an old friend wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:


KØHB wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote


The support is/was for ONE-TIME free upgrades as proposed by
the ARRL petition and one or two others. No support was
given to any permananent relaxation of written tests by NCI.


That's true on the surface. But it belies the claim of some who
said they would *NEVER* support a reduction in the written test
requirements.

Never is a very long time!

In some ways a one-time reduction is worse than a "permanent"
reduction. In a "permanent" reduction, the message is that
the older, higher requirements have been removed because they
aren't necessary.

And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing,
think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade.


the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely
sick

Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^(



For example, in 2000 FCC changed the written
testing for Technician from two exams (old Elements 2 and 3A)
to a single exam of about half as many questions. That action
meant FCC was satisfied that anyone who passed new Element 2
from then on out was adequately qualified to be a Technician
class licensee.

But if they had made a one-time reduction, they would be saying
that those who benefited by the reduction were somehow "special"
in that did not need to meet the requirements that were in
effect both before and after the one-time reduction.

Some might argue that "experience" or "time in grade" should
count for something. Maybe so - but if that's the case, why
not have a permanent automatic upgrade system based on time
licensed? For example, your license could be automatically
upgraded one class every time you renew, if you have a clear
record. If having a Novice for 5 years qualifies someone to
be a General, or having an Advanced for 5 years qualifies
someone to be an Extra, who could argue about 10 years? (It's
been 5 years since the last Advanceds and Novices were issued.)

I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it
should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience
(especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra.
There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this
process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an
inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow.



There's also the case of the "last one aboard". Suppose FCC
did announce free upgrades to General for all Novice/Tech/TechPlus
hams. The announcement would of necessity precede the implementation
by a few weeks or months, during which time anyone in those classes
planning to upgrade could just wait and get the upgrade for free.
And anyone planning to become a ham could just get a Tech and wait
for the free upgrade to General.

It would be an anti-incentive plan! Why study if the upgrade is
free?

Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashion.


Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick

I think you may have some trouble understanding what I said. I suspect
from what I have read from your posts that you are probably in favor of
less, not more education for holding a Ham license.

One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after
the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult.

So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirements?



Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test for
General and another 75,730 would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the
requirement to test for Extra. That's means that 421,532 individuals, or 63.4%
of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they had not passed
the current written examination.


Yup.

And the situation is more complex - suppose someone whose license is
expired but in the grace period renews - what license class do they
get? Maybe the offer of free
upgrades would get some of them to renew?

How about some free prizes too? ;^)


Trying to trivialize that as a simple
"one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out.


The worst parts of it are two:

1) In the case of General, those who had not passed the required tests
would outnumber those who had - by a 3 to 1 ratio! Extra would be a
little better, but about 40% of those who folks would not have
passed the test.

Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would
permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a
manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are


with all hams tested by the approved method at every point


Why do you want the tests to become harder?



considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after
are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same
privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory.


2) Those who come to ham radio after the Great Giveaway could
legitimately
claim that the written for Tech should be adequate for General, etc.

Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling.

So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the
changes are made permanent.

I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the
requirements in the post adjustment world.

NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them
responsible.



for something that could have happened if something that has been
rejected by the FCC had been accepted

twisted logic

Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With
credit comes responsibility.

Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not
responsible....

- Mike KB3EIA -