[Fists] Quitting ARRL?

[Trevor Jacobs]

Hi Larry and the Fists group,

Well, I for one support the ARRL on the BPL issue, and think that it is a
major threat to the HF bands. Pumping RF down power lines in the HF Spectrum
in areas where there are Ham Operators, is likely to cause problems as
evidenced by the work of Ed Hare W1RFI. This is a real concern, and I did
make my views on the subject known to the FCC.

On the other hand, I do not support the current License Restructuring
Proposal, and have sent a letter stating so to the ARRL.

Here is part of that letter:
******************************************

First, I think that being an Amateur Radio Operator is a privilege and not a
right as so many people seem to feel these days.  It is a privilege that
should be earned by demonstrating technical knowledge and the skill to be a
competent operator. In my opinion none of the current testing fulfils this
role. By further reducing the requirements for HF privileges, we are opening
the door to more operating behavior that does not reflect correct amateur
practice and the amateur's code. There is enough poor operating on the bands
right now from amateur operators that don't follow correct operating
procedures and practices. Do we really want to lower our standards further?
I for one do not, and would like to see more Quality than Quantity. If you
are to take away the Morse requirement for HF privileges why not make the
tests a written exam? There has to be a better form of testing than multiple
choices with a published question pool, as it's very easy to memorize the
answers. What does this current method really test?

There is a trend in American society today to lower the standards when
people find them too hard. This is not the answer. Were people actually
smarter in 1950? No. They simply had more commitment and drive. People
should be a little more committed to their goals, turn off the TV, and study
harder. There is a reason that a majority of the students at most major
technical universities in this country are not American. Are we as an
organization going to bow down to this current trend and lower our
standards? Are these the kind of attitudes that we want to reflect?

I became an Electrical/Software Engineer largely due to Amateur Radio. It
instilled in me at a young age the value of studying and hard work to
achieve a goal. Making this task easier is not doing the same for our youth.
In fact it is a reflection of the soft valueless kind of society we're
quickly becoming.

Secondly, I feel that the ARRL is not representing its members very well on
this most important issue. This proposal affects all of us, and I feel that
little if any effort was taken to find out what the opinion was of our
membership, especially those of us that currently have HF privileges. After
all, if you were to poll the no-code Technicians, I'm pretty sure that you
would get a unanimous vote to lower our standards.

Your letter is the first message I've received in any form directly to me
about this proposal. If I had not donated financially last year to the ARRL,
I doubt that I would have received it. I have been subscribed to the
Southwestern Division e-mail bulletins for over 3 years from the ARRL web
site along with Propagation Bulletins and the News Line e-mailings. I get
the latter e-mails just fine, but I haven't received a single e-mail asking
my opinion on the up coming proposal to the FCC from either the ARRL or the
Southwestern Division. I e-mailed Art Goddard W6XD about this and was
informed that he polled numerous clubs, and had taken a poll at the
Southwestern Division Convention in Long Beach. I attended all 3 days of
this convention, the subject never came up, and I was not asked for my
opinion either on or off the record. So who was polled and where?

A few comments on the Proposed Band Plan:

First, why should Technician operators get a "free" upgrade to "General"
class? They haven't passed the current test. It would seem more prudent to
give them "Novice" privileges until they pass the "General" class test.

Secondly, that's an awful lot of bandwidth that we plan to give the
 "Novices".  They would actually have more phone bandwidth than current
General Class operators on 40 Meters! Why don't we rethink this plan and
come up with something a bit more realistic like the original Novice
bandwidths. This seems like an awful lot considering they only have to pass
a very simple 25 question multiple-choice test, and have yet to show any
operating skills.

Third, how do you plan on enforcing 50 Watts for "Novices" on 10 Meters? We
may as well make it 100 Watts as most modern transceivers have this
capability.

I urge the ARRL to reconsider polling its membership of HF operators, and
find out what their opinions are. After doing so, you may find that what you
have planned for the future of Amateur Radio is far from what the members
that you are supposed to represent have in mind. Not doing so will likely
cause the membership to decline in the next few years, mine included. I do
plan on filing my comments to the FCC when it's available for comment.



**************************************************

A copy of the ARRL's proposal can be read in PDF format here:
http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/restrux2-petition.pdf

I urge all of you to not only file your comments to the FCC when it becomes
available for comment, but to write to the ARRL informing them of your
opinion on this subject. It's OK to get upset about an issue, but if we
don't let the ARRL and the FCC know, what do we think that we will
accomplish?

CW is my preferred mode of operation and always will be, but it's not the
real issue in my mind right now. The current testing and proposed new
restructuring is an example of the way our society is heading. I for one
don't think that we want to reflect this current trend.

73's Trev - KG6CYN
http://www.qsl.net/kg6cyn

FISTS# 7814