One point to remember is that Techs (and Novices…) already have complete digital privileges on 10m at a power level of 200W. This proposal does not grant entirely new privileges (IE: HF digital), it just expands where Techs can utilize those privileges. There is a 25 page thread on this proposal on QRZ: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?445185-Proposed-Future-Technician-Data-.... Unfortunately, like many QRZ threads, the SNR is exceedingly low. The pro and con arguments in the thread are along the same lines as when I surveyed my Division on it. The pro’s see it as a way to entice new (and old) Techs to try HF digital modes, thereby expanding their participation in the hobby and knowledge/skills. The con’s see it as a giveaway of privileges that should be earned by taking the General exam. In my Division survey, the response was 2 to 1 in favor of it. Given the possibilities of relatively inexpensive QRP radios that can be used on digital modes, I believe this is an opportune time to try something new with amateur licensing. Ten meters is not enough of an incentive for the vast majority of Techs to have interest in buying an HF radio and putting up an antenna. I agree with Greg that a member comment period should be included. 73, Doug K4AC From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of G Widin Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:54 PM To: Kay Craigie Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23260] Re: EC study motions, again With regard to the Technician privileges proposal, in my opinion, it is fine for the EC to take up the proposal and evaluate its merits. However, I learned my lesson on RM-11708. Neither that proposal nor a proposal for new allocations for Techs is an urgent matter. Thus, we can afford to be deliberate about our actions in pursuing this proposal. We should not file anything with the FCC until we have had a chance to get member input on it. Though we cannot expect agreement on everything that might be proposed, we should encourage and accept comments from members, and genuinely be prepared to modify the proposal in the face of cogent arguments, or even to abandon the proposed filing if member sentiment is heavily against it. I have seen a few comments that note that the proposed change would give Techs privileges that the content of the current Element 2 does not prepare them for (frequency allocations and HF operating practice). I would encourage EC to deal with this, since a major feature of the proposal seems to be that Techs would be able to use the new allocation without any additional testing or training. However, regardless of the technical and regulatory sense (or not) of the proposal, I emphasize again that members ought to be asked for input before we take any formal action. 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> wrote: Since posting ODV:23143, I have received one message about the study motions now on the EC's agenda and the matter of BL 45. The EC will take into account the posts made on the ODV when the motions were first brought up. After the Minutes were published, I received one message from a member about the Technician privileges proposal, which I acknowledged and forwarded to the person's Director, who happens to be on the EC. That isn't a lot of input for the EC to work with. Again, I encourage you to post your comments and analyses of these items so the EC will have the benefit of your viewpoints. Thanks and 73 - Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv