RadioBanter - What of NCI?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - What of NCI? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/26600-what-nci.html)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a
requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to
operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource,
sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.

73, de Hans, K0HB

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Director NCI

Switzerland down, how many to go?

BTW, apparently the Swiss no-coders are HB3 calls, a new one for WPX

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.
Bill K2UNK, Director NCI

Switzerland down, how many to go?

About 150 or so by my count :-)

Ironically, as commented elsewhere by Phil Karn,
the USA treaty approval process may resut in the
USA being one of the last to actually change.

BTW, apparently the Swiss no-coders are HB3 calls, a new one for WPX

So it appears.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Hans K0HB" writes:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare"...

Very well said. In other words, spectrum is a limited resource, like
water, and unlike printed matter, and is therefore protected similarly
to our lakes and streams.

Regards,
Len.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a
requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to
operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource,
sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Well said Hans.

Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic?
What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200
bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other
qualifications for the license?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not,
what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Director NCI

Bill is exactly correct ... NCI is NOT "No Test International" ... we have
NO
intention of trying to weaken or eliminate the written tests ... ONLY to
eliminate
the Morse test requirement.

Now that that's gone from the ITU Radio Regulations (effective July 5, 2003,
the day after the WRC closed), administrations are free to drop Morse
testing.
(see http://www.nocode.org/Articles.html for the changes to S25.5 and the
entire text of the new Article 25 ... the amateur part of the ITU Radio
Regs)

Word is that a number of administrations intend to move promptly
(surprisingly
promptly for governments ...) to eliminate Morse testing from their national
rules.

NCI's work is not done just because the ITU requirement has been eliminated.
We will continue to work with administrations around the world to get the
Morse
test dropped from national regulations.

73,
--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Mike Coslo writes:

Perhaps Hams and anyone who want to be a ham should have to pay for
the spectrum we want.

Pay who? Where is the owner?

Milton Friedman, in his work "Free to Choose", would argue that this
is a case, like the case of "clean air", which could properly be
assigned to government: there is a clear public interest in conserving
this resource, but no clear way to allocate costs.

He would probably propose a consumption tax, based on bandwidth,
power, duty cycle, etc., which automatically allocates bandwidth (in
the long run) according to its most profitable use: if the people
badly want a service which consumes piles of bandwidth over a vast
area for most of the time, then they would pay enough to offset the
immense consumption tax on the provider.

Of course, the effect is that hams will all start using CW. C'mon! You
can pay tax on 150 Hz, or pay over 20 times as much for SSB. CW wins,
hands down.

Regards,
Len.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...

Bert Craig wrote:

Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not,
what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Their next step should be joining up with a terrorist group.
They could be used as human bombs.
Dan/W4NTI

The problem with that is, if Carl Stevenson's brain were composed of
Semtex, he couldn't blow his nose!
73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry,
Sure sounds like sour grapes to me.

Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
US delegation? Seems pretty respected in
ITU circles to me.

Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest
group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham
radio, not even close.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

w3rv