RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 12th 03, 04:41 AM

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint" rattlehead
at
computron dot net writes:

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h

bzzzzzt....

if this were true,

It is true. Did you read the survey and its results?

there wouldn't be such a push to remove it.

Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer
than
5000
members worldwide, even with no dues, no expiration of membership and
having
been around over 7 years.

Oh, more than just NCI; ARRL seems to favor it,

ARRL hasn't formulated a new position yet. Their leadership is sitting
on
the
sidelines because no matter what they decide, some folks will be
unhappy.

Prior to and just after the IARU decision on S25 policy, ARRL was
ALL FOR CODE TESTING.

In the USA, yes. But back in early 2001, ARRL changed policy on S25.5 and
no
longer supported its continuation in the treaty..

That didn't make the NCTA happy.

ARRL still doesn't have any more membership than a quarter of all
licensed US amateurs. I don't believe in coincidences.

NCI membership is less than one percent of licensed US amateurs. Even
though
membership is free and requires only a few mouse clicks.

Faced with the inevitable worldwide reaction and subsequent action
at WRC-03, ARRL just OPTS OUT, goes neutral, won't take a stand
either way.

ARRL policy is made by representatives of the membership. If the
membership is
divided on an issue, a neutral policy may be the only solution.

Their $12 million income (2002) is at stake. ARRL doesn't exist
without funding. The ONLY people the ARRL is worried about is
the present membership which is skewed towards PCTA thinking.

Is it somehow wrong for a membership organization to do what the members
think
is best?

ARRL membership is still only a quarter of all US licensed amateurs.

NCI membership is less than one percent of licensed US amateurs.

They aren't a majority. Their decisions are not a "consensus."

Neither are NCI's.

Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski.

Maybe it is. But if so, it's not because most hams want it to go. And on
particular, not because young hams want it to go.

Your OPINION, senior.

No, simple fact, backed up by scientific survey. And the comments to
98-143.

Do you have any good and true statistical polling to back up your
OPINION?

Yes!

The ARRL/READEX survey showed that a majority favored code testing, and
that
the youngest age group was the most strongly procodetest.

When was the survey done? If it is more than two years old, it
is almost useless as there has been significant change
over the last few years.

The comments to 98-143 were categorized by an NCI staffer (disproving any
possible claim of bias by procodetest evaluation of the comments) and the
resutls showed that the *majority* of commenters not only wanted continued
code
testing, but wanted at least 2 code test speeds. This was true despite an
email
campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of 5
wpm
and sunset clause.

Now it also must be pointed out that for the initial several weeks
during 98-143 comment phase, those commenting were not
aware of the position being put forth by NCI. How many people
at the time may who said they support ARRLs stance
may have supported NCI's position will never be known. Even
so, the issue is NOT to be decided by any "vote" or majority opinion
of any group or even the public at large. The decision will be,
as it should be, based on what should be proper regulatory
setting of licensing requirments.

Of course things may have changed since then. But for someone to claim,
without
more recent evidence, that most hams want code testing to disappear is
simply
wishful thinking.

Strange, the news doesn't indicate any group of young people
demonstrating for the retention of the amateur license code test.
Nor the elimination of the amateur license code test.

Irrelevant.

Good, since I believe it was you that mentioned that fact
in the first place. If it is irrelevent, why bring it up?

Why do you say things about the "young hams" that you know not
of?

The evidence of the survey is clear. You can "stick head and eyes in the
sand"
but it is still there.

Again, what is the date of that survey?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK