"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Let's not forget that unless Bill is a master Sophist - and I highly
doubt that - he would not be espousing the mass upgrade of Technicians
unless he personally supported it.

All the fluff about membership wishes is just that - fluff.
- Mike KB3EIA -

I never denied my personal support for the upgrades. My comments are on
public display via the FCC ECFS on RM-10867 and 10870.

That wasn't my point, Bill. Or perhaps in a way, it was. Would you come
in here and tout NCI's likely support of the ARRL proposal if you say,
felt about the subject as Hans does?

There's no way I can assess what my answer would be since
I don't hold the views that Hans does. Hypothetical
constructs as to what a person might do if they had a
different opinion are really not answerable.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


SNIP


Let's not forget that unless Bill is a master Sophist - and I highly
doubt that - he would not be espousing the mass upgrade of Technicians
unless he personally supported it.

All the fluff about membership wishes is just that - fluff.
- Mike KB3EIA -

I never denied my personal support for the upgrades. My comments are on
public display via the FCC ECFS on RM-10867 and 10870.

That wasn't my point, Bill. Or perhaps in a way, it was. Would you come
in here and tout NCI's likely support of the ARRL proposal if you say,
felt about the subject as Hans does?


There's no way I can assess what my answer would be since
I don't hold the views that Hans does. Hypothetical
constructs as to what a person might do if they had a
different opinion are really not answerable.

And now I know.

- mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

Cheers,

Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4304


Hans,

With all due respect, your e-mails to NCI Directors have been answered, the
issues have been discussed with you, and your views have been taken into
account.
(As you have pointed out, you have not "been excommunicated" ... presumably
you still support the "prime directive" (as opposed to the "sole directive")
of eliminating Morse testing requirements ... it has been well-explained
that that is a core principle that is considered a pre-requisite for
membership in NCI.)

HOWEVER, with respect to the other aspects of the ARRL and NCVEC petitions,
you must realize, in all reasonableness, that you are only ONE of thousands
of NCI members - and your views were in the stark minority when we surveyed
US members to ask them 1) "Do you want us to comment on the other aspects of
the ARRL/NCVEC petitions?" and 2) "If your answer to (1) is affirmative,
what do you want us to say?"

To imply something is wrong because your individual (significantly minority)
views are not the determining factor in whatever the final NCI policy
decision might be is unrealistic and as a representative Board of Directors,
we would be remiss in our duties to the membership if we were to ignore an
overwhelming majority.

Regardless of the personal views of the NCI Directors, as the
representatives of a membership-supported organization, I believe we have an
obligation to convey the views of the membership to the FCC. (Which is not
to say that NCI Directors will not/have not filed their own *individual,
personal* comments with the FCC that may express somewhat different
*personal* views on some or all of the issues raised by the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions.)

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| ....and as a representative Board of Directors,
| we would be remiss in our duties to the membership
| if we were to ignore an overwhelming majority.

....and...

| Which is not to say that NCI Directors will not/have
| not filed their own *individual, personal* comments
| with the FCC that may express somewhat different
| *personal* views on some or all of the issues raised
| by the ARRL and NCVEC petitions.

That's an interesting dilemma, Carl, and I think how you handle it is a
measure of how well you're suited to a leadership role.

"As an elected official shall I officially support a wildly popular
opinion which I disagree with, then privately file a position with my
*personal* views in opposition to the organization which I represent?"

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

To his credit, Hans did take the survey and I'm sure that his views were
consistent with what he expresses here.

However, as Bill points out above, and I have pointed out in a separate
message, Hans is but one of thousands of NCI members, and the views he has
expressed are in an extreme minority.

Once again, it would be irresponsible for the NCI Board of Directors to
ignore the wishes of the vast majority of our membership in favor of
honoring Hans' wishes - though we certainly did listen to and consider his
views, and some of the NCI Directors even had lengthily e-mail discussions
with him.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!

Cheers,
de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Hans,

Squeak away ... your are entitled to your opinion, even if it is in an
extreme minority amongst the membership - and I'm sure I speak for all of
NCI's Directors when I say that our in-boxes are always open to comment from
you - and all of the other members of NCI.

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy

Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC petitions
was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative manner.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You have it correct, Hans. But I'm afraid that isn't what they are all
about.


Mike ... are you suggesting that the NCI Board of Directors should have
ignored the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the membership and
listened only to Hans???

I don't think so ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
| upgrade.

That's probably not a remarkable revelation, given that the overwhelming
majority of the NCI members are Technicians who would naturally benefit
from such action.

The REAL question isn't what the NCI membership supports, but rather....


Q: Will the NCI Board of Directors recommend
upgrading all Tech/Tech+ licensees to General
without further testing?

A: (please select one and only one answer)
___ Yes
___ No
___ The Board will take no position on this matter

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Hans,

WADR ... As a Board of Directors, the NCI BoD has an obligation to the
membership to represent its views.

Your "question" is so patently biased against the BoD acting in a manner
that is responsive to (and responsible to) the membership that I refuse to
play that game.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| It sounds to me like you view "leadership" as "Listen to Hans' point
of view
| and 'have the courage' to ignore the majority."

Not at all. I am but a single data point, and I could be wrong (but so
far I've only been wrong once and that was the time I thought I was
wrong but I wasn't grin).

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes
people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."
---R. S. Carter

Put differently, leadership is not conducting a popularity poll and
representing that as the best for Amateur Radio, but rather representing
the best for Amateur Radio on the conviction that your constituents
elected you to make good choices.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| It sounds to me like you view "leadership" as "Listen to Hans' point
of view
| and 'have the courage' to ignore the majority."

Not at all. I am but a single data point, and I could be wrong (but so
far I've only been wrong once and that was the time I thought I was
wrong but I wasn't grin).

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes
people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."
---R. S. Carter

Put differently, leadership is not conducting a popularity poll and
representing that as the best for Amateur Radio, but rather representing
the best for Amateur Radio on the conviction that your constituents
elected you to make good choices.


Well put, Hans.

It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from there. But
they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

But that is just how it is. NCI has new fields to plow now.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!

Cheers,
de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/


Hans,

Squeak away ... your are entitled to your opinion, even if it is in an
extreme minority amongst the membership -

And Hans is no longer of any use to you and your agenda, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy


Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC petitions
was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative manner.

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test. But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.

And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
|
| "KØHB" wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Bill Sohl" wrote
|
| | Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| | General.
|
| The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055
of
| them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing
be
| eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
| sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.
|
| That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
| requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
| can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
| your mind.
|
| Cheers,
| Bill K2UNK

Bill,

With all due respect, you have it bass-ackwards.

It's not your job to change my mind. It is my job to persuade you (a
director) to follow the wishes of me (the member).

You have it correct, Hans. But I'm afraid that isn't what they are all
about.



Mike ... are you suggesting that the NCI Board of Directors should have
ignored the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the membership and
listened only to Hans???

I don't think so ...

No, I think that NCI members have opinions about everything from
antenna covenants to BPL threats to abortion to pledge of allegiance and
on and on.

I just don't see where they have relevance to what was *once* NCI's
purpose - abolishment of Morse code testing as a requirement of licensing.

The instant upgrade of most amateurs to General is not related to code
testing as far as I can see. And the unfairness to the people the "day
after" that suddenly have to take a harder test.

Perhaps NCI should poll it's members about gay marriage? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/2004 2:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes
people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."
---R. S. Carter

A different Carter (Jimmy, to be specific...) tried this. He wound up
gutting the intelligence community, tied our hands in covert operations, ran
the inflation rate into double digits, left us humilated in world opinion for
444 days and got several of my friends killed.

When I vote for someone, I expect he will represent the majority...Not use
his election as a license to do what HE wants to do despite guidance from hbis
constituents to the contrary.

Steve, K4YZ

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test. But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.

Did anyone really think thats what they were for, next step give away licenses.
face it your dealing with KARL

"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country. (In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)

But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.

Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".

In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/2004 2:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes
people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."
---R. S. Carter

A different Carter (Jimmy, to be specific...) tried this. He wound
up
gutting the intelligence community, tied our hands in covert operations,
ran
the inflation rate into double digits, left us humilated in world opinion
for
444 days and got several of my friends killed.

When I vote for someone, I expect he will represent the
majority...Not use
his election as a license to do what HE wants to do despite guidance from
hbis
constituents to the contrary.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve,

Thanks for speaking up for the responsibilities of elected representatives
to BE representative of their constituents rather than using their position
as a platform for their personal views.

I particularly appreciate you comment in light of the fact that I know you
don't agree with me (or NCI) on some of the issues.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB


Hans,

I disagree. The differences are more subtle - and much less cynical - that
you state.

Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!

Cheers,
de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/


Hans,

Squeak away ... your are entitled to your opinion, even if it is in an
extreme minority amongst the membership -

And Hans is no longer of any use to you and your agenda, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

No, Mike, I never said that ...

AFAIK, Hans still supports the goal of NCI to eliminate Morse test
requirements.

And, as Hans himself has said, he has not been "excommunicated" from NCI for
having differing views on the other restructuring proposals than the
majority of the members ...

Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote

|
| In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
| looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
| license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven
help
| us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!
|

On reflection, Mike, it seems there's some hope on this one. I found
this encouraging item:

I agree with you that we should vigorously resist classes
that legitimize "know-nothing appliance operator" status
.. and any form of "type acceptance" as well ...

73,
Carl - wa6vse

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

No, I think that NCI members have opinions about everything from
antenna covenants to BPL threats to abortion to pledge of allegiance and
on and on.

I just don't see where they have relevance to what was *once* NCI's
purpose - abolishment of Morse code testing as a requirement of licensing.

Again, I don't hear you complaining about FISTS stepping out of bounds.

The instant upgrade of most amateurs to General is not related to code
testing as far as I can see. And the unfairness to the people the "day
after" that suddenly have to take a harder test.

Perhaps NCI should poll it's members about gay marriage? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Perhaps FISTS should.

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country. (In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)

And once upon I time, we were told that they *did* oppose downgrading a
test.


But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

A leader that simply does what the majority of members or votes want is
not a leader. He is an employee.


Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".

In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!


Right, the employee thing again. When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons. There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/2004 2:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes
people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."
---R. S. Carter

A different Carter (Jimmy, to be specific...) tried this. He wound

up

gutting the intelligence community, tied our hands in covert operations,

ran

the inflation rate into double digits, left us humilated in world opinion

for

444 days and got several of my friends killed.

When I vote for someone, I expect he will represent the

majority...Not use

his election as a license to do what HE wants to do despite guidance from

hbis

constituents to the contrary.

Steve, K4YZ


Steve,

Thanks for speaking up for the responsibilities of elected representatives
to BE representative of their constituents rather than using their position
as a platform for their personal views.

I particularly appreciate you comment in light of the fact that I know you
don't agree with me (or NCI) on some of the issues.

If that is how it is, The officials should be hired as employees, and
vetted for compliance and obedience. Why elect anyone. Simply poll the
constituants, and do exactly what the majority asks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hans,

I disagree. The differences are more subtle - and much less cynical - that
you state.


Would you do whatever your constituants asked, as long as it was a
majority opinion?

Even if you knew it was wrong?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the
squeaky
wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy


Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative
manner.

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test.

NCI's *primary* goal is the elimination of Morse testing.

However, the NCI Bylaws, as Rick, W7RT, pointed out, contemplate and allow
for NCI to comment from time to time on issues that would have an effect on
at least a significant part of the membership.

Since the ARRL petition would have an effect on the structure of amateur
classes and privileges (both code-related and not) that will likely last for
at least a decade (we don't envision the FCC considering major changes for
about that long after a major restructuring), the Board felt it necessary to
ask the membership for their views.

First we asked, "Should NCI comment on the issues in the ARRL petition other
than the code test issue?"
Then, we asked for comment on the other issues point by point.

But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.

As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only practical
way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had evolved
over the years.

And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out, the
amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!" study
guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old General
that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

The fact is that many people mis-remember the tests they took many years ago
as being harder than they really were ... I guess that's human nature ...
after you get used to something it seems easier (and correspondingly the
beginning stages are remembered as harder).

And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?

The testing regieme doesn't *have* to "go up again" ... NOBODY has proposed
that the testing regieme be changed ... only that, in the interest of
"nobody loses privileges" (which was a DISASTER in the past), that there be
a one-time "adjustment" to make everyone fit the new structure without
losing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hans,

I disagree. The differences are more subtle - and much less cynical -
that
you state.


Would you do whatever your constituants asked, as long as it was a
majority opinion?

Even if you knew it was wrong?

Mike,

If it was morally wrong (like killing, etc.) or illegal, no ... of course
not.

But the ARRL proposals don't fall into either category, nor do the NCVEC
proposals.

NCI's comments state *what our members said they think about the ARRL and
NCVEC proposals* ... with the percentages from the surveys.

I believe the surveys were scientifically and statistically sound (and
secure):
the response rate was just over 50% - exceptionally good for surveys by
virtually any standard
each respondent had an individually assigned unique password, that was sent
to them by e-mail (by a "merge" from the member database)
then they were sent an "invitation" from the survey site (same mailing list
used) with a unique URL corresponding to their invitation/password
the survey site only allows one response per respondent (and tracks IP
addresses to make it easy to do a quick check to see if someone is trying to
hack it to "stack the deck"), etc.

So, what is "wrong" with NCI telling the FCC what its members said they
think about the ARRL and NCVEC petitions?

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only
practical
| way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had
evolved
| over the years.
|

It's instructive to note that ARRL and NCI, (not FCC) are characterizing
the license structure as "overly complicated". With only modest
changes, this structure has been extant since 1951, before the age of
computerized record keeping and modern database. How come it's suddenly
"overly complicated"?

But suppose for the moment that it IS overly complicated and needs
reform... to use a term from another NCI Director, do we need to be
"hellbent" to do it in one swell foop? I recall a proposal by one
WA6VSE a few years back that would have transformed the structure from
it's present state into a 2-class structure in as little as 5 years,
with no free passes and with nobody being stripped of privileges. The
details escape me, but I'm sure we could Google it up and have a look.

Or if the administrative burden isn't really at FCC but at the VEC's
like ARRL and W5YI, well there's another proposal floating about which
would overnight limit their testing burden to just two classes. No
Morse test to give, and only two written tests. Again, not a soul would
get a free pass and not a soul would be stripped of any privilege they
now enjoy. You can view that proposal at http://tinyurl.com/wce9

| And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out,
the
| amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!"
study
| guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old
General
| that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

We're not talking about 25-years ago. We're talking about today.

Today an applicant needs to pass a single 35 question exam to acquire
a Technician license.
Today an applicant needs to pass a second 35 question exam (which
contains material not tested in the Technician exam) to acquire a
General license.

The ARRL proposal to waive the second examination for all todays
Technicains (about a third of a million) effectively states that todays
Technican exam is perfectly adequate for General class privileges. If
that is true, then ipso facto we can make the case that forevermore the
exam for General need be no more technically demanding than todays
fall-off-a-log-easy entry level Technician exam.

Now you and Ed Hare at ARRL can spin-doctor all you wish, but reality
doesn't care what you believe.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KØHB" wrote

|
| In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
| looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
| license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven
help
| us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!
|

On reflection, Mike, it seems there's some hope on this one. I found
this encouraging item:

I agree with you that we should vigorously resist classes
that legitimize "know-nothing appliance operator" status
.. and any form of "type acceptance" as well ...

73,
Carl - wa6vse

And, Hans, I don't believe that the ARRL proposals do anything of the sort
.... what they propose is a novice test that is more like the novice test of
old than today's (more difficult) Tech test as the "entry point" - and to
give the holders of that license enough privileges (access to HF) to allow
them to be "mainstreamed" and "get a taste of what 'real ham radio' is
like," so they'll remain interested and have an incentive to learn and
upgrade, rather than becoming bored and dropping out. (I would find it
boring if I lived in a place where there were few hams, fewer repeaters,
etc. - basically nobody to talk to - and I was restricted to VHF/UHF.)

There is no proposal to reduce the level of difficulty or comprehensiveness
of the General or Extra tests.

A majority of NCI's members opposed the NCVEC proposals for "commercial gear
only" and "low (=30V) finals only" for beginners, so it appears that they
want (or, more accurately, want beginners to have) the freedom to experiment
and tinker - as well as the opportunity to be able to pick up that "first HF
rig" as a hamfest special (maybe even a "fixer-upper") that's older,
cheaper, and has tube finals ... (and I would have concerns that a
"commercial only" limitation could eventually lead to "type acceptance"
requirements - which would drive up the cost of gear considerably)

While my personal comments supported the ARRL proposals (except, of course,
for the "keep the code test for Extra" part), I also in my *personal*
comments opposed those NCVEC proposals ... but if NCI's membership had
"voted" the other way in the survey, NCI's comments would have reported the
numbers accurately even though *I* would have disagreed.

There is a misperception that NCI members are all "newcomers who want
something for nothing" ... in actuallity, I think many, if not most, readers
here will be surprised to know the breakdown of how long the NCI members who
responded to the survey have been licensed:

Not licensed yet 1.3%
0-1 years 4.7%
1-2 years 7.6%
2-5 years 22.3%
5-10 years 23.6%
10-20 years 30.3%
20 years 10.3%

So, over 40% have been licensed for over 10 years, and just barely shy of
2/3 have been licensed for more than 5 years ... with another 22% between 2
and 5 years.

So you can see that we're not exactly "over-run with newbies wanting a
freebie ..."

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.

[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.

If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.

There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ... and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

Again ... please note that NCI's comments report what the membership said in
the survey (and that these are just initial comments on 4 of 18 outstanding
post-WRC-03 petitions - the "main event" will be when the FCC digests those
18 petitions and all of the comments on them and comes out with a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. I fully expect that NCI will use the services of the
survey service again to gather member input on the NPRM ...

Also ... I know that at least some of the ARRL Directors want to know what
the majority of their constituents feel on the issues ... and try to vote in
a way that represents their constituents.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

Hmmmmmm.....Sound's like a former eleceted official's "Silent Majority"
ploy, Hans...

Your suggestion of what "leadership" is is an open invitation to do what
"he" wants as opposed to what THEY want!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/24/2004 11:00 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I particularly appreciate you comment in light of the fact that I know you
don't agree with me (or NCI) on some of the issues.

If that is how it is, The officials should be hired as employees, and
vetted for compliance and obedience. Why elect anyone. Simply poll the
constituants, and do exactly what the majority asks.

I see your point, Mike, however in 85% of the cases the elected
representitives are supposed to be doing JUST that..."representing".

Yes, I know there are those times when they must act without taking the
time to get the "pulse" of what thier constituents want...Like responding to an
attack. In those cases I EXPECT them to not wait around. Otherwise, there's
very little reason for them to NOT be able to take SOME time to work with the
constituency.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.

But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element 1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

(In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)

You mean like when they opposed setting aside 300 kHz of 2 meters for modes
with bandwidth of less than 3 kHz?

But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.

Considering how ARRL has been criticized for doing just that....

Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".

Of course.

Now imagine that someone polled all US hams about whether or not Element 1
would remain for an HF amateur license. And imagine that the answer was a
resounding "YES!".

Would that result be used by NCI?

In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!

Exactly.

And recall that I was admonished here for discussing certain subjects. Now a
variation on those subjects/discussions has become an RM - and NCI *supports*
it!

Surreal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment
and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Note, however, that a
properly passed constitutional amendment is, by its own existence,
constitutional.

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.

[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.

If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement
on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views
to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.

And, like Carl, I 'personally' filed comments supporting the ARRL
petition except for code testing. I supported NCVEC where it
is the same as ARRL, where it ends all code testing...but I
opposed NCVEC on the other points. Cleraly I differ with the
NCI membership on several points as does Carl...and have made
my own comment filing on both petitions.

There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

No pass at all. Just agreement to disagree on a point. That
goes on everywhere in government, organizations, clubs, etc.

If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ... and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

And we have never encountered such a need in NCI.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

Again ... please note that NCI's comments report what the membership said
in
the survey (and that these are just initial comments on 4 of 18
outstanding
post-WRC-03 petitions - the "main event" will be when the FCC digests
those
18 petitions and all of the comments on them and comes out with a Notice
of
Proposed Rulemaking. I fully expect that NCI will use the services of the
survey service again to gather member input on the NPRM ...

Also ... I know that at least some of the ARRL Directors want to know what
the majority of their constituents feel on the issues ... and try to vote
in
a way that represents their constituents.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?


Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

(shudder)


Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.


And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.


[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.


If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.


There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.


So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

If you want to know the details, I was darn near lynched by 4 entire
teams parents after a controversial decision by the Board of Directors.
This was just about half the entire league and 100 percent of the
affected teams. They were going to walk, and that would have wrecked the
league. And it was no idle threat. The BOD decision had eliminated half
the games they would play, and no reduction of fees.

Quick! What would you do? Do you wreck your league by sticking to the
BOD decision, or do you defy it and not lose almost half your teams,
which in this case was effectively all the teams, due to league play
regulations. My decision was to reverse the BOD's decision, get the
parents back in the fold, and quite possibly sacrifice myself in the
process.

I can assure you that the situation was neither cute, nor charming. At
the time, I was thankful for my formidable physical presence!

It could even be argued that I was listening to my constituents. Even
though it was less than half the league, it was 100 percent of the
people affected by the decision. But now, who's the majority in that case?


If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ...

I did. I was willing to accept that.


and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

A soon as the rest of the BOD saw what happened, they realized their
mistake. Most were in fact grateful that I saved their collective kiesters.

So while people can pontificate on constituents and majorities and
"What You Have To Do", my experience shows that it *isn't that simple*.
Hopefully you won't find yourself in a similar situation. You might find
it easier to hide behind the "decision". At least that way you can say
"It wasn't my fault".



But we still digress here. My main point in all this is that it seems
to me that NCI is growing out if it's previous self defined interest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.


But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element 1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing. Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.


All this makes for a marked lack of credibility.


(In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)


You mean like when they opposed setting aside 300 kHz of 2 meters for modes
with bandwidth of less than 3 kHz?


But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.


Considering how ARRL has been criticized for doing just that....

Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".


Of course.

Now imagine that someone polled all US hams about whether or not Element 1
would remain for an HF amateur license. And imagine that the answer was a
resounding "YES!".

Would that result be used by NCI?



In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!


Exactly.

And recall that I was admonished here for discussing certain subjects. Now a
variation on those subjects/discussions has become an RM - and NCI *supports*
it!


That is because you were tipping their hand Jim!


Surreal.

How about this:

Certain people want to get rid of code testing so badly that they are
willing to do whatever necessary to do this.

Their constituency is largely in the group that will be positively
affected in the free upgrade, or "one time adjustment" if you prefer the
spun version.

Say anything do anything in support of your goal. Truth is so
subjective anyhow.


And now it isn't so surreal, is it?

- Mike KB3EIA -

But we still digress here. My main point in all this is that it seems
to me that NCI is growing out if it's previous self defined interest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

And you think this is sometthing NEW for NCI? Whats even funnier is that some
NCI Members are starting to cry about things that are happening. NCI MEMBERS
stop your BITCHING AND WHINNING, you got what you wanted, more DUMBING DOWN.

We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.

And you actually Believed KARL and the other Knuckle Draggers?

We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams"

I cant believe you guys bought that line of BS.

All this makes for a marked lack of credibility.


There was never any credibility

Their constituency is largely in the group that will be positively
affected in the free upgrade, or "one time adjustment" if you prefer the
spun version.

This has been there main goal all along. Hell most of them cant PASS the
written, let alone CW.
The next move is the good one, if they get there FREE HANDOUTS. Then there is
no reason for a GROUP not to pettion the FCC on behalf of the General
population, and DEMAND that all TESTS be reduced to the LEVEL of the NO-CODE.
If the No-Code Testing is good enough for the present then there is no reason
it shouldnt be good enough for the future. And I will bet you the FCC will go
along with it.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:



"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the

squeaky

wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy


Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC

petitions

was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative

manner.

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test.


NCI's *primary* goal is the elimination of Morse testing.

However, the NCI Bylaws, as Rick, W7RT, pointed out, contemplate and allow
for NCI to comment from time to time on issues that would have an effect on
at least a significant part of the membership.

Since the ARRL petition would have an effect on the structure of amateur
classes and privileges (both code-related and not) that will likely last for
at least a decade (we don't envision the FCC considering major changes for
about that long after a major restructuring), the Board felt it necessary to
ask the membership for their views.

First we asked, "Should NCI comment on the issues in the ARRL petition other
than the code test issue?"
Then, we asked for comment on the other issues point by point.


But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.


As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only practical
way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had evolved
over the years.

And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out, the
amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!" study
guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old General
that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

The fact is that many people mis-remember the tests they took many years ago
as being harder than they really were ... I guess that's human nature ...
after you get used to something it seems easier (and correspondingly the
beginning stages are remembered as harder).

I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.

Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002

All were at just about the correct level for the privileges conferred,
IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper preparation for the
General class license.



And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?


The testing regieme doesn't *have* to "go up again" ... NOBODY has proposed
that the testing regieme be changed ... only that, in the interest of
"nobody loses privileges" (which was a DISASTER in the past), that there be
a one-time "adjustment" to make everyone fit the new structure without
losing ...

But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply don't
care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test one day
before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the testing
process than the person that takes the general test the day after "the
adjustment".

While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look at it
as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this proposal.

It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards, as
they will not have taken a General element test.

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.

- Mike KB3EIA -