[arrl-odv:27117] Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal
Chris, I agree with you 100%. The Petition was very well written and explains all the diligent work of the Entry License Committee. For those who read everything and understand our motives, Bravo! Unfortunately, many people are “Headline Readers”. They read the first few lines of a story, and make their impressions from those first two lines. They are already angry, which no doubt decreases comprehension should they actually go on to read the remainder of the article. After they have written me a nasty e-mail, the “horse is out of the barn”. I can ask them to read the petition, but of those few that will actually do so, perhaps a handful of them will change their opinion. So, I feel really good about what we have done and can certainly defend it, but now it’s after the fact. We are dealing with perception, which to many becomes their reality. Thanks to those setting up the FAQ and to Barry and staff for choosing this for his editorial. To Chris and the Entry License Committee for their hard work also! ’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™ From: Christopher Imlay [mailto:w3kd.arrl@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:13 AM To: James F. Boehner, MD Cc: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27108] 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
To anyone who thinks we can rely on people to read the proposal, I invite you to take a look at this Ham Radio Now segment, which discussed the ELL proposal: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g_l11r7MhlE&feature=youtu.be I gave up after watching about 1/2-hour of this program. Apparently, none of the 4 people commenting on the proposal had actually read it. Thus, articles that appear on ARRL.org News and Features must be self-contained. If there is important context, it needs to be stated in the first or possibly second paragraph. Many people don't read "below the fold" on their screens, so it needs to be right up front. In the age of the "sound bite," people's attention spans are short. If there are important background details, they must at least be alluded to in the introductory paragraph(s), otherwise, only a very small number of readers will ever see and understand the background. FWIW, Greg, K0GW On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:49 PM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Chris,
I agree with you 100%. The Petition was very well written and explains all the diligent work of the Entry License Committee. For those who read everything and understand our motives, Bravo!
Unfortunately, many people are “Headline Readers”. They read the first few lines of a story, and make their impressions from those first two lines. They are already angry, which no doubt decreases comprehension should they actually go on to read the remainder of the article. After they have written me a nasty e-mail, the “horse is out of the barn”. I can ask them to read the petition, but of those few that will actually do so, perhaps a handful of them will change their opinion.
So, I feel really good about what we have done and can certainly defend it, but now it’s after the fact. We are dealing with perception, which to many becomes their reality.
Thanks to those setting up the FAQ and to Barry and staff for choosing this for his editorial. To Chris and the Entry License Committee for their hard work also!
’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™*
*From:* Christopher Imlay [mailto:w3kd.arrl@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:13 AM *To:* James F. Boehner, MD *Cc:* arrl-odv *Subject:* Re: [arrl-odv:27108] 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-licensees
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
participants (2)
-
G Widin -
James F. Boehner, MD