"Mike Coslo" wrote


And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the
Element 1
test. But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams
priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.


We can quit fussing about the NCI "support" of the "Great ARRL
Giveaway". I've read the NCI comments on RM-10867, and they
contain no persuasive arguments whatsoever. Basically NCI just
ticks off the points of the ARRL/NCVEC petitions, and "supports"
them with remarks like "81% agree with this", "92% agree with
this", etc.

Reading the FCC ECFS comments uncovered one very heartening bit
of information. W3BE, who is generally a very staunch supporter
of ARRL, and who notably is a member of NCVEC (with their clone
giveaway proposal) rips into them (ARRL and by extension NCVEC)
on several points. John is also a long time FCC'er and his views
will have influence with the Commission. In stark contrast to
the say-nothing NCI comments, here are some excerpts from his
submittal.

"This commenter also takes issue with the petition.s plan for the
Commission to upgrade our 282,500 Technician and our 67,532 Tech
Plus operators, without examination, to General Class.19 In
effect, our present 146,164 General Class operators -- all of
whom have qualified by examination for the privileges of that
operator license class -- would suddenly find their stations
sharing their privileges with some 350,032 operators, none of
whom have similarly qualified. Today, for a Technician or Tech
Plus Class operator to upgrade to our General Class, the person
has to answer correctly 26 out of a unique set of 35 questions
concerning the privileges of our General Class operators.20 Each
examination utilizes questions taken from our Element 3 question
pool. Our pool is also maintained through a cooperative effort
among our VECs and is in the public domain. An Amateur Extra or
Advanced Class VE has prepared each question in this pool. It
is, therefore, the definitive statement by our knowledgeable
operators as to what a successful examinee for our General Class
operator license needs to know. Our VEs stand ready to administer
this examination to any and all of our Technician and Tech Plus
Class operators. There are training manuals and courses available
to those who need assistance.



"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence. After all, the Commission would have excused from our
examination over 70% of our General Class licensees. More than
two operators out of three, therefore, would be unqualified for
their privileges. Such an indefensible situation would be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to also dismiss this aspect of the proposal.

"This commenter takes issue with the petition's plan that would
have the Commission upgrade our 84,563 Advanced Class operators
to Amateur Extra Class without proving to our amateur service
community that they are qualified to hold this -- our most
prestigious class of operator license. To adopt this proposal
would be highly unfair to our most dedicated and most highly
qualified 107,313 Amateur Extra Class operators who have expended
the time and effort to master the necessary qualifications. By
climbing to the top, step-by-step, they have demonstrated their
unqualified support for the objectives of our amateur service in
our United States. Our Advanced Class operators -- for whatever
reasons. have stopped short of the top rung of our ladder. To
implement any such plan would diminish the reputation for
excellence associated with our expert class. It would incur the
disapproval of the very amateur operators who have so faithfully
passed all of our examinations. It would, therefore, be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to dismiss this aspect of the proposal."


---Then he takes aim on the disincentive licensing practice of
slicing the bands up into it's current host of
ghettos-by-license-class.

"Finally, this commenter takes issue with the petition.s request
to once again tinker with our frequency sub-bands. Our frequency
sub-bands are the classic example of well intentioned, but
ineffective, rules taking on a life of their own. All operator
frequency authorizations should be as complete bands. Only in
this manner would the notion of spectrum rewards as an upgrading
motivator have a chance of working effectively. Too many hams
seem to have the attitude, 'I like my call sign. There's no need
to upgrade just for a few more kHz.. That should tell us
something. It is the Commission's class-distinctive sequential
call sign system that is the upgrading motivational tool that
works. Slicing up a frequency band by license classes seems to
provide little, if any, significant motivation for upgrading to
those who need motivation beyond the personal satisfaction of
having attained our expert level of excellence. A segregated
frequency sub-band scheme clearly increases the monitoring and
enforcement workloads and isolates those whose self-training
progress would benefit most from over-the-air communication with
those having the expertise of the higher operator classes. It
would, therefore, be detrimental to the future well being of our
amateur service and for maintaining harmony and goodwill within
our amateur service community. This commenter, therefore, asks
respectfully for the Commission to also dismiss this aspect of
the proposal."



Finally, it was humorous to note one commenter who has submitted
a total of 89 pages of comments, almost totally unresponsive to
the ARRL petition, but merely tangential meanderings
uncomplimentary to amateur radio in general. Unfortunately he
gave no call sign, so I was unable to identify his license class.



73, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/28/2004 8:37 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

Reading the FCC ECFS comments uncovered one very heartening bit
of information. W3BE, who is generally a very staunch supporter
of ARRL, and who notably is a member of NCVEC (with their clone
giveaway proposal) rips into them (ARRL and by extension NCVEC)
on several points. John is also a long time FCC'er and his views
will have influence with the Commission. In stark contrast to
the say-nothing NCI comments, here are some excerpts from his
submittal.

(Quoting from W3BE's comments

"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence....(SNIP)

Lord knows the FCC doesn't need to "sully" it's reputation any more than
it already has. I don't think it could stand any more "sully(ing)" than they
ahve already inflicted upon themselves and us as an end result...

73

Steve, K4YZ

"supports"
them with remarks like "81% agree with this", "92% agree with
this", etc.

This is the best part of NCIs BS. 81%, whats that come out to 20 people, 92%,
whats that 24 people. It might have some REAL meaning, but, since NCIs
Membership is TOP SECRET, its value is useless.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

But do you think my proposal will work? We have a number of years of
operation under such a system, and I have not heard of any problems with
the database administration of the orphan licensees.

- Mike KB3EIA -


It's not *just* the database administration. Another aspect of the problem
is that the *rules* have to be maintained for those orphaned classes. How
do you deal with the sub-band by class privs without consolidation.

By consolidating into just three classes (including the new beginner class
with meaningful HF privs), the rules can be simplified greatly. That will
ease the administrative burden on the FCC (and the VECs) in ways that go
beyond just the database issue.

Carl - wk3c

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the

Element 1

test. But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams

priveleges

that they haven't been tested for.



We can quit fussing about the NCI "support" of the "Great ARRL
Giveaway". I've read the NCI comments on RM-10867, and they
contain no persuasive arguments whatsoever. Basically NCI just
ticks off the points of the ARRL/NCVEC petitions, and "supports"
them with remarks like "81% agree with this", "92% agree with
this", etc.

Yeah, you're right. Those numbers don't mean a whole lot since it is
those that chose to respond to the poll, etc, etc...



Reading the FCC ECFS comments uncovered one very heartening bit
of information. W3BE, who is generally a very staunch supporter
of ARRL, and who notably is a member of NCVEC (with their clone
giveaway proposal) rips into them (ARRL and by extension NCVEC)
on several points. John is also a long time FCC'er and his views
will have influence with the Commission. In stark contrast to
the say-nothing NCI comments, here are some excerpts from his
submittal.

"This commenter also takes issue with the petition.s plan for the
Commission to upgrade our 282,500 Technician and our 67,532 Tech
Plus operators, without examination, to General Class.19 In
effect, our present 146,164 General Class operators -- all of
whom have qualified by examination for the privileges of that
operator license class -- would suddenly find their stations
sharing their privileges with some 350,032 operators, none of
whom have similarly qualified. Today, for a Technician or Tech
Plus Class operator to upgrade to our General Class, the person
has to answer correctly 26 out of a unique set of 35 questions
concerning the privileges of our General Class operators.20 Each
examination utilizes questions taken from our Element 3 question
pool. Our pool is also maintained through a cooperative effort
among our VECs and is in the public domain. An Amateur Extra or
Advanced Class VE has prepared each question in this pool. It
is, therefore, the definitive statement by our knowledgeable
operators as to what a successful examinee for our General Class
operator license needs to know. Our VEs stand ready to administer
this examination to any and all of our Technician and Tech Plus
Class operators. There are training manuals and courses available
to those who need assistance.

Freakin' Elegant!


"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence. After all, the Commission would have excused from our
examination over 70% of our General Class licensees. More than
two operators out of three, therefore, would be unqualified for
their privileges. Such an indefensible situation would be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to also dismiss this aspect of the proposal.

Wordy but spot-on!



"This commenter takes issue with the petition's plan that would
have the Commission upgrade our 84,563 Advanced Class operators
to Amateur Extra Class without proving to our amateur service
community that they are qualified to hold this -- our most
prestigious class of operator license. To adopt this proposal
would be highly unfair to our most dedicated and most highly
qualified 107,313 Amateur Extra Class operators who have expended
the time and effort to master the necessary qualifications. By
climbing to the top, step-by-step, they have demonstrated their
unqualified support for the objectives of our amateur service in
our United States. Our Advanced Class operators -- for whatever
reasons. have stopped short of the top rung of our ladder. To
implement any such plan would diminish the reputation for
excellence associated with our expert class. It would incur the
disapproval of the very amateur operators who have so faithfully
passed all of our examinations. It would, therefore, be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to dismiss this aspect of the proposal."


I want to shake this dude's hand! It's almost like something MEANS
something! Like our licenses.

That is one of the saddest things about the Giveaway...oops,
the one time adjustment. In the end, all it does is dilute the service.
More General glass ops? sure. But if most of them are Technicians, that
will dilute the average amateur to the Technician level.

If some people here think that's BS, let 'em. Life's a b***h, and then
ya have to listen to my opinion.

---Then he takes aim on the disincentive licensing practice of
slicing the bands up into it's current host of
ghettos-by-license-class.

"Finally, this commenter takes issue with the petition.s request
to once again tinker with our frequency sub-bands. Our frequency
sub-bands are the classic example of well intentioned, but
ineffective, rules taking on a life of their own.

Process before progress.


