Ron, as a former Federal employee (US Army, US Natl Park Service), I think I
can state you've put your finger on the FCC game plan. They don't like
surprises and are fairly certain we don't like surprises, so they're gonna ease
us into the notion that we're gonna have to learn to live without mandatory
code tests. It's not unlike going from a very hot bath into a very cold shower:
ya gotta do it a little bit at a time. I think the FCC is just giving us a
little temperature adjustment time between baths.
I'm not certain I completely agree with you on the numbers, however although
it's probably more of a discussion of statistics, semantics, and speculation. I
don't think we're gonna see any great upswing in ham numbers, at least to the
degree to congest HF ham bands on a consistent basis i.e., recruitment of new
hams. There never really has been a great influx of hams based on lightening of
license requirements; the interest just isn't there except among those who
would like a license without doing anything for it (vis a vis the old CB
license). I suspect a certain percentage of present no-code Techs will upgrade,
but I don't believe it's gonna be in massive numbers. Again, the interest and
motivation isn't there. Whether we like it or will admit it to ourselves, DXers
aren't exactly representative of a majority of hams (although pretty darned
influential and vocal) and there's a lot of Techs out there (and Generals and
Extras, albeit in increasingly smaller percentages) who have no interest in HF
DX whatsoever. If anything congests HF more than it already is will be a
renewed interest among those DXers who have "dropped out" for the duration of
the bottoming out of Cycle 23 as Cycle 24 picks up and makes it easier to work
DX. Just my 2 Flying Eagle cents. YMMV.
73 de Fred K2FRD, VO2FS
At 1:00 PM -0500 13/10/06, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>In reviewing comments made about the FCC changes, one thing that kept popping
>up was that the FCC allocated more (sometimes much more) space for voice
>operations than was initially asked for.
>
>For example, the original ARRL proposal was for an extra 25 kHz of phone on
>75. The original FCC NPRM was for the same. Many of the comments that I read
>(and I did not read all of them) indicated that of those in favor of this
>change, 25 kHz wasn't thought to be enough; most of those that I saw proposed
>50, 75, even 100 kHz more.
>
>No one expected a 150 kHz expansion of phone on 80!
>
>Why? Or to put it another way, what does the FCC staff know that we don't
>(yet)?
>
>My suspicion... and this is only idle speculation at this point based on an
>extrapolation of the data at hand... is that at some point in the next 6 to 18
>months, the other shoe is going to drop. Namely, the long awaited and
>anticipated (pro or con) removal of Element 1 as a requirement for HF access.
>(Whether for some or most or all license classes, I have no idea)
>
>So... logic dictates that if you no longer need Element 1 for HF access, you
>have little reason to not give SOME HF access to the current crop of VHF-only
>Technicians, who have passed the same theory as the Tech-Plus (aka Tech w/HF,
>etc., you know what I mean) licenses. And obviously, giving them CW only
>access when they officially don't know CW would be rather silly.
>
>Catch my drift?
>
>When they become effective sometime next month, enjoy the extra elbow room on
>75, 40, and 15, my friends, especially you Generals. I have a hunch that it
>won't be too long until those bands get very, very crowded! [Now, is that a
>good thing, or a bad thing? THAT is a different topic of speculation, my
>friends!]
>
>...or am I way off base here?
--
73 de Fred Stevens K2FRD, VO2FS
http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/K2FRD.html
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
http://njdxa.org
