[TenTec] Re: ARRL proposal

[Bahr, Casey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Norman Wald [SMTP:nwald@interaccess.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 23, 1998 9:35 AM
> To:	tentec@contesting.com
> Subject:	[TenTec] Re: ARRL proposal
> 
> 
> I know that the TenTec reflector is not the place for the ongoing
> discussion regarding licensing changes, but as a person who owes his
> livelihood to what I learned to get my ham license, and from my experience
> as a volunteer examiner...
[>]  Hi Norman,

Thought I'd take this off-line wrt the reflector, but why should I be
first to pull the plug. I'll promise that this is my last post on this
subject here, though.

> It's about time we got rid of the Novice class, it's been nearly
> non-existent for many years now. But you're going to make many Generals
> angry that they now will have the same privileges as Tech Plus and Novice.
> I don't think Advanced or Extras are going to lose anything, in fact will
> be gaining some band width that our DX cousins have been using for years.
	[>]  Phone ops will gain bandspace, CW ops will lose bandspace and
	the higher classes will have their space invaded by ops who
effectively
	copy code at ~ 8 wpm (given the current testing scheme).

> I have many friends who are Technician and Tech Plus class that would have
> gone to General, Advanced or even Extra except for the CW. Most of the
> Techs that I have known are more qualified in electronics than I am with
> my
> Extra! Often their communication skills leave little to be desired.
	[>]  Just because your friends did not see any use for CW and did
not
	have enough gumption, persistence, or caring to overcome the current
	13 wpm test, which only actually requires about a 9 wpm effort, is
	absolutely no justification at all for past and current ARRL
proposals
	to lower the bar in standards for achieving HF access. If these
people
	can't make the minimal amount of effort to get to 9 wpm then I'd say
	they don't deserve the extra bandspace and must be quite happy on
VHF.

	Also, I may have news for you. Though your friends are quite
competent
	in electonic theory the current written testing requirements are a
pathetic
	joke when screening for that. A club president in the San Diego area
	passed all the writtens through Extra in one day and has admitted
publicly
	that he can't quote Ohm's Law. I know exactly how he passed those
	tests using a technique know to any elementary school teacher. Give
me
	a test of about 50 questions in astrophysics at the PhD level, the
printed Q&As,
	and I will pass it at better than 70% with about 4 hours of study.

> Therefore the CW speed requirement has always been an arbitrary barrier.
> And by the way, I operate 90 percent CW at 30 wpm plus!
	[>]  Then I guess you won't mind sharing the DX window with ops who
can
	copy at about 7 wpm with big linears and god knows what kind of
	modulation on their carrier. Or do you consider that you are somehow
	going to be insulated from the havoc this slippery slope is going to
	generate?

> Certainly having an Extra class license doesn't stop the Yahoo's on 75
> meters (and often on 20) from acting like animals. What's the difference
> between much of 75 and 11 meters? One group passed a rigorous set of tests
> in electronic theory, rules and regulations, and 20 wpm Morse code!
	[>]  Arguments about the yahoos on the phone bands do not interest
	me at all, they are irrelevant. If anything they only add support to
what
	we can expect about the future of ham radio as the bar continues to
get
	lower and lower.

> You know, we are a TECHNICAL HOBBY. Remember the reason the FCC and the
> ITU
> let Ham Radio exist? May I quote?
> 
> a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the
> public as a voluntary non-commercial communication service, particularly
> with respect to providing emergency communications.
	[>]  One could argue that CB radio does this already.

> b) Continuation and extension of the Amateur's unique ability to enhance
> the advancement of the radio art.
	[>]  By lowered technical and operating standards?

> c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur radio service  through
> rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and
> technical phases of the art.
	[>]  Lowering of testing standards does none of this.

> d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of
> trained operators, technicians and electronic experts.
	[>]  Lowering of testing standards does not promote this.

> e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance
> international good will.
	[>]  Incorporating even more operators who got there the easy way
implies
	that this goal will be decimated.

> Uh, did I leave anything out? Have the principles of the charter under
> which we exist changed?
> 
> This means thst when new technology evolves, we should investigate it and
> perhaps embrace it. I'm just old enough to remember that many hams fought
> against SSB feeling it would kill AM! Many much older hams remember that
> CW
> was going to be the death of good old fashioned spark! How many of us
> still
> build our own radios? When was the last time you had a conversation with
> someone on the air about something other than the weather or a hit and run
> 599 exchange?
	[>]  Please explain to me how the current (and past) proposals keeps
anyone
	from investigating or embracing new technology?

> We as hams therefore must evolve with change, or become extinct in
> clinging
> to what once was while hoping that change won't effect us. In other words:
> grow, or die.
	[>]  How does the current proposal promote growth? Oh, yes, it helps
the
	HF radio manufacturers grow, for  a while, now that they've
saturated the
	VHF market.

> Respectfully,
> 
> Norman N9NW
> 
	[>]  73,

	Casey 


> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
> Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
> Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm