Klystron wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
I still have prospective Hams tell me that they have to brush up on
their Morse code so they can test. Oddly enough a few fellows continued
in that line of even after I told them they didn't need to.


I've been saying that for months. If you take one step outside of
amateur radio circles, they know NOTHING about any changes to the
licensing system.


To a large extent, that is expected from those who aren't really
interested in amateur radio. The word will filter slowly to the general
public. I've been seeing a number of the ARRL "Hello" commercials
recently, which is a help. But it will still take a while

I am a little surprised about those who are interested and still don't
know.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:39?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

- Some hams haven't gotten the word

I still have prospective Hams tell me that they have to brush up on
their Morse code so they can test. Oddly enough a few fellows continued
in that line of even after I told them they didn't need to.

I just don't understand that at all.

The latest example for me was while getting a key made. THe fellow
brehind that counter saw my PAQSO Party T-shirt, ans asked if I was a
Ham. I told him yup, and we had a nice conversation about his wanting to
become a Ham. He showed me the Morse Program on his Palm Pilot that he
was using to study for the test. I told him that while he would still
want to study it, He didn't need to learn Morse for the test because
they didn't test for it any more.

Our talk moved on to other testing issues. I explained that our club
held test sessions at our monthly meetings, and suggested he come to one
and do the test. He said "Maybe in a few months, because I still am not
up to speed for the Morse code part of the test".......



For example, I have had more than one Advanced tell me
that s/he won't upgrade to Extra because the Advanced "proves" the
person passed a code test, while the Extra doesn't.
Same here! I suppose that if a person runs with a crowd that sees that
as somehow being better than other people it might be legit. Otherwise
it strikes me as really odd.

Which is a better indicator of Morse Code skill:

1) Once upon a time, maybe decades ago, a person passed a particular
test under certain conditions

or

2) A person demonstrating their *current* skills under real-world
operating conditions?

Seems to me #2 is the better indicator.

Absolutely. If a person knows how to "walk the walk" then they are
there. What test they took is close to irrelevant. IMO, the Testing
process is the beginning, not the destination.

Others have told
me that they're sure FCC will eventually give Advanceds a free upgrade
to Extra, so they're just waiting it out.

Even when I point out that FCC has repeatedly turned down auto-upgrade
proposals, they aren't convinced.

It's what I call positive thinking enhanced by not wanting to have to do
any work...

I'd tell them the same thing I told those who waited out element one's
demise: "If the wait doesn't bother you, then go ahead and wait." There
were people telling me to wait it out back in 1999 "because Element 1
will be going away any day now!" But I didn't wait, and I wouldn't trade
the extra 7 years I had my General and Extra for anything.

When I got my Extra in 1970, some folks said I was wasting my time and
effort because "incentive licensing won't last - in a few years
Generals will have all privileges again..."

Kinda another example of what I was talking about above. Even if they
were correct that the incentive licensing would go away, it's hard to
fault picking up knowledge.

At least one I know feels
insulted that it takes the same testing to go from General to Extra as
it does to go from Advanced to Extra.
Oh my! Does this person want a special test made up just for him?

Actually, yes - or rather, for all Advanceds.

Some of us might think that was a pretty hefty sense of entitlement!



Exactly what dud they see as insulting about having to take the same
test?

He was angry that having passed the old Advanced written did not carry
any testing credit towards Extra.

Wow. I guess that the only way to sate this fellow might be to throw
away a lot of the questions. Of course then he might be angry that he is
paying the same that a General pays to upgrade! He'd be paying more per
test question! ;^)


Sooner or later, the last of those closed-off licenses will disappear.
It may take a very long time, though - the number of Advanceds today
is about 67% of what it was when the license class was closed to new
issues.

While we have discussed lots of reasons for that decline, I know of
another possibility, at least for a delay. I know several Hams who
waited for the Element one to go away after it was eliminated from the
treaty yet not gone from our testing requirements. The long wait made
for an upgrade delay on some peoples part. I thought that the delay was
actually a harmful thing in that respect.

IOW: "if you're going to change the rules, change 'em! Don't take
3-1/2 years to make such a simple change!"

Absolutely. While I didn't win the poll that we had a long time ago in
another group, I wasn't all that far off. It should have only taken 6
months, a year tops. Even then, it could have been more like "this is
what is going to happen then, instead of being a minor mystery until the
end.


bunch of good stuff snipped

I think the amateur radio organizations that pushed for the changes
bear some responsibility for that delay.

What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

Jim, that is an excellent proposal. I think it might be a great way to
keep the league in (better?) touch with the Ham community. It would
certainly allow Hams to offer feedback and interactivity. It would be a
semi-direct conduit, coordinated by the organization(s).

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

I've been seeing a number of the ARRL "Hello" commercials recently,

Where have these been playing? (I don't watch much TV.)

73, Steve KB9X

wrote:

What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

I suspect that that's what the ARRL thinks they're doing now.

The problem is that on any issue that's controversial, step 6 is going
to be tough, if not impossible. Think of how hard it is to get a
"compelling majority of support from the amateur community" on the issue
of what the code requirements should be for the various classes of license.

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

Contentious issues tend to split the amateur radio community into
segments that are unlikely to agree on any single proposal. No matter
what you end up with, there is going to be a significant fraction of the
fraternity that will file negative comments.

For example, I have to wonder whether the regulation by bandwidth
proposal died because the ARRL didn't work hard enough for consensus, or
because the amateur radio community is simply opposed to any regulation
by bandwidth proposal. I honestly don't know; perhaps if ARRL had
worked harder for consensus, there would have been less negative
comments filed.

Then there are the comments from the NON-ham-radio community. BPL, for
example . . . there are plenty of segments that will file comments
against whatever the ARRL might come up with. There's nothing that they
can do about that.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

And without the compromise, the work, time, and effort go for naught. I
have not observed that hams, in general, are eager to compromise.

73, Steve KB9X

Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:

What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

I suspect that that's what the ARRL thinks they're doing now.

The problem is that on any issue that's controversial, step 6 is going
to be tough, if not impossible. Think of how hard it is to get a
"compelling majority of support from the amateur community" on the issue
of what the code requirements should be for the various classes of license.

Certainly correct, Steve. I think what we need to eventually get into
is that sometimes decisions need to be made, and if we can make them as
democratically as possible, then we have done the best we can. There is
a subculture within amateur radio that sees every change as a life
threatening problem.

I think that the regulation by bandwidth's death was a hint of how the
process could work.

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

Contentious issues tend to split the amateur radio community into
segments that are unlikely to agree on any single proposal. No matter
what you end up with, there is going to be a significant fraction of the
fraternity that will file negative comments.

You're right, and I sometimes wonder about that. We still have people
complaining about age-old grievances. It would be great to evolve the
service from members carrying lifetime grudges to one in which they
accept what happens and if they don't like it, work to change it - but
give up old battles which mean nothing any more. Kind of like those Hams
that Jim was speaking of who wouldn't test because of wanting to prove
they took a "harder test" than someone like me. Or not upgrading because
of taking the same written that I did when I went from General to Extra.


For example, I have to wonder whether the regulation by bandwidth
proposal died because the ARRL didn't work hard enough for consensus, or
because the amateur radio community is simply opposed to any regulation
by bandwidth proposal. I honestly don't know; perhaps if ARRL had
worked harder for consensus, there would have been less negative
comments filed.

I suspect that there was a lot of opposition to the proposal. I know
most of what I heard or read about was ramifications of what would
happen if it were to be accepted.


Then there are the comments from the NON-ham-radio community. BPL, for
example . . . there are plenty of segments that will file comments
against whatever the ARRL might come up with. There's nothing that they
can do about that.

BPL unfortunately is another nasty kettle of fish. As something that
happens both outside and inside of amateur radio, it will get commentary
from both ham radio and outside users.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

And without the compromise, the work, time, and effort go for naught. I
have not observed that hams, in general, are eager to compromise.

You are correct in that. I think that maybe the tide might be turning
in that respect - at least I hope so. In any political atmosphere - and
for better or worse, we are stuck in one - when no one compromises, it
is a great failure mode. If not right away, all we have to do is wait.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Steve Bonine wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

I've been seeing a number of the ARRL "Hello" commercials recently,

Where have these been playing? (I don't watch much TV.)


I've seen them on Discovery and the History Channels. That was probably
pretty well targeted demographic-wise. They had a basic "Hello"
commercial, in which a number of people repeated the theme, and they
had one about emergency communications. Both were well done commercials.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

About what time of day and are they still running?

Dee, N8UZE


"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Steve Bonine wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

I've been seeing a number of the ARRL "Hello" commercials recently,

Where have these been playing? (I don't watch much TV.)


I've seen them on Discovery and the History Channels. That was probably
pretty well targeted demographic-wise. They had a basic "Hello"
commercial, in which a number of people repeated the theme, and they had
one about emergency communications. Both were well done commercials.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jul 30, 12:25?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:39?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
I told him that while he would still
want to study it, He didn't need to learn Morse for the test because
they didn't test for it any more.

He said "Maybe in a few months, because I still am not
up to speed for the Morse code part of the test".......

I'd guess that he simply didn't understand you.

Remember that we have had no-code-test ham licenses in the USA for 16
years now. But we've only hand no-code-test ham licenses in the USA
for five months!

Which is a better indicator of Morse Code skill:

1) Once upon a time, maybe decades ago, a person passed a particular
test under certain conditions

or

2) A person demonstrating their *current* skills under real-world
operating conditions?

Seems to me #2 is the better indicator.

Absolutely. If a person knows how to "walk the walk" then they are
there. What test they took is close to irrelevant.

Actually I would say it was relevant the other way - if a person
passed a test once upon a time, but couldn't pass it today. I am
particularly concerned when I read or hear hams say they could not
pass the current exams for the licenses they hold!

IMO, the Testing
process is the beginning, not the destination.

I disagree. It's not a destination, it's a journey.

When I got my Extra in 1970, some folks said I was wasting my time and
effort because "incentive licensing won't last - in a few years
Generals will have all privileges again..."

Kinda another example of what I was talking about above. Even if they
were correct that the incentive licensing would go away, it's hard to
fault picking up knowledge.

Sort of. If you don't have an HDTV, but want one, and you thought the
price would drop significantly in the near future, you'd probably wait
a bit.

However, it's been 37 years since I was told that incentive licensing
would go away soon....

Actually, yes - or rather, for all Advanceds.

Some of us might think that was a pretty hefty sense of entitlement!

Exactly what dud they see as insulting about having to take the same
test?

He was angry that having passed the old Advanced written did not carry
any testing credit towards Extra.

Wow. I guess that the only way to sate this fellow might be to throw
away a lot of the questions. Of course then he might be angry that he is
paying the same that a General pays to upgrade! He'd be paying more per
test question! ;^)

I think the only thing that would have made him happy would have been
to either auto-upgrade all Advanceds to Extra with no test, or to keep
alive the old Element 4B just so Advanceds could take it instead of
Element 4.

IOW: "if you're going to change the rules, change 'em! Don't take
3-1/2 years to make such a simple change!"

Absolutely. While I didn't win the poll that we had a long time ago in
another group, I wasn't all that far off. It should have only taken 6
months, a year tops. Even then, it could have been more like "this is
what is going to happen then, instead of being a minor mystery until the
end.

I remember when the treaty changed in 2003, and the ARRL story on it
said the process would take two years. I thought that was wildy
exaggerated. Turns out it was short by over a year.

What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

Jim, that is an excellent proposal. I think it might be a great way to
keep the league in (better?) touch with the Ham community.

It's not just ARRL that I'm referring to - it's anyone writing a
proposal.

It would
certainly allow Hams to offer feedback and interactivity. It would be a
semi-direct conduit, coordinated by the organization(s).

It's also a lot of boring work!

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jul 30, 2:23?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

I suspect that that's what the ARRL thinks they're doing now.

With all due respect, it may be what they think they are doing, but
it's not what they *are* doing.

