AF6AY wrote:
On Apr 23, 10:41?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote:

In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I think
how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook.
What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products?

Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizeable
percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade to the
'commercial' version.

Go to Linear Technology (the semiconductor company). They
will let anyone download LTSpice, a fully functional, operating
SPICE suite, complete with component library and schematic
drawing function that will automatically create a SPICE netlist.
The manual for it is a separate download, also free to anyone.
Not shareware, not some "crippleware designed to make one
upgrade." A fully working SPICE program, for nothing. Ideal
for amateur radio homebrew projects to check out any
circuit before building it in hardware. LTSpice has been out
for about a year, already has some hobby groups talking
about it, using it, with tips on how to use it for unusual
circuits and applications.

On my computers, I use the OpenOffice Suite (mostly WP and their
spreadsheet)

I use Digipan and a whole host of other Ham radio software.

Let's not forget N1MM contest logger.

A number of people produce software for the PAQSO party.

All these things share one thing in common. They are free for the download.

Even programs such as EZNEC, while charging for the full version, have
a perfectly functional demo version with the biggest limitation being
the number of "elements" you can use in it.

If that isn't enough, then 4NEC2 is free.

Altruism does indeed exist.

Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years now.

Not really any big decline. Newcomers (never before licensed)
are filling in the gaps left by expirations. Check it out on
www.hamdata.com, right on the home page.

The "big drop-off" is largely being replaced. While we can discuss the
reason that it happened - it did happen. I suspect that we will get to
that earlier level at some point.

Perhaps the old Tech license was a bit of a dead end?


All of these observations support a generic claim that interest in ham radio
is lessening.

The drop of Ham Radio, 73 magazines happened in between
1990 and about 2003 due to lack of advertising space sales,
particularly among the "Big3" (Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood). Folks
tend to ignore those same Big3 are also engaged in making
radios for businesses and governments. They probably make
more money in that market than in the amateur radio field.

However, in the periodicals that survive there continue to be
new ham radio models being made and advertised, certain
models promoted with extras (such as Icom). Antenna
makers are still "up" and so are the hundreds of smaller
businesses selling peripheral equipment and add-ons. I'd
say that the interest in amateur radio is increasing, not the
opposite.

Agreed. Certainly it is in my area. There are some who would dispute
the success we are having in our area (we are running at a 2+ percent
increase after factoring in attrition for well over a year now) as a
fluke. I might respectfully suggest a new approach. 8^)


There might even be a trend towards more newcomers
entering than ever before, some hints of that already shown
in numbers on www.hamdata.com.

The new hams in our area are good people, and are becoming active and
well mannered hams.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Apr 25, 9:35�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote:
On Apr 23, 10:41?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote:

In my field, I find many people writing and giving away software. I t
hink
how much altruism exists depends on a person's outlook.
What real altruism exists in software short of Linux-based products?

Granted, there is a large amount of 'shareware' out there, but a sizea
ble
percentage of it is simply crippleware designed to get you to upgrade
to the
'commercial' version.

Go to Linear Technology (the semiconductor company). They
will let anyone download LTSpice, a fully functional, operating
SPICE suite, complete with component library and schematic
drawing function that will automatically create a SPICE netlist.
The manual for it is a separate download, also free to anyone.
Not shareware, not some "crippleware designed to make one
upgrade." A fully working SPICE program, for nothing. Ideal
for amateur radio homebrew projects to check out any
circuit before building it in hardware. LTSpice has been out
for about a year, already has some hobby groups talking
about it, using it, with tips on how to use it for unusual
circuits and applications.

On my computers, I use the OpenOffice Suite (mostly WP an
d their
spreadsheet)

I use Digipan and a whole host of other Ham radio softwar
e.

Let's not forget N1MM contest logger.

A number of people produce software for the PAQSO party.

Reg Edwards' (G4FGQ) whole selection of design software

G4FON's Morse Code learning software, to name just one of many

Older versions of Spectrogram, an audio spectrum analyzer software
with many uses in the ham shack.

Several free online Amateur Radio practice test websites

All these things share one thing in common. They
are free for the download.

Even programs such as EZNEC, while charging for the full
version, have
a perfectly functional demo version with the biggest limitation being
the number of "elements" you can use in it.

