument.
    If the current system seems to be working, it puts the burden of proof on someone who wants to change things to prove that THEIR idea is better.
    ARRL has failed to do that.
    That is part of the burden of proof. They have to propose a different method and how to measure that, and prove that it provides a better outcome. And how it serves the public good.
    It also exposes the "fallacy of novelty".
    In this case, the Emperor is buck naked. And somebody finally had the stones to tell him the truth.

    "So... Technicians are the kind of people that eat Tide pods? Insults are not an argument."
    Existing or future Technicians are not Tide Pod eaters. I never said that.
    Don't try to put your words in my mouth.

    I would love to attract "makers" to amateur radio.
    Our local VE group had 30 Cornell students pass the Tech so they could do robotics.
    One of them passed Extra. Another got General.
    Those are the people we need to bring to amateur radio, because they have the competence to "MAKE" something useful.
    Some young people people have the competence to write code that could improve digital modes.
    We should reach out to them too.
    But they have to study the material, pass the test, and start doing something with amateur radio to enjoy it and learn enough to "make" something.
    Our VE group and others routinely pass middle schoolers on to Tech and General, because they studied the material, passed the test, and experimented and learned and maybe will go on to productive careers in STEM.

    A complete comprehensive licensing restructuring might produce better results than the one we have.
    RM-11828 is not that, its just one more in a patchwork of misguided petitions that is doomed to failure, whether they pass the FCC or not.

    I was asking how far we should dumb down the requirement for any amateur license, Tide Pod eaters following some idiotic social media challenge?
    Its a take it to the limit question, what's the result question.
    The existing system of incentive licensing is working, and no compelling proof has been offered to the contrary. And other countries are experiencing similar results.

    And besides, "free stuff" has not had a good track record in producing any desirable outcome, by any metric.
    The parts of the world that believe in lots of "free stuff" are not doing well.
    America, with all its admitted problems, is far better off.
    Otherwise, we would be building a wall to keep Americans IN, like Berlin did.
    AC0OB likes this.
  4. W3DBB

    W3DBB Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am still hopeful ARRL's new CEO will use his influence to get these petitions withdrawn, especially as thoughtful ECFS commenters point out the obvious flaws. There seems to be a move afoot in this area but I don't wish to impart the notion that all licensing changes are bad.

    The licensing changes of the past 35 years have increased the number of licensees but it can't be denied in that time utilization of the ham bands has gone down. Substantial parts of ARRL leadership, the amateur radio industry, and regulators at FCC apparently think increasing the number of licensees has been and will continue to be good for the Amateur Radio Service, with a concurrent increase in advertising revenue. I write this because FCC keeps assigning NPRM numbers to petitions of a similar ilk.

    A review of 20 year old ham magazines, two of which no longer exist and one that has trouble paying the printer, reveals print advertising has noticeably decreased. No surprise here as print has declined across all categories. What is remarkable is the number of small and medium size amateur radio businesses that existed before the first Restructuring that no longer exist. These were a valuable source of advertising revenue for these publications.

    Amateur AM, which is what attracted me to ham radio, has been something special in the Amateur Radio Service for the past 45-50 years, enjoying a rebirth after it ceased being used in the mainstream of amateur radio operation. AM has proven itself to be comparatively immune to the decline of advertising in the amateur radio market, as it is mostly individual sellers and buyers utilizing free advertisement on websites or elsewhere. The owner of the website or other online presence benefits indirectly from ads placed and viewed by amateur AM operators.

    This writer is an unconventional traditional amateur radio operator. I enjoy AM, CW, and FM modes of operation. I've been licensed for 30 years. I came into the hobby as an Enhanced Novice but didn't get on the air until 10 years later as a Technician Plus and then I was CW only, as I had no SSB or FM equipment.

    The first Restructuring affected my amateur radio 'career' if you could call it that. My experience of the past 21 years as an active participant in the Amateur Radio Service is having differently qualified Technician, General, and Amateur Extra licensees led to bickering factions and disillusionment among many. They became inactive and/or failed to renew their license. This proved, empirically-speaking, to be a detriment to the Amateur Radio Service. Accurate empirical data is always a tricky quest and basically does not exist in a small and specialized hobby like amateur radio, as virtually all surveys are created with preordained outcomes in mind.

    Amateur radio officialdom, in it's quest for sheer numbers of licensees, got a bad deal for the amateur community and less advertising revenue in the process. The time has long since passed to start the process of undoing damage that occurred over the past 35 years. With all that said I think it likely things will get worse before they get better.
    AB2RA likes this.
  5. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, the ARRL spin doctors cannot seem to get it right.
    They fired their doubleplusgood duckspeaker lawyer (Imlay) recently.
    Lets hope ARRL moves from 1984 to 2019.

    I am spending less time in my workshop, because I am spending way too much time working on FCC filings.
    I am also spending a lot less time on the air too.

    The HOA is the problem causing low growth more than the license structure.
    ARRL is trying to repair a perfectly good engine, when the real problem is a flat tire.
    K4KYV and AC0OB like this.
  6. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    The system of incentive licensing IS working, if the metric is growth of total licenses and Extra, graphs posted earlier. Some may have a different metric, and they have to convince the FCC or no change will happen.
    The problem could be the misleading advertising for Tech in a day, work the world from your condo with a HOA restriction.
    We should treat the General as the HF entry license, as FCC stated years ago in their reply to ARRL.
    They directed ARRL to come up with a better idea. ARRL did not then, nor did it do so now.
    I agree we need more than a patchwork solution like the discordant mishmash of half dozen ideas out there.

    Its sad, I COULD have enthusiastically supported some of RM-11828, but given the package, its NO to ALL.

    That said, there is something that CAN help solve the objections of many, by eliminating some of the objectionable elements of RM-11828. It does not solve the VOICE objections, but since it is related to all the package, it could prompt ARRL to revise and rework it to something that gets wider support:

      REJECT RM-11828, RM-11708, RM-11759 and 16-239 as written.
    • RM-11831 ensures the ability to identify and monitor the radio transmissions of any data signal using readily available over-the-air interception methods by third parties, as required by Part 97.113(a)(4) and 97.119(a).
    • Without open, over-the-air interception capability for all transmissions in the amateur radio spectrum, there is no way to determine if there is commercial, or other prohibited inappropriate content in ongoing communications over the amateur radio spectrum. FCC DA 13-1918 ΒΆ 6
    • RM-11831 assures that the amateur radio service will not be used to bypass commercial internet or email services or be used for commercial use as required by Part 97.1, 97.3(4), 97.113(a)(5)
    • Eliminating Part 97.221(c) as RM-11831 proposes would solve long standing interference issues suffered by radio amateurs wishing to use the HF RTTY/Data sub bands for other mainstream and emerging digital modes rather than ACDS purposes.
    • Request that the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making at an early date, to delete Section 97.221(c) and modify Section 97.309(a)(4) of the Commission's rules as described above.
    • It only takes 10 minutes to compose and submit a comment. Please send yours.
    • Its our due process and democratic method to have our voice heard.
    • If you DON'T file a comment, you have no basis to whine about the outcome later.
    AC0OB likes this.
  7. W3DBB

    W3DBB Ham Member QRZ Page

    To Don,
    Believe it or not I get around, stay in various places frequented by mainstream travelers and vacationers. HOAs are a problem but solving that dilemma is a Pyrrhic victory in the legal sense since the RFI in these places is deafening, thus precluding a fair chunk of amateur radio operation.

    To Janus,
    I am all about due process, participating in our democracy, and voting in elections twice a year. But as far as I'm concerned the ECFS is really the ECFOS, the Electronic Comment Filing Obstruction Service. I gave up on it a few years ago.
    AB2RA likes this.
  8. AC0OB

    AC0OB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Here is possibly one answer from a comment on the ECSF system:

    I think it would be good for armature radio to give Technicians phone privileges on HF. A large number of people quit after getting the Tech license and I think that phone privileges on HF might get them interested enough to gain higher licenses."

    No, "giving" them unearned privileges without testing is NOT an incentive.

    AB2RA likes this.
  9. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    Does he plan to don his yellow vest and power up his 75m emcomm set-up with a dynamotor? :D
    AB2RA and AC0OB like this.
  10. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    The only time a person "earns" the privileges is when he is initially tested. Any privileges gained after that are simply "given" to the licensee, since he doesn't have to re-test to use those privileges.

    Go back to when you took your general test, and look at the privileges you "earned" on that day. If you have any additional privileges today, it is because they were given to you, gratis. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, I don't think we would want or need licensees to come in for new tests every time some sort of privilege was enhanced.
    AC0GT likes this.

Share This Page