"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a
problem?
When are you making your first million/yr., DICK, or are you happy where

you

are?

Kim W5TIT




There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being happy where they
are.
But we get two different stories out of some people. Techs crying
because
they aren't getting HF privileges and Techs not upgrading because they
are
happy where they are. If the latter is the true case, then there is no
need
to make any changes in any portion of the test requirements and NCI has
no
reason to exist.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dee, they'll never get over it, they just gotta have it both ways.
"We're happy with no code tech and VHF so stopp griping at us for not
upgrading, but why don't they drop that infernal Morris code test so we
can get our Extras and get on HF?"

Dick


I don't know any Tech+'s or, for that matter, any hams who think like that,
DICK. Here's an invitation:

If there is anyone, *anyone* at all on this newsgroup, who thinks they'd
like to get on HF and will once the CW part of testing is done away with,
then please submit your thoughts now. And, if there is anyone, *anyone* at
all on this newsgroup who believes that they like the status of their class
of license--in this case Tech/Tech+--and figures they'll stay at Tech+
because they like it and enjoy VHF to the exclusion of HF *until* they can
get their HF privileges without CW testing, then please submit your thoughts
now.

Dick, I am telling you right now before anyone posts a thing: I don't think
you'll find more than a couple of folks who think like you state above. I
don't think you'll even find two. Yet, your broad paintbrush sees
*everyone* who is a Tech/Tech+ thinking like YOU think.

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Paul,

Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking
up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would not have
missed it too..

Was it advertised in the magazine? If so, I don'rt recall seeing it!

Hopefully, the ARRL won't try to pull the same stunt....whatever way
the vote goes, it should fairly represent the wishes of the Amateur
community, not a small (and perhaps biased??) sampling.

73, Leo

Given that:

1) the ARRL's membership represents 25% of US licensees

1A) NCI's membership represents 0.5% of US amateur licensees..

and

2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time
hams

How do you know? Without membership data, this is pure speculation on your
part.

(Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because
they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)

Again, pure speculation. Without membership data, it's impossible to know how
many members are of any license class. Even harder to discern is why some are
members and some aren't. For example, I have heard many Techs say things like:

- "$39 is too much money for the magazine"
- "The ARRL is a national organization, and my focus is local and regional"
- "QST is too technical"
- "QST isn't technical enough"
- "There's not enough stuff about what I'm interested in"

ARRL's Morse code test policy is derived from what members want. If enough
nocodetest hams join and elect directors who support their views, the policy
will change.

I would, even giving the ARRL credit for the best of intentions,
submit that any survey of ARRL membership is unlikely to be
TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams.

I submit that any survey of NCI membership is unlikely to be
TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Kim"
writes:


And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a problem?


Nope.

And I suspect that's why every ham isn't an Extra. If someone's interest
doesn't include HF, VEing or a four-character call, there's not much reason
to
upgrade, is there?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Agreed! But if it's so OK, why are they virtually all hounding both us
and the FCC over the testing requirements?

"Virtually all??!?" You gotta be kidding, Dick!

In the seven years of its existence, NCI has gathered (at most) a few thousand
members who are US hams - out of ~685,000 possibles, ~200,000 of whom are
Technicians. And a lot of NCI members are neither newcomers nor Technicians.

FCC got how many comments about restructuring that were from Techs who were
against the code test? No more than 1,000.

73 de Jim, N2EY