New Amateur Radio License & License Upgrade Applications - No End In Sight

[Pete, WA2CWA]

ARRL says there are an avalanche of new amateur radio license and license upgrade applications since the new rules have gone into effect.

For the complete story, go here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/28/101/?nc=1

[k4kyv]

"We've been seeing some of the largest brand-new Technician sessions ever," Somma said. "These examination sessions are huge, and a ton of new Technician license applications has been coming in -- sometimes 60 or 70 at a clip." Somma says license upgrade traffic also has been brisk, and, with some 650 examination sessions already on the calendar for March and more arriving daily, it doesn't look like the pace will slacken anytime soon.

If a big part of the avalanche is for Technician, is this for 10m slopbucket privileges on 28.3-28.5, or for cw privileges on the lower bands?  You could already get a Tech  licence without a code test long before anything changed.  What's the difference between a Tech exam and a General, now that code has been eliminated?

I still haven't heard any significant increase in slopbucket activity on 160-80-40 since the new exams went into effect.  Maybe the new licensees are all busy now fighting their homeowners associations for the right to put up HF antennas on their property.

[K1MVP]

Just mail in the cereal boxtop, for a "freebie" and there will be a
"ton" of response.
Just what the ARRL was hoping for,--more "hams" equals more $$$$,
The "new" HR service is "on its way" for the twenty first century.
  
                                   73, K1MVP

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"We've been seeing some of the largest brand-new Technician sessions ever," Somma said. "These examination sessions are huge, and a ton of new Technician license applications has been coming in -- sometimes 60 or 70 at a clip." Somma says license upgrade traffic also has been brisk, and, with some 650 examination sessions already on the calendar for March and more arriving daily, it doesn't look like the pace will slacken anytime soon.

If a big part of the avalanche is for Technician, is this for 10m slopbucket privileges on 28.3-28.5, or for cw privileges on the lower bands?  You could already get a Tech  licence without a code test long before anything changed.  What's the difference between a Tech exam and a General, now that code has been eliminated?

I still haven't heard any significant increase in slopbucket activity on 160-80-40 since the new exams went into effect.  Maybe the new licensees are all busy now fighting their homeowners associations for the right to put up HF antennas on their property.

Under the old rules:
Tech Plus already had 10 meter privileges from 28.3 to 28.5.
Novice and Tech Plus also had CW privileges from 28.1 to 28.3, 21.1 to 21.2, 7.1 to 7.15, and 3.675 to 3.725.

Technician Class only had VHF/UHF privileges.

In 2000:
Restructuring began April 15, 2000
No new Advanced, Tech Plus, or Novice Licenses issued by the FCC
Technician Plus renewals assigned Technician licenses

However, I believe Technician Plus people who renewed after this time (and became Technician Class) still were able to retain their original Technician Plus privileges.

So now, under the new rules, all Technician Class (Technician Class original license holders) get 10 meter phone and 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter CW privileges.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Just mail in the cereal boxtop, for a "freebie" and there will be a
"ton" of response.
Just what the ARRL was hoping for,--more "hams" equals more $$$$,
The "new" HR service is "on its way" for the twenty first century.
   
                                   73, K1MVP

Amateur Radio gets a great "shot in the arm".
ARRL looks to increase membership.
Manufacturers get to build more products.
Dealers get to sell more products.
Contesters make more points.
Seasoned hams, stuck in a time warp, have something to P&M about.



Everybody gains; what's not to like. 21st century is looking brighter every day.

[K1MVP]

Ok Pete,
"Everybody wins"--with the elimination of cw and watering down of the exam requirements,--heck, why not eliminate the written exam and we could bring in even more terms of pure numbers.                                             

P.S,. I noticed at the bottom of your post you have the logo, "where quality is #1"--I would think
       you would you would have for your logo, "where QUANTITY is # 1"

                                                73, K1MVP
         

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Ok Pete,
"Everybody wins"--with the elimination of cw and watering down of the exam requirements,--heck, why not eliminate the written exam and we could bring in even more terms of pure numbers. 

Absolutely – New amateurs who have the interest and the keen desire to learn will hang in there for the long haul; those that don’t will be gone almost as quickly as they came.                                           

P.S,. I noticed at the bottom of your post you have the logo, "where quality is #1"--I would think
       you would you would have for your logo, "where QUANTITY is # 1"

                                                73, K1MVP

There is no "where" in my signature pitch.
In my arena of day to day activities, "quality" is far more important than "quantity".

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The number one use for automobiles is just basic transportation, then why are there so many different types out there!? 

Cause they come in different colors, sizes, and a wide assortment of accessory ding-dings.

[K1MVP]

The number one use for automobiles is just basic transportation, then why are there so many different types out there!? 

Cause they come in different colors, sizes, and a wide assortment of accessory ding-dings.

Hmmm,--sounds like the new "riceboxes" of today, lots of accessory "ding dongs".
                                                   K1MVP

[k4kyv]

The whole thing may be a moot point anyway, Hillary may decide to auction off all the assigned amateur frequencies!!!     

I doubt that they would get many bids for the HF spectrum.  But our VHF/UHF/microwave spectrum is very valuable and therefore vulnerable to this very thing.

That spectrum auction business is nothing more than a hidden federal tax on everyone.  The corporations that win spectrum auctions have usually bid thousands of millions of $$$ for radio spectrum that they think they have some use for.  As you and I know very well,they don't just absorb this cost; they pass it along to their customers.  You and I may not pay them directly to cover their added operating expense, but it is added to the overall cost of doing business for any enterprise which requires communications and products tied to the communications infrastructure.  This includes the added cost of advertising via electronic media as well as telecommunications services. So these billions of $$$ that go into the federal treasury from spectrum auctions eventually trickle down in the form of cost increases for all goods and services.

Neither the FCC nor the federal government "owns" this spectrum that they are auctioning off; the people own the spectrum.  The government, though the FCC, merely administers and regulates our equitable use of the spectrum through licensing and enforcement procedures, as prescribed by congress under the Communications Act.  So the money that the government receives for radio spectrum rightfully cannot exceed the government's cost of licensing and enforcement.  The enormous sums that the feds are raking in from spectrum auctions is a rip-off.  How can it defined as anything other than a hidden federal tax imposed on everyone living in the country?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I can hardly wait for my 50 MHz cell phone. The Army was the test bed for the new design.

[K1MVP]

Is there really a logical reason for any of the 'tests of old' to be used by the FCC for licensing now!? Why ask an applicant to draw a tetrode/pentode class c push-pull amplifier today!? Should an applicant be required to draw modern component circuits today!? The reason the license exams only cover the basics of RF theory, propagation, operating practices & standards, rules & regs. and safety is that is all that can practically required today.
   

If , as you mentioned many of these new hams will be interested in vintage equipment,--it might be
appropiate for them to know some "tube basics", i.e the difference between a triode and a pentode.
As far the present "new" exams,--why is it many do not even know ohms law, or how to apply it?--to
say nothing of LCR reactive circuits where it it IS still applicable even with the "new technogy",
antenna theory etc, etc.

Might it not have something to do with the fact that the question pools serve to just teach the answers
rather than really test an applicants understanding of basic electronics?
As I mentioned before,--the UK after eliminating CW, "beefed up" the written exam,--they did not
keep the "status quo" or water down it even more.

                                                   73, K1MVP
 

[w3jn]

So.... how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway 

[KB2WIG]

 "So.... how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway  "

Well, it depends on the dementias  of the pin seter.....   klc

[Pete, WA2CWA]

So.... how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway 

This might help you out:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

OR

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[WD8BIL]

P.S,. I noticed at the bottom of your post you have the logo, "where quality is #1"

Show me the evidence that proves CW=quality.

[K1MVP]

P.S,. I noticed at the bottom of your post you have the logo, "where quality is #1"

Show me the evidence that proves CW=quality.

Maybe not,--but show me the evidence that teaching the answers in a question pool aka as
the Dick Bash method produces quality.--quantity,yes, quality???
                                                   
As I have mentioned before,--I would have preferred they had kept 5 wpm at least for the
"extra",--but upon elimination of it completely,--the next logical thing might have been to "revamp"
the written exams to reflect an applicant understanding of the "basics", --just my opinion.

As far as cw making a "better operator",--there are some who may be "questionable", but in
general most are OK IMO, but there are just as many if not more on phone who can be "jerks"--
just listen on 75 or 20 meters.
                                                    73, K1MVP
 

       
                                           

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

As far as cw making a "better operator",--there are some who may be "questionable", but in
general most are OK IMO, but there are just as many if not more on phone who can be "jerks"--
just listen on 75 or 20 meters.

Those jerks you are hearing passed the code test. You just killed your own argument.

[WD8BIL]

but show me the evidence that teaching the answers in a question pool aka as
the Dick Bash method produces quality.--quantity,yes, quality???

You'll get know argument there. I have ALWAYS held the position of no cw testing and tougher written tests.

In fact you can search my posts and you'll find something to the effect of:

"AND for God's sakes get the answers off the web !"

[The Slab Bacon]

So.... how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway 

Hmmm....................................

"one pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, and the ones that mother gave you dont do anything at all! Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall"......................................

[K1MVP]

but show me the evidence that teaching the answers in a question pool aka as
the Dick Bash method produces quality.--quantity,yes, quality???

You'll get know argument there. I have ALWAYS held the position of no cw testing and tougher written tests.

In fact you can search my posts and you'll find something to the effect of:

"AND for God's sakes get the answers off the web !"

Wow,--we do agree on this testing issue,--I have found that many,(including OT`s) seem to
believe that publishing the answers verbatim,--is "irrelavant",--that to me is "unbelievble".
I understand that the ARRL and others might try to justify that argument in order to "up the numbers"
for obvious reasons,(more $$$ etc) but for so many others to buy into that does not make any sense
whatsoever.
                                              73, K1MVP

P.S, as far as cw,--I do believe it can be made optional,--but what I do not understand is the
      "cw hate" out there,--If one likes vintage equipment and AM,--I happen to like CW AND AM
      and consider BOTH as part of the proud history and heritage of ham radio.     

[Pete, WA2CWA]

                                              73, K1MVP

P.S, as far as cw,--I do believe it can be made optional,--but what I do not understand is the
      "cw hate" out there,--If one likes vintage equipment and AM,--I happen to like CW AND AM
      and consider BOTH as part of the proud history and heritage of ham radio.     

Believe what you want, the code testing door is closed.
Those that like to operate CW, or want to learn to operate CW, can continue to do so. Making it part of the just killed testing requirements was, in my opinion, a silly attempt at nothing.

We can continue to go round and round but the FCC has closed the code testing door. (done, over, kiss it good-bye, etc., etc.)

Harder tests don't make a better amateur, but experience and common sense works wonders.

[Joe Long]

So why dont we just have a test on common sense and experience? I dont know why we even have a test at all. New hams only have to have the ability to read an HRO or MFJ catalog.

[K1MVP]

"harder tests do not make a better amateur,--experience and common sense work wonders"


 
Gee,--Pete, I could just see telling my instructor(in the military) that-- if I had flunked an exam in
tech school.
My experience has been that those guys who really understood the "basics"
in the classroom and THEN obtained the experience in the field were the "best techs".

Also,--If I told my instructor that the tests were "too hard",--back then--I could just
imagine what he would have told me.
Probably something to the effect,--"ya can always apply to be a cook,-- lots of openings" .
  
                                           73, K1MVP

[Ed KB1HVS]

 I know a few cooks (chefs) who make a pretty good living