"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.


But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element
1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses
the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly
when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.

We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.

Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ... there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ... the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ... I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.

We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.

Carl - wk3c

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

Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.


Sorry ... but that's BS ... there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ... the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

Hey Carl. I don't call any of your ideas what you just called mine.
Fine gentleman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.


But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element
1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses
the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly
when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.

Uh-huh.

We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.

You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?

And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.

Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?

there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...

Not directly.

However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.

You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.

It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.

How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.

Or better yet - how about this:

Enact a new 2 class license system.

Two license classes: Basic and Full.

Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.

Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.

Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.

Would that be a good system? Why or why not?

the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...

Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.

I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...

Yet it was not proposed by NCI.

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.

Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.

Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.

The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:


Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.


But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element

1 gets

involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses

the

"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly

when the

number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.

Please note that the "only to eliminate code TESTING" was to clarify that
NCI had no goal of eliminating code USE on a voluntary basis.


Uh-huh.

I always thought it was a good idea to arrange things so that you
didn't have to ever say "what I really meant was...."


We never said we would "never" comment on other issues of interest to our
membership and our bylaws specifically provide for doing so.


You mean like commenting *against* the proposed subbands on VHF for
modes narrower than 3 kHz some years back?

And despite having high confidence in how WRC-03 would affect S25,
NCI's proposal consisted of just one action item: drop Element 1.


Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?

And I wonder what 100 non-Hams would say about the situation. Not
people that stand to get the free "one time adjustment" or their leaders.

there is NO proposal to change the written exams
for General/Extra ...


Not directly.

Not yet.

However, if the proposal goes through, we will have a situation where
the majority of Generals have never passed the *written* test for
General. Plus about 40% of Extras never passing the written test for
that class.

I still say we are ripping them off.


You can say that the standards have not been lowered, but in effect
they have. If the proposal goes through, those who paid "list price"
for their General licenses (in terms of written tests) will be in the
minority.

On average, most Generals will have been tested at the Technician
level. I'll entertain anyone's attempt to say that the average testing
level has not gone down.

It's like saying that the standard marathon distance of 26.22 miles is
"too long", so we're going to allow anyone who has run a 13.11 mile
half-marathon before a certain date to claim they are a "marathoner".
Then we will abolish the half-marathon and any new runner who wants to
be called a marathoner will have to run 26.22 miles to earn the title.

How do you think that would go over? As a runner with 23 years'
experience and 2 marathons I can tell you it wouldn't be very popular
among those who had actually run marathons.

Or better yet - how about this:

Enact a new 2 class license system.

Two license classes: Basic and Full.

Basic has a simple written test and Full has a much more comprehensive
written test.

Privileges coincide with the tests in many ways. Basic is a limited
"learner's permit" license, Full is all amateur privileges.

Everyone who has a US ham license before Date X get Full licenses.
After Date X, the new system takes over and newbies have to pass the
new Basic and Full tests.

Would that be a good system? Why or why not?


the proposal is to create a new entry level class with
testing similar to the old Novice tests that all of us "old-timers" started
out with ...


Yup. Simple written test, 5 wpm sending and receiving code tests, even
the same name as in the old days. Got me started.


snicker...


I don't see what's "bad" or "inappropriate" about that ...


Yet it was not proposed by NCI.


I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


Testing = knowledge = bad

Unfortunately, we seem headed that way


NCI's membership also agrees with that by an overwhelming majority.


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?



We have filed our comments - if you have filed yours, YMMV ... that's why
the FCC seeks comments - to see what people think.


Some of us think the free upgrades are a very bad idea.

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.

I do care about integrity.

I don't even care if people change their mind. I've done it in the
past, and if I was wrong, I said so, and if I just got more data, I said
that too.

But I don't care for spinning a story to make it seem as if a
contradiction was indeed, not a contradiction.

And they can say whatever disparaging comments about my argument that
they like. It only convinces me that I have hit a nerve.


ARRL sez in their proposal that it is "absolutely necessary" to get
rid of license classes that are no longer issued to new applicants.
IOW, we *must* get down to three license classes no matter what it
takes.

