"N2EY" wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.

But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element 1
gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception.

You are free to take whatever exception you want.

Particularly when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

There is NO obligation for NCI to publish that data...as you well know.

(In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)

You mean like when they opposed setting aside 300 kHz of 2 meters for
modes
with bandwidth of less than 3 kHz?

But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.

Considering how ARRL has been criticized for doing just that....

Politics 101: You can't please all the people (or members) all
the time.

Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".

Of course.

Now imagine that someone polled all US hams about whether or not Element 1
would remain for an HF amateur license. And imagine that the answer was a
resounding "YES!".

Would that result be used by NCI?

Hypothetical silliness again. I have no time to
discuss that which will never happen.

In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!

Exactly.

And recall that I was admonished here for discussing certain subjects. Now
a
variation on those subjects/discussions has become an RM - and NCI
*supports*
it!

What aspect/variation are you talking about?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message


So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.


No pass at all. Just agreement to disagree on a point. That
goes on everywhere in government, organizations, clubs, etc.


Quick comment, Bill. In the context of what Carl and I were discussing,
they pretty much did give me a pass. I deliberately defied a board
decision (the background is in another post I just made) for the good of
the league, and our groups very existence. I fully expected to be
removed from my position.
But as I noted in the post, in the end, most were very grateful I did
what I did, as they concluded that thier ruling that I defied was likely
a fatal mistake.

- Mike KB3EIA

There is NO obligation for NCI to publish that data...as you well know.


Of course not, your group doesnt want anyone to know hnow small your org is.

Politics 101: You can't please all the people (or members) all
the time.

And everyone knows how Lies are part of politics.

Hypothetical silliness again. I have no time to
discuss that which will never happen.

Just like, we will never support Dumbing Down of the Written

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
*Proudly applied for first award, KMPW (1000 Miles Per Watt) for LI, NY to
Kilauea. HI or 5053 miles with 5 Watts. :-)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:



"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the

squeaky

wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy


Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC

petitions

was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative

manner.

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test.


NCI's *primary* goal is the elimination of Morse testing.

However, the NCI Bylaws, as Rick, W7RT, pointed out, contemplate and
allow
for NCI to comment from time to time on issues that would have an effect
on
at least a significant part of the membership.

Since the ARRL petition would have an effect on the structure of amateur
classes and privileges (both code-related and not) that will likely last
for
at least a decade (we don't envision the FCC considering major changes
for
about that long after a major restructuring), the Board felt it
necessary to
ask the membership for their views.

First we asked, "Should NCI comment on the issues in the ARRL petition
other
than the code test issue?"
Then, we asked for comment on the other issues point by point.


But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.


As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only
practical
way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had
evolved
over the years.

And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out,
the
amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!"
study
guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old
General
that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

The fact is that many people mis-remember the tests they took many years
ago
as being harder than they really were ... I guess that's human nature
....
after you get used to something it seems easier (and correspondingly the
beginning stages are remembered as harder).

I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.

Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002

All were at just about the correct level for the privileges conferred,
IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper preparation for the
General class license.



And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?


The testing regieme doesn't *have* to "go up again" ... NOBODY has
proposed
that the testing regieme be changed ... only that, in the interest of
"nobody loses privileges" (which was a DISASTER in the past), that there
be
a one-time "adjustment" to make everyone fit the new structure without
losing ...

But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply don't
care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test one day
before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the testing
process than the person that takes the general test the day after "the
adjustment".

While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look at it
as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this proposal.

It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards, as
they will not have taken a General element test.

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.

I suspect then you'd be unhappy with the General/Tech test given in the
latter 50's throught the gos which until 1968 conferred full operating
privileges to Generals. The ARRL study guide for General was
only 16 pages of material.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
news
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Sorry Bert, whereas NCI can look only to its membership
for guidance as to NCI's organizational stance, the FCC can
not simply look ONLY towards the already licensed
amateur community for its input and guidance. In fact,
I know of NO entity that claims total representation
of ONLY the existing licensed body of hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
news
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c

We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

Sorry Bert, whereas NCI can look only to its membership
for guidance as to NCI's organizational stance, the FCC can
not simply look ONLY towards the already licensed
amateur community for its input and guidance. In fact,
I know of NO entity that claims total representation
of ONLY the existing licensed body of hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Guess you missed it, again..."AND those who are interested in becoming a
licensed U.S. AR."

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bert Craig wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Yes, democracy IS a damned fine thing!

73,
Carl - wk3c


We'd find out if we could have a very fine vote...all 680K U.S. licensed
ARO's AND those who are interested in becoming a licensed U.S. AR.

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
*Proudly applied for first award, KMPW (1000 Miles Per Watt) for LI, NY to
Kilauea. HI or 5053 miles with 5 Watts. :-)


Once again there is only one vote that ends up counting - the FCC's. I
would suggest they
may have tipped their hand on this proposal based on the recent NPRM.
In the section on the petition for granting upgrades based on service
they say this.

"Rather, we believe that passing an examination concerning the
operational and technical privileges of a higher class operator license
shows that a licensee qualifies for that license. In this regard, we
note that because current examination questions reflect current
technological advances and operating practices that did not exist twenty
years ago the examinations an examinee must pass today may be more
difficult than the examinations required of licensees in the past. For
these reasons, we deny the petition."

What was said about another petition regarding expanding privileges may
also be pertinent.

" We believe that a Novice or Technician Plus Class licensee can easily
upgrade to the General or Amateur Extra Class, thereby obtaining access
to significantly more spectrum and greatly increasing the chance of
establishing contacts with other amateur radio stations. Additionally,
because the number of Novice and Technician Plus Class licensees has
declined significantly, we believe that we should address operating
privileges for these license classes only in a comprehensive
restructuring of operating privileges for all license classes. "

John

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

some snippage

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.


I suspect then you'd be unhappy with the General/Tech test given in the
latter 50's throught the gos which until 1968 conferred full operating
privileges to Generals. The ARRL study guide for General was
only 16 pages of material.

I don't know. Comparing the relative difficulties is pretty hard. I've
tried, and so much has changed between then and now.

I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
difference is about impossible to quantify.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| I definitely *don't* think the earlier tests were harder. But how much
| difference is about impossible to quantify.
|

The degree of difficulty of tests written back in the 50's is immaterial
to todays situation.

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 proposal, which NCI directors seem hellbent to support, would
waive the second (harder) of the examinations, in effect giving away
"half-price" General licenses to a third of a million licensees. They
attempt, with a straight face, to rationalize this away by how few pages
were in Ed Hare's study material for General 40 or more years ago!
This support, from people like Carl, who previously stood four-square
against any dillution of the technical requirements for amateur
licenses, is unfathomable even when masked by platitudes of his
"fiduciary duty", as though he were appointed to some "guardianship"
responsibility to the amateur service???

73, de Hans, K0HB