[arrl-odv:27108] Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal
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 RadioT
I also have received complaining e-mails and have spent a few hours responding to them and defending our position. We do need to take immediate action as Jim suggests. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 3/7/2018 10:40 AM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv 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
Please forgive me answering this to the whole list. We are already working on this. I understand this will be the editorial in the next QST. Also we are working on an FAQ highlight these very points, which should be available next week. Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL - the national association for Amateur Radio Phone: 860-594-0236 ________________________________________ From: arrl-odv [arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] on behalf of Williams, Dale, WA8EFK Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:04 AM To: arrl-odv; Boehner, James, N2ZZ Subject: [arrl-odv:27109] Re: Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal I also have received complaining e-mails and have spent a few hours responding to them and defending our position. We do need to take immediate action as Jim suggests. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 3/7/2018 10:40 AM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv 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<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Also we are working on an FAQ highlight these very points, which should be available next week. Thanks, Dan. 73 Rick - K5UR ... -----Original Message----- From: Henderson, Dan N1ND <dhenderson@arrl.org> To: Williams, Dale, WA8EFK, WA8EFK <dale.wms1@frontier.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Boehner, James, N2ZZ, N2ZZ <jboehner01@yahoo.com> Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2018 10:11 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27110] Re: Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal Please forgive me answering this to the whole list. We are already working on this. I understand this will be the editorial in the next QST. Also we are working on an FAQ highlight these very points, which should be available next week. Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL - the national association for Amateur Radio Phone: 860-594-0236 ________________________________________ From: arrl-odv [arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] on behalf of Williams, Dale, WA8EFK Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:04 AM To: arrl-odv; Boehner, James, N2ZZ Subject: [arrl-odv:27109] Re: Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal I also have received complaining e-mails and have spent a few hours responding to them and defending our position. We do need to take immediate action as Jim suggests. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 3/7/2018 10:40 AM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv 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<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
All, I’ll add my voice to the clamor for further communication from HQ on this as I too have received a few angry emails; however after I give them the historical rundown, most are in favor of some if not all of the proposed changes. The thing that is concerning to them the most once we get past the hyperbole (and it is also concerning to me to an extent) is the amount of phone spectrum being granted. I and most in-the discussion at the AR State Convention Saturday voiced this concern. I do think we should be referencing this as the foundation license. As such, would we want to consider making this non renewable or renewable upon retesting like the old Novice ticket? Call it incentive to upgrade. I also see two recurring themes in the angry correspondence: 1) a disturbing unfamiliarity with the current rules and 2) a misconception that we are making the tests easier. (That ship sailed around 1984-85 with the FOIA decision regarding the publishing of FCC question pools). What do you all think? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Dale Williams <dale.wms1@frontier.com> wrote:
I also have received complaining e-mails and have spent a few hours responding to them and defending our position. We do need to take immediate action as Jim suggests.
73,
Dale WA8EFK
On 3/7/2018 10:40 AM, James F. Boehner, MD via arrl-odv 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
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
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
At 11:29 AM 3/7/2018, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
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.
No! The point the ELL made is that the Tech test is already way too comprehensive for a beginners license. The current exam covers HF, digital and phone modes so there is no need to make it harder or more comprehensive as a result of allowing digital/phone on 80-40-15. When the FCC dropped CW as a requirement, the Question Pool committee over-reacted and made the exams more difficult. That was not the right decision. It would not be the right decision to make them harder in this case either. One of the points made in our petition is that there is no (or very little) need for changes in the Question Pool. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
the current position of the NCVEC, with whom we vetted this before filing it is that the current tech exam is too difficult and the current general test too easy. Chris On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> wrote:
At 11:29 AM 3/7/2018, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
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.
No! The point the ELL made is that the Tech test is already way too comprehensive for a beginners license. The current exam covers HF, digital and phone modes so there is no need to make it harder or more comprehensive as a result of allowing digital/phone on 80-40-15.
When the FCC dropped CW as a requirement, the Question Pool committee over-reacted and made the exams more difficult. That was not the right decision. It would not be the right decision to make them harder in this case either. One of the points made in our petition is that there is no (or very little) need for changes in the Question Pool.
-- Tom
===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 <(860)%20668-5444>
_______________________________________________ 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
I know we discussed the problems with the 400 plus questions (which I think is absurd), and being too comprehensive. I agree. It doesn't mean we have to make it harder. That's not what I meant by saying beef it up, rather I want to assure that the test properly covers the things we need covered for the new enhancements. Also, even if it is made less comprehensive, that doesn't mean the test has to be easier, thus lowering our standards. 73 Rick - K5UR ... -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> To: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2018 10:56 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27116] Re: Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal the current position of the NCVEC, with whom we vetted this before filing it is that the current tech exam is too difficult and the current general test too easy. Chris On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> wrote: At 11:29 AM 3/7/2018, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote: I've heard several reports thatsome members were surprised by the announcement, yet when reminded thatwe have written about it previously and received over 8000 comments thenmost seem to recall at least a little something about "thatproject." When I've given talks about it to groups, I mention rather quickly thatit's not a dumbing down and we have no plans to suggest the test beweakened. In fact, we need to beef it up to address the new enhancements. No! The point the ELL made is that the Tech test isalready way too comprehensive for a beginners license. Thecurrent exam covers HF, digital and phone modes so there is no need tomake it harder or more comprehensive as a result of allowingdigital/phone on 80-40-15. When the FCC dropped CW as a requirement, the Question Pool committeeover-reacted and made the exams more difficult. That was not theright decision. It would not be the right decision to makethem harder in this case either. One of the points made inour petition is that there is no (or very little) need for changes in theQuestion Pool. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England DivisionDirector http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone:860-668-5444 _______________________________________________ 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
Well said!
On March 7, 2018 at 1:53 PM "Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I know we discussed the problems with the 400 plus questions (which I think is absurd), and being too comprehensive. I agree. It doesn't mean we have to make it harder. That's not what I meant by saying beef it up, rather I want to assure that the test properly covers the things we need covered for the new enhancements. Also, even if it is made less comprehensive, that doesn't mean the test has to be easier, thus lowering our standards.
73 Rick - K5UR
...
-----Original Message----- From: Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> To: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2018 10:56 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27116] Re: Expanded Technician Class Privilege Proposal
the current position of the NCVEC, with whom we vetted this before filing it is that the current tech exam is too difficult and the current general test too easy.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com > wrote:
> > At 11:29 AM 3/7/2018, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
No! The point the ELL made is that the Tech test is already way too comprehensive for a beginners license. The current exam covers HF, digital and phone modes so there is no need to make it harder or more comprehensive as a result of allowing digital/phone on 80-40-15.
When the FCC dropped CW as a requirement, the Question Pool committee over-reacted and made the exams more difficult. That was not the right decision. It would not be the right decision to make them harder in this case either. One of the points made in our petition is that there is no (or very little) need for changes in the Question Pool.
-- Tom
===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org mailto:k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv 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 mailto:W3KD@ARRL.ORG _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (8)
-
Christopher Imlay -
Dale Williams -
David Norris -
Henderson, Dan N1ND -
James F. Boehner, MD -
k5ur＠aol.com -
RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH -
Tom Frenaye