In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

[snip]

If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have
access
to
those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So
giving
them
a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.

Jim,

I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.

Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

You're the one willing to share with "a few"....

You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know

[expletive deleted]

well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I
don't
know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly,
I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing
for over 400,000 US hams

And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.

I'm not ...

Let's get this clear right now.

ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General with no additional testing.

They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra
with no additional testing.

Do you support those free upgrades or not?

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's
still a reduction. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small
matter.

I'm supporting the establishment of a reasonable, viable
entry level class with appropriate testing and restrictions.

That's a completely different issue. And I support the "NewNovice" concept as
well. In fact I proposed it here more than two years ago.

Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written*
tests...

As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" in a
way
where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge
of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump
the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for
General?

Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then?

Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's
(or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade.

How do you know what FCC wants?

[snip]

After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net

I'll ask again for a link to those comments.

Go to eham.net (or use Google) ..

I did. No luck.

I don't have the URL direct to Ed's comments handy ...

So there's a wonderful set of arguments out there, but you can't/won't
point us to them.....That's not how you sell something, Carl.

I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.

Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements
for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today.

Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have
a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...)

I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them.

If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all?

Here's another thought: Rules changes like that don't happen overnight -
there's always a time delay between when a rules change is announced and
the
new rules take effect. So if FCC simply accepted ARRL's proposal tomorrow,
they'd probably make it effective a few months hence.

They could make a rules change effective 30 days from publication in the
Federal Register ...

Sure - but they don't. Look at the 2000 restructuring - announced in late
December 1999, made effective April 15, 2000. More than 3-1/2 months
- over 100 days - of prep time.

So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes
take
place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General.

Give me a break ...

What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do.

Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive
to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade
bus to General. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to
actually take (or study for) the General. Same for Advanceds
and the Extra.

your arguments are just plain lame

How? Do you think people won't do this?

and your "someone might
get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I took"
is REALLY showing.

Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I
took,
Carl.

The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written test
requirements are the issue.

I'd really like to see a link to Ed's arguments...

Go find them - you know how to google.

I'll look again but it's quite telling that you are being very unhelpful when
asked for assistance

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Bill
Sohl"
writes:

[snip]

If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have
access
to
those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level.
So
giving
them
a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.

Jim,

I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.

Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

You're the one willing to share with "a few"....

You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know

[expletive deleted]

well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I
don't
know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote.
Frankly,
I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written*
testing
for over 400,000 US hams

And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.

I'm not ...

Let's get this clear right now.

ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General with no additional testing.

They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra
with no additional testing.

Do you support those free upgrades or not?

I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but
it's
still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because
no one losses any privileges.

Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written*
tests...

As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" in
a
way
where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are
already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any
knowledge
of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech
written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply
dump
the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool
for
General?

If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself.
Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care.

Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade
a new license at all. There's no need to.

Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then?

Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's
(or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade.

How do you know what FCC wants?

How do you? Ultimately the FCC will decide.

I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.

Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements
for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today.

Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have
a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...)

I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them.

If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all?

If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC.

So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the
changes
take
place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General.

Give me a break ...

What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do.

Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive
to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade
bus to General.

If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll
be truly surprised. As for the existing novices...that is now
down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you
suggest.

Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to
actually take (or study for) the General.

Life's a bitch and then we die.

Same for Advanceds and the Extra.

The arte at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically
low already.

your arguments are just plain lame

How? Do you think people won't do this?

Some will, but it won't be significant.

and your "someone might
get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I
took"
is REALLY showing.

Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I
took,
Carl.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.

The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written
test
requirements are the issue.

The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to
lower the General or Extra requirements.

Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests.

Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?


If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.


Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?



Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but

it's

still a reduction.


It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.


Are the people qualified?

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.


If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?


A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. I
refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will
go up.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?

Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be serious here!
In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.
I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,
because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?

Broken record here it seems.

A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?

Why would they be "unqualified?"

Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam
which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific
class of license.

Let's be serious here!

It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our
lanyards.

In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.

Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's
a--well, you know the drill.

I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm
betting that the answer is "none".

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class
license. No ifs, ands or buts.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the
General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is
something you stated that you'd never support.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,
because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?

Broken record here it seems.

The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been
forthcoming.

A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the
elimination of incentive licensing. There can be no other explanation.
If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but
to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and
say so.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by
granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a
one-time basis, it can be done permanently.