If that isn't enough, then 4NEC2 is free.

Altruism does indeed exist.

Licensed amateurs as a whole in the US has been declining for 3+ years
now.

Not really any big decline. Newcomers (never before licensed)
are filling in the gaps left by expirations. Check it out on
www.hamdata.com, right on the home page.

The "big drop-off" is largely being replaced. While we ca
n discuss the
reason that it happened - it did happen. I suspect that we will get to
that earlier level at some point.

One factor I have not seem mentioned recently is the effect of rules
changes other than license test requirements on the number of hams.

For example, in the USA, the license term was doubled from 5 to 10
years back in 1984, and the 'grace period' doubled from one to two
years. One effect of these changes was that there were no expirations
at all from 1989 to 1994. Another was that the number of totally-
inactive-and-not-coming-back hams still shown on the database was
increased.

Another rules change that effects expirations is the vanity callsign
program. Unlike address changes, upgrades, etc., getting a vanity call
also generates a renewal. This may profoundly affect the distribution
of license expiration dates.

With the license term at ten years and the grace period at two years,
it can take a pretty long time for the actual loss of amateurs to show
up in the totals.

It is also important to know the details of what is included in the
numbers being cited. The raw numbers of licenses listed by
hamdata.com, for example, include both current licenses and those in
the grace period, while other sources do not include grace period
licensees.

Perhaps the old Tech license was a bit of a dead end?

Perhaps. However, if so, it should be noted that only a small
percentage of them have upgraded in the past 60 days.

There is also a fairly large variation in the license totals over
fairly short periods of time. For example, the total number of
current FCC-issued amateur licenses held by individuals was:

654,680 on Feb 22, 2007 (just before rules changed)
654,265 on Mar 5, 2007
654,160 on Mar 13, 2007
654,816 on Mar 14, 2007
655,025 on Mar 16, 2007
654,094 on Mar 19, 2007
655,136 on Apr 6, 2007
655,233 on Apr 12, 2007
654,649 on Apr 16, 2007
654,540 on Apr 24, 2007

Depending on which dates are compared, all sorts of short-term trends
could appear to be happening. For example, from March 13 to April 12
the total grew by 1073 - more than 3 per day! But from April 12 to
April 24, they declined by 693 - more than 5 per day. Of course on a
longer baseline things will even out; the point is that there are
large short-term variations.

All of these observations support a generic claim that interest in ham
radio
is lessening.

The drop of Ham Radio, 73 magazines happened in between
1990 and about 2003 due to lack of advertising space sales,
particularly among the "Big3" (Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood). Folks
tend to ignore those same Big3 are also engaged in making
radios for businesses and governments. They probably make
more money in that market than in the amateur radio field.

However, in the periodicals that survive there continue to be
new ham radio models being made and advertised, certain
models promoted with extras (such as Icom). Antenna
makers are still "up" and so are the hundreds of smaller
businesses selling peripheral equipment and add-ons. I'd
say that the interest in amateur radio is increasing, not the
opposite.

Agreed. Certainly it is in my area. There are some who wo
uld dispute
the success we are having in our area (we are running at a 2+ percent
increase after factoring in attrition for well over a year now) as a
fluke. I might respectfully suggest a new approach. 8^)

"If it happens, it must be possible"

There might even be a trend towards more newcomers
entering than ever before, some hints of that already shown
in numbers onwww.hamdata.com.

The new hams in our area are good people, and are becomin
g active and
well mannered hams.

IMHO, that's more important than how many.

Looking back over the past decade or so, I see the following trends:

- The number of US hams grew in the early 1990s but began a slow
decline in the late 1990s.
- The number of US hams grew in the early 2000s (2000-2003, after the
rules changes that went into effect in April 2000) but the growth was
not sustained and began a slow decline in the mid-2003
- The recent changes (Feb 2007) appear to have stopped the decline in
the short term.
- Both the 2000 and 2007 rules changes had the effect of a far greater
number of existing hams upgrading than new hams joining.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote:

Looking back over the past decade or so, I see the following trends:

- The number of US hams grew in the early 1990s but began a slow
decline in the late 1990s.
- The number of US hams grew in the early 2000s (2000-2003, after the
rules changes that went into effect in April 2000) but the growth was
not sustained and began a slow decline in the mid-2003
- The recent changes (Feb 2007) appear to have stopped the decline in
the short term.
- Both the 2000 and 2007 rules changes had the effect of a far greater
number of existing hams upgrading than new hams joining.

Was there really any expectation to the contrary, Jim?

There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new
licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop
Mechanics, etc etc etc...

WE know all albout the changes...No one else does, and even if
the ARRL, CQ, W5YI, etc started the full court press I seriously doubt
we'd see more than that same brief surge as you noteed above....Oh, to
be sure there's going to be a handful of the 11 meter DX crowd that
decides to "go legal", but that's still a very samll percentage.

Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.
I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid
skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On May 2, 9:52�pm, wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote:

Looking back over the past decade or so, I see the following trends:

- The number of US hams grew in the early 1990s but began a slow
decline in the late 1990s.
- The number of US hams grew in the early 2000s (2000-2003, after the
rules changes that went into effect in April 2000) but the growth was
not sustained and began a slow decline in the mid-2003
- The recent changes (Feb 2007) appear to have stopped the decline in
the short term.
- Both the 2000 and 2007 rules changes had the effect of a far greater
number of existing hams upgrading than new hams joining.

Was there really any expectation to the contrary, Jim?

One of the reasons given by those proposing the changes was to insure
the growth and survival of amateur radio in the 21st century.

There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new
licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop
Mechanics, etc etc etc...

Do those mags even exist anymore? What's their circulation?

WE know all albout the changes...No one else does, and even if
the ARRL, CQ, W5YI, etc started the full court press I seriously doubt
we'd see more than that same brief surge as you noteed above....Oh, to
be sure there's going to be a handful of the 11 meter DX crowd that
decides to "go legal", but that's still a very samll percentage.

So how do we get the word out?

Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.
I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees..

Why can't we have both?

That means solid
skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today.

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-compromised".

If it means a secret test, forget it. The only way we'd ever get
secret tests again would be for FCC to take over the process, and
they're just not going to do that.

And even if FCC could somehow be convinced to take over the whole test
preparation and administration process, somebody could just repeat
Dick Bash's tricks of 30+ years ago, and the tests wouldn't stay
secret.

The one thing that *can* be done is to make the pools so big that it's
easier to learn the material than to learn the test.
Anyone can submit questions to the QPC.

73 de Jim, N2EY.

wrote on Wed, 2 May 2007 23:36:41 EDT

On May 2, 9:52?pm, wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:49?am, wrote:


There's not been ten cents worth of promotion of the new
licenure requirements in the non-Amateur press, ie: Pop Science, Pop
Mechanics, etc etc etc...

Do those mags even exist anymore? What's their circulation?

Popular Science and Popular Mechanics are both newsstand
periodicals and my barber and my dentist include those in their
waiting area. :-) By scan of their contents, both seem to cover
whatever high-tech is "in" regarding all of science and technology.

At one time in the 1940s and 1950s, Popular Science did have
a few hobby projects concerning radio and home music systems
(of their day), none of them more complicated than using one to
three vacuum tubes. The largest such article that I recall was a
multi-part construction article of a (then) wideband (10 MHz or so)
oscilloscope authored by John Wood Campbell, then Editor in
Chief of Astounding Science Fiction magazine (later "Analog").



Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.
I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees..

Why can't we have both?

What defines "quality?" That is a popular descriptor yet is not
defined
fully by any of its users.

All who are licensed in a particular radio service should obey the
applicable laws concerning that radio service. As to what they
do within that radio service should be up to the individual. The FCC
gives all licensed U.S. radio amateurs quite a bit of freedom to do
what the individual wants to do. As such, the "quality" aspect would
seem largely subjective on the part of whoever uses that word.



And even if FCC could somehow be convinced to take over the whole test
preparation and administration process, somebody could just repeat
Dick Bash's tricks of 30+ years ago, and the tests wouldn't stay
secret.

That's a presumption that Mr. Bash was the only one to do "tricks."
It belies the hard-cover "Q and A" books that were available as far
back as the 1950s. Those "Q and A" books were available on all
current classes of FCC tests and a number of state licensing tests
for various state licenses.

Point of personal history: I tried to get one for the FCC Commercial
license test in 1956, but local bookstores did not have them
available. I borrowed the (then format) FCC Regulations loose-leaf
binder and memorized as much as possible of the entire set as
applied to all. There were fewer radio services then than 51 years
later.


The one thing that *can* be done is to make the pools so big that it's
easier to learn the material than to learn the test.

A popular presumption is that all "just memorize the questions and
answers" prior to a test. That is difficult to prove since each
applicant's efforts are unique to the individual. Certainly certain
regulations must be memorized. However the questions regarding
theory and operation depend on the experience and previous
knowledge of each individual.

As to the actual number of questions-answers in the pools, the
following are hand counts of all three current question pools from
a print-out of them made prior to my 25 February 2007 exam:

Technician: 35 questions, Minimum required in pool 350, Actual
number in pool 392. Ratio of pool to test questions = 11.20:1

General: 35 questions, Minimum required in pool 350, Actual
number in pool 485. Ratio of pool to test questions = 13.86:1

Extra: 50 questions, Minimum required in pool 500, Actual
number in pool 802. Ratio of pool to test questions = 16.04:1

All three classes: 120 questions total, Minimum required (total)
1200, Actual number in pool 1679. Ratio of pools to test
questions 13.99:1 average.

Note: The above is not a scientific study and the actual count may
be
off by a few questions. As it is now (General will change in
mid-2007),
the actual pool question quantity is over the minimum regulatory
number of ten pool choices per required test question, all classes.

I have been suggesting elsewhere (for several years) that a "cure"
for
the presumption that all "just memorize the pool to pass" is to
increase the QP size. Very few commented on that elsewhere.
I don't personally believe in that presumption yet it is frequently
stated by others elsewhere.

To some degree the increase in QP size that has already been done
by the NCVEC Question Pool Committee. Having had a recent
exposure to all three class pools in a test environment, I would
judge
that the NCVEC QPC has done a good job overall for the current QPs.
In review, post-test, I would say that the NCVEC QPC has introduced
enough 'distractor' questions to make an applicant pay closer
attention to both questions and choice of answers.

Considering the present-day scope of possible activity by licensed
radio amateurs in the U.S., the type and kind of questions in a
NCVEC QP can have a large variety. Part 97 Title 47 CFR gives
licensees that variety. The choice of which questions to include can
be difficult under such a situation...especially so when there is
random choice of which questions to include within a specific type
and kind on any exam.

Anyone can submit questions to the QPC.

Their website is at www.ncvec.org

73, Len AF6AY

wrote:

Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.

The decline in licensing continues unabated.

With the exception of a minor uptick in October '06, the number of licensed
amateurs has been in decline since '03
..
Feb 07: 655,477. Mar 07: 655,048 Apr 07: 654,940

Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just
waiting for the code requirement to disappear"?


I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid
skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today.

Exactly. History has proven time and time again that quality, not quantity,
is the solution to most problems.


73
kh6hz

wrote:
Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.

The decline in licensing continues unabated.

With the exception of a minor uptick in October '06, the number of licensed
amateurs has been in decline since '03
.
Feb 07: 655,477. Mar 07: 655,048 Apr 07: 654,940

I disagree with the above. Based just on the www.hamdata.com info
(as opposed to ARRL "active-only" listings), the number of new
licensees is now above the number of expirations. As of 3 May 07
the New v. Expiration numbers for USA licensees a

Last 30 days (total): New = 2,742 Expirations = 2,658

Last 60 days (total): New = 6, 417 Expirations = 5.494

Last 90 days (total): New = 8,972 Expirations = 7,767

Compared to the total number of licensees of 2 years prior
(total of 733,147) there are 10,957 fewer licensees as of 3 May 07.
The drop in total licensees is about 1.5% in two years.

By my observation, the trend of newcomers surpassing the
number of expirations in the USA appears to have begun. Yes,
it may be "a statistical anamoly" in numbers but the only way
to prove such a refutation is to jump ahead to 2008 and
produce numbers from then, something not yet within scientific
grasp. :-)


Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just
waiting for the code requirement to disappear"?

I'm not sure that was anything but some convenient scapegoat
phrase (i.e., 'urban myth') used by those desiring the
continuation of the status quo as of the early 1990s.

The hordes of "technically-savvy people" are busily engaged in
a number of very technical avocations in areas like: Personal
computing (both hardware and software), Robotics (of more
tangible appeal to youngsters), Automotive electronics,
Amateur Scientific experimentation, Radio-control, Music
Systems from guitar amplifiers to high-end sound systems,
Home Security Systems, just to name a few. Add to those
Blog maintenance and web-surfing and non-electronic-but-
technically-complex hobbies like genealogy and computer
graphics construction (of photos as well as original art) and
all of the above is just a tip of the iceberg of interesting and
challenging personal activities available to all in the last two
decades.

Personal radio communication without the available infra-
structure of other personal communications means has been
faced with a great deal of competition for everyone's free time.
Amateur radio - in and of itself in the old paradigms - hasn't
come up with enough attraction to be competitive in the hobby
area. Having always been older than the FCC, I can recall
that amateur radio was an attractive hobby in the 1950s and
1960s. That was the 'baby boomer' era where youngsters
were made aware of "radio" and the ability to talk around the
world. But, that high-technology of its time was 50 to 40
years ago and technology of communications has made
several quantum jumps in abilities of all to communicate
since then. The Internet went public in 1991, just 16 years
ago, has now become part and parcel of USA society today.

"Technically-savvy people' are generally engaged in work on
savvy technology for a living. They are creating the savvy
technology that others will enjoy next year or a few years
later. That these "technically-savvy people" want to pursue
free-time hobbies on other things than communicating by
their own personal radios is not their fault. They have so
many possible choices to occupy their free time that few
will fall back on half-century-old 'technological' hobbies such
as 'radio sport' contesting and/or collecting QSOs.

Given all the actual new technology made available for all
to use in hobbies of the last two decades, those alleged
"hordes of technically-savvy people" no doubt have taken
up other technically-savvy hobbies and discarded the idea
of emulating what the old pioneers of radio did long ago.
I submit that many just got tired of waiting for the code test
to be eliminated from testing and went on to other things.

73, Len AF6AY

On May 4, 3:22?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:

snip

I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid
skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today.

Exactly. History has proven time and time again that quality, not quantity,
is the solution to most problems.

The word "quality" is both subjective and ambiguous used
above. Amateur radio is not an occupation. It can be an
enjoyable avocation for many in a "technically-savvy"
activity...without the requirement of years of formal education
or the necessity of enduring certain levels of accomplishment
as in a guild, union, or craft trade.

In most administrations of the world, the only requirement is
that all in amateur radio operate according to their regulations.
Disobeying regulations will result in 'firing' an amateur (loss of
license, fines, etc., depending on an administration's laws).
Otherwise, every licensed amateur retains their license for
whatever term an administration lawfully specifies. Their
quality of operating is up to the individual and whatever peer
pressure might ensue within a country.

In the USA I think that "quantity" is important to the health
and welfare of future amateur radio here. Primarily for the
"presence" of so many licensees having an effect on law-
makers' future decisions. Secondarily on the market presence
to insure that equipment and components will be available in
the future.

As to "history proving anything" for "solutions," I submit the
Roman Empire as an example. Roman engineering of its day
was the epitome then, resulting in roads over most of known
Europe, water supply and waste disposal, ships and trade over
all the long reaches of its empire. Historians have written that
the Roman Empire failed from within, not from the quality of
its civil engineering and other innovations for civilization of its
time.

"Radio" as a communications means is only 111 years old.
The radio of now is vastly different from early radio, not just in
technology but also in that elusive word "quality." To attempt
pinning some specific era as the baseline for such "quality"
is tantamount to trying to nail jelly to a tree... :-)

73, Len AF6AY

On May 4, 7:22�am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.

The decline in licensing continues unabated.

Well, maybe. But according to the numbers I've seen and posted in
recent months, the number of current, unexpired FCC-issued amateur
licenses held by individuals seems to have leveled off at around
655,000.

With the exception of a minor uptick in October '06, the number of licens
ed
amateurs has been in decline since '03
.
Feb 07: 655,477. Mar 07: 655,048 Apr 07: 654,940

The number I have for May 1, 2007 is 655,069. However, it should be
noted that the total number can vary up and down a couple of hundred
in just a few days.

Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just
waiting for the code requirement to disappear"?

There are three possibilities:

1) They don't know the rules changed back in February.

2) They're busy studying for the written test, finding a VE session,
etc.

3) They don't exist.

---

There's also the idea that one of the purposes of amateur radio is to
*create* technically-savvy people. That's one reason for the emphasis
on young people. Like a kid who got his first license years before
high school, and the Extra years before college.


I've said it before and here it is again...Amateur Radio does NOT need
"big numbers"...We need to have QUALITY licensees...That means solid
skills and a NON-COMPROMISED question pool like we have today.

Exactly. History has proven time and time again that quality, not quantit
y,
is the solution to most problems.

Why can't we have both quality and big numbers?

And just what are "big numbers", anyway?

Back in the late 1940s, all through the 1950s and into the early
1960s, the number of US hams grew from about 60,000 just after VJ-Day
to about 250,000 in 1964, even though all hams back then had to pass
Morse Code exams and "secret" written tests.

Yet ham radio was far less popular back then than it is today, because
the ratio of hams to total US population was much lower then than
today.

The 1970s and early 1980s were another period of fast growth, even
though the license test requirements had been considerably increased
by the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968 and 1969.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote on Sat, 5 May 2007 08:20:29 EDT

On May 4, 7:22?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:

Nope...I think we're getting all the "influx" now that we will.

The decline in licensing continues unabated.

Well, maybe. But according to the numbers I've seen and posted in
recent months, the number of current, unexpired FCC-issued amateur
licenses held by individuals seems to have leveled off at around
655,000.

One of the reasons I used the www.hamdata.com figures is that there
is no differentiation between "active" and "inactive" in quoting the
New (never before licensed) versus the Expired (very definitely out of
their grace period). That dynamic shows - directly - the
'replacement'
of attrited licensees by newcomers.

... However, it should be
noted that the total number can vary up and down a couple of hundred
in just a few days.

Examining totals over a 30-day or longer period has an averaging
effect of minimizing the statistical anamolies occurring over just a
few days. "Smoothing the curve," so to speak.

Where are the "hoards of technically savvy" people in the wings "just
waiting for the code requirement to disappear"?

There are three possibilities:

1) They don't know the rules changed back in February.

That seems unlikely considering the FCC announced their decision
on 15 December 2006 and that news was then carried by the ARRL
in all their periodicals, in CQ magazine, in Popular Communications,
on www.qrz.com, on www.eham.net, on newsgroups oriented towards
amateur radio (and including SWL and CB enthusiasts), in major
electronics trade periodicals (EDN and Electronic Design, even
Microwaves & RF, the IEEE Spectrum membership magazine), even
in a few large newspapers. While the 'waiting period' was only
slightly longer than two months before legal activation, there had
been an NPRM and Comment period on it begun nearly a year and
a half prior in Docket 05-235 announced 19 July 2005. That NPRM
and Comments were also publicized by the major amateur radio
news providers in print and on the Internet. Anyone who is at all
concerned or interested in or about amateur radio in the USA is
bound to have found out about it ahead of time.

2) They're busy studying for the written test, finding a VE session,
etc.

While the more remote areas of the USA would still be difficult to
access a VEC examination location, those would also represent the
least populous areas. VEC exams exist in the urban centers and
are publicized by the dozen-plus VECs to those interested. In the
Greater Los Angeles area (population roughly 8 million) about half
of the exams scheduled were "walk-in," no advance notice
necessary. In close observation of all the Question Pools issued
by the NCVEC, there were very few questions directly concerning
morse code use that would be affected by FCC 06-178 so there
would be minimal studying any changes wrought by that R&O.

3) They don't exist.

Or, more likely, the phrase did not exist in the alleged wide use
claimed by some. :-)

A more likely possibility is that there are 'hoards' [sic] of
technically-
savvy people who simply gave up on the old requirements of ham
radio testing and went on to other, newer technology-related hobbies
that were more interesting to them. They just were not interested
in spending their own time on learning a skill they would never use
after passing an amateur radio examination.

73, Len AF6AY