"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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"?

A one time adjustment.

Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen,

On what do you make that wild statemnent. Exactly where is
there any proposal to end all General testing?

it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.

And that leads to what problems?

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?

Anyone can join as long as you agree to the basics of being
an NCI member.

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.

Imprecise statement. The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
upgrade.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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/

"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

The NCI board decision has been made yet.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

Good! Then, regardless of the overwhelming support of NCI members for
the ARRL "Great Giveaway", I can continue to lobby you and the other
directors to have the courage to do the right thing and make a strong
case against instant upgrades for 60+% of all licensed amateurs.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

I just read that statement again. It is gobbledygook. Would you wish to
clarify it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

I just read that statement again. It is gobbledygook. Would you wish to
clarify it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Should read:
....has NOT been made yet

Bill

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| The NCI board decision has been made yet.
|

I just read that statement again. It is gobbledygook. Would you wish to
clarify it.

I though it was a Freudian slip! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote

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

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

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


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

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

Cheers,

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

Hans,

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

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

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote 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

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

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"?


A one time adjustment.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that Bill.


Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen,


On what do you make that wild statemnent. Exactly where is
there any proposal to end all General testing?

Where was the proposal to give all technicians the presumed one time
upgrade? Doesn't take long for things to happen.


it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.


And that leads to what problems?

It most certainly leads to problems the day after the presumed one-time
upgrade.

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?


Anyone can join as long as you agree to the basics of being
an NCI member.

What If I want elimination of Morse code, but am adamantly opposed to
the ARRL or NCVEC proposals?


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.


Imprecise statement. The NCI membership supports a "one-time"
upgrade.


And once upon a time, they were simply for the elimination of the code
test.

And you, kind sir, know exactly what an imprecise statement is. Dontchya?


- Mike KB3EIA -