In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

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?

Late 1996. Results in Feb 1997 QST

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

What significant change? How do we know what the change has been since
restructuring?

At least a few hams have publicly renounced their NCI membership here, saying
that 5 wpm was the right level and they could not support complete code test
elimination. Maybe they're an anomaly - maybe not.

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.

So? Anyone could revise their comments. And the comment period was extremely
long, so time wasn't a factor.

How many people
at the time may who said they support ARRLs stance
may have supported NCI's position will never be known.

Sounds like straw-grasping to me, Bill. Suppose FISTS had jumped in with a
proposal? Suppose ARRL had gone for 5/13/20 wpm? Etc.

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.

I'll bet that if the majority opinion had been "5 wpm and drop it completely as
soon as the treaty allows" we'd no longer have Element 1. And if there had been
a bigger majority for testing greater than 5 wpm, we'd have that, too.

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?

I did not mention anything about young people "demonstrating". Len did.

My point was that the strongest majority of procodetest folks was the youngest
age group - according to the survey, anyway.

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?

1996

73 de Jim, N2EY