Bill Sohl wrote:

A whole litany of stuff snipped

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very
interesting piece.

One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is
not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc.

and:

"First, who is this committee, this “Gang of Four”? Who are these people,
and who elected them as “God”? They are the NCVEC “Rules Committee”.
This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone, W3BE,
Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC.

So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat
it is. But they tell us it isn't...................

Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing.

It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse
Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers.

Oddly enough, it wants to encourage people who do not wear glasses to
join the hobby. That little jab was almost certainly at people who do
not wear bifocals, but as a wearer of glasses since the second grade, I
can tell you it was neither funny or appropriate.

It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable
by an "average" 6th grader.

It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and
understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we
get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we
all read all of those, don't we? 8^)

It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory
questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet"

It offers some questions like:

"What do you think is better for our hobby – lots of enthusiastic
newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?"

Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your
wife?" sort of question.

"Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments, at
least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This
may change in the future."

I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a
quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band
segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they
have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access,
they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for
SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in
the piece?

Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice
segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators"
isn't removing anything from the data bands is it?

Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen:

"All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the
Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the
Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as
they can, thus becoming General class licensees."

They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test
for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the
test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!!

Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the
gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse
tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one!

Some things I wonder about:

Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test
that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried
about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that
they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations.
It happens already with generals in the Extra segments.

Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It
won't take too many to make a mess.

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted,
there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They
will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very
likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where
they like.

"You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their
radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses – what a concept!"

Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be!


Will I be wrong? Great Gawd I hope so! But it will be an interesting
social experiment to see if we will improve a service by lowering the
entrance requirements.

In the meantime, I'll be here, wearing my glasses, homebrewing, and
enjoying myself.

My favorite quotes:

"There are no black helicopters."

"This is not a plot by ARRL or Fred (W5YI) or anyone else to sell more
books, antennas, radios, or (fill in the blank)."

"There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer."

Thing one:

Why do they go on so about conspiracies?

Thing two:

With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see
Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I
take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not.

Final analysis:

If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit
referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to
interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't
talk about the NCVEC. But it is.

What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off? Start
accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as
if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?)
Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are
those who want the code test removed.

This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the
requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps
there is something different here?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Bill Sohl wrote:

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very
interesting piece.

One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is
not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc.

ARRL cannot possibly "represent all radio amateurs" either, yet
they've said so for years.

and:

"First, who is this committee, this “Gang of Four�? Who are these
people,
and who elected them as “God�? They are the NCVEC “Rules Committee�.
This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone,
W3BE, Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC.

So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat
it is. But they tell us it isn't...................

So...write them directly or, better yet, go comment on their
Proposal before the FCC. Let the world know how you feel.

Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing.

Yes, I'm sure you FEW are very disturbed.

Ask your doctor about a Xanax prescription. Very cheap and
good for those that get emotionally disturbed.

It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse
Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. ALL of them are 20 WPM code-tested Amateur
Extras.


It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable
by an "average" 6th grader.

There is NO age restriction in US amateur radio. Sixth graders are
12 years old. The youngest hams were only 6 years old.

It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and
understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we
get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we
all read all of those, don't we? 8^)

You don't like to know and understand the LAW?

That sounds very lawless, Xena...

It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory
questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet"

Ah so, you think anything more complicated than Ohm's Law
is "rocket science?!?"

It offers some questions like:

"What do you think is better for our hobby – lots of enthusiastic
newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?"

Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your
wife?" sort of question.

Well, if you are "married" to your hobby, I'm sure you would be
insulted one way or the other by allowing others to intrude on
your very private domain.

"Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments, at
least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This
may change in the future."

I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a
quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band
segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they
have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access,
they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for
SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in
the piece?

Have your ears and eyes checked again. There are NO black
helicopters of conspirators waiting to attack old, cherished values.

Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice
segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators"
isn't removing anything from the data bands is it?

You tell us, mighty keeper of the private domain that only belongs
to old-values, anal retentive long-timers.

Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen:

"All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the
Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the
Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as
they can, thus becoming General class licensees."

They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test
for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the
test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!!

Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the
gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse
tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one!

Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare those 20 WPM code-tested Extras
insult all you Extra-Lites, right?

Some things I wonder about:

Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test
that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried
about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that
they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations.
It happens already with generals in the Extra segments.

Have you been in another universe for a decade? In HERE, there
was a MIGHTY HUE & CRY about age restrictions proposed by
someone in 1999! CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!! cried the multitude!

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too. :-)

Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It
won't take too many to make a mess.

Your tinnitus must be very bad today, hearing all those black helos.

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted,
there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They
will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very
likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where
they like.

How dare they?!?!?

And not even "approved" by the long-timer morsemen!

"You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their
radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses – what a concept!"

Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be!

Of course not. Old, aged, long-time-in-the-bottle vintage
morsemen can't possibly accept that!


Why do they go on so about conspiracies?

Tsk, tsk, you've named at least TWO such. :-)


With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see
Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I
take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not.

NCTAs understand that you, as a PCTA, want a Living Museum of
the Airwaves to Preserve and Protect morsemanship forever and ever.


If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit
referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to
interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't
talk about the NCVEC. But it is.

For many more years ARRL has said it "represents ALL radio
amateurs" yet they obviously do NOT.

Last I looked there were 14 Volunteer Examiner Coordinators in the
USA. Four does NOT equal 14, does it?

I apologize for using mathematics too complicated for you...

What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off?

