[50mhz] A letter to President Haynie concerning entry level proposal

[peter markavage]

May be true, but now we have bigger issues to worry about. RM-11305, now
before the FCC, which basically requests to deregulate the amateur radio
bands to any mode, any bandwidth, anywhere, submitted by 7 guys who feel
this is the way to help the amateur radio service. Comment period to the
FCC has just begun. Can you envision what the amateur bands will sound
like, if this gets passed and becomes the "law of the amateur radio
spectrum"?

Pete, wa2cwa

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:37:43 -0600 "John  Geiger (NE0P)" <ne0p at lcisp.com>
writes:
> But then the ARRL shouldn't have helped to kill the novice license in 
> the first place.  It was working fine before they ignored it.
> 
> 73s John NE0P
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: peter markavage <manualman at juno.com>
> Date:  Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:21:40 -0500
> 
> >It may or may not make any difference. He comes up for reelection 
> in less
> >than 2 weeks. An entry level license that allows access to more of 
> the HF
> >bands is a good thing. Settling in to only the VHF/UHF region of 
> the
> >amateur spectrum can lead to a blurred vision of the entire amateur 
> radio
> >service.
> >
> >Pete, wa2cwa
> >
> >On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:54:38 -0600 "John  Geiger (NE0P)" 
> <ne0p at lcisp.com>
> >writes:
> >> Here is a letter I just email to ARRL President Haynie concerning 
> his 
> >> recent comments about the need for an entry level HF license.  If 
> 
> >> you feel the same as me, maybe you could drop his a line as well. 
>  
> >> 
> >> Dear President Haynie,
> >> 
> >> I am writing you regarding some comments of yours about proposing 
> an 
> >> entry level HF license which were reprinted in Worldradio.  Since 
> I 
> >> am reading the Worldradio copy of them, I apologize in advance if 
> I 
> >> am misstating something you said since I am getting them from a 
> >> secondhand source.
> >> 
> >> You refer to a "Two-meter ghetto" which I fully agree with, as 2 
> 
> >> meter FM is a very segregated and limiting mode of operation.  I 
> 
> >> agree that limiting oneself to 2 meter FM quickly causes many new 
> 
> >> amateurs to lose interest and leave the hobby.
> >> 
> >> However, you also state "to only open the door ajar to allow for 
> 2M 
> >> operations for new licensees doesn't go far enough".  This is the 
> 
> >> statement which I take issue with.  Last time I checked the FCC 
> >> rules, Technician licensees were allow to operate on all 
> frequencies 
> >> above 50mhz, at up to 1.5KW PEP output.  I believe that the 
> problem 
> >> is not with the privileges given the Technician class license, 
> but 
> >> how we advertise and promote the license.  There is no reason why 
> 
> >> any Technician licensee should limit themself to 2 meter FM, 
> except 
> >> out of ignorance.
> >> 
> >> I have held an Extra class license since 1984, but in the past 
> few 
> >> years, 75% of my operating is on frequencies available to the 
> >> technician class license, and I don't feel that I am being 
> limited 
> >> in any way.  This has been by choice instead.  I have 2 friends 
> >> locally (1 a general class and 1 an extra class) who show similar 
> 
> >> patterns of operating.  The frequencies available to the 
> Technician 
> >> class ham show a wonderful variety of operating activities and 
> >> opportunities.  My preference recently has been for 6 meter SSB 
> and 
> >> satellite operation, both of which are available for Technician 
> >> class hams.  Getting on either one of these operating modes is 
> less 
> >> expensive and easier than getting on HF.
> >> 
> >> I have worked all states on 6 meters from my current location in 
> 
> >> Lawton, OK, and have worked 49 states on 6 from my previous QTH 
> in 
> >> Iowa (lacking KH6).  I have worked around 425 grid squares on 6 
> from 
> >> this QTH, and have 29 DXCC countries worked on this band.  On 
> >> satellites I have worked 45 states, 130 grids, and 9 DXCC 
> countries. 
> >>  On 2 meters I have worked 39 states, and have my 2 meter VUCC 
> with 
> >> a 125 grid endorsement.  So you see that Technician privileges do 
> 
> >> not limit one in terms of working beyond the line of sight, or 
> even 
> >> for DX.  Last year (2005) I worked 8 different DXCC countries on 
> 6 
> >> meters.
> >> 
> >> My station is not something that is beyond the reach of any 
> newcomer 
> >> to ham radio.  I am using a Yaesu FT100D with a 2 element mini 
> >> products Miniquad on 6, a Cushcraft 10 element yagi on 2 meters, 
> and 
> >> a Cushcraft 19 element yagi on 70cm.  All antennas are mounted on 
> 
> >> radio shack tripods using radio shack TV rotors.  I have never 
> run 
> >> more than 180 watts on 2 meters, and more than 100 watts on 6 or 
> 
> >> 70cm.  My total investiment in this setup is around $1000.  
> >> 
> >> I help teach an amateur licensing course once or twice a year, 
> and I 
> >> always try to promote what you can do with a Technician license, 
> and 
> >> cite some of the above accomplishments I have made on those 
> >> frequencies.  I find that the "Now You're Talking" book which 
> most 
> >> hams use as a study guide is slanted much too heavily towards 2 
> >> meter FM.  That is probably a large part of the problem for too 
> many 
> >> new hams believing that they are limited to 2 meter FM or as you 
> put 
> >> it "only opening the door ajar."  We need to educate these hams 
> on 
> >> what they can do with a Technician class license, rather than 
> what 
> >> they can't do with it.  We need to more effectively promote how 
> easy 
> >> it is to get on amateur satellites, and the weak signal VHF/UHF 
> >> modes.  I have been very successful on the amateur satellites 
> >> WITHOUT using elevation rotors, circularly polarized antennas, or 
> 
> >> rotors interfaced with software for automatic tracking.  In fact, 
> I 
> >> have worked many hams on AO51, AO27, and SO50 who are using 
> >>  HTs. We need to make this known to new hams who may feel 
> >> intimidated by some of the setups they see for satellite 
> operation, 
> >> and believe that a large complicated setup is needed. 
> >> 
> >> In closing, I also find it interesting that the ARRL now is 
> >> interested in bringing back a Novice license.  We had a Novice 
> >> license up until 2000, and from 1991-2000 the ARRL virtually 
> ignored 
> >> it as a point of entry in favor of the Technician license.  I 
> always 
> >> felt that that was a mistake on the ARRL's part, and still feel 
> that 
> >> way.
> >> 
> >> 73s John Geiger NE0P 
> >Moderator: Ray Brown, KB0STN