| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
July 28th 05, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#22
July 28th 05, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
July 28th 05, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
July 28th 05, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July 15= th 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 n= ot 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic By any reasonable measure, NCI and ARRL both officially are on record as suppo= rting 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. =20 Yup, like I said! =20 - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#25
July 28th 05, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick I think you may have some trouble understanding what I said. I suspect from what I have read from your posts that you are probably in favor of less, not more education for holding a Ham license. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirements? 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point Why do you want the tests to become harder? considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With credit comes responsibility. Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#26
July 28th 05, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What, now you are more knowledgeable than the FCC and are over-seeing their
actions, to make sure they are proper? Buddy, look again, I think it works exactly in the reverse. You have been listening to those here too long, the ones who think that they are secret agents and that amateur radio is being attacked by "CB Terrorists." John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic 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. Yup, like I said! - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#27
July 28th 05, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashi= on. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick break I think you may have some trouble understanding what I said. I suspect from what I have read from your posts that you are probably in favor of less, not more education for holding a Ham license. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirement= s? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's July = 15th census) would receive a PERMANENT relaxation of the requirement to te= st 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point Why do you want the tests to become harder? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With credit comes responsibility. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang =20 - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#28
July 28th 05, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
.... is it surprising the politicians would ever argue against dropping code?
The are supposed to fill us with a sense that they are logical and reasonable people, if they pursue insane ideas of keeping antiquated technology--who in their right mind would want them in office? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick break I think you may have some trouble understanding what I said. I suspect from what I have read from your posts that you are probably in favor of less, not more education for holding a Ham license. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirements? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point Why do you want the tests to become harder? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With credit comes responsibility. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#29
July 29th 05, 12:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Smith wrote: ... is it surprising the politicians would ever argue against dropping co= de? not really but I was responing to someone saying code was a partisan issue after all The are supposed to fill us with a sense that they are logical and reason= able people, if they pursue insane ideas of keeping antiquated technology--who= in their right mind would want them in office? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgra= de. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well true= ly sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think = it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experie= nce (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fas= hion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick break I think you may have some trouble understanding what I said. I suspect from what I have read from your posts that you are probably in favor of less, not more education for holding a Ham license. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requiremen= ts? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that Under this NCI-endorsed plan, 345,802 current hams (using Jim's Jul= y 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 individua= ls, or 63.4% of the existing hams, would suddenly hold licenses for which they h= ad 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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 tes= ts 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point Why do you want the tests to become harder? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come aft= er are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With credit comes responsibility. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang =20 - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#30
July 29th 05, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
aof:
Well, I mean look at the arrl, for years supported code (to their downfall actually)... .... just because some organization exists, it doesn't mean it has sane men in control... .... same with a politician, insane men are often lifted to office ... John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... is it surprising the politicians would ever argue against dropping code? not really but I was responing to someone saying code was a partisan issue after all The are supposed to fill us with a sense that they are logical and reasonable people, if they pursue insane ideas of keeping antiquated technology--who in their right mind would want them in office? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: 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. And some of us that think that a little "larnin'" is a good thing, think that the whole concept is cheating those who get the free upgrade. the idea that following the rules would ever be cheating is well truely sick Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks that way..... 8^( 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.) I believe in a time in grade before moving up to say Extra. I think it should mean something, and nothing is something like a little experience (especially practical) Say a two year wait before testing for Extra. There is of course the possibility that a person could go through this process without ever getting on the air. But more often than not, an inactive Ham will not likely bother to upgrade anyhow. 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? Yup. And the people who came after them would be cheated after a fashion. Obeying the rules as cheating god these folks are sick break I think you may have some trouble understanding what I said. I suspect from what I have read from your posts that you are probably in favor of less, not more education for holding a Ham license. Niether really I favor the requriements be as loose as they can and still serve the public interests involved the ARS, note I say the PUBLIC not the memeberships of the ARS, thus as I have said in regard to code testing that even if it could be shown that code testing was good for the ARS, If it were not shown to be in the public interest I would oppose such testing So I favour neither, more nor less education. I favor mimimal regulation to the needs of the public, education chips fall where they may. One of the unintended consequences of a giveaway is that the day after the giveaway, getting the same priveliges is more difficult. of course it does So what you are saying is that you support increased testing requirements? no nor lessened ones? It is not an either/or proposition. The question is what best serves the public interest. I am for example willing to consider a vastly reduced test regime and shift to a more fee based license if those fees will be used for enfocement on our bands Enforcement seem a far biiger problem to me than education or the lack of it so in that example i support trading educatio requirements for increased enforcement, if that is possible If you show me that increased test benifits the PUBLIC I will support that 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? How about some free prizes too? ;^) 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. Lessee - this was a "one time" thing? This one time adjustment would permanently alter Ham radio, with the majority of hams not tested in a manner that was approved at some point. The free upgrade hams are with all hams tested by the approved method at every point Why do you want the tests to become harder? I don't nor easier I was objecting to you dscrition of the results of one time free upgrades considered adequately tested are they not? THen the Hams who come after are also adequately tested. Therefore to *not* allow them the same privileges is pointlessly and clearly punitive and discriminatory. 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. Absolutely. I suspect that I would be howling. So soon enough, and after much turmoil, the dust settles, and the changes are made permanent. I cannot envision any way that NCI would support "toughening" the requirements in the post adjustment world. NCI, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. I do hold them responsible. for something that could have happened if something that has been rejected by the FCC had been accepted twisted logic Negative. They are happy to take some credit for the situation. With credit comes responsibility. what credit are they taking? They proposed something that the FCC regcted and you want to hold them accountable for even proposing it. that is pretty twisted Unless of course they are Republican. In that case they are not responsible.... this is not a partisan issue, in the 2000 campiagn cycle I had contact and Gore and Bush people indacated they would support ending code testing in the itu treaty lang - Mike KB3EIA - |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| BILL CHEEK vs HUGH DUFF | Scanner | |||
| Bill Pfeiffer | Broadcasting | |||
Linear Mode
