Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|
Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the
squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!
Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.
And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy
Mike,
I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative
manner.
And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test.
NCI's *primary* goal is the elimination of Morse testing.
However, the NCI Bylaws, as Rick, W7RT, pointed out, contemplate and allow
for NCI to comment from time to time on issues that would have an effect on
at least a significant part of the membership.
Since the ARRL petition would have an effect on the structure of amateur
classes and privileges (both code-related and not) that will likely last for
at least a decade (we don't envision the FCC considering major changes for
about that long after a major restructuring), the Board felt it necessary to
ask the membership for their views.
First we asked, "Should NCI comment on the issues in the ARRL petition other
than the code test issue?"
Then, we asked for comment on the other issues point by point.
But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.
As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only practical
way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had evolved
over the years.
And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out, the
amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!" study
guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old General
that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.
The fact is that many people mis-remember the tests they took many years ago
as being harder than they really were ... I guess that's human nature ...
after you get used to something it seems easier (and correspondingly the
beginning stages are remembered as harder).
I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.
Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002
All were at just about the correct level for the privileges conferred,
IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper preparation for the
General class license.
And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?
The testing regieme doesn't *have* to "go up again" ... NOBODY has proposed
that the testing regieme be changed ... only that, in the interest of
"nobody loses privileges" (which was a DISASTER in the past), that there be
a one-time "adjustment" to make everyone fit the new structure without
losing ...
But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply don't
care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test one day
before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the testing
process than the person that takes the general test the day after "the
adjustment".
While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look at it
as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this proposal.
It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards, as
they will not have taken a General element test.
I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.
- Mike KB3EIA -