All operator
frequency authorizations should be as complete bands. Only in
this manner would the notion of spectrum rewards as an upgrading
motivator have a chance of working effectively. Too many hams
seem to have the attitude, 'I like my call sign. There's no need
to upgrade just for a few more kHz.. That should tell us
something. It is the Commission's class-distinctive sequential
call sign system that is the upgrading motivational tool that
works. Slicing up a frequency band by license classes seems to
provide little, if any, significant motivation for upgrading to
those who need motivation beyond the personal satisfaction of
having attained our expert level of excellence. A segregated
frequency sub-band scheme clearly increases the monitoring and
enforcement workloads and isolates those whose self-training
progress would benefit most from over-the-air communication with
those having the expertise of the higher operator classes. It
would, therefore, be detrimental to the future well being of our
amateur service and for maintaining harmony and goodwill within
our amateur service community. This commenter, therefore, asks
respectfully for the Commission to also dismiss this aspect of
the proposal."



Finally, it was humorous to note one commenter who has submitted
a total of 89 pages of comments, almost totally unresponsive to
the ARRL petition, but merely tangential meanderings
uncomplimentary to amateur radio in general. Unfortunately he
gave no call sign, so I was unable to identify his license class.

could it be???????

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
..

NCI's Board of Directors debated the issues and,
while there was not 100% agreeement on our personal
views we agreed that we should represent our members'
views to the FCC and that we could each file our personal
comments to voice our personal views.


In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
.

NCI's Board of Directors debated the issues and,
while there was not 100% agreeement on our personal
views we agreed that we should represent our members'
views to the FCC and that we could each file our personal
comments to voice our personal views.



In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.

The day after the "one time upgrade" the testing level of the average
General class licensee has gone up or down?

When is *lowering* the average tested levels of Hams a good thing?

Hans, I liked your "average" quote in the "Morse and contests" thread.
Maybe it fits here too.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Moreover, for the Commission to order an exemption to our
Element 3 General Class examination for our 350,032 Technician
and Tech Plus operators would sully our reputation for
excellence. After all, the Commission would have excused from our
examination over 70% of our General Class licensees. More than
two operators out of three, therefore, would be unqualified for
their privileges.

This would be a serious issue at the FAA for pilot licenses or even at your
local DMV for truck or bus driver licenses, but, really, from a safety and
regulatory standpoint, there isn't a whole lotta difference between HF
and VHF.
Sure it's good to know what HF band will have decent propagation at what
times, but if you did make a poor selection the worst that happens is that
you get no answer to a CQ. The regulatory rules (no pecunary business
comms, don't maliciously interfere, nobody owns any one frequency, and such)
are pretty much the same regardless of the band.






"This commenter takes issue with the petition's plan that would
have the Commission upgrade our 84,563 Advanced Class operators
to Amateur Extra Class without proving to our amateur service
community that they are qualified to hold this -- our most
prestigious class of operator license. To adopt this proposal
would be highly unfair to our most dedicated and most highly
qualified 107,313 Amateur Extra Class operators who have expended
the time and effort to master the necessary qualifications. By
climbing to the top, step-by-step, they have demonstrated their
unqualified support for the objectives of our amateur service in
our United States. Our Advanced Class operators -- for whatever
reasons. have stopped short of the top rung of our ladder. To
implement any such plan would diminish the reputation for
excellence associated with our expert class. It would incur the
disapproval of the very amateur operators who have so faithfully
passed all of our examinations. It would, therefore, be
detrimental to the future well being of our amateur service and
for maintaining harmony and goodwill within our amateur service
community. This commenter, therefore, asks respectfully for the
Commission to dismiss this aspect of the proposal."

Except for a few medical waviers, every Advanced had to pass a 13 WPM
code test.
I'd be willing to equate that to passing the old Extra element 4b written.
Advanceds' and Extras' passed element 4a. But newer Extras (I'm an
"Extra Lite" didn't have to pass 20 or even 13 WPM. So:
element 4a + 4b (nowadays just element 4) + 5 WPM = element 4a + 13 WPM

Oh, there'd be two varities of new extras (written extra and code extra)
but I don't
see a need to keep track of which one any one extra is. This would get
us to
one less license class for the FCC to deal with.

By extension, they could also be done to make old novices to become no-code
techs. But that might mean making them give up the HF novice subbands in
trade for VHF and above. Not sure if that's such a hot idea..... Are
there
any truely active novices who haven't upgraded to general or extra by now?




I want to shake this dude's hand! It's almost like something MEANS
something! Like our licenses.

Getting a "gold star" is nice, but there really isn't anything a general
can't do that an extra
can do, except operate on certian subbands. Otherwise it's all the same
modes and power
levels. So what does the government (FCC) get out of it? The subbands
are a "carrot"
to get people to upgrade, but I'm not sure what the FCC gets out of it.



That is one of the saddest things about the Giveaway...oops,
the one time adjustment. In the end, all it does is dilute the service.
More General glass ops? sure. But if most of them are Technicians,
that will dilute the average amateur to the Technician level.


How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model railroading
doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur astronomy.

"Robert Casey" wrote


How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model
railroading
doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur
astronomy.


OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Robert Casey" wrote



How many other hobbies require licenses to do the hobby? Model


railroading


doesn't have novices, techs, generals and extras. Or amateur


astronomy.



OK folks, you saw it first here! The founder of NLI.



Nah, that's 11 meters. Nobody wants that mess on the ham bands. My point
was to mention competing hobbies that do not require a license to do. Also
an additional point I wanted to make was that we need to avoid excessive
grades or levels of ham license.