>From 5 Land..
> On the license restructuring issue, please allow me to cut
> and paste a reply
> I sent someone the other day which will give you some
> background and my
> views.
>
> Also, please visit the ARRL FAQ web page below for more info:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/faq.html
>
>
> 73,
> K5UR
> _________________
>
> <<<License restructuring has been evolving for several years.
> Recall back in
> 1999 when the FCC wanted to revamp the license structure?
> Remember how we
> all
> feared they were going to throw code away entirely? That was
> Restructuring
> I.
> The FCC made major changes and cut the code back and cut the
> licenses from
> six
> to three. The ARRL fought it. The ARRL proposed an
> alternative to the FCC
> and
> the FCC rejected it and cut further. Since that time, the FCC
> has continued
> to want to streamline the license structure, clean up its ULS computer
> system,
> and essentially, I think, make the amateur radio service less
> of a burden to
> them administratively. The FCC, not the ARRL, is driving
> these changes in my
> view.
>
> Now comes Restructuring II. As a result of the changes in Article 25
> (deletion of the code requirement) at the conclusion of WRC03
> in July 2003,
> the ARRL
> Board passed a motion and directed at Minute 60 of the 2003
> Second Meeting
> that
> the Chief Executive Officer, General Counsel, and the
> Executive Committee
> prepare a report to the Board at the 2004 Annual Meeting
> addressing policy
> recommendations as a result of the changes. This is in the
> Board minutes,
> which are
> public. That group developed a report and proposal as
> directed. The report
> and
> proposal was then presented by Vice President Harrison, W5ZN,
> at the recent
> Board meeting in accordance with that directive. The Board weighed the
> considerations of that report and proposal, and subsequently passed a
> motion.
>
> After Article 25 was changed, individuals and organizations started
> petitioning the FCC to delete the code requirement in the
> U.S. and to change
> the
> license structure, like numerous other nations either had
> done already or
> were in
> the process of doing. If I recall correctly, the FCC now has 14 other
> petitions
> pending from people and organizations to change the license
> structure. Much
> has been written about them the last six months. I would
> encourage hams to
> read
> them and just see what some of the drastic changes are that have been
> proposed, and then read the ARRL proposal.
>
> I am hoping that the ARRL proposal will be viewed by the FCC
> as a viable
> alternative and not cut even further. We certainly don't want
> to leave it
> for the
> FCC to draft their own, for no telling what they would come
> up with. I'd
> rather have ours on the table for them to consider instead of
> one of the
> others.
> With the ARRL proposal, it provides for a no code entry level
> HF license,
> which
> the FCC wants, but it keeps code on the extra. In fact, maybe with our
> proposal we've at least saved the code on the extra. The FCC
> may very well
> not accept
> our proposal at all and elect instead to go with one of the
> other petitions
> or a version of their own, but, like I said, I feel better
> knowing we have
> something on the table.
>
> I believe the FCC is going to ram a no code entry level HF
> license down our
> throat regardless. Do I like it? No. I'm probably one of the most
> traditional
> hams you would ever meet. Consequently, the evolution of
> change in our hobby
> has been gut wrenching for me. If you have ever heard one of
> my talks at the
> many hamfests and clubs that I've attended over the years,
> you would know
> that.
> In fact, I talked specifically about this license
> restructuring and what I
> feared would happen at the Jackson Hamfest last year. Yes,
> change is coming.
> It's
> already here.
>
> What I have heard from across our Division from letters and
> from talking to
> people in my traveling around, is that many hams remember
> Restructuring I
> and
> anticipated we would again be where we are today looking at
> further changes,
> in
> particular with regard to the creation of a no code entry
> level HF license
> since the novice went away in Resturcturing I, and with the
> petition to
> refarm
> novice frequencies, which we filed a couple of years ago,
> still pending
> before
> the FCC. They were concerned, however, about keeping the code
> requirement
> somewhere in the license structure. Many told me that they
> would like the
> code
> retained on the general and for sure would like it kept on the extra.
>
> My positon on licensing and my desire to retain the code has been well
> stated
> for years, even going back to the 1999 Restructuring I where
> I fought to
> retain the code requirement. While I supported this recent
> ARRL proposal, I
> opposed the deletion of code on the general and did not favor the
> grandfathering of
> techs to general that had not passed element 1. In fact, I proposed an
> amendment to keep the code on the general class, and proposed
> that techs who
> have not
> passed element 1 to become novice instead of general. My
> amendment was voted
> down as you will see in the minutes when they are published.
>
> You asked about a statistic that you'd heard recently about
> the age of hams.
> Yes, 56% of the hams are now 55 or over. That reminds me of a
> chart I made
> showing the age of hams that I carried around with me years
> ago when I was
> giving
> talks. It showed there was a huge drop off in numbers of hams
> after us older
> hams. I mean, when our group dies, there's not many people
> coming up behind
> us
> in ham radio.
>
> 73,
> Rick - K5UR
> >>>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
>
|