"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Richard L. Tannehill wrote:
Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?

Yet on the point of Tech and Advanced upgrades, ARRL and NCVEC are
identical. It is the incidentals that differentiate the two.

The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
General.

You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?

Like ARRL, we are, however, a member organization and what
we end up doing is and will be member based.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

William wrote:

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.

Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.


In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.


Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.

You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.


You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.


If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.


I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.


It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.


So NOW we have another story! What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing. Would you
support that? Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.



- Your humble Cassandra...

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
| qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.


ARRL has proposed that current Techs/Tech+ be upgraded to General.
Since the current General qualification protocol calls for both the
current Technician written test and an additional more strenuous General
written examination, granting a Technician license to someone who has
not passed that additional examination ipso facto results in a lowering
of written qualifications for the one-third of a million licensees
affected.

Now you can dance around that fact all you want, but you can't change
the reality that the "written qualifications for General" will have been
lowered for roughly 323,055 individuals. We can
pick-fly****-out-of-the-pepper-pot forever wrestling with the niceties
of semantics, but the cold hard fact is that out of the new 'combined'
General class, only 30% would have met todays written qualifications for
that license. The remaining 70% would have met a significantly lower
qualification. That walks like "lowered qualifications", it talks like
"lowered qualifications", it smells like "lowered qualifications", and
in fact IS "lowered qualifications".


| It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
| our (NCI) membership wants.

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote from an email from another of the
NCI directors.

".....our members by an overwhelming percentage
like most parts of the ARRL proposal. That
doesn't translate into what our comments will
end up being; it's like sausage made by a Board
of people. We'll see what happens ...."

I can easily interpret that to mean that the "sausage" may NOT
necessarily include all the ingredients desired by "an overwhelming
percentage" of NCI members.

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| General.

The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055 of
them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing be
eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Richard L. Tannehill wrote:

Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?


Yet on the point of Tech and Advanced upgrades, ARRL and NCVEC are
identical. It is the incidentals that differentiate the two.


The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.


Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
General.

Wow, quite the spin. If a person wants to have General privileges right
now, do you suggest that they take the Technician test and wait for the
"adjustment"?

Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen, it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.


You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?


Like ARRL, we are, however, a member organization and what
we end up doing is and will be member based.

Can I join your organization to influence your member base opinion?

And be that such as it may, it is now evident that an apparent majority
of NCI members support the majority of hams to be at least at the
General level without being tested for it. That cannot be denied.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

William wrote:

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.

Nevertheless, it is a change driven by membership, not Board
of Director fiat.

Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.

Whatever the "official" NCI position will be,
it will not be "private" opinion.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.

You are free to bust a gut or whatever...but the reality still is
that a "one-time' upgrade is NOT an overall or permant
licensing requirement change.

You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.

And just what will that end up meaning to the future?

You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.

Such is life.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

Your inability to understand the difference between a "one-time"
upgrade and a permanent change can also be considered obtuse.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

So NOW we have another story!

Another story? Listening to the membership?

What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing.

Illogical construct. To be an NCI member requires opposition
to code testing. That's a basic NCI 101 item.

Would you support that?

Ditto my last comment.

Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I have personally filed my own comments supporting ARRL
with the exception of the code test. I support the NCVEC
petition only to the extent it equals ARRL except I supported,
of course NCVEC's dropping code.

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.

Life goes on, you are free to think whatever you wish
of us. Bottom line, our core agenda goes forward and,
for the moment, we have been asked by our memebrship
take a position on more than just the code issue. In
the end, the FCC is the only place all this matters.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| General.

The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055 of
them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing be
eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.

That is a one-time adjustment/upgrade. It does not alter the testing
requirements for General on a permanent basis. But enough, we
can at best agree to disagree as I hold no prospect of changing
your mind.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
| qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.


ARRL has proposed that current Techs/Tech+ be upgraded to General.
Since the current General qualification protocol calls for both the
current Technician written test and an additional more strenuous General
written examination, granting a Technician license to someone who has
not passed that additional examination ipso facto results in a lowering
of written qualifications for the one-third of a million licensees
affected.

Correct. And then there is the "day after" problem. Anyone that thinks
that there won't be tremndous pressure exerted to KEEP the testing at
the Tech level is less than clever.

By contrast, your plan is wonderful, and you know I have some problems
with your plan. But if it were a choice between the three, You'd have
it. At least yours won't reduce qualifications overall.


Now you can dance around that fact all you want, but you can't change
the reality that the "written qualifications for General" will have been
lowered for roughly 323,055 individuals. We can
pick-fly****-out-of-the-pepper-pot forever wrestling with the niceties
of semantics, but the cold hard fact is that out of the new 'combined'
General class, only 30% would have met todays written qualifications for
that license. The remaining 70% would have met a significantly lower
qualification. That walks like "lowered qualifications", it talks like
"lowered qualifications", it smells like "lowered qualifications", and
in fact IS "lowered qualifications".


| It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
| our (NCI) membership wants.

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote from an email from another of the
NCI directors.

".....our members by an overwhelming percentage
like most parts of the ARRL proposal. That
doesn't translate into what our comments will
end up being; it's like sausage made by a Board
of people. We'll see what happens ...."

I can easily interpret that to mean that the "sausage" may NOT
necessarily include all the ingredients desired by "an overwhelming
percentage" of NCI members.


From what I've seen, a "semi official" position of NCI is "we don't
care what anyone thinks".

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

Bill,

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

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

Cheers,

Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4304