Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
 

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

Thank you, bb

William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.

I doubt that they care what I think.


So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

"William" wrote

|
| So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.
|

FISTS member #7419 present and accounted for, SIR!

|
| I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
| organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?
|

I have no idea. I'm just a lowly foul-mouthed seaman and I don't get to
steer the ship. Perhaps you could get an answer from the skipper:
Nancy A. Kott WZ8C

Self Appointed Executive Director, North American Chapter

FISTS CW Club

P.O. Box 47

Hadley, MI 48440-0047


As always,

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"William" wrote

|
| So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.
|

FISTS member #7419 present and accounted for, SIR!

FISTS 3505

What took ya so long, Master Chief.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/17/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

Farnsworth Exam...?!?!

Ive done a Google Search and can't find any reference to this...Can you
provide a URL...?!?!

So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

3505 here.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

Why not?

The FCC allows persons with no vested interest in various radio services
to post thier opinons relative to that service and to receive the same weight
as any other persons (or entities) comments as any other.

Certainly FISTS DOES have a vested interest in Amateur Radio issues as
(I believe...I do not know for sure...) all of FISTS members ARE licensed
Amateur Radio operators.

No?

Thank you, bb

73

Steve, K4YZ

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. On the other hand, we
could keep the Tech, give them all Communicator HF
privileges, and truck on with four classes for the long
term. Or, we could set a 10 year upgrade deadline for
Techs, and then all would expire. (In the next 10 years,
Tech renewals would be for a less than 10 year term) It
remains to be seen how the FCC will propose new license
classes in the NPRM still to come that will deal with the
entire license class structure, and code requirements.

Rick Tannehill - W7RT
Member; NCI Board



Mike Coslo wrote:

William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.

I doubt that they care what I think.

So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"William" wrote

|
| So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.
|

FISTS member #7419 present and accounted for, SIR!

FISTS 3505

What took ya so long, Master Chief.

73

Steve, K4YZ

I think FISTS has a right to make proposals or comment on proposals to the
FCC re. the preservation of Morse code within AR. I happen to believe the
retention of Element 1 relates to said "preservation."

73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

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?

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.

You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Richard L. Tannehill" wrote

| We agree that it is the
| only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
| classes of license, immediately.

The FCC has not publicly expressed any "hellbent" intention. That
notion is a construction of ARRL, which the NCI directors have unwisely
chosen to support.

The immediate result will be free upgrade coupons for almost 2/3-rds of
all current licensees.

The not-so-immediate result (read "unintended but entirely predictable
consequence") will be the permanent loss of credibility in the
qualification process for General and Extra ("If those 300,000 guys got
General licenses based on passing the fall-off-a-log-easy entry-level
Technician exam, then why do I have to take a harder test like all the
'real' Generals previously had to take? Oh, my dear, the unfairness of
it all!") And please don't insult us by trotting out the anecdotal
selective-memory jeremiad from W1RFI about how the Tech exam is every
bit as hard as the General exam.

73,
de Hans, K0HB ô¿ô
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

KØHB wrote:

"Richard L. Tannehill" wrote

| We agree that it is the
| only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
| classes of license, immediately.

The FCC has not publicly expressed any "hellbent" intention. That
notion is a construction of ARRL, which the NCI directors have unwisely
chosen to support.

The immediate result will be free upgrade coupons for almost 2/3-rds of
all current licensees.

The not-so-immediate result (read "unintended but entirely predictable
consequence") will be the permanent loss of credibility in the
qualification process for General and Extra ("If those 300,000 guys got
General licenses based on passing the fall-off-a-log-easy entry-level
Technician exam, then why do I have to take a harder test like all the
'real' Generals previously had to take? Oh, my dear, the unfairness of
it all!") And please don't insult us by trotting out the anecdotal
selective-memory jeremiad from W1RFI about how the Tech exam is every
bit as hard as the General exam.


Agreed 100 percent Hans!

.....remember, just because I agree with you doesn't mean you're wrong!.....


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

William wrote:

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.

Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.


In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.


Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.

You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.


You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.


If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.


I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.


It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.


So NOW we have another story! What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing. Would you
support that? Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.



- Your humble Cassandra...

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
| qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.


ARRL has proposed that current Techs/Tech+ be upgraded to General.
Since the current General qualification protocol calls for both the
current Technician written test and an additional more strenuous General
written examination, granting a Technician license to someone who has
not passed that additional examination ipso facto results in a lowering
of written qualifications for the one-third of a million licensees
affected.

Now you can dance around that fact all you want, but you can't change
the reality that the "written qualifications for General" will have been
lowered for roughly 323,055 individuals. We can
pick-fly****-out-of-the-pepper-pot forever wrestling with the niceties
of semantics, but the cold hard fact is that out of the new 'combined'
General class, only 30% would have met todays written qualifications for
that license. The remaining 70% would have met a significantly lower
qualification. That walks like "lowered qualifications", it talks like
"lowered qualifications", it smells like "lowered qualifications", and
in fact IS "lowered qualifications".


| It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
| our (NCI) membership wants.

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote from an email from another of the
NCI directors.

".....our members by an overwhelming percentage
like most parts of the ARRL proposal. That
doesn't translate into what our comments will
end up being; it's like sausage made by a Board
of people. We'll see what happens ...."

I can easily interpret that to mean that the "sausage" may NOT
necessarily include all the ingredients desired by "an overwhelming
percentage" of NCI members.

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB

"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.

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB

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"?

Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen, it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.


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?

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

William wrote:

We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.

Nevertheless, it is a change driven by membership, not Board
of Director fiat.

Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.

Whatever the "official" NCI position will be,
it will not be "private" opinion.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.

You are free to bust a gut or whatever...but the reality still is
that a "one-time' upgrade is NOT an overall or permant
licensing requirement change.

You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.

And just what will that end up meaning to the future?

You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.

Such is life.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.

Your inability to understand the difference between a "one-time"
upgrade and a permanent change can also be considered obtuse.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

So NOW we have another story!

Another story? Listening to the membership?

What if suddenly most of the membership
had a change of heat and supported extensive code testing.

Illogical construct. To be an NCI member requires opposition
to code testing. That's a basic NCI 101 item.

Would you support that?

Ditto my last comment.

Would you support the NCVEC proposal?

I have personally filed my own comments supporting ARRL
with the exception of the code test. I support the NCVEC
petition only to the extent it equals ARRL except I supported,
of course NCVEC's dropping code.

I noted that NCI was going to morph a while back.

Life goes on, you are free to think whatever you wish
of us. Bottom line, our core agenda goes forward and,
for the moment, we have been asked by our memebrship
take a position on more than just the code issue. In
the end, the FCC is the only place all this matters.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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

KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
| qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.


ARRL has proposed that current Techs/Tech+ be upgraded to General.
Since the current General qualification protocol calls for both the
current Technician written test and an additional more strenuous General
written examination, granting a Technician license to someone who has
not passed that additional examination ipso facto results in a lowering
of written qualifications for the one-third of a million licensees
affected.

Correct. And then there is the "day after" problem. Anyone that thinks
that there won't be tremndous pressure exerted to KEEP the testing at
the Tech level is less than clever.

By contrast, your plan is wonderful, and you know I have some problems
with your plan. But if it were a choice between the three, You'd have
it. At least yours won't reduce qualifications overall.


Now you can dance around that fact all you want, but you can't change
the reality that the "written qualifications for General" will have been
lowered for roughly 323,055 individuals. We can
pick-fly****-out-of-the-pepper-pot forever wrestling with the niceties
of semantics, but the cold hard fact is that out of the new 'combined'
General class, only 30% would have met todays written qualifications for
that license. The remaining 70% would have met a significantly lower
qualification. That walks like "lowered qualifications", it talks like
"lowered qualifications", it smells like "lowered qualifications", and
in fact IS "lowered qualifications".


| It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
| our (NCI) membership wants.

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote from an email from another of the
NCI directors.

".....our members by an overwhelming percentage
like most parts of the ARRL proposal. That
doesn't translate into what our comments will
end up being; it's like sausage made by a Board
of people. We'll see what happens ...."

I can easily interpret that to mean that the "sausage" may NOT
necessarily include all the ingredients desired by "an overwhelming
percentage" of NCI members.


From what I've seen, a "semi official" position of NCI is "we don't
care what anyone thinks".

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "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

"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

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| "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:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


William wrote:


We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.


THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

I don't doubt that, Bill. But it is a change from what we've been told
here.


Nevertheless, it is a change driven by membership, not Board
of Director fiat.

Better get on that constitution, pronto!


Of course, you could argue that the petitions are related to the
elimination of the code test, because it is one of the things being
eliminated. But all the rest is tretching the purpose IMO.

Another thing is that So Many Times, we have been told about the
difference between NCI policy and private opinion.

Whatever the "official" NCI position will be,
it will not be "private" opinion.

+ 50 cents and I'll have a down paymenty on a cup of coffee.


In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

Explain in a manner that I won't bust a gut laughing how the upgrade of
most amateurs from Technician to General is not a lowering of the
written requirements.


You are free to bust a gut or whatever...but the reality still is
that a "one-time' upgrade is NOT an overall or permant
licensing requirement change.

Your reality is much different than mine.


You can certainly argue that the General test is not in itself reduced.
But that won't matter, because at that time MOST General level hams will
not have taken the General test.


And just what will that end up meaning to the future?

Nothing stands still, Bill. The idea of the technically adroit Amateur
radio crowd has been taking a beating lately, and the winners are pretty
full of themselves at the moment. We've gone from "simply" eliminating
the Morse code test to giving the majority of hams an untested-for
upgrade. This is plenty uncomfortable for people like me, that happen to
like the lost idea of technically savvy hams.


You can call it an adjustement. The adjustment is a lowering of the
level required to become a General.

A significant suspension of disbelief is required here.


Such is life.

Not for me it isn't. Is this an admission that you have reconciled the
non-tested upgrade via the suspension of disbelief route?

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

Bill, I know you are a smart guy. Obtuseness doesn't suit you.


Your inability to understand the difference between a "one-time"
upgrade and a permanent change can also be considered obtuse.

Perhaps. I can respect the idea that an adjustment might be warranted
by circumstances. I can respect the idea that the General test is too
hard. (note that I would disagree) But the idea that it is not a free
upgrade for most hams and that since it is a supposed "one time" thing,
it *isn't* a lowering of standards is doublethink.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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/

Bill Sohl wrote:

"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.


Bill, I'll be waiting in a couple years when you explain why the
permanent changing of the testing requirements is not a permanent
changing of the test requirements.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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 in message
hlink.net...
|
| "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 have it correct, Hans. But I'm afraid that isn't what they are all
about.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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 -

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

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

I don't think that's a problem. I've been openly critical of both the
ARRL and NCVEC proposals, both in public forums like this one, and in
email and telephone exchanges. I think a couple of the Directors are
sick of my lobbying, but they're not retiring my membership number.

73, Hans, K0HB

"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

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/19/2004 9:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: et


"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!

And sometimes being "the squeakyky wheel" just means you get replaced.

And Democracy is a fine thing...even for the functionally illiterate or
profane.

Steve, K4YZ

"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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

The truth is the truth.

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.

Yet you can point to nothing that has been filed that supports
your claim.

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.

Yet you still fail to articulate even ONE problem that you
can think of.

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?

NCI isn't in favor of elinating morse code...morse code
testing, yes.
Assuming you meant that you want morse testing ended, but
don't faorv support of the ARRL or NCVEC petitions...
well I see nothing in that stance that would serve to disallow
you from joining NCI. As an example, I think it is safe to
say that is exactly Hans's position.

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.

That can't be stated with any accuracy as we never had
any indication of how members felt about anything beyond
the code test.

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

I know accuracy when I see and when I don't.

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

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

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.

The truth is the truth.




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.


Yet you can point to nothing that has been filed that supports
your claim.

And here we have it. You make the statement that nothing has been
filed. Lets look at this. We have two proposals that have been filed.
They have not been accepted. Of course nothing has been filed on this!


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.

Yet you still fail to articulate even ONE problem that you
can think of.

Google me, Bill (not too hard tho' I'm ticklish! ;^) )

I've articulated problems, plenty times, here and to the ARRL.


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?


NCI isn't in favor of elinating morse code...morse code
testing, yes.

Sorry, I didn't put the "test" in the sentence. I know that as of this
moment, they claim no interest in eliminating Morse code.

That could change tho'. I'm not arguing that point, although it would
be interested if your membership expressed interest in that.

Assuming you meant that you want morse testing ended, but
don't faorv support of the ARRL or NCVEC petitions...

Yeah, like that...


well I see nothing in that stance that would serve to disallow
you from joining NCI. As an example, I think it is safe to
say that is exactly Hans's position.


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.


That can't be stated with any accuracy as we never had
any indication of how members felt about anything beyond
the code test.


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


I know accuracy when I see and when I don't.

Everyone needs a coach at times.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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 -

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
. net...
If not, you should at least be aware that what
you're attempting to accomplish (Not really the appropriate word to use
wrt
NCI, but...) will ultimately affect all 680K+.

Actually, it won't. Many hams will be unafected by the changes
in licensing put forth by ARRL, NCVEC as well as others.
Those 100K hams that are already Extra won't be affected by
any license changes.

The degradation of quality wrt the ARS is, for many, an effect...ostensibly
brought on by NCI's lobbying. It's not just about one's individual license
change.

BTW, to all those who feel similarly, please take the time to write (or
e-mail) your elected representatives...and I DON'T mean the ARRL. I just
had
the pleasure of attending a presentation given by an upstate lobbyist
who
explained how easily our elected representatives can become "involved"
re.
an issue as long as they receive an indication of public interest.
Believe
it or not, 15 to 20 e-mails, letters, calls, etc. on a given issue will
likely get it some attention and it will be assigned to a staffer.
Usually
a
casual inquiry will follow. In this case...to the FCC. Take the few
minutes
to fire off an e-mail...it really could make a difference.

Somehow I doubt the elected officals give a hoot about morse code
testing.

Hence the necessity of making them "give a hoot."

73 de Bert
WA2SI