I would like to see the "statistics" as they relate to amateur radio you speak of. And you might want to forward them to the ARRL and FCC. I'm sure they would like to see them too.... Something has to be done or amateur radio will be just a memory. All this talk of the FCC allowing intrusion into the ham bands and how bad it is, and I'm talking of everything else, not the "Technicians". Here we have a chance to bring more voices to bear against when the FCC wants to allocate a portion of the ham bands for some special interest group and all im hearing is what negative "might" happen if Technicians get a small increase in privileges. You want more technicians to get their general and beyond, give them a taste of the HF bands and get them hooked !
I think we need to weigh the good and bad, follow the process and not jump to any conclusions just yet. On Feb 28, 2018 23:59, "Larry riendeau via BVARC" <[email protected]> wrote: > In terms of experience, I’m an old rookie and I’m all in for new > participants in amateur radio, but not at any cost. The modicum of > professionalism associated with being a ham is substantially due in part to > the incremental privileges derived by testing. This is in line with the > premise something worked for likely has greater value than that which is > simply given. Statistics have shown in almost every case where requirements > are ‘relaxed’ in hopes of increased interest, the results were dismal. Even > worse, those who showed initial interest were equally likely to lose > interest within a short period of time. > > Does anyone have details as to the number of current users seeking this > change, as well as how many potential users might pursue interest should > additional privileges be given? Brings to mind something once said in a > similar issue; always be careful what you ask for - you just might get it. > > 73s, > > Larry R > K5LER > > > > > On Feb 28, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Jeff Greer via BVARC <[email protected]> wrote: > > I passed Tech and General the same day by cramming on the Internet for the > exams. I don't have an HR radio yet, and have never worked HF. Not entirely > sure I will, though I will probably take the Extra just to do it... > > I still don't know Jack about ham radio, but I'm careful enough not to try > to step on too many toes. I think it'll likely be a good thing for the > hobby if it gets more ppl into it. I'm not sure many younger folks find it > as relevant as it once was... > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Travis Burgess via BVARC <[email protected]> > Date: 2/28/18 4:39 PM (GMT-06:00) > To: BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <[email protected]> > Cc: Travis Burgess <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [BVARC] [tdxs-list] Expanding Privileges to End Amateur Radio > > As a no code general, I must fall into that invader category too. > > > K5HTB > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* BVARC <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Noll via BVARC < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:17 PM > *To:* BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB > *Cc:* Paul Noll > *Subject:* Re: [BVARC] [tdxs-list] Expanding Privileges to End Amateur > Radio > > Wow, you sound like the technicians are invading "your" territory. You > also sound like you have a problem with those who got their start in the CB > bands over 30 years ago, like me. If the FCC makes this change then those > bands would no longer be just "general band" anymore. I'm just a > "TECHNICIAN" and have been for almost two years and can say that the > changes will not stop me from getting my general but will get me experience > in the bands before I leap off into the fray. I don't think it will cause > any more problems than all ready exists. Enforcement of current rules is > what is needed, not holding operators back because a few have no respect > for the rules.. If you want amateur radio to grow and not continue it's > decline among younger operators then more operators need to get with the > program and welcome changes that hopefully will do just that. It's not your > bands, it's our bands and I respectfully disagree with your statement. > > Paul > > On Feb 28, 2018 15:30, "gmuller885--- via BVARC" <[email protected]> wrote: > > To All > I concur with Gary. We can not control the Techs that have invaded the > General bad as it is. > > Gerald Muller *K9GEM* > > *[email protected] <[email protected]> * > In a message dated 2/28/2018 2:59:48 PM Central Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > I say no. The Technician class in an entry point. If you have General > class privileges on HF there is no intensive to continue learning about > Amateur Radio. The Technician class is already inundated with with poor > operators from the old Citizen Band radio service. Many of these operators > need to be policed into better operating procedures but there there does > not seem to be any recourse to do so. Allow these operators to flood over > into the General Class operating prividlges will spell the end to Amateur > Radio and doom our remaining bands to the same QRM as the old Citizen Band. > > ARRL Requests Expanded HF Privileges for Technician Licensees > <http://www.arrl.org/news/view/arrl-requests-expanded-hf-privileges-for-technician-licensees> > > ARRL Requests Expanded HF Privileges for Technician Licensees > The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the national association for > amateur radio, connecting hams around the... > > > > The above is solely my opinion and does not represent that of the Texas DX > Society or any of it's members. > > > Gary D. Antley > Possum Walk Texas > DE KI5LR > > *“It is better to have enemies than friends. At least you know they are > out to get you.” Gary David Antley* > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.tdxs.net/mailman/options/tdxs-list/gmuller885%40aol.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org > Message delivered to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org Message delivered to [email protected]
