"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net
"Mike Coslo" wrote
| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.
I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.
But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element
1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses
the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly
when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.
And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.
Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.
Uh-huh.
We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.
You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?
And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.
Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.
Sorry ... but that's BS ...
Which part?
there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...
Not directly.
However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.
You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.
It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.
How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.
Or better yet - how about this:
Enact a new 2 class license system.
Two license classes: Basic and Full.
Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.
Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.
Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.
Would that be a good system? Why or why not?
the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...
Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.
I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...
Yet it was not proposed by NCI.
I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.
Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.
Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....
NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.
Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?
We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.
Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.
I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.
Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.
ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.
The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?
73 de Jim, N2EY