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-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, which one is it?

    ... and which arrl poll are you referring to?

    The first one, which even the arrl stated that the poll was flawed and the data was skewed.
    the second one, in which the arrl randomly re-polled selected respondents from the first (flawed) poll.:rolleyes:
    AB2RA and AC0OB like this.
  2. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    You keep using that word, I don't believe it means what you believe it means.

    I heard this same argument when the FCC proposed combining Technician and Technician Plus. People complained about the "freebie" because Technician license holders were not tested on the privileges granted below 30 MHz. The FCC simply pointed out that the distinction between Technician and Technician Plus was only the Morse code testing, if Technician license holders were not prepared for the privileges granted then that is the fault of the Amateur radio community for not testing for privileges already granted. The same applies here, if Technician license holders are not prepared for the same bands they were tested on with the same modes they have been tested on then the Amateur radio community has not been properly testing Technician license holders for 30 years now.

    I keep reading on QRZ is just another digital mode, well here's the logical conclusion of making CW just another digital mode.

    Again, if Technician license holders have not been tested for the additional privileges granted then that has been a failure of the Amateur radio community in preparing Technician license holders for 30 years. It's a bit late for that argument now.

    Just how long did you expect the FCC to keep privileges as they are? They make changes, some bigger than others, every decade or two. It's simply about time for the next one.

    Well, I have been told I'm certifiable.

    I can't predict what the FCC will do. What seems clear to me is that the FCC doesn't have an up or down vote here. They have been known to act in ways differing from the petition based on the feedback they get. I do expect the FCC to make a change based off this petition, I'm just not sure what to expect.

    As was your example with surgeons and aircraft engineers.

    I'm not concerned so much about convincing people here as trying to figure out the thought process in opposing this petition. It seems no one wants to answer some very straightforward questions.

    Just how long does everyone expect the FCC to keep Technician privileges below 25 MHz as CW only?
    If Technician license holders have not "earned" the privileges proposed then how have they been prepared for the privileges they have on HF? I thought CW was just another digital mode. I thought phone on 10 meters was no different than that on 40 meters. Or, as some like to point out, no different than phone on 11 meters.

    Oh, and if Technician license holders were in fact polled in greater numbers/proportions on this then what should they have said to convince people this was a good idea? As I've pointed out many times, but doesn't seem to get through, it was not Technician license holders that filed this petition or answered the survey that lead to it. This was based on feedback from people where a majority of them held Extra, and most of the rest held General, they believe Technician license holders "earned" this. Much of the discussion is based on the lack of feedback from Technician license holders, or misconceptions on what feedback they did provide. Well, what do you want to hear from them that would make or break this petition?
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  3. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    http://www.arrl.org/files/file/2017 Board of Directors/July 2017 Reports/_25 1707-ELL.pdf

    If you believe this polling to be flawed then what kind of polling would you have preferred? It seems from my sampling of responses on the FCC website it's about 1/3rd pro, 1/3rd con, and 1/3rd off topic.

    The FCC is under no obligation to act even if there is an overwhelming support but there is that question I'd like to get answered honestly. That question is, just how much longer does everyone expect the FCC to continue keeping Technician privileges below 25 MHz as CW only?

    Claims that we can't allow digital modes to Technician license holders because they weren't tested on Pactor, or whatever, does not follow. They have been tested on digital modes, or should have, based on privileges gained already. I've been told CW is a digital mode, if they have been tested for CW operation then they have been tested on digital operations. Claims of specific modes not being tested, such as Pactor, does not follow either because a lot of Amateurs licensed prior to Pactor's creation in the 1990s were not tested on it either. Claims of not being prepared for phone modes also does not follow, Technician privileges and testing included talking into a microphone from the very creation of the license. If a Technician license holder today does not know how to talk into a microphone when on 40 meters then that's been a failure of the testing for close to 70 years now.
  4. AC0OB

    AC0OB Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    It means exactly what I said it means. Your second guessing and your attempt to place your own words into other peoples responses is really getting tiring.

    The ARRL blames the FCC, now you want to blame the Amateur community?

    As I stated before, neither you nor I know. We can, however, present our comments to the FCC in order to persuade them. Did you send in a formal comment to the FCC regarding this matter?

    So, are you a psychologist taking a poll? Your responses indicate that you are trying to convince otherwise and so far, your responses have not been convincing.

    I think the answers have been straightforward and to the point, they are just not the answers you want.

    AB2RA likes this.
  5. AD5HR

    AD5HR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Give Techs voice on the upper end of 80,40, and 15 Meters, A.M. only.
    We need more ops on A.M. <grin>
    AC0GT likes this.
  6. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm no psychologist but after thinking about this a bit through the day the psychology of it all is something that I would imagine some professional psychologist might find quite fascinating.

    Think about this for a bit. So what if Technician privileges change? Big firetrucking deal. If this happens then in ten years or so it will be not much more than a notation on Wikipedia. People new to Amateur radio won't know the difference either way, and those that were licensed before the change will just see it as the "new normal". The question pool will have the new operating privileges incorporated in the question pool, and any claims of Technician license holders somehow not being prepared for the then old privileges will be moot.

    I've been reading on QRZ on how Technician license holders won't be motivated to upgrade if they get expanded privileges on HF. Does not everyone realize that the ARRL is proposing this in the hope it will motivate people to upgrade? At least they are trying something to rectify this, which is infinitely more than anyone here has done. So what if they don't upgrade? They aren't upgrading now. So if it doesn't work then in ten years from now we get another 50,000 "Technician for life" licenses on the FCC database. Maybe after those ten years the ARRL will create another petition.

    Then I can come back here, ten years from now, and read about how the ARRL has yet again submitted a petition to the FCC that will mean the end of Amateur radio. About how ending Morse code testing was a mistake, because that will NEVER get old. :rolleyes: I can read all bellyaching about how the "kids these days" have it so easy, don't know what's good for them, and are unmotivated and technically inept.

    I do hope the FCC does make some changes to the Technician privileges as a result of this petition. The comments on QRZ will be quite entertaining as a result.
    K7JEM likes this.
  7. KM3F

    KM3F Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have little problem with the rule change...………...IF...………………. the FCC polices the changes.
    If they do not, you will see all the different version of illegal operations you seen in the past.
    Examples: Generals in the DX windows, techs checking in on SSB Nets on the bands.
    and all other versions of illegal operations ops try to get away with.
    I do some checking now and then and see this happening.
    The ARRL is trying to save what's left of the hobby as time goes by.
    Another thing waiting in the background is the big push on ARES trying to keep ham radio relevant in public value to local and state backup.
    Look in your latest May QST mag pages 75,76.
    There you will read about 5G now being built.
    The gov entities will have even less use for ham radio with hardened cell sites to handle everything but a Nuclear blast or earthquake making ham radio nearly useless some time in the next 5 years.
    I know one county that has resisted ham radio until recently was dragged kicking and screaming to begin some accommodation at the strong suggestion of the state and lack of funds if they do not.
    The large telcos have nearly abandon their outside plant that is now becoming a big mess.
    All one has to do is drive the roads and look.
    All the while the PUC is looking the other way.
    There is a reason.
    Guest what it is.
    Ever hear of 5G and a completely different communications platform that does not include outside cable as it's known today?
  8. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    That's why I'm OK with extending Techs some limited data privileges on segments of the HF bands where they now have CW privileges. Newcomers today might find more interest in long distance HF communication employing digital data modes, than learning the code and then using Morse telegraphy, now perceived by many as obsolete, antique technology. But phone is likewise old hat with many of the upcoming generation. Kids to-day tend to prefer not to even talk to each other on the phone, but instead exchange text messages. It's not unusual to see people at a gathering, texting each other from across the room instead of walking over to the person and having a face-to-face conversation. Giving Tech phone privileges, particularly SSB-only, would open up the HF bands to a lot of long-term wannabes who up to now have been limited to CB and VHF repeaters, but never had enough interest to take a simple written test to upgrade. I'm concerned that if the ARRL's phone proposal passed in its present form, it wouldn't generate a lot of newcomers, but turn the upper ends of 75m and 40m into "Tech slopbucket bands", since many existing Techs already have the equipment they now use on 11 (and maybe occasionally on 10)m.

    There isn't even much interest in CB any more. While trying to fix a crapped-out 75A-4 that was given to me, I have listened on the various bands using a quickly strung indoor antenna over the workbench. I hear activity on the ham bands and beyond, but have yet to hear anything but line noise and atmospheric hiss on 11m. Of course, I hear the same thing on 10m; probably if the band opened up there would be some activity. But not that long ago you could hear local activity on CB whether the band was open to skip propagation or not.

Share This Page