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?

"William" wrote

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

FISTS member #7419 present and accounted for, SIR!

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

I have no idea. I'm just a lowly foul-mouthed seaman and I don't get to
steer the ship. Perhaps you could get an answer from the skipper:
Nancy A. Kott WZ8C

Self Appointed Executive Director, North American Chapter

FISTS CW Club

P.O. Box 47

Hadley, MI 48440-0047


As always,

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"William" wrote

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

FISTS member #7419 present and accounted for, SIR!

FISTS 3505

What took ya so long, Master Chief.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/17/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

Farnsworth Exam...?!?!

Ive done a Google Search and can't find any reference to this...Can you
provide a URL...?!?!

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

3505 here.

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

Why not?

The FCC allows persons with no vested interest in various radio services
to post thier opinons relative to that service and to receive the same weight
as any other persons (or entities) comments as any other.

Certainly FISTS DOES have a vested interest in Amateur Radio issues as
(I believe...I do not know for sure...) all of FISTS members ARE licensed
Amateur Radio operators.

No?

Thank you, bb

73

Steve, K4YZ

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?

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"William" wrote

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

FISTS member #7419 present and accounted for, SIR!

FISTS 3505

What took ya so long, Master Chief.

73

Steve, K4YZ

I think FISTS has a right to make proposals or comment on proposals to the
FCC re. the preservation of Morse code within AR. I happen to believe the
retention of Element 1 relates to said "preservation."

73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

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 -

"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 -