We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

Thank you, bb

William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.

I doubt that they care what I think.


So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately. On the other hand, we
could keep the Tech, give them all Communicator HF
privileges, and truck on with four classes for the long
term. Or, we could set a 10 year upgrade deadline for
Techs, and then all would expire. (In the next 10 years,
Tech renewals would be for a less than 10 year term) It
remains to be seen how the FCC will propose new license
classes in the NPRM still to come that will deal with the
entire license class structure, and code requirements.

Rick Tannehill - W7RT
Member; NCI Board



Mike Coslo wrote:

William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.

I doubt that they care what I think.

So I'd like to know who the FISTS members are on RRAP.

I'd like to ask them why their organization, a non-political
organization of Morse Code -Use- advocates, has filed with the FCC?

Richard L. Tannehill wrote:
Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?

The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.

You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Richard L. Tannehill wrote:
Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?

Yet on the point of Tech and Advanced upgrades, ARRL and NCVEC are
identical. It is the incidentals that differentiate the two.

The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
General.

You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?

Like ARRL, we are, however, a member organization and what
we end up doing is and will be member based.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

| Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
| General.

The ARRL and NCVEC both propose that every individual (some 323,055 of
them by todays numbers) who has currently passed Tech level testing be
eligible for advancement to General without further testing. That
sounds to me like Tech level testing will get you a General ticket.

Cheers,

de Hans, K0HB

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Richard L. Tannehill wrote:

Please read Article II, Paragraph 2 of the NCI Bylaws at the
NCI website. This article, as currently written, has been
in the bylaws since they were originally drafted. (I should
know; I was the original drafter) It would appear to give
all the leeway necessary to comment on licenses and
bandplans proposed for licenses not requiring code testing.

Some of us on the NCI Board do have serious reservations
over the Tech to General upgrades. We agree that it is the
only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
classes of license, immediately.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Richard.

I did not realize that FCC was adamant about only having three classes
immediately.

I don't doubt that many in NCI have reservations about the proposals
either. FWIW, support of the new proposals at this point is probably a
difficult thing for NCI, because the ARRL proposal still contains Morse
for Extra, and the NCVEC proposal has some severe deficiencies that make
it very scary.

Here is a test question:

Is elimination of Element 1 testing important enough that the NCVEC
proposal is preferable to what we have now?


Yet on the point of Tech and Advanced upgrades, ARRL and NCVEC are
identical. It is the incidentals that differentiate the two.


The prudent course would be "We support the elimination of the Morse
code test in the ARRL plan, but are disappointed that they choose to
retain the test for the Extra class exam".

Otherwise, people like me are going to (mistakenly in your view) just
think that NCI supports Technician level testing for General level
privileges.


Neither ARRL nor NCVEC propose Tech level testing gor
General.

Wow, quite the spin. If a person wants to have General privileges right
now, do you suggest that they take the Technician test and wait for the
"adjustment"?

Even if the tests are "reinstated", which I doubt will happen, it will
take a long time before the majority of "Generals" are those that have
taken a General test.


You are so close to achieving your goal here in the US. Element one
almost certainly goes away soon. Why taint your victory?


Like ARRL, we are, however, a member organization and what
we end up doing is and will be member based.

Can I join your organization to influence your member base opinion?

And be that such as it may, it is now evident that an apparent majority
of NCI members support the majority of hams to be at least at the
General level without being tested for it. That cannot be denied.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Richard L. Tannehill" wrote

| We agree that it is the
| only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
| classes of license, immediately.

The FCC has not publicly expressed any "hellbent" intention. That
notion is a construction of ARRL, which the NCI directors have unwisely
chosen to support.

The immediate result will be free upgrade coupons for almost 2/3-rds of
all current licensees.

The not-so-immediate result (read "unintended but entirely predictable
consequence") will be the permanent loss of credibility in the
qualification process for General and Extra ("If those 300,000 guys got
General licenses based on passing the fall-off-a-log-easy entry-level
Technician exam, then why do I have to take a harder test like all the
'real' Generals previously had to take? Oh, my dear, the unfairness of
it all!") And please don't insult us by trotting out the anecdotal
selective-memory jeremiad from W1RFI about how the Tech exam is every
bit as hard as the General exam.

73,
de Hans, K0HB ô¿ô
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

KØHB wrote:

"Richard L. Tannehill" wrote

| We agree that it is the
| only logical choice if the FCC is hellbent on having only 3
| classes of license, immediately.

The FCC has not publicly expressed any "hellbent" intention. That
notion is a construction of ARRL, which the NCI directors have unwisely
chosen to support.

The immediate result will be free upgrade coupons for almost 2/3-rds of
all current licensees.

The not-so-immediate result (read "unintended but entirely predictable
consequence") will be the permanent loss of credibility in the
qualification process for General and Extra ("If those 300,000 guys got
General licenses based on passing the fall-off-a-log-easy entry-level
Technician exam, then why do I have to take a harder test like all the
'real' Generals previously had to take? Oh, my dear, the unfairness of
it all!") And please don't insult us by trotting out the anecdotal
selective-memory jeremiad from W1RFI about how the Tech exam is every
bit as hard as the General exam.


Agreed 100 percent Hans!

.....remember, just because I agree with you doesn't mean you're wrong!.....


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
William wrote:
We've recently seen NCI criticized for commenting on restructuring
proposals not directly related to the Morse and Farnsworth Exam issue.

My concerns are not the NCI has an official position. It is that we
have been told that their *only* agenda was the elimination of the Morse
code test.

THE agenda of NCI is elimination of code testing.
NCI has recently received member input asking
NCI to take a role in the ARRL petition and as a
result, NCI conducted a member survey. Subsequent to
that initial survey, NCVEC petition became known and
NCI conducted another survey on the ARRL vs NCVEC
differences.

In addition, some prominent members are on record that they would never
support reduction in the written qualifications, and now they do.

Neither ARRL nor NCVEC proposes any lowering of written
qualifications for General or Extra from what I have seen.

If they were to have said "We are in favor of elimination of Element
one and a reduction of qualifications for the licenses", I would have
disagreed, but I can respect the position.

I don't understand the "reduction in qualifications" argument
you claim.

But if the story keeps getting changed, both on a personal and group
level, I am a little disappointed, and future assertions from them will
have credibility in proportion.
I doubt that they care what I think.

It is not about caring what you may think, but rather what
our (NCI) membership wants.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK