[MIham] WEAVER'S WORDS - Post Board Meeting edition

[FSK]

From: ARRL Web site [mailto:memberlist@www.arrl.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 6:12 AM
To: n8jsn@n8jsn.org
Subject: WEAVER'S WORDS - Post Board Meeting edition


(Reply to k8je@arrl.org.)



ABOUT THE LICENSE RESTRUCTURE PLAN



Our overall goal was to develop a license restructuring proposal that
would promote Amateur Radio in the long term, not just for tomorrow.
Our sights were set on 15 years in the future.



As you know, every one of the 15 Directors voted at the Board meeting
last week to petition FCC to change the Amateur Radio rules.  I would
like to share some of the thinking that went on during the six months
that preceded the vote.



HOW WE GOT HERE



In July, the Board directed the Executive Committee to draft a proposal
to address the International Telecommunications Union treaty deletion
of
the 5 wpm Morse code proficiency requirement for Amateur Radio
licenses.
 The EC was also instructed to review the existing very muddy US
licensing structure.  The EC draft was circulated to the Directors and
Officers of the Board in October.  Comments and suggestions on it were
shared among Board members.



Thursday evening before the Board meeting President Haynie called the
Board together to discuss the draft and the rationale behind it.
During
2 ½ hours, several of us suggested modifications, most of which we
learned had been considered by the EC which dropped them for valid
reasons.  Some changes were made.   The next day the proposal was
formally reported to the Board.  After discussing it for about two
additional hours and after a couple of amendments had been proposed and
overwhelmingly defeated, the proposal was adopted by unanimous vote.



WHY WE DID A COUPLE OF THINGS



Morse Code --



As did many of you, I passed the 20 wpm (and lesser speed) code tests
only to have FCC later reduce the overall speed requirement to 5 wpm.
This displeased and angered many hams.  Change brings displeasure and
anger.  Years ago many of the Old Timers became very churned up over
FCC
forcing amateurs of the time to stop using spark gap and move to CW.
CW
is better than spark gap so why the anger?  It was a change.  Later,
many amateurs after WW-II cussed about the imminent demise of Amateur
Radio that was most assuredly brought on by FCC initiating the old
Novice license that required ONLY 5 wpm proficiency.



Novice License --



I came into this great avocation through the Novice license.  At the
time it was valid only for one year and was not renewable.  Later, FCC
changed the term to two years but it was still not renewable.  This
finally was changed 10 years and renewable.



We on the Board wanted to encourage FCC to return to a true entry-level
license that would appeal to youngsters of today.  Does Morse Code
offer
this appeal?  No.  Why not?  Young people of today already use walkie
talkie/video/cell phones daily to talk to and see each other nearly
anyplace in the world.  The Internet with its worldwide communications
is another reason code repels them from Amateur Radio.  Finally, does
anyone actually think the FCC is going to continue to demand code
proficiency in the future even as it does today?



We believe allowing HF/VHF voice and other privileges for Novices
brings
us at least to parity with modern cell phones and the Internet.  We
decided to request dropping the code requirement for Generals also
because of the need to compete with modern alternate communication and
the ITU's dropping of code.



Grandfathering --



If there was a viable alternate to grandfathering to help resolve the
license structure fiasco FCC has created, it would have passed.  We
couldn't find one.  A major goal of ours was to get the license
structure back to no more than three, distinctive classes.  As it
stands
at this moment, the license structure is abysmal -- there are three
functioning classes with a total of five classes on the books.



Think about it:  1) There is no true entry level license.   2) FCC
prohibits Advanced operators from using the Extra Class CW segments
even
though new Extras pass 5 wpm vs. the 13 wpm passed by Advanced.  3) We
have No Code Techs who have the same privileges as Tech Plus ops.



Finally, we have had people inside the FCC tell us (off the record, of
course) there is no meaningful differences between the written exams
taken by Tech, Tech Plus and General, and also between Advanced and
Extra.  In my opinion, this is insane.  How can this be resolved?



Another major goal we had was to take privileges away from NO ONE!  The
only way we could find to accomplish this last goal was to grandfather.
No one, whether they are happy with or unhappy with the resulting
proposal, has lost anything through the grandfathering proposal.  Is it
fair?  It is as fair as we could make out.  Were we totally thrilled
over the grandfathering?  No.



The Board's petition will be submitted to FCC within the next two
weeks.
 Provided the Commission sees merit in it, it will ultimately invite
comment from citizens -- pro or con.  Any of you are invited to comment
on it at such time.



Please let me know if you have further questions.  In the meantime, I
will continue answering individual question I've already received, but
have not yet had time to answer.  To you, thanks for getting in touch
with me.  This is the only way I can learn how you feel.



Please be sure to reply to:  k8je@arrl.org.



73,



Jim, K8JE



UNFORMATTED COPY --  Read this if you are among those who have this
problem.



>From our Internet gurus at Headquarters:





---------------------------------
| nothing sucks like electrolux |
---------------------------------

Checkout My Place on the Web @ http://www.qsl.net/n8uvi

       --... ...--  ..-. .-. .- -. -.-   -. ---.. ..- ...- ..

The person that doesn't do anything, Doesn't make mistakes!

Give me a firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth.

                                                    --Archimedes--

Hey, this is 'Experimental Physics' on a shoe-string: and no chewing gum!