[HCRA] Partial on the rule change

[Jim Harrington]

Rick Lindquist, N1RL wrote:

>
>No, the news material on the ARRL Web site is copyrighted just as is
>CNN's, ABC News, etc. We have no problem with providing, say, the first
>paragraph of an item with a link to our site for the rest. I think the
>reasons for copyrighting our Web material should be obvious.
>
>Material from The ARRL Letter and ARRL/W1AW bulletins may, however, be
>redistributed freely, but ARRL or The ARRL Letter (as the case may be)
>MUST be listed as the source.
>
First let me apologize for not quoting the source of the article. My 
only excuse is that the source didn't include the ARRL in the original 
message and I felt everyone would know where it came from. BUT I will 
never do that again.. PROMISE!

>
>QSL on your comments. It's too bad the FCC didn't take additional steps
>and just shot down all the other proposals wholesale as well. The FCC's
>rationale that the amateur community already has said it wants the
>alleged three-tier license system now in place (it's not--it's a
>six-class system--Novice, Tech, Tech Plus, General, Advanced and Amateur
>Extra) is specious, in my opinion. 
>

    I think the FCC is looking at it that Novice is not a class in that 
it is only for those holding the license and will cease with attrition, 
as will Advanced. With the elimination of CW as a requirement the Tech + 
will also be eliminated. This will leave 3 classes for the future.

>
>That said, the automatic upgrading concept proposals remain
>controversial. A lot of older hams believe that it was so much harder to
>get a ticket in "the old days," but no one's proven--as the FCC itself
>has stated--that meeting the Morse requirement made anyone a superior
>operator or tended to separate the wheat from the chaff. I say this as a
>98% CW operator (mostly mobile) and as a veteran Amateur Radio licensee
>(47 years and counting) who jumped through the hoops of the day "the
>old-fashioned way," when we had to actually draw schematics for the test
>(typically of stuff that no one ever needed to know about ever again to
>be a good operator).
>
There is no doubt that getting a license in the past was harder. If we 
keep it that way, all the gray tigers can talk to themselves 'til the 
last key goes silent. Not being disrespectful, in fact I'm in awe of the 
great "Elmer's" in the Ham community. I was playing with P.C.'s in the 
very early 80's and with radio in the mid 50's. I've had a difficult 
time learning CW, and with all the venues of modern Amateur radio 
locking people to CW was denying a lot people access due to lack of 
interest in learning a code language most (outside of Amateur radio) 
consider archaic. I think a few have rethought that after recent news 
and TV reports.
    Most people don't take into account that new Tech's don't come in 
with a abundance of knowledge of radio. That they have a love or need is 
the driving force. Quite a few will probably memorize the answers to the 
Tech exam. People that take the time to learn the answers or read 
understand the total picture and pass the FCC exam are far above the 
"hey, Babe, get me a beer" sit in front of a TV, no license CB owner 
type. From there it's up to what they really want to do and shat the 
Amateur radio community teaches them.
    One of my biggest gripes with the licenses now is the Tech has to 
learn about all the bounce, HF, and all the rest higher class 
information without the chance of getting on the air in those areas. I 
am in favor of a system like the Canadian's and Japanese that allows 
some HF privileges but a QRP power mode. I've heard this in itself makes 
better operators in that you have to be able to perfect the 
radio/antenna tuning and all to get out.

>
>ARRL most certainly will announce the start of the "official" comment
>period for this proceeding, WT Docket 05-235, but I expect that a lot of
>the amateur community will simply ignore that and start posting comments
>immediately. That's how it went with the BPL proceedings. Typically, it
>takes about two weeks for these proceedings to make it into the Federal
>Register.
>
>Stay tuned to our Web site for further updates and information on this
>topic.
>
>73, Rick, N1RL 
>
>  
>