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.

"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

"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/

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 -

"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/

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 -

"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/

"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

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 -

"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