Thanks, Chris. I've heard several reports that some members were surprised by the announcement, yet when reminded that we have written about it previously and received over 8000 comments then most seem to recall at least a little something about "that project." When I've given talks about it to groups, I mention rather quickly that it's not a dumbing down and we have no plans to suggest the test be weakened. In fact, we need to beef it up to address the new enhancements. 73 Rick - K5UR ... -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> To: James F. Boehner, MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2018 10:12 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27111] Re: Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal Jim, we are working on an FAQ on this for Barry's next editorial and for other purposes. I would note however that while the news story didn't elaborate on the extensive polling and planning for this (which would have necessitated an awfully long news story), the Petition itself did. in great detail. It shouldn't be too much to task the naysayers to read the Petition itself, which notes, among other things, the 8,000 responses to two surveys done by the ELL Committee. "Dumbing down" is a complete mischaracterization of the petition which proposes ONLY to add certain relevant operating privileges to the Tech license, not to change the qualification requirements for the license. The mischaracterization is a complete non-sequitur. But if you don't read the petition you can't understand the proposal at all. 73, Chris W3KD On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:40 AM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: In regards to the news story on the above topic: http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-requests-expanded-hf-privileges-for-technician... I have recently received numerous “angry” e-mails from members who are against Technicians getting expanded privileges, perhaps thinking that this is a further “dumbing down” of amateur radio. The fact is, the news story did not immediately indicate the processes of the Entry Level License Committee. The intent was to create an entry level license that would attract young, technically minded youth into amateur radio, similar to the foundation license in the UK and Australia. The initial emphasis should have indicated that if we do not attract youth in our hobby, the service will die out as we do, and there would be no legacy to be left. Then, the practicality of the entry level license should have been discussed, that the FCC dropped us down to 3 license classes, and it would be unlikely that they would ever create another license class. Therefore, the current Technician license was chosen to be the vehicle of the Entry License. To that end, we needed privileges that would give newcomers a true “taste” of amateur radio, which required additional HF privileges, and modification of the exam. All of this, including the extensive surveys were discussed later in the article, but I doubt many read anything after the first paragraph. I would request that we have a follow-up article that describes the processes and original intent of the Entry License Committee, in order to diffuse some of these very negative impressions. On a positive side, I hear CQ actually agrees with us on this issue. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Representing ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv