Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 17th 04, 03:04 PM
William
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 17th 04, 03:36 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


  #3   Report Post  
Old April 17th 04, 04:08 PM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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/


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


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 17th 04, 10:50 PM
Richard L. Tannehill
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

  #8   Report Post  
Old April 18th 04, 02:19 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 -

  #9   Report Post  
Old April 18th 04, 04:20 AM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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/




  #10   Report Post  
Old April 18th 04, 05:21 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 -

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
light bulbs in rrap Mike Coslo Policy 10 December 12th 03 10:02 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 Radionews Dx 0 September 6th 03 09:08 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 Radionews Dx 0 September 6th 03 09:08 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 Radionews Dx 0 September 6th 03 09:08 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 Radionews Dx 0 September 6th 03 09:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017