jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch) (06/06/85)
jim -- please strip this header off and post to netnews. thanks, paul
----------------------------------------------------------
Post Office Box 205
Holmdel, NJ 07733
201-834-1149 (W)
201-741-1151 (H)
June 5, 1985
Dr. Larry Price, W4RA
President
American Radio Relay League
Post Office Box 2067
Statesboro, GA 30458
Dear Larry:
I have been following the announcement of ARRL's proposal to expand
Novice privileges with great interest. I have been a ham for more than 10
years and I, too, am concerned about the lack of growth of amateur radio.
Also, as a professional involved with radio technology, I am concerned
about the lack of talent entering and exiting learning institutions that
train people to do RF work. It is almost impossible to locate quality
engineering and technician talent from universities or technical schools.
Most students have been drawn into the computer field. I feel that the
ARRL proposal, as it appeared in the ARRL Letter, is a good start toward
turning this trend around. However, I would like to make some comments
and suggest some improvements to the proposal as it appeared in the
Letter.
First, the provision allowing Novices to use but not maintain or
sponsor voice repeaters is a good one. However, for packet radio
stations, near-real-time single-frequency repeaters (digipeaters) are an
integral part of mainstream operation. Since maintaining a digipeater
requires less skill and knowledge than that needed for a packet station
itself, there is no logical reason to deny Novices the privilege of acting
as a digipeater. Novices should be allowed to act as digipeaters but not
maintain or sponsor Computer Based Message Systems (CBMSs) or other non-
real-time repeaters.
Secondly, the power limit for novices at VHF of 25 watts appears to
be an excellent choice. But, there are many VHF rigs available in the 30
to 50 watt range. Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone concerned to set
the power limit to 60 watts (50 watts + 20%) output, PEP. That would
allow Novices to use about 99% of the VHF FM radios in the field. The +3
dB increase will hardly be noticeable since the majority of Novices, like
other hams, will use a 10 or 25 watt radio.
Finally, and most controversially, I believe Novices should be given
voice and data privileges on 2M. Most important are data privileges.
Current packet radio plans call for using 2M for local access and 220 for
long haul networking. Denying Novices 2M data privileges will deny them
access to packet radio. It is unlikely that many non-Novice stations will
Dr. Larry Price - 2 - June 5, 1985
sponsor 10M/1240 MHz to 2M cross-band digipeaters.
Additionally, I feel that 2M voice privileges should be given to
Novices. I can't imagine that banishing Novices to 10M SSB/FM or 1240 MHz
will allow Novices, as the Letter suggests, "privileges so their numbers
can be put to use in performing public service communications." How many
NTS nets are there on 1240 MHz? Placing Novices onto these bands will
certainly populate those bands but at what expense?
In my mind, one strong reason for retaining the CW requirement was
that it almost forces a prospective ham to become involved with another
ham or club before getting on the air (if for nothing more than to learn
the code). This helps to ensure that the prospective ham will have a
support network of experienced hams to help him or her when questions or
problems arise. It also ensures that the new hams will be "indoctrinated"
on what constitutes good and bad operating habits. The 10M and 1240 MHz
allocations will tend to throw all that preparatory work out the window.
How many mainstream hams are going to get onto 10 M SSB or 1240 MHz
FM? If some mainstream privileges are not given to Novices they will, I
think, acquire their own style of operating. That may be good or it may
be bad. What will it be like on 10 M SSB? I hope 10 M SSB doesn't become
another good buddy band and that 1240 MHz doesn't remain dormant.
I don't think the band will actually break if Novices are given 2M
privileges. If nothing else, give them access to the lower half of the
band. The quicker they are given an opportunity to join mainstream ham
radio, the better for ham radio.
Overall, I think the ARRL proposal is a good one and the Executive
Committee is to be commended for taking the bull by the horns before the
FCC attempts to decide what is best for ham radio. I would appreciate any
comments you might offer to my suggestions.
Sincerely,
Paul Newland, ad7i
Copy to:
Linda Ferdinand, N2YL
David Sumner, K1ZZ
misc. computer netsron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/07/85)
Can someone explain to me the advantage of adding all these priveleges to the novice class ticket, which requires next to no knowledge about radio, rather than just encouraging these enthusiests to get a Technician class license which would seem to have been designed for this type of hobbyist? -Ron