Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"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).

I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.

Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002

All were at just about the correct level for the privileges conferred,
IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper preparation for the
General class license.



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 ...

But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply don't
care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test one day
before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the testing
process than the person that takes the general test the day after "the
adjustment".

While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look at it
as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this proposal.

It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards, as
they will not have taken a General element test.

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

"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).

I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.

Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002

All were at just about the correct level for the privileges conferred,
IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper preparation for the
General class license.



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 ...

But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply don't
care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test one day
before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the testing
process than the person that takes the general test the day after "the
adjustment".

While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look at it
as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this proposal.

It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards, as
they will not have taken a General element test.

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.

I suspect then you'd be unhappy with the General/Tech test given in the
latter 50's throught the gos which until 1968 conferred full operating
privileges to Generals. The ARRL study guide for General was
only 16 pages of material.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

some snippage

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.


I suspect then you'd be unhappy with the General/Tech test given in the
latter 50's throught the gos which until 1968 conferred full operating
privileges to Generals. The ARRL study guide for General was
only 16 pages of material.

I don't know. Comparing the relative difficulties is pretty hard. I've
tried, and so much has changed between then and now.

I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
difference is about impossible to quantify.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written
examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of
those two exams.

The ARRL proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees. They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!
This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

73, de Hans, K0HB

This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur

Karl cant be trusted, and his WORD has never been truthfull. I think Karl is on
some EGO TRIP. I think he really believes hes the SAVIOR of Ham Radio, when In
truth hes 1 of the many forces destroying it.

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written
examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of
those two exams.

The ARRL proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees.

I would suggest that "relevant" might be substituted for "harder",
Hans. While the giveaway goons whine about how hard the test is or
isn't, The fact is that the general test tests for knowledge that is
*relevant* to hf operation.

So in the great giveaway, people will be given access to HF without
some of the necessary knowledge.

Is that fair to them?


Fact: None of the tests are that hard. All it takes is some study.

Fact: the tests aren't necessarily supposed to be hard. They are to
show that a person is prepared to exercise the privileges gained by
passing the test.

Fact: the "one time adjustment" hams, now a majority of hams, will not
have been prepared properly for their HF access.

Opinion: It is one heck of a disservice we are doing for them.



They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!

I don't care about Ed's test.

This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

It's a heavy weight to bear.


- Mike KB3EIA -

I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.

Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002

All were at just about the correct level for the privileges
conferred, IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper
preparation for the General class license.


Does it really require more skill and knowledge to operate on 14.155 vs.
14.326? ;-)

Of course the real reason for the frequency based priv's is that it is
easily identified
what frequency you are operating on at a remote FCC receiving site.

Your point is more valid when comparing techs against general/extras
(VHF vs HF).




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 ...


But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply
don't care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test
one day before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the
testing process than the person that takes the general test the day
after "the adjustment".

While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look
at it as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this
proposal.

It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards,
as they will not have taken a General element test.

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum
input these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest
that they wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their
license, unless they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at
least General before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is
not a bad thing, IMO.

- Mike KB3EIA -