The big question: Why is it "absolutely necessary"? FCC maintained the
Advanced for almost 14 years, in the days of paper records. They have
maintained the Novice, Tech Plus and Advanced for over 4 years now.
What's the problem? Who is being burdened or hurt?

Occam's razor says that ARRL sees that few Technicians belong to the
organization, so they rationalize that if we change that so that most
hams have HF access, more will join. Simplest answer, likeliest answer.

But we so seldom approach things directly.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...

Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?

No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that
we
need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will
be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

[snip]

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."

I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be
allowed
to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.

Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.

I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)

I do care about integrity.

Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.

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

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...


Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?


No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]


I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that

we

need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that will

be

interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.


Many people's mileage varys on that ...


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse. However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.


Testing = knowledge = bad


No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad


Hold on Carl. You are putting Jim's and my posts together here. (at
least I think) I support Morse code testing. But if it goes away, I
doubt I'll miss a minute of sleep.

But I don't think that the tested requirements for General are
irrelevant or unnecessary, etc. I think you were talking about element
one instead of the writtens?


[snip]


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?


Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...


You're still replying to Jim here. I gave up on the hypothetical
questions a little while ago.

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."


I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be

allowed

to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.


Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

I support a system that is basically like what we have now. Only
difference is that Morse code is not tested for AT ALL. I would think
NCI would prefer a system like that instead of one in which there is
still a test for Extra. No one loses *anything at all*. No one gains.
And if the Technicians want to upgrade to General, they will now have
the ability to take the General test without Element one.

Now this does not address the problem of the different classes. I could
be convinced that that there is the need to change the classes. I would
ask for some solid evidence of the difficulties that people are going
through with the present system. But I really don't think that people
are having such difficulties.

I keep a database that has numbers assigned to parts that are 50 years
old. Those numbers aren't used any more, and in fact are assigned new
names. But the old names are still there. It isn't a problem at all, and
in fact would be more trouble to change than it is to just let it alone.


I don't see why this is such a hard message to get through! I don't
care if NCI supports giving dogs ham licenses, I don't agree, but I
don't care.


I understand ... we disagree (just don't start claiming that NCI supports
giving dogs ham licenses :-)


Of course not!

I do care about integrity.


Me, too ... that's why I felt compelled to represent the views of NCI's
membership.

If you read NCI's comments, you will see that we essentially "report" the
membership's views to the FCC ... views that were overwhelmingly in favor of
the ARRL proposal (except for the "code for Extra" part, of course, which
wasn't even on the table - that view is a given, due to the nature and basic
purpose of NCI.

If you look at the treatment of the NCVEC proposals, you will find that,
since the numbers were more mixed, our comments do even more "reporting" of
the numbers and take less of a firm position, since we did not have such an
overwhelming mandate from the membership.

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

[snipped part - not going to play that game any more ]

and I may have some of Jim's comments in here, too ...


Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us
maximus.

Sorry ... but that's BS ...

Which part?


I can't find anything that is that particular term in my whole
statement. Perhaps he is trying to say that anyone that disagrees with
him is a slinger of such?


No, I was referring to your assertion that we were supporting a
reduction in
the written exams and the "spin-us maximus" stuff. I don't believe
that's
an accurate characterization of the ARRL's proposal or NCI's comments to
the
FCC or my comments here.

['nuther snip]


I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs)
that

we

need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that
will

be

interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.


Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.


Many people's mileage varys on that ...


Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....


You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones
I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.
However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids
are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.


Testing = knowledge = bad


No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest =
bad


Hold on Carl. You are putting Jim's and my posts together here. (at
least I think) I support Morse code testing. But if it goes away, I
doubt I'll miss a minute of sleep.

You will note at the top that I said I thought I had inadvertently mixed
in/didn't trim some of Jim's comments.

But I don't think that the tested requirements for General are
irrelevant or unnecessary, etc. I think you were talking about element
one instead of the writtens?

You are correct ...

[snip]


Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?


Read the numbers ... the majority of NCI members did NOT support either
the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that
they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just
as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...


You're still replying to Jim here. I gave up on the hypothetical
questions a little while ago.

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

If you read my *personal* comments, I state what *I* believe (and what I
*honestly* believe in my own heart that most of NCI's members meant and
thought they were answering on that survey question) - that the
certification is OK, but that "... however, it should NOT be viewed as a
replacement for reasonable testing on the basic rules and regulations as
a
part of the examination requirement for licensure."


I don't understand the implication that NCI should somehow "not be

allowed

to" file comments - or why doing so is so frowned on.


Nobody I know says anyone should not be allowed to comment. The
frowning is about the support for lowering of *written* test
standards, which some folks claimed they would *never* support.


Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old
for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General
and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with
the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years
ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about
it.

I support a system that is basically like what we have now. Only
difference is that Morse code is not tested for AT ALL. I would think
NCI would prefer a system like that instead of one in which there is
still a test for Extra.

The one part of the ARRL proposal that NCI opposes is the "keep the Morse
test for Extra" part.

73,
Carl - wk3c

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

I support a system that is basically like what we have now. Only
difference is that Morse code is not tested for AT ALL. I would think
NCI would prefer a system like that instead of one in which there is
still a test for Extra.


The one part of the ARRL proposal that NCI opposes is the "keep the Morse
test for Extra" part.

Do you think my proposal is BS?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that
we need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that
will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think you're the most objective
observer of people's interest in Morse Code. Nor do I think you'd be
quite the best salesperson for the mode...

Here's testimony from someone (not me!) who actually works with *lots*
of kids on a long-term basis. This guy is right here in EPA, closer to
your QTH than to mine. His program goes after the exact kinds of kids
we say we want to attract. These are *his* words and experiences, not
mine:

BEGIN QUOTE:

"I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activity,
at the local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in
the World, and it covers many aspects of radio and television,
and of course, pushes ham radio. Each year I have had several
students, both boys and girls, obtain their license and try to
help them continue on the hobby."

"With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the students
were a pleasure to work with and each year the district offers
me a nice salary to teach the class and each year I decline it.
Yes, it is a lot of work, but the students enjoy it and come away
with a very positive idea of ham radio."

"The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to
work at making sure I have an interesting program and that no
part of it goes on and on and on. I set the rules at the first
meeting and have not had any serious problems. (My son and his
friends have been my biggest problem.) If one expects the
students to sit in their chairs and listen to a presentation
for an hour, after being in school all day, they good luck. I
combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part
of ARRL videos, short movies, simple building projects and
computers. Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

"I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the
kids obey them and something must be going right, a few kids
who were in the previous class always take the next year's
class and we always have 35 to 40 students. In fact, my
biggest problem is that other students want to join the class
after it has been on a few weeks."

"Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge
at Boy Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for
six kids. I had over 1/4 of the camp at the classes and more
wanted to attend. We got a dozen hams out of that one."

"So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about
reaching out to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just
the camp alone, with eight weeks of camp, would produce
between 80 and 100 new hams....with about 400 Scout
Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a
very nice increase in our membership."

"I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new hams need
help in
getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email address
and send
them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and local
clubs.
We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people in our
hobby, or
we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh, it is
easier to
complain...right?"

END QUOTE

Note that sentence at the end of the third paragraph. The emphasis is
his:

"Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

Just one teacher's experience in one middle school and one Boy Scout
camp. But he's there, with the kids, doing the teaching and recruiting
on his own time.

Who are any of us - including you, Carl - to say he's wrong?

What evidence do you have to counter what he says, Carl?

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

If 2/3 of the extant holders of a license haven't passed the written
test for that license, the standards have been weakened.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.



73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

I'm a bit curious too...........

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

This was exactly the response I got from one of the guys who wrote that
paper. I e-mailed him a lengthy resposne and got a very pleasant reply. I
believe them to have the right "motivations", but thier executions will be
wrong, wrong, wrong...

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with
the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

Agreed.

The "numbers" continue to demonstrate that plenty of people are able to
pass the requisite examinations. If there's ANY "upgrade", it should include a
written exam on the added privileges and pretinent HF propagation and
practices, even if the "upgrade" does NOT include Morse Code.

I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years
ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.

The FCC won't do that twice...I hope.

73

Steve, K4YZ