What Specific Frequency Ranges are Available to Techs?

[kb2vxa]

"There are NO questions in the Technician question pool about HF privileges."

That change really sucks raw eggs, these days the test concentrates on good and legal operating practices so if a licensee doesn't know where he may operate within his class there's trouble. Seems to me there is no incentive to learn CW anymore to get on HF with the exception of 160 and 20M.

 

[eriepascannist]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE, BrailleNote))

I couldn't agree with you more. My proctor said that "most" techs are only interested in operating on VHF and UHF and not HF so perhaps that's why they don't ask, but even so you should know where you can operate and where you can't. They probably think if you're really serious you'll go for your general. That's why it's good to have an experienced ham to help answer questions such as those that you don't learn in your studies. I personally think that CW shouldn't have been eliminated from the tests, at least not from general and extra. Maybe techs should be able to get in without it but then if you're really serious in your quest for advancement you should have to learn it. I hope I didn't just unleash a tidal wave, just my thoughts.

 

[gewecke]

Congrats on your tech ticket.

On the other hand, there are a few of us that have gotten our feet wet on hf and prefer to stay above 30mhz. for that reason alone.
I've heard things on hf that caused me to sell my FT301D and never look back!
These days I prefer 220mhz and those bands above.

73,
n9zas

 

[eriepascannist]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE, BrailleNote))

I can certainly see both sides of the debate there, to each his own band preference. I know I'll like the local stuff in the 2m, 1.25m and 70cm bands as I know most of the folks now from years of scanner listening and feel like I've personally known them all along. As for HF, some swear by it, others dislike it--I'll just have to give it a shot and see what I think.

 

[kb2vxa]

"I personally think that CW shouldn't have been eliminated from the tests, at least not from general and extra."

That's one side of an argument that thankfully died and I have no intention of starting up again. I just look at the practical side and the FCC's reasoning, once upon a time bands were shared with CW only commercial stations and there was good reason for hams to know CW. Since they operated on fixed frequencies and had primary assignment they would ask hams to QSY so they could conduct business. Since the last one went dark there has been no practical reason why the CW proficiency test should be a requirement so it was dropped.

Still CW is an asset although optional, another viable mode and it comes in handy for reading the CWID on repeaters. I can't count the times scannists here have asked what they're listening to when all they have to do is turn the PL off and copy the CWID.

"I hope I didn't just unleash a tidal wave, just my thoughts."
Not with me, I've been neutral all along. Then there are the antagonists on both sides, I've been ignoring them all along too and so can you. The head is not a hammer, it will never break a stone no many times you beat it, only give you a nasty headache.

 

[Wrong]

Try This Link

Here is a link to the ARRL web site with a current chart of the current frequencys available.

Graphical Frequency Allocations

 

[eriepascannist]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE, BrailleNote))

VXA... I see that as well. On one hand it was a way to separate the "men" from the "boys" in ham radio, but now there's no need for it, as you said, So if someone wants to go out and learn CW as I hope to, then that is their choice. I would hate to see such a classic mode of communication be lost to newer, shinier ones, but I guess CW is safe for now.

Well gang I think this thread has run its course. Thanks again for the help, and I can't wait to get on the air soon.