Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a groundswell of support. How do you know? Have you made a scientific survey to determine this "groundswell"? What constitutes "modernizing the ARS"? Shall we all go out and buy new radios? It doesn't need to be filtered through state and regional directors, brought up in a board meeting, with lots of hand-wringing that there is no clear mandate... Then what needs to be done? What is the "mandate"? Some folks make a big deal out of the fact that ARRL's membership is only about 25% of US hams. These same folks ignore the fact that No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US hams, despite the fact that such membership has no dues and no expiration or renewal requirements. And let's keep in mind that NCI does have a structure with officers and a board. The detailed policies and procedures were developed by those officers and that board based on the organization's stated goal. Thus it was "filtered" through a limited group. One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. Although I don't agree with their goal, I must commend them for getting in there and doing the work required. They did not sit on their hands and whine. They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. It is all the more convincing when one considers the low percentage of hams belonging to NCI. It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. Personally I support code testing but NCI certainly did their homework to achieve their goal. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
(snip) One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. (snip) They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. (snip) It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. (snip) They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. (snip) It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate. I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^) Agreed. By the time NCI joined the debate, the debate was pretty much resolved. So, instead of linking themselves to this one issue, they may have better served the Ham community by focusing more on what follows. But, I don't think there is any consensus on what might follow. Since most are satisfied with everything else, I suspect the code test debate may be the last big debate in the Ham community. Of course, they'll always be small debates, but not nearly as widespead or as all consuming as this one. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^) Agreed. By the time NCI joined the debate, the debate was pretty much resolved. So, instead of linking themselves to this one issue, they may have better served the Ham community by focusing more on what follows. But, I don't think there is any consensus on what might follow. Since most are satisfied with everything else, I suspect the code test debate may be the last big debate in the Ham community. Of course, they'll always be small debates, but not nearly as widespead or as all consuming as this one. Probably so. I would venture that the immediate future debates will be one last donnybrook over the Morse code testing, and after that is over, remnants of the testing debate will go on a little while. The final episodes of this will be when old pro-coders kvetch in similar style as we occasionally hear from someone that is still incensed over incentive licensing. My guess on the debate of the future is one of testing regimen. I predict that a new movement will arise that views testing per se as an unnecessary nuisance, and will agitate for simplification of the test, and eventually it's removal. Variations on this theme include reducing the qualification process to signing an affidavit that you have read a book or booklet on the ARS, or perhaps granting a license after attending an informative seminar. In the variations, my guess is that most people would prefer to sign an affidavit, because the seminar might take up a big part of their day, while the affidavit only takes as long as writing their signature. The affidavit route has already been proposed, (NCVEC/W5YI paper) while the seminar was something I just thought of recently. Of course, the entire new regimen would only work efficiently if there were only one license class, which would be another debate topic. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Coslo" wrote: My guess on the debate of the future is one of testing regimen. I predict that a new movement will arise that views testing per se as an unnecessary nuisance, and will agitate for simplification of the test, and eventually it's removal. I don't think so, Mike. While I do see comments here and there, I don't see a growing consensus for a need to change the written tests, much less a growing consensus on any specific change to those tests. I suspect the vast majority would agree those tests are needed and are just fine as they are. Instead, I hope we can finally focus on more fully using the frequencies we have. Of course, I don't see any growing consensus for that either, but one can hope. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Coslo" wrote in message . .. Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. (snip) They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. (snip) It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate. I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^) Two questions... 1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen? 2. What is "the coming vacuum"? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message . .. Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. (snip) They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. (snip) It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate. I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^) Two questions... 1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen? They don't have to be Board members, Bill. And I don't have their names off the top of my head. If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute "member" or "prominent member". Although I think that's almost like saying a person's argument is invalid because they made a typo. 2. What is "the coming vacuum"? Didn't you ask this question in another post? See that one! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Coslo" wrote If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute "member" or "prominent member". I'm a member (you'll have to ask K0CKB if my member is considered "prominent" (sic)). I support more rigorous technical exams for full privileges, to which you have expressed some rather strenuous opposition. Go figure! 3333333, de Hans, K0HB |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
ARRL FUD about BPL | General |