Radio Amateurs of Canada - Morse Code Survey Results Published
 

Leo wrote:

In response to the WRC 03 decision on Morse Code, Industry Canada
asked the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC, our ARRL equivalent) to
advise as to what Canadian amateurs want to do with respect to the
Morse testing requirement.

RAC set up an online survey on their website for the month of August,
and invited all Canadian amateurs (both members of RAC and non-members
alike) to voice their opinions. The results have been tabulated and
published, and has been presented to the RAC Board of Directors for
discussion with IC in the near future. The following web site has the
details:

http://www.rac.ca/news/mresults.htm

Basically, the majority (overall 66%, or two out of three respondents)
is in favour of dropping the Morse requirement for access to the HF
bands. Similarly, 69% are in favour of modifying the Basic exam,
presumably to increase its relevance to operating on HF. For those of
you south of the border, the numbers are quite interesting, and may
give you some insight into the statistics you might find within the US
Amateur community. I was surprised, for example, at the percentage of
Advanced with Morse (our 'Extra') licence holders who are in favour of
dropping it - 52% - and we're the guys who 'paid the dues' and made it
to the top rung of both theoretical and Morse capability!

The same process was used to review reducing the Morse requirement
from 13 WPM to 5 WPM a couple of years ago - Industry Canada went
along with the recommendation the Amateur community (via RAC) - it is
anticipated that they will in all likelyhood do so again, as this is
obviously the will of the majority. Not all of us, not by a long
shot - but clearly, the majority!

In short, it certainly looks like it is only a matter of time before
Canada drops the Morse requirement for HF. But we may have an
opportunity to raise the skill level of those who enter Amateur Radio
through more relevant (and maybe more rigorous) testing.

Well if you raise the skill level, it will just keep people out of Ham
radio. That has been one of the reasons cited for getting rid of the
code test. It won't do just to increase the entrance requirements, which
will partially defeat the purpose.

To close with a quote from a famous Canadian, Marshall McLuhan (the
media visionary and professor who conceptualized the "Global Village"
and the impact of high-speed communications way back in the '60s):

"The past went that-a-way. When faced with a totally new situation, we
tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the
most recent past. We look at the present through a rear view mirror.
We march backwards into the future."

Perhaps being knowledgeable about RF matters is also in the past, Leo. A
person can pick up a rig, a linear and an antenna without knowing
anything about RF electronics. He/she can pay someone to put it up, and
can be talking in no time. Given this, why should there be any
requirements at all?

(suggested antenna is a 1/4 wave dipole) 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Good points, Mike - my comments are below:

Well if you raise the skill level, it will just keep people out of Ham
radio. That has been one of the reasons cited for getting rid of the
code test. It won't do just to increase the entrance requirements, which
will partially defeat the purpose.

There are advantages to having more people in Amateur Radio - not the
least of which are more voices to oppose things like BPL. And, less
unused bandwidth, which could be taken away and reassigned to
commercial iterests if we don't utilize it.

On the other hand, bringing in large numbers of less-skilled operators
defeats the purpose of Amateur Radio, which I recall was to develop a
pool of skilled radio operators.

The concept of modifying the test is a middle ground - by adding
questions on actual practical HF operation, for example, we would
ensure that new amateurs could go and set up and operate their station
without undue interference to others. A good thing, I believe, and
one that would raise the level of 'professionalism' amongst the novice
Amateur operators.

Perhaps being knowledgeable about RF matters is also in the past, Leo. A
person can pick up a rig, a linear and an antenna without knowing
anything about RF electronics. He/she can pay someone to put it up, and
can be talking in no time. Given this, why should there be any
requirements at all?

There are legions of operators out there today who operate 'point and
shoot' equipment - the level of technical knowledge and ability has
most certainly deteriorated as a result. Not many construct their own
equipment any more, not even antennas. But, the price of admission to
the Amateur ranks is testing of theoretical knowledge - this keeps
those who are unwilling of making the commitment from oprating
(legally) on our frequencies. As it always has been, and should be.
Without this, we would become a variant of CB.

(suggested antenna is a 1/4 wave dipole) 8^)

....for some of the incognoscenti on the air, I'd recommend a 1/4 wave
stub :)


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Leo,

For more gain than that 1/4 wave stub, consider a 1 foot dish for 160
meters. With a 1/1000 wavelength dipole at the focal point, you should be
able to get some interesting results.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

...for some of the incognoscenti on the air, I'd recommend a 1/4 wave
stub :)

73, Leo



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/03

Leo wrote:
Good points, Mike - my comments are below:


Well if you raise the skill level, it will just keep people out of Ham
radio. That has been one of the reasons cited for getting rid of the
code test. It won't do just to increase the entrance requirements, which
will partially defeat the purpose.


There are advantages to having more people in Amateur Radio - not the
least of which are more voices to oppose things like BPL. And, less
unused bandwidth, which could be taken away and reassigned to
commercial iterests if we don't utilize it.

On the other hand, bringing in large numbers of less-skilled operators
defeats the purpose of Amateur Radio, which I recall was to develop a
pool of skilled radio operators.

Yup. Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here Leo - but with
a bite. The arguments that can be used against testing are good ones.

I'm a firm believer in a well educated ARS. I think we have to work on
and decide just how much rf savvy the average ham has. I like to be
surrounded by people who are both knowledgeable and those who are eager
to learn. Just like on my hockey team, where I recruit both decent
athletes and those who are working hard at becoming good hockey players.

I like being around savvy and hard working people. I think it improves
the situation.


The concept of modifying the test is a middle ground - by adding
questions on actual practical HF operation, for example, we would
ensure that new amateurs could go and set up and operate their station
without undue interference to others. A good thing, I believe, and
one that would raise the level of 'professionalism' amongst the novice
Amateur operators.

Yes indeed. I really hope that the new people coming into the ARS are
accepting of the occasional reminder of being out-of-band, or splatter
or all the other things that are often deficient in newcomers. I thank
goodness that there were people to correct me when I needed it.


Perhaps being knowledgeable about RF matters is also in the past, Leo. A
person can pick up a rig, a linear and an antenna without knowing
anything about RF electronics. He/she can pay someone to put it up, and
can be talking in no time. Given this, why should there be any
requirements at all?


There are legions of operators out there today who operate 'point and
shoot' equipment - the level of technical knowledge and ability has
most certainly deteriorated as a result. Not many construct their own
equipment any more, not even antennas. But, the price of admission to
the Amateur ranks is testing of theoretical knowledge - this keeps
those who are unwilling of making the commitment from oprating
(legally) on our frequencies. As it always has been, and should be.
Without this, we would become a variant of CB.

Yup, and that is my major point, even if I'm arguing it as devils
advocate. We are at a crossroads now. The removal of Morse Code if it
happens (and no doubt in my mind it will) is one of the major changes in
amateur radio to come along in a while. I want a savvy ARS, but if we
don't watch it, we can end up with relative anarchy.

Good posting Leo.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Leo wrote:

In response to the WRC 03 decision on Morse Code, Industry Canada
asked the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC, our ARRL equivalent) to
advise as to what Canadian amateurs want to do with respect to the
Morse testing requirement.

RAC set up an online survey on their website for the month of August,
and invited all Canadian amateurs (both members of RAC and non-members
alike) to voice their opinions. The results have been tabulated and
published, and has been presented to the RAC Board of Directors for
discussion with IC in the near future. The following web site has the
details:

http://www.rac.ca/news/mresults.htm

Basically, the majority (overall 66%, or two out of three respondents)
is in favour of dropping the Morse requirement for access to the HF
bands. Similarly, 69% are in favour of modifying the Basic exam,
presumably to increase its relevance to operating on HF. For those of
you south of the border, the numbers are quite interesting, and may
give you some insight into the statistics you might find within the US
Amateur community. I was surprised, for example, at the percentage of
Advanced with Morse (our 'Extra') licence holders who are in favour of
dropping it - 52% - and we're the guys who 'paid the dues' and made it
to the top rung of both theoretical and Morse capability!

The same process was used to review reducing the Morse requirement
from 13 WPM to 5 WPM a couple of years ago - Industry Canada went
along with the recommendation the Amateur community (via RAC) - it is
anticipated that they will in all likelyhood do so again, as this is
obviously the will of the majority. Not all of us, not by a long
shot - but clearly, the majority!

