"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.


Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple
"one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any
reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a
lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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.


Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test f=
or
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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple
"one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any
reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as support=
ing a
lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra.

by no reasonable measure

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail for large
scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

something that is clearly different from changing the number of tests
or their level of diffultity

you are just trying to pick a fight it seems

=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

At this URL --- http://tinyurl.com/wce9 there is a proposed change which
migrates from the current license structure to a simplified 2-class structure
with NO free upgrades and with NO loss of privilege for any existing licensee.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

I said the poetencail for not a requirement of

so what I have just cut is irrelavant

during any time of change great upheavels are possible

I know this is unsettleing for you Hans but them is the facts
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an_old_friend" wrote

KØHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

73, de Hans, K0HB

yeah, no one likes change but a baby with a wet diaper!

john

"KXHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"an_old_friend" wrote

KXHB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

In any change in the system there is the clear poetencail
for large scale adjustment of the licensesure of those involved

False! Absolutely false!

True absolutely ture

Wrong again.

You said "In any change in the system".

I showed you an example of a change with NO POTENTIAL for large scale
adjustment, disproving your statement on it's face. Them is the facts!

which has nothing to do with the point any change has the potentail
even your "proposal" has the potentail for large changes since their is
of course no assuance that it would be adpoted as is

Any time the Govt decides to changes regs there exists a protentail for
upheaval

indeed your proposal is an a large scale upheaval in just going to 2
clases instead of the 6 we still have on the books

your proposal is a large scale adjudgement
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

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.

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.)

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?

Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test f=
or
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?

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.

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.


By any
reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as support=
ing a
lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra.

Worse - permanent reduction. Here's why:

Suppose FCC did announce that they were doing free upgrades effective,
say, October 1, 2005.

Joe Newham goes to a VE session in late September and passes the Tech
written.
A few days later, even before he sees his new call in the database, he
gets a free upgrade to General.

That free upgrade would mean FCC considered the Tech test adequate for
General privileges. And when Mary Newerham shows up in November 2005,
why should she
have to pass the General written? After all, the Tech written was
adequate for
Joe Newham a few weeks earlier....

The joker in the deck is that such free upgrades would mean a lot of
admin work
for FCC. That alone may exclude them from consideration.

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB 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.



Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test 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. Trying to trivialize that as a simple
"one-time" adjustment is intellectually dishonest and a cop-out. By any
reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting a
lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra.


Frankly, I view one time adjustments in about the same vein as I do
temporary taxes.

Imagine the howls when Operator #1 tests the day before the One time
free upgrade, and operator #2 tests the day after, and gets much less
privileges.

Is that fair? If they both pass the same test, why is one getting
preferential treatment?

All it does is substitutes another problem for the perceived first problem.

Hans, intellectually dishonest is an understatement! It works on so few
levels. I'll be howling on both sides. People should *not* get free
upgrades, and they should *not* be punished for the date on which they
took the test.


Perhaps they could reduce administrative burden, and do all manner of
other wonderful things by simply having a one time adjustment of
everyone to Extra?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY:

How about the FCC and arrl just pose the question, "What are relevant questions
to be posed to prepare potential new licensees for the hobby?"

Logic will take over, problem disappears... however, this is a clear and
present danger to "control freaks" and bureaucrats who view potential licensees
as "radio terrorists"...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB 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.

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.)

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?

Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15th
census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to test 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?

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.

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.


By any
reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as supporting
a
lowering of the qualification requirement for General and Extra.

Worse - permanent reduction. Here's why:

Suppose FCC did announce that they were doing free upgrades effective,
say, October 1, 2005.

Joe Newham goes to a VE session in late September and passes the Tech
written.
A few days later, even before he sees his new call in the database, he
gets a free upgrade to General.

That free upgrade would mean FCC considered the Tech test adequate for
General privileges. And when Mary Newerham shows up in November 2005,
why should she
have to pass the General written? After all, the Tech written was
adequate for
Joe Newham a few weeks earlier....

The joker in the deck is that such free upgrades would mean a lot of
admin work
for FCC. That alone may exclude them from consideration.

73 de Jim, N2EY