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 -