"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership
numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members
worldwide (snip)


Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove
code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on
occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many
years.

"Ranting"?

I have to agree with Jim's ???... Jim has never been one
to "rant."

Perhaps I could have worded my post better.

I didn't see anything "ranting about it."

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement. Clint claimed,
without
any proof, that most hams want code testing gone. Yet surveys show the
opposite.

The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have
joined
NCI.

So? The issue isn't to be decided by some unilateral vote of
only licensed hams. The issue is one of appropriate regulatory
test requirements.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall movement to end
code testing - far more outside that organization are involved (including
some in this newsgroup you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the
comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of
publicity
in the amateur press.

Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much
shorter
time.

One could also argue that most hams don't really care that code testing
ends...certainly not enough to file comments that indicate a desire
to keep code....and probably because they know the end result
is only a matter of time.

To now
try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many
others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why haven't they
signed
on to NCI, which costs nothing more than a few mouse clicks?

What difference does it make anyway?

Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will
somehow
make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others
outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen,
Jim.

I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way.

The "push" has certainly been far more than just NCI. If it
was only NCI, how do you explain the ITU treaty change by
with not one vote against the change...and how do you explain
the IARU possision...again, almost a unanomous set of votes in
each region except for a couple of no votes and abstentions.

The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that,
in
light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into
question a person's sanity.

How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys
showing the
opposite?

The FCC doesn't care about percentages...and it shouldn't. See above
my comment about the decision being what is proper test requirments as
opposed to what any majority of hams may want. Additionally,
I never saw any true survey that could be justifiable stated as
accurately reflecting ALL hams.


And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in
July?

Process. Better in the government mindset to open the comments and
see what comes forward. So far, NOTHING new has been offered
by PCTAs that hasn't already been sifted through and discounted
by the FCC in prior reviews (e.g. NPRM 98-143 primarily).

Without doubt, absent the treaty requirement, the ball is totally in
the PCTA's court to justify keeping any code test...and so far
there's nothing new.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK