| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
So Bill.....
Hey Bill,
It looks like the long battle is just about over. Congratulations are in order, even though I still disagree, but it was probably inevitable. A grand new experiment will soon begin. So, I guess the big question is what is NCI going to do next? I remember old conversations with the previous prez in which I am pretty sure it was said that you folks were going to go away after your successful elimination of the the Morse code test requirement. (organizationally speaking, that is!) I do definitely remember that we were told that the sole purpose of NCI was elimination of the test. Is dissolution still the target? I've always thought, and still do, that one of the hardest things for an organization to do is go away, even when they are successful in their original purpose. I predict that NCI will morph into something else. I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requirements! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote: Hey Bill, It looks like the long battle is just about over. Congratulations are in order, even though I still disagree, but it was probably inevitable. A grand new experiment will soon begin. just about over So, I guess the big question is what is NCI going to do next? keep on the few remaining nations I remember old conversations with the previous prez in which I am pretty sure it was said that you folks were going to go away after your successful elimination of the the Morse code test requirement. (organizationally speaking, that is!) I do definitely remember that we were told that the sole purpose of NCI was elimination of the test. Is dissolution still the target? I've always thought, and still do, that one of the hardest things for an organization to do is go away, even when they are successful in their original purpose. I predict that NCI will morph into something else. I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requirements! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike,
Comments below... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Hey Bill (K2UNK) It looks like the long battle is just about over. Congratulations are in order, even though I still disagree, but it was probably inevitable. A grand new experiment will soon begin. So, I guess the big question is what is NCI going to do next? In the USA short term, it still isn't over until the FCC issues an R&O. Internationally (the I in NCI stands for International) there are still many countries that have not dropped all code testing. I remember old conversations with the previous prez in which I am pretty sure it was said that you folks were going to go away after your successful elimination of the the Morse code test requirement. (organizationally speaking, that is!) I do definitely remember that we were told that the sole purpose of NCI was elimination of the test. Is dissolution still the target? My personal viewpoint is that once the USA ends code testing, then the role of NCI will pretty much be completed...especally since many other countries already have done so. I've always thought, and still do, that one of the hardest things for an organization to do is go away, even when they are successful in their original purpose. I predict that NCI will morph into something else. I doubt it myself. I'm also an ARRL member and focus my other ham policy opinions primarily though ARRL. But, again, I can only speak for myself. I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requirements! I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. Personally, I do like the idea of a broader entry/beginner level license that allows more HF than the Tech does now...but that's another issue and one that ARRL proposed. Cheersm Bill K2UNK NCI Director ARRL member/LGL |
"Bill Sohl" wrote I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requirements! I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson is on record as an enthusiastic supporter of free passes for all Novices and Tech to General, and all Advanced to Extra without further testing. As I recall, NCI submitted official comments of this nature to the FCC. Sure smacks of "relaxation of test requirement for written" to me. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requiremen= ts! I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson is on record as an enthusiastic sup= porter of free passes for all Novices and Tech to General, and all Advanced to E= xtra without further testing. As I recall, NCI submitted official comments o= f this nature to the FCC. Sure smacks of "relaxation of test requirement for wri= tten" to me. NCI has supported simplifng the maze of licenses out there so what? =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Bill Sohl" wrote I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. Bill, Just to make sure I had not mis-characterized the NCI position, I checked their comments to RM-10867, on file at FCC's web site. My recollection was accurate, in that it expressed unconditional support of the proposal for free upgrades. In my veiw such granting of instant upgrades from Technician to General for almost a third-of-a-million licensees would make a mockery of the written examinations.. Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of those two exams. The ARRL petition would essentially grant a one-time waiver of the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect holding a one-day sale of "half-price" General licenses to these 330,000 licensees. This is not some trivial "one-time adjustment" --- in fact if it were adopted, the vast majority of the General licensees would never have successfully passed the test required for that license class! In the world of "unintended consequence" the effect of this give-away would be that the commission would have ipso-facto established that today's Technician examination is perfectly adequate for a General class license, and the credibility of the qualification structure in the Amateur Radio Service would be destroyed (especially since these "new" Generals would presumably now receive credit for the "General" written element when they proceed to upgrade to Extra). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. Bill, Just to make sure I had not mis-characterized the NCI position, I checked= their comments to RM-10867, on file at FCC's web site. My recollection was acc= urate, in that it expressed unconditional support of the proposal for free upgra= des. In my veiw such granting of instant upgrades from Technician to General f= or almost a third-of-a-million licensees would make a mockery of the written examinations.. in your view ok doesn't make it so In mine for example giving the upgrade esp to those who have held the leicense while it produces a retification of past in justices but the FCC disagreed which isn't going to bother NCI or NCI members Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written examinati= ons, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of those two exams. The ARRL petition would essentially grant a one-time waiver of the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect holding a one-day sale of "half-p= rice" General licenses to these 330,000 licensees. This is not some trivial "on= e-time adjustment" --- in fact if it were adopted, the vast majority of the Gene= ral licensees would never have successfully passed the test required for that license class! incorrect if they received the license then would have passed the required test In the world of "unintended consequence" the effect of this give-away wou= ld be that the commission would have ipso-facto established that today's Techni= cian examination is perfectly adequate for a General class license, and the not really just would ahve showed, If the FCC had done it, that time in service was also of value credibility of the qualification structure in the Amateur Radio Service w= ould be destroyed (especially since these "new" Generals would presumably now rec= eive credit for the "General" written element when they proceed to upgrade to = Extra). of course they would and their would be no more or less credibility than the current system their are always thoose saying the new license holder did not earn it, nothing the FCC could have done and nothing they can do will do change that =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KXHB:
I sympathize... That is too drastic a change. Most here probably remember the big stock market crash and the depression of the 30's (I wasn't born yet--two decades later.) People jumped out of windows and committed suicide in terrible ways--just imagine all the hams doing this--would be anti-productive--end up with fewer licensees as a result of such action by the FCC! John "KXHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. Bill, Just to make sure I had not mis-characterized the NCI position, I checked their comments to RM-10867, on file at FCC's web site. My recollection was accurate, in that it expressed unconditional support of the proposal for free upgrades. In my veiw such granting of instant upgrades from Technician to General for almost a third-of-a-million licensees would make a mockery of the written examinations.. Today the General exam requires passing two 35-question written examinations, and the Technician requires passing only the simpler of those two exams. The ARRL petition would essentially grant a one-time waiver of the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect holding a one-day sale of "half-price" General licenses to these 330,000 licensees. This is not some trivial "one-time adjustment" --- in fact if it were adopted, the vast majority of the General licensees would never have successfully passed the test required for that license class! In the world of "unintended consequence" the effect of this give-away would be that the commission would have ipso-facto established that today's Technician examination is perfectly adequate for a General class license, and the credibility of the qualification structure in the Amateur Radio Service would be destroyed (especially since these "new" Generals would presumably now receive credit for the "General" written element when they proceed to upgrade to Extra). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
John Smith wrote: KXHB: I sympathize... That is too drastic a change. Most here probably remember the big stock market crash and the depression of the 30's (I wasn't born yet--two decades later.) People jumped out of windows and committed suicide in terrible ways--just imagine all the hams doing this--would be anti-productive--end up with fewer licensees as a result of such action by the FCC! John that is rich of course iwas born 3 and half decades later than black monday myself |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote I'm certainly hoping it isn't relaxation of the other test requirements! I would personally oppose any such move and, I believe, I am familiar enough with the other NCI directors to safely say that none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written. NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson is on record as an enthusiastic supporter of free passes for all Novices and Tech to General, and all Advanced to Extra without further testing. As I recall, NCI submitted official comments of this nature to the FCC. Sure smacks of "relaxation of test requirement for written" to me. 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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. 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB 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. 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 f= or 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as support= ing a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. by no reasonable measure In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved something that is clearly different from changing the number of tests or their level of diffultity you are just trying to pick a fight it seems =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"an_old_friend" wrote In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved False! Absolutely false! At this URL --- http://tinyurl.com/wce9 there is a proposed change which migrates from the current license structure to a simplified 2-class structure with NO free upgrades and with NO loss of privilege for any existing licensee. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved False! Absolutely false! True absolutely ture I said the poetencail for not a requirement of so what I have just cut is irrelavant during any time of change great upheavels are possible I know this is unsettleing for you Hans but them is the facts =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"an_old_friend" wrote KØHB wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved False! Absolutely false! True absolutely ture Wrong again. You said "In any change in the system". I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
yeah, no one likes change but a baby with a wet diaper!
john "KXHB" wrote in message ink.net... "an_old_friend" wrote KXHB wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved False! Absolutely false! True absolutely ture Wrong again. You said "In any change in the system". I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote K=D8HB wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved False! Absolutely false! True absolutely ture Wrong again. You said "In any change in the system". I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts! which has nothing to do with the point any change has the potentail even your "proposal" has the potentail for large changes since their is of course no assuance that it would be adpoted as is Any time the Govt decides to changes regs there exists a protentail for upheaval indeed your proposal is an a large scale upheaval in just going to 2 clases instead of the 6 we still have on the books your proposal is a large scale adjudgement =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB 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. 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.) 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? 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 f= or 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? 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. 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. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as support= ing a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. Worse - permanent reduction. Here's why: Suppose FCC did announce that they were doing free upgrades effective, say, October 1, 2005. Joe Newham goes to a VE session in late September and passes the Tech written. A few days later, even before he sees his new call in the database, he gets a free upgrade to General. That free upgrade would mean FCC considered the Tech test adequate for General privileges. And when Mary Newerham shows up in November 2005, why should she have to pass the General written? After all, the Tech written was adequate for Joe Newham a few weeks earlier.... The joker in the deck is that such free upgrades would mean a lot of admin work for FCC. That alone may exclude them from consideration. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. Frankly, I view one time adjustments in about the same vein as I do temporary taxes. Imagine the howls when Operator #1 tests the day before the One time free upgrade, and operator #2 tests the day after, and gets much less privileges. Is that fair? If they both pass the same test, why is one getting preferential treatment? All it does is substitutes another problem for the perceived first problem. Hans, intellectually dishonest is an understatement! It works on so few levels. I'll be howling on both sides. People should *not* get free upgrades, and they should *not* be punished for the date on which they took the test. Perhaps they could reduce administrative burden, and do all manner of other wonderful things by simply having a one time adjustment of everyone to Extra? - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY:
How about the FCC and arrl just pose the question, "What are relevant questions to be posed to prepare potential new licensees for the hobby?" Logic will take over, problem disappears... however, this is a clear and present danger to "control freaks" and bureaucrats who view potential licensees as "radio terrorists"... John wrote in message oups.com... 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. 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.) 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? 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? 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. 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. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. Worse - permanent reduction. Here's why: Suppose FCC did announce that they were doing free upgrades effective, say, October 1, 2005. Joe Newham goes to a VE session in late September and passes the Tech written. A few days later, even before he sees his new call in the database, he gets a free upgrade to General. That free upgrade would mean FCC considered the Tech test adequate for General privileges. And when Mary Newerham shows up in November 2005, why should she have to pass the General written? After all, the Tech written was adequate for Joe Newham a few weeks earlier.... The joker in the deck is that such free upgrades would mean a lot of admin work for FCC. That alone may exclude them from consideration. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: K=D8HB 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 Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15= th 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 n= ot 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 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 By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as suppo= rting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. Worse - permanent reduction. Here's why: Suppose FCC did announce that they were doing free upgrades effective, say, October 1, 2005. Joe Newham goes to a VE session in late September and passes the Tech written. A few days later, even before he sees his new call in the database, he gets a free upgrade to General. That free upgrade would mean FCC considered the Tech test adequate for General privileges. And when Mary Newerham shows up in November 2005, why should she have to pass the General written? After all, the Tech written was adequate for Joe Newham a few weeks earlier.... The joker in the deck is that such free upgrades would mean a lot of admin work for FCC. That alone may exclude them from consideration. =20 Yup, like I said! =20 - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 - |
What, now you are more knowledgeable than the FCC and are over-seeing their
actions, to make sure they are proper? Buddy, look again, I think it works exactly in the reverse. You have been listening to those here too long, the ones who think that they are secret agents and that amateur radio is being attacked by "CB Terrorists." John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... 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 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 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 By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. Worse - permanent reduction. Here's why: Suppose FCC did announce that they were doing free upgrades effective, say, October 1, 2005. Joe Newham goes to a VE session in late September and passes the Tech written. A few days later, even before he sees his new call in the database, he gets a free upgrade to General. That free upgrade would mean FCC considered the Tech test adequate for General privileges. And when Mary Newerham shows up in November 2005, why should she have to pass the General written? After all, the Tech written was adequate for Joe Newham a few weeks earlier.... The joker in the deck is that such free upgrades would mean a lot of admin work for FCC. That alone may exclude them from consideration. Yup, like I said! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: K=D8HB 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 fashi= on. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick break 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. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirement= s? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July = 15th census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to te= st 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? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades 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. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang =20 - Mike KB3EIA - |
.... is it surprising the politicians would ever argue against dropping code?
The are supposed to fill us with a sense that they are logical and reasonable people, if they pursue insane ideas of keeping antiquated technology--who in their right mind would want them in office? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: 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 break 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. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirements? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that 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? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades 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. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote: ... is it surprising the politicians would ever argue against dropping co= de? not really but I was responing to someone saying code was a partisan issue after all The are supposed to fill us with a sense that they are logical and reason= able people, if they pursue insane ideas of keeping antiquated technology--who= in their right mind would want them in office? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: K=D8HB 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 upgra= de. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well true= ly 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 experie= nce (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 fas= hion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick break 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. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requiremen= ts? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's Jul= y 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 individua= ls, or 63.4% of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they h= ad 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 tes= ts 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? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come aft= er 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. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang =20 - Mike KB3EIA - |
aof:
Well, I mean look at the arrl, for years supported code (to their downfall actually)... .... just because some organization exists, it doesn't mean it has sane men in control... .... same with a politician, insane men are often lifted to office ... John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... is it surprising the politicians would ever argue against dropping code? not really but I was responing to someone saying code was a partisan issue after all The are supposed to fill us with a sense that they are logical and reasonable people, if they pursue insane ideas of keeping antiquated technology--who in their right mind would want them in office? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: 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 break 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. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirements? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that 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? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades 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. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang - Mike KB3EIA - |
an old friend wrote:
some snippage Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible Not a bad point at all Mark. Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With credit comes responsibility. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted It is just how things work. Make you decisions and live with 'em. Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang That was a joke, Mark. NO question that politicians on both sides of the fence hardly know enough about ham radio to make an informed decision about it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote KØHB wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved False! Absolutely false! True absolutely ture Wrong again. You said "In any change in the system". I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts! 73, de Hans, K0HB For goodness sakes, don't confuse the idiot with facts. He can't handle facts. Lets see, he did manage to get most of the letters in the word POTENTIAL, now if he just had enough brains to get them in the right order. |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "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. 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. In your opinion that is. Hans, we covered all the same territory in this newsgroup when NCI filed its own petition and also filed responses to others. For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bill:
Darn arrl is worse than a pervert with a box of lollypops around the kids... Attempting to fool the poor dumb cb'ers into thinking they helped 'em get free upgrades so they'd buy a membership, it is evil I tell you, evil! Those NC techs would probably have fallen for it too... John "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "KXHB" wrote in message ink.net... "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. 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra. In your opinion that is. Hans, we covered all the same territory in this newsgroup when NCI filed its own petition and also filed responses to others. For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway. It was a moot point, until you tried to distance yourself and the other Directors from your enthusiastic support of those free upgrades ("none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written"). Clearly they DID want such relaxation, to the tune of almost 2/3 of all hams getting "relaxed" right up to the next class of license. Cheers to you also, de Hans, K0HB |
From: Michael Coslo on Jul 28, 10:31 am
K=D8=88B 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. 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. Trying to trivialize th= at as a simple "one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-= out. By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on rec= ord as supporting a lowering of the qualification requirement for General and E= xtra. Frankly, I view one time adjustments in about the same vein as I do temporary taxes. Imagine the howls when Operator #1 tests the day before the One ti= me free upgrade, and operator #2 tests the day after, and gets much less privileges. Is that fair? If they both pass the same test, why is one getting preferential treatment? There is NO "preferential treatment." A change in LAW has to take place at a specified time and date. Either fit the LAW or get out. All it does is substitutes another problem for the perceived first= problem. So, how would YOU "fix" it? :-) Hans, intellectually dishonest is an understatement! It works on s= o few levels. I'll be howling on both sides. People should *not* get free upgrades, and they should *not* be punished for the date on which they took the test. What are you going to do? Retroactively enforce something in disregard of the LAW? Tsk, tsk, not a good thing. Perhaps they could reduce administrative burden, and do all manner= of other wonderful things by simply having a one time adjustment of everyone to Extra? Tsk, tsk, tsk. If we've told you once, we've told you a million times...don't exaggerate!!! Your technique of non-argument is just "reducto ad absurdum," just reducing things to an absurd level. If the LAW changes then all law-abiders should adjust to the changes. If they don't, they are law-breakers. Simple. If you can't adjust to change, then seek another venue for your hobby. Try ballooning to the "edge of space" or something equally dramatic.=20 yin yan |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote For now, anyway, it is a mute point since the FCC didn't go with the ARRL free upgrades anyway. It was a moot point, until you tried to distance yourself and the other Directors from your enthusiastic support of those free upgrades ("none of them want relaxation of test requirements for written"). One time vs permananent. We obviously differ as to what that translates too. For now, again, it is a mute point. Clearly they DID want such relaxation, to the tune of almost 2/3 of all hams getting "relaxed" right up to the next class of license. We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have to disagree as to what that translates to. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have to disagree as to what that translates to. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive Director of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia. Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI) I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since people who acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment assembled these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to "home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of questions regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) should be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license tests. In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Technician examination. I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influence on the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VEC. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have to disagree as to what that translates to. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive D= irector of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia. Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI) I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since peop= le who acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment ass= embled these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to "home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of quest= ions regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) = should be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license te= sts. In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Techn= ician examination. I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influen= ce on the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VE= C=2E I think Fred's very "unique" ideas about Amatuer Radio and VE testing are no doubt part-and-parcel of the inordinately high number of people who require re-test by the FCC. He should be ashamed. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Allow to point out the flaw in your reasoning
Fred W5YI has his opinions, Bill has his opinion (I am sure not all of which are the same) I have mine which other than supporting the end of code testing deverge as well NCI's opinion and action are based on the common threads of the membership and BoD Fred and Bill and I are all free to have opinions on other subjects This line of attack makes no more sense than saying NCI hates code use, because some of it memeber, like myself, think (and express) the ARS would be better off if the ARS abandoned Morse code USE NCI is colaition with members holding a wide range of opinions K=D8HB wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote We supported ONE-time upgrades...NOT a permanent change in testing going forward. Again, we will just have to disagree as to what that translates to. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. A trip down memory lane, Bill. A few years ago, while he was Executive D= irector of NCI, we saw this regarding Fred Maia. Lee Blaske writes: (about W5YI) I found one of his opinions quite interesting. He feels that since peop= le who acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their equipment ass= embled these days, they no longer need to possess the knowledge needed to "home-brew." Because of this fact, he thinks that the majority of quest= ions regarding math and theory (knowledge mainly needed to build equipment) = should be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with questions on operating technique and regulations. If he had his way, math and theory questions would only be part of the Advanced and Extra Class license te= sts. In other words, theory and math questions would be removed from the Techn= ician examination. I think Fred is still a Director at NCI, and even more scary, has influen= ce on the makeup of examinations through NCVEC and his association with W5YI-VE= C=2E =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com