"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

You will note at the top that I said I thought I had inadvertently mixed
in/didn't trim some of Jim's comments.

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?

You are correct ...

[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.

The one part of the ARRL proposal that NCI opposes is the "keep the Morse
test for Extra" part.

73,
Carl - wk3c

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

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.


The one part of the ARRL proposal that NCI opposes is the "keep the Morse
test for Extra" part.

Do you think my proposal is BS?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/26/2004 9:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net

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

If it's a "Bozo Bin", how do you see your OWN posts, Pops?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/26/2004 4:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

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

OK, you've pigeon-holed it as Socialism.

Again I ask you, Socialist or Marxist?

Since you've already pigeon-holed my idea as Socialist, why do you ask
such a stupid question?

I haven't pigeon-holed anything.

I asked you a question about your views which I said are the "epitome" of
socialism. You then decried it as "extremist" and got very defensive rather
than explain why you think this "one licnese fits all" idea would work.

I can tell you in ONE sentence why it WOULDN'T...It wouldn't fulfil the
requirements of Part 97.1, Basis and Purpose.

Because you're not happy enough to call me a Socialist, you've got to
call me a Marxist, too!

Did I say that you tend toward extremes?

I asked you a question which you've chose to become argumentive about
rather than discuss like a man.

Your problem, Brian, not mine.

You COULD have just explained your position...Instead you resorted to
Sandlot 101.

Teach that in the Scouts, do you? I am sure you are the milestone against
which leaders are hallmarked.

Let me 'splain it to you Steve.

In Socialism, there are two license classes. A class for the masses,
and a class for the governmental elitists.

In Marxism, there is one license class. A class for the governmental
elitists.

And you are which...?!?! (Do I need to ask a FOURTH time...????)

Steve, K4YZ

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


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

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.


The one part of the ARRL proposal that NCI opposes is the "keep the
Morse
test for Extra" part.

Do you think my proposal is BS?

- Mike KB3EIA -

You are free to have your own views/proposals. I didn't say they were BS
.... I was ONLY talking about the assertion that NCI was "supporting a
reduction in written test requirements" and your "spin" comments.

Carl - wk3c

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


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

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.


The one part of the ARRL proposal that NCI opposes is the "keep the

Morse

test for Extra" part.

Do you think my proposal is BS?

- Mike KB3EIA -


You are free to have your own views/proposals. I didn't say they were BS
... I was ONLY talking about the assertion that NCI was "supporting a
reduction in written test requirements" and your "spin" comments.

But do you think my proposal will work? We have a number of years of
operation under such a system, and I have not heard of any problems with
the database administration of the orphan licensees.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/27/2004 7:24 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

And you are which...?!?! (Do I need to ask a FOURTH time...????)

Steve, K4YZ

Inflamatory questions won't be answered.

So far that's been just about ANY question put to you.

I guess your brief slip into lucidity has waned and it's back to being
"Brain" again.

Steve, K4YZ

"Mike Coslo" wrote


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.


We can quit fussing about the NCI "support" of the "Great ARRL
Giveaway". I've read the NCI comments on RM-10867, and they
contain no persuasive arguments whatsoever. Basically NCI just
ticks off the points of the ARRL/NCVEC petitions, and "supports"
them with remarks like "81% agree with this", "92% agree with
this", etc.

Reading the FCC ECFS comments uncovered one very heartening bit
of information. W3BE, who is generally a very staunch supporter
of ARRL, and who notably is a member of NCVEC (with their clone
giveaway proposal) rips into them (ARRL and by extension NCVEC)
on several points. John is also a long time FCC'er and his views
will have influence with the Commission. In stark contrast to
the say-nothing NCI comments, here are some excerpts from his
submittal.

"This commenter also takes issue with the petition.s plan for the
Commission to upgrade our 282,500 Technician and our 67,532 Tech
Plus operators, without examination, to General Class.19 In
effect, our present 146,164 General Class operators -- all of
whom have qualified by examination for the privileges of that
operator license class -- would suddenly find their stations
sharing their privileges with some 350,032 operators, none of
whom have similarly qualified. Today, for a Technician or Tech
Plus Class operator to upgrade to our General Class, the person
has to answer correctly 26 out of a unique set of 35 questions
concerning the privileges of our General Class operators.20 Each
examination utilizes questions taken from our Element 3 question
pool. Our pool is also maintained through a cooperative effort
among our VECs and is in the public domain. An Amateur Extra or
Advanced Class VE has prepared each question in this pool. It
is, therefore, the definitive statement by our knowledgeable
operators as to what a successful examinee for our General Class
operator license needs to know. Our VEs stand ready to administer
this examination to any and all of our Technician and Tech Plus
Class operators. There are training manuals and courses available
to those who need assistance.



"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence. After all, the Commission would have excused from our
examination over 70% of our General Class licensees. More than
two operators out of three, therefore, would be unqualified for
their privileges. Such an indefensible situation would be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to also dismiss this aspect of the proposal.

"This commenter takes issue with the petition's plan that would
have the Commission upgrade our 84,563 Advanced Class operators
to Amateur Extra Class without proving to our amateur service
community that they are qualified to hold this -- our most
prestigious class of operator license. To adopt this proposal
would be highly unfair to our most dedicated and most highly
qualified 107,313 Amateur Extra Class operators who have expended
the time and effort to master the necessary qualifications. By
climbing to the top, step-by-step, they have demonstrated their
unqualified support for the objectives of our amateur service in
our United States. Our Advanced Class operators -- for whatever
reasons. have stopped short of the top rung of our ladder. To
implement any such plan would diminish the reputation for
excellence associated with our expert class. It would incur the
disapproval of the very amateur operators who have so faithfully
passed all of our examinations. It would, therefore, be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to dismiss this aspect of the proposal."


---Then he takes aim on the disincentive licensing practice of
slicing the bands up into it's current host of
ghettos-by-license-class.

"Finally, this commenter takes issue with the petition.s request
to once again tinker with our frequency sub-bands. Our frequency
sub-bands are the classic example of well intentioned, but
ineffective, rules taking on a life of their own. All operator
frequency authorizations should be as complete bands. Only in
this manner would the notion of spectrum rewards as an upgrading
motivator have a chance of working effectively. Too many hams
seem to have the attitude, 'I like my call sign. There's no need
to upgrade just for a few more kHz.. That should tell us
something. It is the Commission's class-distinctive sequential
call sign system that is the upgrading motivational tool that
works. Slicing up a frequency band by license classes seems to
provide little, if any, significant motivation for upgrading to
those who need motivation beyond the personal satisfaction of
having attained our expert level of excellence. A segregated
frequency sub-band scheme clearly increases the monitoring and
enforcement workloads and isolates those whose self-training
progress would benefit most from over-the-air communication with
those having the expertise of the higher operator classes. It
would, therefore, be detrimental to the future well being of our
amateur service and for maintaining harmony and goodwill within
our amateur service community. This commenter, therefore, asks
respectfully for the Commission to also dismiss this aspect of
the proposal."



Finally, it was humorous to note one commenter who has submitted
a total of 89 pages of comments, almost totally unresponsive to
the ARRL petition, but merely tangential meanderings
uncomplimentary to amateur radio in general. Unfortunately he
gave no call sign, so I was unable to identify his license class.



73, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/28/2004 8:37 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

Reading the FCC ECFS comments uncovered one very heartening bit
of information. W3BE, who is generally a very staunch supporter
of ARRL, and who notably is a member of NCVEC (with their clone
giveaway proposal) rips into them (ARRL and by extension NCVEC)
on several points. John is also a long time FCC'er and his views
will have influence with the Commission. In stark contrast to
the say-nothing NCI comments, here are some excerpts from his
submittal.

(Quoting from W3BE's comments:)

"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence....(SNIP)

Lord knows the FCC doesn't need to "sully" it's reputation any more than
it already has. I don't think it could stand any more "sully(ing)" than they
ahve already inflicted upon themselves and us as an end result...

73

Steve, K4YZ

"supports"
them with remarks like "81% agree with this", "92% agree with
this", etc.

This is the best part of NCIs BS. 81%, whats that come out to 20 people, 92%,
whats that 24 people. It might have some REAL meaning, but, since NCIs
Membership is TOP SECRET, its value is useless.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

But do you think my proposal will work? We have a number of years of
operation under such a system, and I have not heard of any problems with
the database administration of the orphan licensees.

- Mike KB3EIA -


It's not *just* the database administration. Another aspect of the problem
is that the *rules* have to be maintained for those orphaned classes. How
do you deal with the sub-band by class privs without consolidation.

By consolidating into just three classes (including the new beginner class
with meaningful HF privs), the rules can be simplified greatly. That will
ease the administrative burden on the FCC (and the VECs) in ways that go
beyond just the database issue.

Carl - wk3c

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


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.



We can quit fussing about the NCI "support" of the "Great ARRL
Giveaway". I've read the NCI comments on RM-10867, and they
contain no persuasive arguments whatsoever. Basically NCI just
ticks off the points of the ARRL/NCVEC petitions, and "supports"
them with remarks like "81% agree with this", "92% agree with
this", etc.

Yeah, you're right. Those numbers don't mean a whole lot since it is
those that chose to respond to the poll, etc, etc...



Reading the FCC ECFS comments uncovered one very heartening bit
of information. W3BE, who is generally a very staunch supporter
of ARRL, and who notably is a member of NCVEC (with their clone
giveaway proposal) rips into them (ARRL and by extension NCVEC)
on several points. John is also a long time FCC'er and his views
will have influence with the Commission. In stark contrast to
the say-nothing NCI comments, here are some excerpts from his
submittal.

"This commenter also takes issue with the petition.s plan for the
Commission to upgrade our 282,500 Technician and our 67,532 Tech
Plus operators, without examination, to General Class.19 In
effect, our present 146,164 General Class operators -- all of
whom have qualified by examination for the privileges of that
operator license class -- would suddenly find their stations
sharing their privileges with some 350,032 operators, none of
whom have similarly qualified. Today, for a Technician or Tech
Plus Class operator to upgrade to our General Class, the person
has to answer correctly 26 out of a unique set of 35 questions
concerning the privileges of our General Class operators.20 Each
examination utilizes questions taken from our Element 3 question
pool. Our pool is also maintained through a cooperative effort
among our VECs and is in the public domain. An Amateur Extra or
Advanced Class VE has prepared each question in this pool. It
is, therefore, the definitive statement by our knowledgeable
operators as to what a successful examinee for our General Class
operator license needs to know. Our VEs stand ready to administer
this examination to any and all of our Technician and Tech Plus
Class operators. There are training manuals and courses available
to those who need assistance.

Freakin' Elegant!


"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence. After all, the Commission would have excused from our
examination over 70% of our General Class licensees. More than
two operators out of three, therefore, would be unqualified for
their privileges. Such an indefensible situation would be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to also dismiss this aspect of the proposal.

Wordy but spot-on!



"This commenter takes issue with the petition's plan that would
have the Commission upgrade our 84,563 Advanced Class operators
to Amateur Extra Class without proving to our amateur service
community that they are qualified to hold this -- our most
prestigious class of operator license. To adopt this proposal
would be highly unfair to our most dedicated and most highly
qualified 107,313 Amateur Extra Class operators who have expended
the time and effort to master the necessary qualifications. By
climbing to the top, step-by-step, they have demonstrated their
unqualified support for the objectives of our amateur service in
our United States. Our Advanced Class operators -- for whatever
reasons. have stopped short of the top rung of our ladder. To
implement any such plan would diminish the reputation for
excellence associated with our expert class. It would incur the
disapproval of the very amateur operators who have so faithfully
passed all of our examinations. It would, therefore, be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to dismiss this aspect of the proposal."


I want to shake this dude's hand! It's almost like something MEANS
something! Like our licenses.

That is one of the saddest things about the Giveaway...oops,
the one time adjustment. In the end, all it does is dilute the service.
More General glass ops? sure. But if most of them are Technicians, that
will dilute the average amateur to the Technician level.

If some people here think that's BS, let 'em. Life's a b***h, and then
ya have to listen to my opinion.

---Then he takes aim on the disincentive licensing practice of
slicing the bands up into it's current host of
ghettos-by-license-class.

"Finally, this commenter takes issue with the petition.s request
to once again tinker with our frequency sub-bands. Our frequency
sub-bands are the classic example of well intentioned, but
ineffective, rules taking on a life of their own.

Process before progress.


All operator
frequency authorizations should be as complete bands. Only in
this manner would the notion of spectrum rewards as an upgrading
motivator have a chance of working effectively. Too many hams
seem to have the attitude, 'I like my call sign. There's no need
to upgrade just for a few more kHz.. That should tell us
something. It is the Commission's class-distinctive sequential
call sign system that is the upgrading motivational tool that
works. Slicing up a frequency band by license classes seems to
provide little, if any, significant motivation for upgrading to
those who need motivation beyond the personal satisfaction of
having attained our expert level of excellence. A segregated
frequency sub-band scheme clearly increases the monitoring and
enforcement workloads and isolates those whose self-training
progress would benefit most from over-the-air communication with
those having the expertise of the higher operator classes. It
would, therefore, be detrimental to the future well being of our
amateur service and for maintaining harmony and goodwill within
our amateur service community. This commenter, therefore, asks
respectfully for the Commission to also dismiss this aspect of
the proposal."



Finally, it was humorous to note one commenter who has submitted
a total of 89 pages of comments, almost totally unresponsive to
the ARRL petition, but merely tangential meanderings
uncomplimentary to amateur radio in general. Unfortunately he
gave no call sign, so I was unable to identify his license class.

could it be???????

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
..

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.


In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
.

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.



In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.

The day after the "one time upgrade" the testing level of the average
General class licensee has gone up or down?

When is *lowering* the average tested levels of Hams a good thing?

Hans, I liked your "average" quote in the "Morse and contests" thread.
Maybe it fits here too.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence. After all, the Commission would have excused from our
examination over 70% of our General Class licensees. More than
two operators out of three, therefore, would be unqualified for
their privileges.

This would be a serious issue at the FAA for pilot licenses or even at your
local DMV for truck or bus driver licenses, but, really, from a safety and
regulatory standpoint, there isn't a whole lotta difference between HF
and VHF.
Sure it's good to know what HF band will have decent propagation at what
times, but if you did make a poor selection the worst that happens is that
you get no answer to a CQ. The regulatory rules (no pecunary business
comms, don't maliciously interfere, nobody owns any one frequency, and such)
are pretty much the same regardless of the band.






"This commenter takes issue with the petition's plan that would
have the Commission upgrade our 84,563 Advanced Class operators
to Amateur Extra Class without proving to our amateur service
community that they are qualified to hold this -- our most
prestigious class of operator license. To adopt this proposal
would be highly unfair to our most dedicated and most highly
qualified 107,313 Amateur Extra Class operators who have expended
the time and effort to master the necessary qualifications. By
climbing to the top, step-by-step, they have demonstrated their
unqualified support for the objectives of our amateur service in
our United States. Our Advanced Class operators -- for whatever
reasons. have stopped short of the top rung of our ladder. To
implement any such plan would diminish the reputation for
excellence associated with our expert class. It would incur the
disapproval of the very amateur operators who have so faithfully
passed all of our examinations. It would, therefore, be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to dismiss this aspect of the proposal."

Except for a few medical waviers, every Advanced had to pass a 13 WPM
code test.
I'd be willing to equate that to passing the old Extra element 4b written.
Advanceds' and Extras' passed element 4a. But newer Extras (I'm an
"Extra Lite" didn't have to pass 20 or even 13 WPM. So:
element 4a + 4b (nowadays just element 4) + 5 WPM = element 4a + 13 WPM

Oh, there'd be two varities of new extras (written extra and code extra)
but I don't
see a need to keep track of which one any one extra is. This would get
us to
one less license class for the FCC to deal with.

By extension, they could also be done to make old novices to become no-code
techs. But that might mean making them give up the HF novice subbands in
trade for VHF and above. Not sure if that's such a hot idea..... Are
there
any truely active novices who haven't upgraded to general or extra by now?




I want to shake this dude's hand! It's almost like something MEANS
something! Like our licenses.

Getting a "gold star" is nice, but there really isn't anything a general
can't do that an extra
can do, except operate on certian subbands. Otherwise it's all the same
modes and power
levels. So what does the government (FCC) get out of it? The subbands
are a "carrot"
to get people to upgrade, but I'm not sure what the FCC gets out of it.



That is one of the saddest things about the Giveaway...oops,
the one time adjustment. In the end, all it does is dilute the service.
More General glass ops? sure. But if most of them are Technicians,
that will dilute the average amateur to the Technician level.


How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model railroading
doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur astronomy.

"Robert Casey" wrote


How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model
railroading
doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur
astronomy.


OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Robert Casey" wrote



How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model


railroading


doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur


astronomy.



OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.



Nah, that's 11 meters. Nobody wants that mess on the ham bands. My point
was to mention competing hobbies that do not require a license to do. Also
an additional point I wanted to make was that we need to avoid excessive
grades or levels of ham license.

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: Robert Casey
Date: 4/28/2004 6:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

KØHB wrote:

"Robert Casey" wrote

How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model
railroading doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur
astronomy.

OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.

Nah, that's 11 meters. Nobody wants that mess on the ham bands. My point
was to mention competing hobbies that do not require a license to do. Also
an additional point I wanted to make was that we need to avoid excessive
grades or levels of ham license.

Most other "competing hobbies" don't have the potential to create havoc
like an untrained, unlicensed person let loose with a radio transmitter that
s/he doesn't know how to use properly.

Most other "competing hobbies" with the potential to create a hazard to
the public are either licensed or regulated by the government in some fashion
(ie: hang gliding, SCUBA diving, motorcycle racing, etc.)

And, unfortunately Robert, there ARE some people who would love to hear
"that mess" on the Ham bands. They are few and for the most part, functionally
illiterate, but they are there. (ie: WA8ULX)

73

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
.

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.


In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".

73, de Hans, K0HB


That's why I thanked my lucky stars that I met the Air Force
standards. What few females we got were the Calendar Girls.

They are few and for the most part, functionally
illiterate, but they are there. (ie: WA8ULX)

73

Steve, K4YZ


Screw you BED PAN BOY

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/28/2004 7:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Inflamatory questions won't be answered.

So far that's been just about ANY question put to you.

Hey! Whatta you know? I agree with that.

Which pretty much makes you a coward, especially in as all of the
questions were the result of stupid statements YOU made...Like how "unlicensed
radio services play a "major role" in disaster communicaitons".

Still waiting for you to pull THAT rabbit out of your....hat.


Steve, K4YZ

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

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.



In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.

We didn't think it was "actually harmful to the ARS" - there was just not
unanimous agreement amongst the directors on a couple of points ...

Carl - wk3c

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (William)
Date: 4/28/2004 8:06 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

That's why I thanked my lucky stars that I met the Air Force
standards. What few females we got were the Calendar Girls.

Uh huh...

From "The Far Side", perhaps!

Steve, K4YZ

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

Wow, Hans' "question" looks like a simple matter of yes or no to me. I
think he even gave you a gracious "out" with the inclusion of "The
Board will take no position on this matter." Where's the "bias?"

73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Robert Casey wrote:
KØHB wrote:

"Robert Casey" wrote



How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model


railroading


doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur


astronomy.



OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.



Nah, that's 11 meters. Nobody wants that mess on the ham bands. My point
was to mention competing hobbies that do not require a license to do. Also
an additional point I wanted to make was that we need to avoid excessive
grades or levels of ham license.

perhaps they compete for participation, but they certainly not the
same. I also do amateur astronomy, and can't do much harm if I have a
poor telescope or don't know how to use it properly.

If I don't know anything about RF safety or if I can't adjust my radio
or if I put up a station that puts out RFI I can certainly have an
impact on myself and others.


- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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 ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

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.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

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.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think you're the most objective
observer of people's interest in Morse Code. Nor do I think you'd be
quite the best salesperson for the mode...

Here's testimony from someone (not me!) who actually works with *lots*
of kids on a long-term basis. This guy is right here in EPA, closer to
your QTH than to mine. His program goes after the exact kinds of kids
we say we want to attract. These are *his* words and experiences, not
mine:

BEGIN QUOTE:

"I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activity,
at the local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in
the World, and it covers many aspects of radio and television,
and of course, pushes ham radio. Each year I have had several
students, both boys and girls, obtain their license and try to
help them continue on the hobby."

"With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the students
were a pleasure to work with and each year the district offers
me a nice salary to teach the class and each year I decline it.
Yes, it is a lot of work, but the students enjoy it and come away
with a very positive idea of ham radio."

"The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to
work at making sure I have an interesting program and that no
part of it goes on and on and on. I set the rules at the first
meeting and have not had any serious problems. (My son and his
friends have been my biggest problem.) If one expects the
students to sit in their chairs and listen to a presentation
for an hour, after being in school all day, they good luck. I
combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part
of ARRL videos, short movies, simple building projects and
computers. Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

"I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the
kids obey them and something must be going right, a few kids
who were in the previous class always take the next year's
class and we always have 35 to 40 students. In fact, my
biggest problem is that other students want to join the class
after it has been on a few weeks."

"Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge
at Boy Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for
six kids. I had over 1/4 of the camp at the classes and more
wanted to attend. We got a dozen hams out of that one."

"So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about
reaching out to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just
the camp alone, with eight weeks of camp, would produce
between 80 and 100 new hams....with about 400 Scout
Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a
very nice increase in our membership."

"I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new hams need
help in
getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email address
and send
them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and local
clubs.
We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people in our
hobby, or
we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh, it is
easier to
complain...right?"

END QUOTE

Note that sentence at the end of the third paragraph. The emphasis is
his:

"Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

Just one teacher's experience in one middle school and one Boy Scout
camp. But he's there, with the kids, doing the teaching and recruiting
on his own time.

Who are any of us - including you, Carl - to say he's wrong?

What evidence do you have to counter what he says, Carl?

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

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

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

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 ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

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 ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

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."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

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.

If 2/3 of the extant holders of a license haven't passed the written
test for that license, the standards have been weakened.

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.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

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.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.



73 de Jim, N2EY

NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.



Who determines what is "harmful"?

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".

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.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

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

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

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 ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.

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 ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

I'm a bit curious too...........

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."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

This was exactly the response I got from one of the guys who wrote that
paper. I e-mailed him a lengthy resposne and got a very pleasant reply. I
believe them to have the right "motivations", but thier executions will be
wrong, wrong, wrong...

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.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

Agreed.

The "numbers" continue to demonstrate that plenty of people are able to
pass the requisite examinations. If there's ANY "upgrade", it should include a
written exam on the added privileges and pretinent HF propagation and
practices, even if the "upgrade" does NOT include Morse Code.

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.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.

The FCC won't do that twice...I hope.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"N2EY" wrote

But NCVEC's proposal wants to do just that. Read
the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal.

I'm having some doubts about the "21st Century" paper authorship.
KL7-whatever-his-call-is claims W3BE as a co-author, yet W3BE in
his comments to FCC comes down in opposition to most of those
ideas like free upgrades as looney-tune-stupid (which they are).

73, de Hans, K0HB

Robert Casey wrote:


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.




Who determines what is "harmful"?


I wrote a couple sentences/questions to that effect, that you snipped out.


Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

Nothing is improved by lowering the bar. If most General hams have only
taken the Technician test, then the average tested level is brought down
to somewhere between Technician and General.

None of this is subject to spin, it is just how it is. Simple
mathematics is all it is.

If it isn't improving things, or at least neutral, then it is harming
things.

Database administration isn't a good excuse at all. just imagine how
much database administration would be eased if there were only one
class. So why don't we simply "one time adjust" every ham in the country
to Extra? Everyone will have all the same privileges, so no wondering
what ham is supposed to be at what frequency. That would make
administration EASY.


Would one time adjusting *everyone* to the Extra level be harmful to
the ARS?

Adjusting the Technicians to the next level is an incremental
adjustment of the same. At what level is incrementalism not harmful?


Quick note here. I do not oppose one license class. But it would be at
the Extra level at least.

- mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?


Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".


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.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?


In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.


Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

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

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?


And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!


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 ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?


The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.


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 ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?


I'm a bit curious too...........


If I were to butt in here, I would say that aside from the obvious CW
transceiver, simple and easy to build, There are plenty of other
possibilities.

AM transmitters. - Yeah, groan.

Simple SSB transmitters. There appear to be a few out there that can be
homebrewed. If not, Jim should design one!

All these would be somewhat more complex than the classic CW
transmitter, but that brings me back to the point I like to make about
what hams "should know". Now that we are probably moving beyond the time
when a super simple transmitter is the rig of choice for the budding
homebrewer, it is more important than ever that the same should have a
well grounded knowledge of basic electronics.

Aside from homebrewing entire radios, the youngster can do things like
building interfaces to their computers from their radios. Note that
there is a PSK31 Transceiver that can be built from Rocky mountain Labs
IIRC that while it isn't quite a homebrew design, it isn't a bad start -
it's like building a modern da version of a Heathkit.

Antennas are another matter. There is a lot of quackery on the matter
of antennas these days, and some serious guidance is needed to keep the
kids from getting discouraged. And yaknow, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!


Someone oughta write a book. hmmmmmmm.


Discouraging homebrew is possibly the most damaging part of at least
one of the proposals out there as far as attracting young people.

I just don't think that there are that many youngsters that want to
simply mash the PTT button on their Yeacommwood transceiver and yak as
their primary activity in the ARS. We won't attract too many people that
way.

I'm firmly convinced that kids that might want to join the ARS want to
BUILD!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And ya know, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!


Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.


73, de Hans, K0HB