"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

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"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).

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

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

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

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

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


But whatever you do, don't quit.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

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

I don't identify with "majority" or "minority" --- those are
popularity polls. I identify with what I believe in, and my beliefs are
not modified by whether they are widely popular or not.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

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

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


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

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

Mike,

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

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote

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

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


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

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


Mike,

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

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

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote

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

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


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

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


Mike,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote


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