"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for
it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again
in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim
the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it
trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that
not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of
commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or
no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.

Yes, there has.

Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC
restructuring.

Two points:

1. That was 5 years ago and
2. That was NO survey and you know it. Yes, one can
derive statistics of those that DID comment, but the
stats are in no way automatically revealing of what the amateur
community as a whole may think. Anyone that ever
took a statistics class can tell you that.

Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment,
licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get
an
indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks.

WRONG for the same reasons I just stated above.

And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity,
"box-stuffing"
and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still
only
count as one person's opinion.

Again...this isn't done by a vote.

NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at
least two
code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to
note
what the majority of commenters wanted.

NOTE SPECIFICALLY: NCI never stated anything other than
the results of those that commented. Anything beyond that
would be speculation only.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend
since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable
unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now

I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really
say.

I took the general in 1957/8 timeframe and it was
no big deal for me as a teenager of 16.

..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS.

ROTFLMAO... You left out the "IMHO" on that.
As we have often decided...we'll likly forever be at odds
on that one :-) :-)

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!

Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority?

Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been
70% "dump the code test" - we'd never
hear the end of it.

Welcome to the world of political persuasion.

In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained".
Majority
and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry.

In the end it will come down to the FCC only...regardless
of any vocal minority or majority.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

Free upgrades, for one.

Free upgrades do NOT specifically go against anything in
the treaty or otherwise in the more broad based "world policy" .
If you think otherwise, please point out the conflicting
treaty text.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to
General,
and all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

Jim, how'd you let my comment about it not bothering me
pass without a comment from you :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK