What? ARRL Petitions FCC to Expand the Shortwave Privileges of Technician-Class Hams

Discussion in 'Videos and Podcasts' started by NW7US, Mar 6, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: l-assoc
  1. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Let's take another look at that ARRL poll...

    What is your present license class?

    Novice........21...0.3%
    Technician...815..10.3
    General.....1777..22.5
    Advanced.....383...4.9
    Extra.......4848..61.4
    blank.........37...0.5

    So out of the whole group of respondents (we'll call these "the people who care about the ARRL proposal enough to respond to the poll"), fully 88.8% of them held a General or higher class of license. More than half (61.4%) of the respondents are Extra class. They have full privileges everywhere.

    Think about that -- of the people who care, the vast majority of them already have the privileges that the ARRL proposal seeks to add to Technician licensees.

    From ARRL's own "data," there is no way that anyone can argue that there is a barrier to HF privileges for anybody who wants them. In fact, among the people who answered the League's call for information and comments, most of them, by a huge margin, have no need for the goods ARRL is trying to peddle.

    I don't know who this proposal is intended to help, but it isn't the people the proposal claims. The number of Technician licensees active enough to answer the League's poll is statistically tiny -- just a few percentage points above the noise floor, in fact.
     
    K3XR and ND6M like this.
  2. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    He repeatedly uses buzz phrases like "open fully".... and never describes any details.

    Perhaps, he thinks all that "dead" spectrum below 28.300 is fair game for phone operations.

    Anthony, take this for whats it worth, you have only been licensed for about a month, study a little more and upgrade, it's not at all difficult.
     
  3. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page



    Do you know if those numbers are the first poll or the second one?

    The ARRL has NEVER stated why they conducted a second poll (the one that had less than 7000 responses.) I believe there "may" be some (not so well) hidden agenda.​
     
  4. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I detect a hidden agenda in your post about hidden agendas. Cher che la conspiracy!
     
    KD2PKN likes this.
  5. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    It was the first one, which was open to the public, and had far more responses. The link to the ARRL report is at the top of my post, and they discuss their re-polling and the respondent counts therein.
    Well, they did make this comment in their report:

    Note that this was not a scientific survey, in that those responding were self selected and not controlled by geography, age or license class. This can tend to skew the results towards less central responses, meaning that the more strongly someone feels positive or negative about the topic, the more likely they are to respond.

    In other words, the people who care the most tended to be the ones who commented, and that's not what they wanted, as they explained in the next paragraph.

    As a result, we decided to do a second survey (using the same questions) of 1000 members to be able to compare results with the original one. Those sent the second survey were randomly chosen from all USA members we had email address for. This second survey resulted in an additional 375 responses (37%), which we summarized separately.

    Emphasis added.

    So they polled the paying members to see if they could get a better result*. That survey resulted in the following numbers:

    What is your present license class?
    Novice........0....0.0%
    Technician...27....7.2
    General......77...20.9
    Advanced.....27....7.2
    Extra.......240...64.2
    Blank.........3....0.8

    As you can see, the polling of the paid members yielded even worse numbers for ARRL's proposal, with fully 92.3% of the responding members holding a General class or higher license. So when the League decided to improve the scientificness (my words) of their poll, the result they got was even more inconsistent with the assertions they later sent to FCC.

    The League included an article in their report, titled "Where are the Novices?" The results of their polls seem to quite clearly answer that question -- they upgraded. :cool:

    (*) ...despite the fact that the League pretends to represent the entire service in their activities and legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts.
     
  6. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Um, that's actually konspiracy, as explained in this thread. ;)
     
  7. KQ0J

    KQ0J XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    This is kind of like someone complaining that people with a license to operate a Car can not operate a motorcycle and
    if more drivers could operate a motorcycle there would be more drivers on the road.

    There's a license for that. Go get one.
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  8. K5VZD

    K5VZD Ham Member QRZ Page

    The arrl no longer gives a damn about our hobby.. the cb'ers wanted on the ham bands back in the 70's.. too damn lazy to learn cw.... arrl says "hey,, lets get the code requirement dropped. give out ham licenses on the back of cereal boxes and we'll get hundreds of new INCOME for the league!". Don't believe me,,, just listen into 75 meters some night.....
    I no longer let my grandkids in my shack when I happen to be listening on the phone bands, however luckly I'm about 99% cw....
    What we need is a class action lawsuit against the league and the fcc for not enforcing the rules!
     
  9. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why would we want to "entice, educate, and covert" people who have violated FCC rules and regulations to become ham radio operators while a method of implementing such a process is not likely it would be preferable that those persons never hold and license to operate in the ham bands.
     
    K5VZD likes this.

Share This Page