"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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

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

It's instructive to note that ARRL and NCI, (not FCC) are characterizing
the license structure as "overly complicated". With only modest
changes, this structure has been extant since 1951, before the age of
computerized record keeping and modern database. How come it's suddenly
"overly complicated"?

But suppose for the moment that it IS overly complicated and needs
reform... to use a term from another NCI Director, do we need to be
"hellbent" to do it in one swell foop? I recall a proposal by one
WA6VSE a few years back that would have transformed the structure from
it's present state into a 2-class structure in as little as 5 years,
with no free passes and with nobody being stripped of privileges. The
details escape me, but I'm sure we could Google it up and have a look.

Or if the administrative burden isn't really at FCC but at the VEC's
like ARRL and W5YI, well there's another proposal floating about which
would overnight limit their testing burden to just two classes. No
Morse test to give, and only two written tests. Again, not a soul would
get a free pass and not a soul would be stripped of any privilege they
now enjoy. You can view that proposal at http://tinyurl.com/wce9

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

We're not talking about 25-years ago. We're talking about today.

Today an applicant needs to pass a single 35 question exam to acquire
a Technician license.
Today an applicant needs to pass a second 35 question exam (which
contains material not tested in the Technician exam) to acquire a
General license.

The ARRL proposal to waive the second examination for all todays
Technicains (about a third of a million) effectively states that todays
Technican exam is perfectly adequate for General class privileges. If
that is true, then ipso facto we can make the case that forevermore the
exam for General need be no more technically demanding than todays
fall-off-a-log-easy entry level Technician exam.

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

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

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

It's instructive to note that ARRL and NCI, (not FCC) are characterizing
the license structure as "overly complicated". With only modest
changes, this structure has been extant since 1951, before the age of
computerized record keeping and modern database. How come it's suddenly
"overly complicated"?

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

bb

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

bb


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

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
Given enough time, they'll come around to my way of thinking. One
amateur radio service, one license.

bb

Of course, that is the Real Motive, 1 License, 1 Test,

So far, so good. I'm amazed that you grasp the concept of, "one
amateur radio service, one amateur radio license," so quickly. Way to
go, Bruce!

maybe not even a TEST,

Oops. You've strayed.

remember were all EQUAL, arent we?

Only before Riley.

Oops. You've strayed.

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

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
Oops. You've strayed.

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

I could say that it hasn't since you passed your Advanced exam, but I won't.

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

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

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

Steve, K4YZ

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

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

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

Steve, K4YZ

There you go with your extremism again.

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

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

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

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

Steve, K4YZ

There you go with your extremism again.

What extremism...?!?!

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

Again I ask you, Socialist or Marxist?

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

Sheeesh...

Steve, K4YZ