For example, was the original "Regulation By Bandwidth" proposal shown
in QST and on the website where it could be seen by all? I don't
recall that - instead, I recall it being described, but not the whole
text given out.

Was there a questionaire of all ARRL members about the proposal
*before* it was sent to FCC?

Were the results of such research published, and the proposal modified
because of it?

The problem is that on any issue that's controversial, step 6 is going
to be tough, if not impossible. Think of how hard it is to get a
"compelling majority of support from the amateur community" on the issue
of what the code requirements should be for the various classes of license.

I think the biggest part of that difficulty is lack of clear
communications.

Imagine if there had been a detailed survey of all ARRL members, or
all US hams, on that very subject back in 2003 or so.

Imagine if the results of such a survey were made public, so that
everyone could see that X percent of US hams support Y amount of code-
testing for license class Z

Imagine if a proposal were crafted to follow that information, and the
information presented to FCC along with the proposal.

And imagine if there were creative options proposed on divisive
issues. For example, look at how Canada solved the Morse code test
issue. Why wasn't something like that proposed by ARRL? (I put it in
my comments, btw).

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

Contentious issues tend to split the amateur radio community into
segments that are unlikely to agree on any single proposal. No matter
what you end up with, there is going to be a significant fraction of the
fraternity that will file negative comments.

Of course. But having a significant fraction opposed is a lot better
than having a *majority* opposed!

For example, I have to wonder whether the regulation by bandwidth
proposal died because the ARRL didn't work hard enough for consensus, or
because the amateur radio community is simply opposed to any regulation
by bandwidth proposal. I honestly don't know; perhaps if ARRL had
worked harder for consensus, there would have been less negative
comments filed.

I think it's a combination of factors.

First off, the "RBB" proposal would have allowed data modes in the
'phone subbands. A lot of hams didn't like that, even though RBB also
widened those subbands.

What really ticked off a lot of folks was that RBB would have changed
the rules on "robot" data stations.

The kicker, IMHO, was that ARRL did not do the hard work to get the
support *before* submitting the proposal. All that did was galvanize
the opposition to action.

And it's not just an ARRL problem. Look at the "Communications Think
Tank" proposal, and how much opposition it generated! Made RBB look
popular by comparison.

Then there are the comments from the NON-ham-radio community. BPL, for
example . . . there are plenty of segments that will file comments
against whatever the ARRL might come up with. There's nothing that they
can do about that.

No, there isn't. But if you look at the various Part 97 RM and NPRM
comments that have come down the pipe in the past decade or two, the
vast majority are from already-licensed hams. It's really a rare event
when a nonham sends in comments.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

And without the compromise, the work, time, and effort go for naught. I
have not observed that hams, in general, are eager to compromise.

Well, we'll have to disagree about that. What I've seen is that people
in general and hams in particular are willing to compromise *if* what
is proposed is a true compromise - which means you give some and you
get some.

For example, consider again the RBB proposal. It offered the HF 'phone
op slightly wider subbands - and the possibility of having to deal
with wide data signals from robots all over those subbands! Not a good
compromise.

Or consider the CW op. RBB offered *narrower* subbands and the
possibility of robot QRM all over those narrower subbands! (Yes, I
know CW can legally be used anywhere, but how much actual real CW
operation goes on in the 'phone subbands?)

The end result was a coalition of "NO!"

Now suppose RBB had included things like a slice of CW-only space for
the CW ops, a slice of no-data space for the 'phone ops, and a slice
of "all modes" space for everybody. The result might have been very
different.

The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they
don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting
them to FCC.

Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part
97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that
does is annoy FCC, IMHO.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:07:19 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

I've been seeing a number of the ARRL "Hello" commercials recently,

Where have these been playing? (I don't watch much TV.)

I've seen them on Discovery and the History Channels. That was probably
pretty well targeted demographic-wise. They had a basic "Hello"
commercial, in which a number of people repeated the theme, and they
had one about emergency communications. Both were well done commercials.

The only "Hello" commercials that I have seen have been for Target
Stores, and were also very well done.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net