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech
to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of
thousands.
Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary
to do.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you
are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your
earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound
disingenuous.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your
comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?

Why would they be "unqualified?"

Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam
which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific
class of license.

Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has
NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything
specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges.

Let's be serious here!

It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our
lanyards.

Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose
it. Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours. If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.

In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.

Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's
a--well, you know the drill.

Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement.

I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm
betting that the answer is "none".

Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what
makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners?

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a
reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class
license. No ifs, ands or buts.

Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would
be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time
reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the
reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the
General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is
something you stated that you'd never support.

If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition.
In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented
as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements
for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and
understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there
will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra
and General.

Clear enough for you?

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,
because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?

Broken record here it seems.

The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been
forthcoming.

The question keeps coming up because some people can't
understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as
opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements.

A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that
you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the
elimination of incentive licensing.

I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements.
I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional
privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being
tested for.

There can be no other explanation.

I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of
privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that
I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore,
oppose incentive licensing.

If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but
to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and
say so.

Because it isn't true!

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a
great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by
granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a
one-time basis, it can be done permanently.

Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have
stated I support? Answer - NO!

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll
just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances.

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech
to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of
thousands.
Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary
to do.

Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their
logic. No need to repeat it again.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you
are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your
earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound
disingenuous.

What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference
between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes
you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl
and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free
to enjoy your own beliefs.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your
comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs.

Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...


Supposing that the ARRL petition is the form in which the change actually
gets made and that all the newly upgraded people get on HF, how is the ham
community supposed to "elmer" 300,000+ new HF users all at once?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?

Why would they be "unqualified?"

Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam
which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific
class of license.

Which, as anyone familiar with incentive licensing, has
NOTHING to do with actually being qualified to do anything
specific to amateur radio based on the additional privileges.

The regs state that someone who wishes to use those particular hunks of
RF real estate will pass those exams. If someone hasn't passed the
exam, he or she has not met the qualifications for occupying particular
band segments.

Let's be serious here!

It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our
lanyards.

Me? I just support the ARRL petition....I didn't propose
it.

I'm not confused about who produced it and I'm not confused about your
support for it, though I believe such support is unwise.

Seems you don't like anyone giving an opinion
contrary to yours.

Where was that written? You surely don't expect me to sit mute while
you lead the cheering section for something I believe to be wrong, do
you?

If you don't agree with me, I really don't
give a damn...

That much is evident. Let me quote you: "Seems you don't like anyone
giving an opinion contrary to yours".

...as the ONLY arbiter of the outcome that
matters is what the FCC will think and do.

We have some evidence of what the FCC has thought in the current
regulations.

In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.

Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's
a--well, you know the drill.

Glad to see you have nothing credible to refute my statement.

If that is your view, then it applies equally to you non-refutations of
earlier statements. After all, you're the guy who used those exact
responses.

I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm
betting that the answer is "none".

Doesn't matter. They can if they want. Also, what
makes you assume ALL technicians are beginners?

The assumption is yours. I wrote nothing about all Technicians being
beginners.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a
reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class
license. No ifs, ands or buts.

Yet you can't offer one operating skill or privilege that would
be covered by such lack of having passed the requisit test.

That isn't the point at all. If such is your belief, there is nothing
to prevent doing away entirely with all but one license class and making
the exams much easier. You claimed that you didn't support watering
down the tests. Here you're making a case for dumbing down the whole
shebang.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time
reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the
reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the
General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is
something you stated that you'd never support.

If you want it clearer...I support the ARRL petition.

I didn't agree with it when I read it and I don't agree with it when you
say you support it.

In doing so, I acknowledge that there will be, if implemented
as submitted, a ONE_TIME reduction of test requirements
for those hams that get free upgrades. I also recognize and
understand that other than the one-time upgrades, there
will be NO reduction in written test requirements for Extra
and General.

Clear enough for you?

I've never had any trouble understanding your view. You seem to not be
able to see where such a position can lead. If the material isn't
deemed necessary for an upgrade on a one-time basis, it is difficult to
justify it as being necessary any time.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,
because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?

Broken record here it seems.

The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been
forthcoming.

The question keeps coming up because some people can't
understand the difference between a ONE-TIME waiver as
opposed to a PERMANENT change in requirements.

I haven't seen any evidence that there are people unable to tell the
difference. I see evidence that your position could lead to some
unintended consequences.

A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that
you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the
elimination of incentive licensing.

I do NOT support a permanant reduction of written requirements.
I support a limited incentive system but I wish the additional
privileges bore some relationship to the additional knowledge being
tested for.

Nice waffle.

There can be no other explanation.

I just gave you one above. The fact that I recognize the reality of
privileges vs knowledge being virtually non-existent, and that
I am willing to state the obvious, does not mean I must, therefore,
oppose incentive licensing.

You must. You must. You support permitting those who have not passed
certain elements being granted a freebie upgrade. Such an upgrade is at
odds with incentive licensing.

If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but
to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and
say so.

Because it isn't true!

That thing which looks like a duck is quacking and swimming.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a
great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by
granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a
one-time basis, it can be done permanently.

Is that what ARRL is proposing? Is that what I have
stated I support? Answer - NO!

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll
just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

Depends on the decision to be made and the circumstances.

"If it feels good, do it".

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech
to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of
thousands.
Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary
to do.

Read the ARRL petition. ARRL makes the case and I agree with their
logic. No need to repeat it again.

Yeah, it is kind of embarrassing. I can understand why you wouldn't
want it repeated.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you
are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your
earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound
disingenuous.

What is at odds with you is that you don't understand the difference
between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT change. If it makes
you happy to think that supporting a one-time waiver makes Carl
and I supports of reducing requiremnts, then you are free
to enjoy your own beliefs.

I fully understand the difference. It does not make me happy to believe
that your support of a "just this once" freebie constitutes a reduction
in requirements, I still see it happening.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your
comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs.

Frankly Dave, I don't give a damn.

That has long been apparent.

Dave K8MN

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?


Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be serious here!
In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.
I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

So you now support no testing whatsoever, since the priveliges have no
bearing? Glad you finally got serious and admitted it.


If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction

in

the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?


Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

You are right Bill. There really is no need for qualification if you
don't want there to be.


Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?


YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.


So why make the tests more difficult after the "one shot" upgrade? If
you think a technician is now qualified to be a General, then you should
be consistant.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,

because

no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?


Broken record here it seems.

You notice?


A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.


I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.


If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.


The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)


The ARRL is being illogical.


And I see you don't deny my assertion.


I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once


Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Doesn't make me feel good at all!


and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.


The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You're playing with my words here.

A person that takes the Technician test, then becomes a General with no
further retesting.

A person that takes a Technician test, then a General test.


Which person has done more? Unless you are suggesting that the future
General test is simply the equivalent of the Tech test.


I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.


Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah I know, lifes a bitch............

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?


Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be serious here!
In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.
I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

So you now support no testing whatsoever, since the priveliges have no
bearing? Glad you finally got serious and admitted it.

Sorry Mike, your logic is seriously lacking. My
stateing the obvious about privileges vs license
in no way leads to the conclusion that I must, therefore,
oppose incentive licensing. Even Jim, N2EY has
acknowledged what I have said regarding privileges
vs license class based on written test knowledge.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a
reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

You are right Bill. There really is no need for qualification if you
don't want there to be.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

So why make the tests more difficult after the "one shot" upgrade? If
you think a technician is now qualified to be a General, then you should
be consistant.

The problem, is that there isn't any accepted relationship
of privileges vs license to apply a truly knoweldege
based upgrade system that links the additional privileges to actual
written test knowlede.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,

because

no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?


Broken record here it seems.

You notice?


A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)


The ARRL is being illogical.

Then go take it up with ARRL...assuming you are a member.

And I see you don't deny my assertion.

Not at all...YOU refuse to see the difference
between ONE-TIME and PERMANENT.

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Doesn't make me feel good at all!

Your problem, not mine.

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You're playing with my words here.

No, you are incorrectly stating the aspects of the ARRL
petition.

A person that takes the Technician test, then becomes a General with no
further retesting.

A person that takes a Technician test, then a General test.

Which person has done more? Unless you are suggesting that the future
General test is simply the equivalent of the Tech test.

I do not dispute there is a one-time difference. That is what happens
when there is a one-time waiver.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.
Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah I know, lifes a bitch............

By Jove I think he's got it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK