"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.

You are free to take whatever exception you want.

Particularly when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

There is NO obligation for NCI to publish that data...as you well know.

(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....

Politics 101: You can't please all the people (or members) all
the time.

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?

Hypothetical silliness again. I have no time to
discuss that which will never happen.

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!

What aspect/variation are you talking about?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message


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.


Quick comment, Bill. In the context of what Carl and I were discussing,
they pretty much did give me a pass. I deliberately defied a board
decision (the background is in another post I just made) for the good of
the league, and our groups very existence. I fully expected to be
removed from my position.
But as I noted in the post, in the end, most were very grateful I did
what I did, as they concluded that thier ruling that I defied was likely
a fatal mistake.

- Mike KB3EIA

There is NO obligation for NCI to publish that data...as you well know.


Of course not, your group doesnt want anyone to know hnow small your org is.

Politics 101: You can't please all the people (or members) all
the time.

And everyone knows how Lies are part of politics.

Hypothetical silliness again. I have no time to
discuss that which will never happen.

Just like, we will never support Dumbing Down of the Written

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

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
*Proudly applied for first award, KMPW (1000 Miles Per Watt) for LI, NY to
Kilauea. HI or 5053 miles with 5 Watts. :-)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

I suspect then you'd be unhappy with the General/Tech test given in the
latter 50's throught the gos which until 1968 conferred full operating
privileges to Generals. The ARRL study guide for General was
only 16 pages of material.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Sorry Bert, whereas NCI can look only to its membership
for guidance as to NCI's organizational stance, the FCC can
not simply look ONLY towards the already licensed
amateur community for its input and guidance. In fact,
I know of NO entity that claims total representation
of ONLY the existing licensed body of hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Sorry Bert, whereas NCI can look only to its membership
for guidance as to NCI's organizational stance, the FCC can
not simply look ONLY towards the already licensed
amateur community for its input and guidance. In fact,
I know of NO entity that claims total representation
of ONLY the existing licensed body of hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Guess you missed it, again..."AND those who are interested in becoming a
licensed U.S. AR."

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bert Craig wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c


We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
*Proudly applied for first award, KMPW (1000 Miles Per Watt) for LI, NY to
Kilauea. HI or 5053 miles with 5 Watts. :-)


Once again there is only one vote that ends up counting - the FCC's. I
would suggest they
may have tipped their hand on this proposal based on the recent NPRM.
In the section on the petition for granting upgrades based on service
they say this.

"Rather, we believe that passing an examination concerning the
operational and technical privileges of a higher class operator license
shows that a licensee qualifies for that license. In this regard, we
note that because current examination questions reflect current
technological advances and operating practices that did not exist twenty
years ago the examinations an examinee must pass today may be more
difficult than the examinations required of licensees in the past. For
these reasons, we deny the petition."

What was said about another petition regarding expanding privileges may
also be pertinent.

" We believe that a Novice or Technician Plus Class licensee can easily
upgrade to the General or Amateur Extra Class, thereby obtaining access
to significantly more spectrum and greatly increasing the chance of
establishing contacts with other amateur radio stations. Additionally,
because the number of Novice and Technician Plus Class licensees has
declined significantly, we believe that we should address operating
privileges for these license classes only in a comprehensive
restructuring of operating privileges for all license classes. "

John

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

some snippage

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.


I suspect then you'd be unhappy with the General/Tech test given in the
latter 50's throught the gos which until 1968 conferred full operating
privileges to Generals. The ARRL study guide for General was
only 16 pages of material.

I don't know. Comparing the relative difficulties is pretty hard. I've
tried, and so much has changed between then and now.

I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
difference is about impossible to quantify.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written
examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of
those two exams.

The ARRL proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees. They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!
This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"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"?

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

bb

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

Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

73 de de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"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".

Also NCVEC.

The ARRL proposal says it is "absolutely necessary" to eliminate
license classes that are not available to new issues (such as the
Advanced) anymore.
Why it is so "absolutely necessary" is not explained.

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"?

Bingo!

The Advanced class was closed to new issues from the beginning of 1953
to some time in 1967. The FCC kept those folks on the paper database
for all those years, even though an Advanced carried no different
privileges than a General back then.

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

What's it's RM-number? It looks better and better...

| 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.

Yup.

And remember this fun fact: *anyone* who passed the old Technician
(before March 21, 1987) and can dicument it and now holds a Technician
(or passes the 35 question test for it) can get a no-additional-tests
upgrade to General. Just go to a VE session, present the
documentation, pay the fee and get the upgrade. Even a Tech license
that expired in 1956 is good for Element 1 and Element 3 credit.

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.

That's the discussion that I was admonished not to have some months
back.

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

Same argument goes for the Advanced.

73 de Jim, N2EY

This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur

Karl cant be trusted, and his WORD has never been truthfull. I think Karl is on
some EGO TRIP. I think he really believes hes the SAVIOR of Ham Radio, when In
truth hes 1 of the many forces destroying it.

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

bb


Of course, that is the Real Motive, 1 License, 1 Test, maybe not even a TEST,
remember were all EQUAL, arent we?

Even a Tech license
that expired in 1956 is good for Element 1 and Element 3 credit.


Thought you would get lifetime credit for Element 1 only. At 5WPM. If
you took and passed 13 or 20 and didn't do 5 I heard that you would not
get credit for Element 1.

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.


Does it really require more skill and knowledge to operate on 14.155 vs.
14.326? ;-)

Of course the real reason for the frequency based priv's is that it is
easily identified
what frequency you are operating on at a remote FCC receiving site.

Your point is more valid when comparing techs against general/extras
(VHF vs HF).




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 -

N2EY wrote:

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

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.


Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

I've tried that already, Jim. They don't like thought experiments very
much!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Oops. You've strayed.

Why, why even have a TEST? The test doesnt prove anything anymore.

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/25/2004 4:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S.
licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Sorry Bert, whereas NCI can look only to its membership
for guidance as to NCI's organizational stance, the FCC can
not simply look ONLY towards the already licensed
amateur community for its input and guidance. In fact,
I know of NO entity that claims total representation
of ONLY the existing licensed body of hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Guess you missed it, again..."AND those who are interested in becoming a
licensed U.S. AR."

It would not even be limited to existing and interested. FCC rules
can be and should be subject to review and comment by anyone,
interested or not.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:

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

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.


Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

I've tried that already, Jim. They don't like thought experiments very
much!

Especially one as silly as that just suggested by Jim.
Me thinks Jim has too much idle time on his hands :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/26/2004 5:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/25/2004 4:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

There you go with your extremism again.

What extremism...?!?!

Your suggestion of "one license fits all" is the very epitome of
socialism, Brian.

Again I ask you, Socialist or Marxist?

The withering of the soul due to the numbinginly cold and apathetic "one
size fits all" socialist state was at the very heart of the fall of the Soviet
Union, Brian...or weren't you paying attention to social issues in the
80's...?!?!

Sheeesh...

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/26/2004 5:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/25/2004 4:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

There you go with your extremism again.


And the question remains...Socialist or Marxist? You must be one or the
other in order to hold such concepts.

Steve, K4YZ

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:

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

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.


Thought-experiment:

Suppose the vast majority of your membership said they'd reconsidered.

Suppose they said that 5 wpm for Extra was OK, as proposed by ARRL.

Would NCI support that, or simply expel the heretics?

I've tried that already, Jim. They don't like thought experiments very
much!

Especially one as silly as that just suggested by Jim.

It is interesting that NCI folks avoid such a simple, direct question.

Me thinks Jim has too much idle time on his hands :-)

It took only a few seconds to write that post. Far more has been spent
by NCI folks trying to justify their support of free upgrades for
Techs after at least one said they would *never* support reductions in
the written requirements.

Hans, K0HB has described the situation plainly and clearly.

As for my thought-experiment being "silly" - that's exactly what many
of us were told about possible reductions in written test standards.

Here's another thought-experiment:

Suppose that, in order to break the logjam, someone proposes that the
lower 15-20% of each MF/HF ham band be made manual-CW-only. And a 5
wpm code test would be required to use those segments.

And suppose the majority of NCI members said "Fine! The code folks
will have their protected spots and the rest of us won't have to deal
with code unless we want to, and we can disband NCI and move on."

What would NCI's leadership do?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.

We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.

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.

Sorry ... but that's BS ... there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ... the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ... I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.

We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.

Carl - wk3c

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written
examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of
those two exams.

The ARRL proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees.

I would suggest that "relevant" might be substituted for "harder",
Hans. While the giveaway goons whine about how hard the test is or
isn't, The fact is that the general test tests for knowledge that is
*relevant* to hf operation.

So in the great giveaway, people will be given access to HF without
some of the necessary knowledge.

Is that fair to them?


Fact: None of the tests are that hard. All it takes is some study.

Fact: the tests aren't necessarily supposed to be hard. They are to
show that a person is prepared to exercise the privileges gained by
passing the test.

Fact: the "one time adjustment" hams, now a majority of hams, will not
have been prepared properly for their HF access.

Opinion: It is one heck of a disservice we are doing for them.



They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!

I don't care about Ed's test.

This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

It's a heavy weight to bear.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

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.


Sorry ... but that's BS ... there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ... the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

Hey Carl. I don't call any of your ideas what you just called mine.
Fine gentleman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"William" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of
thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

So...you're either a Socialist or a Marxist. Which is
it?


Brian,

Just as a matter of interest, the USSR (Socialist) had 4 classes
of license. Hmmmmm, maybe they weren't Socialist after all?

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Please quit quoting the Crockstar so profusely. It allows
him to evade my Bozo Bin when someone else quotes him.

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

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.

Uh-huh.

We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.

You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?

And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.

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.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?

there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...

Not directly.

However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.

You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.

It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.

How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.

Or better yet - how about this:

Enact a new 2 class license system.

Two license classes: Basic and Full.

Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.

Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.

Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.

Would that be a good system? Why or why not?

the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.

I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...

Yet it was not proposed by NCI.

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.

Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.

Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.

The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Robert Casey wrote in message ...

(I previously wrote):

Even a Tech license
that expired in 1956 is good for Element 1 and Element 3 credit.


Thought you would get lifetime credit for Element 1 only.

See below.

At 5WPM. If
you took and passed 13 or 20 and didn't do 5 I heard that you would not
get credit for Element 1.

That part is true - you have to have passed 5 wpm to get Element 1
credit.

Quoting Part 97:

§97.505 Element credit.

(a) The administering VEs must give credit as specified below to an
examinee
holding any of the following license grants or license documents:

(1) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Advanced Class operator license grant: Elements 1, 2, and
3.

(2) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted General Class operator license grant: Elements 1, 2, and
3.

(3) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Technician Plus Class operator (including a Technician
Class
operator license granted before February 14, 1991) license grant:
Elements 1
and 2.

(4) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Technician Class operator license grant: Element 2.

(5) An unexpired (or expired) FCC-granted Novice Class operator
license grant:
Element 1.

(6) A CSCE: Each element the CSCE indicates the examinee passed within
the
previous 365 days.

(7) An unexpired (or expired less than 5 years) FCC-issued commercial
radiotelegraph operator license or permit: Element 1.

(8) An expired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license document
granted
before March 21, 1987: Element 3.

(9) An expired or unexpired FCC-issued Technician Class operator
license
document granted before February 14, 1991: Element 1.

(b) No examination credit, except as herein provided, shall be allowed
on the
basis of holding or having held any other license grant or document.

(End of Part 97 quote)

Note that an old expired Tech can be good for Element and 3,
(97.505/8) and an old expired Novice or Tech can be good for Element
1. (97.505/9). So anyone who ever held a Tech before March 21, 1987
and can document it need only pass Element 2 to get a General.

Consider these scenarios:

Expired Novice or Tech-with-code licenses are good for Element 1, but
other
expired-beyond-the-grace-period licenses are not. So someone who held
a Novice
53 years ago and let it expire gets Element 1 credit, but someone who
held an
Extra and let it expire 732 days ago gets no credit. Similar for
Technician.

In similar fashion, an expired Tech from before March 21, 1987 is
worth Element
3, but not Element 2! Also, no other expired-beyond-the-grace-period
license is
worth written element credit.

But them's the rules.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

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.

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.


Uh-huh.

I always thought it was a good idea to arrange things so that you
didn't have to ever say "what I really meant was...."


We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.


You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?

And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.


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.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?

And I wonder what 100 non-Hams would say about the situation. Not
people that stand to get the free "one time adjustment" or their leaders.

there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...


Not directly.

Not yet.

However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.

I still say we are ripping them off.


You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.

On average, most Generals will have been tested at the Technician
level. I'll entertain anyone's attempt to say that the average testing
level has not gone down.

It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.

How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.

Or better yet - how about this:

Enact a new 2 class license system.

Two license classes: Basic and Full.

Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.

Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.

Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.

Would that be a good system? Why or why not?


the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...


Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.


snicker...


I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...


Yet it was not proposed by NCI.


I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


Testing = knowledge = bad

Unfortunately, we seem headed that way


NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?



We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.


Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.

I do care about integrity.

I don't even care if people change their mind. I've done it in the
past, and if I was wrong, I said so, and if I just got more data, I said
that too.

But I don't care for spinning a story to make it seem as if a
contradiction was indeed, not a contradiction.

And they can say whatever disparaging comments about my argument that
they like. It only convinces me that I have hit a nerve.


ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.

The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?

Occam's razor says that ARRL sees that few Technicians belong to the
organization, so they rationalize that if we change that so that most
hams have HF access, more will join. Simplest answer, likeliest answer.

But we so seldom approach things directly.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...

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.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?

No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that
we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will
be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

[snip]

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be
allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.

I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)

I do care about integrity.

Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...


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.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?


No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]


I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that

we

need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will

be

interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.


Many people's mileage varys on that ...


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.


Testing = knowledge = bad


No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad


Hold on Carl. You are putting Jim's and my posts together here. (at
least I think) I support Morse code testing. But if it goes away, I
doubt I'll miss a minute of sleep.

But I don't think that the tested requirements for General are
irrelevant or unnecessary, etc. I think you were talking about element
one instead of the writtens?


[snip]


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?


Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...


You're still replying to Jim here. I gave up on the hypothetical
questions a little while ago.

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."


I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be

allowed

to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.


Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I support a system that is basically like what we have now. Only
difference is that Morse code is not tested for AT ALL. I would think
NCI would prefer a system like that instead of one in which there is
still a test for Extra. No one loses *anything at all*. No one gains.
And if the Technicians want to upgrade to General, they will now have
the ability to take the General test without Element one.

Now this does not address the problem of the different classes. I could
be convinced that that there is the need to change the classes. I would
ask for some solid evidence of the difficulties that people are going
through with the present system. But I really don't think that people
are having such difficulties.

I keep a database that has numbers assigned to parts that are 50 years
old. Those numbers aren't used any more, and in fact are assigned new
names. But the old names are still there. It isn't a problem at all, and
in fact would be more trouble to change than it is to just let it alone.


I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.


I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)


Of course not!

I do care about integrity.


Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.