159-year-old morse code hasn't "turned on" many new folks... :-)

Nobody in any VEC is required to kiss up to some long-timers who
think they own amateur radio and can use their squatters rights to
tell all they "know what is good for ham radio."

Start
accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as
if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?)

Let's see...YOU just accused THEM of "conspiracies." :-)

Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are
those who want the code test removed.

Oh, my, how COULD they, those heinous 20 WPM code-tested Extras?

This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the
requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps
there is something different here?

Oh? You do NOT believe amateur radio has ALREADY been "dumbed
down?"

Why don't you go argue with Broose, the "Extra-Lite CB-plusser?"

LHA

(Avery Fineman) wrote in message ...

It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable
by an "average" 6th grader.

There is NO age restriction in US amateur radio. Sixth graders are
12 years old. The youngest hams were only 6 years old.

No thanks to a certain "radio engineering professional" who TRIED
to lobby the FCC into setting one despite 80+ years of successful and
productive licensure of children.

Well, if you are "married" to your hobby, I'm sure you would be
insulted one way or the other by allowing others to intrude on
your very private domain.

But why should THAT matter to YOU, Lennie...?!?! You've
certainly made no bones about invading the "private domain" of others
for decades with no intention of using the front door.

"Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments, at
least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This
may change in the future."

I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a
quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band
segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they
have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access,
they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for
SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in
the piece?

Have your ears and eyes checked again. There are NO black
helicopters of conspirators waiting to attack old, cherished values.

And the only two "CW exclusive" segments are at 6 and 2 meters.
Funny how all the No Code proponents holler about how CW is employed
on HF, a part of the spectrum they have no privileges, yet there's not
been ONE attempt to have those two segements on 6 and 2 "re-farmed".

You tell us, mighty keeper of the private domain that only belongs
to old-values, anal retentive long-timers.

Nice example of "civil debate", Lennster.

Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the
gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse
tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one!

Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare those 20 WPM code-tested Extras
insult all you Extra-Lites, right?

Why insult "Extra-lites", who have passed the PRESENT licensure
structure to get there, when we have an UNlicensed creep like you to
kick around, Putzmaster?

Have you been in another universe for a decade? In HERE, there
was a MIGHTY HUE & CRY about age restrictions proposed by
someone in 1999! CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!! cried the multitude!

No, we can't.

The system has worked well the way it's been for 80
years...Unless YOU know of some secret government plot to hide all
those pre-pubescent offenders from us?

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too.

Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?!

Really rubs your hide to know there are pre-teens with more
access to the electromagnetic spectrum than you, Eh, "Mr. Radio
Professional"...?!?!

Maybe we can get one of them to let you on the air...but
remember, THEY will be supervising YOU, so BE-HAVE!

159-year-old morse code hasn't "turned on" many new folks...

And you know this from WHAT practical experience in the Amateur
Radio Service, Lennie?

Why don't you go argue with Broose, the "Extra-Lite CB-plusser?"

As much as it chaps MY hide to say it, at least Bruce TOOK the
test, Lennie...

You have WHAT class of AMATEUR license...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

Lennie whinned and cried:

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too.


Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?!

It really gets under Lennieboy's skin that a 6 year old can pass the
test and he, a so self professed professional in electronics, can't.

In article , JJ
writes:

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

Lennie whinned and cried:

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too.


Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?!

It really gets under Lennieboy's skin that a 6 year old can pass the
test and he, a so self professed professional in electronics, can't.

Remember the old saying "can't means won't"?

To my knowledge, no 6 year old has passed the Extra.

A 6 year old being homeschooled at the first-grade level passed the General
recently.

Several years back, befoe restructuring, an 8 year old in 3rd grade passed the
Extra - all 5 written tests and 20 wpm code. I have worked that amateur a few
times on CW - excellent operator.

And this isn't a new phenomenon. Way back in 1948, before there was a Novice or
Technician level license, a 9 year old passed the old Class B exam at the
Philadelphia FCC office. That exam required 13 wpm receiving and sending, plus
a written test that was not from a public pool that required essay-type answers
as well as multiple choice, and the drawing of schematic and block diagrams.

On the last page of his voluminous reply comments to the restructuring NPRM
back in 1999, Len requested that the FCC enact a minimum age requirement of 14
years for any class of amateur license. When challenged, however, he could not
give a single example of on-air violations by licensed radio amateurs under the
age of 14.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ... On the last page of his voluminous reply comments to the restructuring NPRM
back in 1999, Len requested that the FCC enact a minimum age requirement of 14
years for any class of amateur license. When challenged, however, he could not
give a single example of on-air violations by licensed radio amateurs under the
age of 14.

Neither would he respond to questions about his parenting
experiences that might lead him to make such a suggestion.

Yet another example of Lennie's lack of experience in ANYthing he
cares to discuss about Amateur Radio.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
... On the last page of
his voluminous reply comments to the restructuring NPRM
back in 1999, Len requested that the FCC enact a minimum age requirement of
14
years for any class of amateur license. When challenged, however, he could
not
give a single example of on-air violations by licensed radio amateurs under
the
age of 14.

Neither would he respond to questions about his parenting
experiences that might lead him to make such a suggestion.

Steve,

Parent or not, everyone's entitled to an opinion about age limits for an
amateur license. My opinion is that they're a bad idea.

But the main point is that Len was proposing a draconian solution to a
nonexistent problem. It's not the under-14 hams that are causing problems - far
from it! The fact that Len could not cite a *single* incident shows how empty
his argument was.

Yet nobody told him to shut up.

73 de Jim, N2EY