In short, it certainly looks like it is only a matter of time before
Canada drops the Morse requirement for HF. But we may have an
opportunity to raise the skill level of those who enter Amateur Radio
through more relevant (and maybe more rigorous) testing.

Well if you raise the skill level, it will just keep people out of Ham
radio. That has been one of the reasons cited for getting rid of the
code test. It won't do just to increase the entrance requirements, which
will partially defeat the purpose.

To close with a quote from a famous Canadian, Marshall McLuhan (the
media visionary and professor who conceptualized the "Global Village"
and the impact of high-speed communications way back in the '60s):

"The past went that-a-way. When faced with a totally new situation, we
tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the
most recent past. We look at the present through a rear view mirror.
We march backwards into the future."

Perhaps being knowledgeable about RF matters is also in the past, Leo. A
person can pick up a rig, a linear and an antenna without knowing
anything about RF electronics. He/she can pay someone to put it up, and
can be talking in no time. Given this, why should there be any
requirements at all?

(suggested antenna is a 1/4 wave dipole) 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


Lets make it even easier. After this station is payed for, and installed by
a professional.....a 'check out' is then initiated by hooking the end of
the coax that comes from the transmitter to the left ear......and tune for
maximum smoke?

Dan/W4NTI

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...

Yes, Leo, you'r also the country which allows all comers to enter as
immigrants, with no ID or any proof of who they are or what they plan to
do. All in the name of "inclusivity" or some such nonsense. Come one, come
all.

Terrorist? Who cares?

Then they cross our border.

Dick / Brian,

Not sure what relationship this has to either Amateur Radio or the
news that I posted....I must have accidentally cross-posted to
alt.jingoism and alt.fearmongering again!

Sorry 'boot that, eh?

73, Leo

On 20 Sep 2003 14:13:17 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...

Yes, Leo, you'r also the country which allows all comers to enter as
immigrants, with no ID or any proof of who they are or what they plan to
do. All in the name of "inclusivity" or some such nonsense. Come one, come
all.

Terrorist? Who cares?

Then they cross our border.

Leo wrote in message . ..
Dick / Brian,

Not sure what relationship this has to either Amateur Radio or the
news that I posted....I must have accidentally cross-posted to
alt.jingoism and alt.fearmongering again!

Sorry 'boot that, eh?

73, Leo


Leo, no-sweatty dah (Korean for no-sweat). I'll have to give a visit
to alt.jingoism and fearmongering. Wonder what they said about the
9/11 anniversary?

Here in Canada stand firm with you on that one - that was by far the
greatest tragedy to befall the US (and North America) in the history
of the world, and certainly cannot be condoned. You will find a
contingent of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan with your troops right
now, as they have been for almost two years, working with you to hunt
down and destroy Al-Qaida. There is no safe haven here - this country
has no tolerance for terrorists. Neverless, people do get in who
should not get in (in the US as well as here) - you can't stop them
all.

However, this was am Amateur Radio thread, and your comment was off
topic. And, as a Canadian, I do take exception to the
oversimplification that the terrorists all come through here due to
our incredibly lax immigration policies - if that were true, the
Canada - US border would be (and should be) sealed and guarded to end
that from happening. I live a mere 45 miles from the border, and it
is as open as it ever was (although more vigilant in checking IDs in
the computer systems, in both directions, into Canada as well as the
US), so I assume that the threat cannot be that great. It has never
been conclusively proven that Canada is an entry point for the
terrorists (it was suggested just after 9/11, but disproven later).
And, even if they do enter the US at the Canadian border, do your
Customs guys just rubber stamp their visas and welcome them in? I
don't think so...

Let's stay on topic, and remember that we are both neighbours and
brothers in this issue!

73, Leo




On 21 Sep 2003 18:15:03 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
Dick / Brian,

Not sure what relationship this has to either Amateur Radio or the
news that I posted....I must have accidentally cross-posted to
alt.jingoism and alt.fearmongering again!

Sorry 'boot that, eh?

73, Leo


Leo, no-sweatty dah (Korean for no-sweat). I'll have to give a visit
to alt.jingoism and fearmongering. Wonder what they said about the
9/11 anniversary?

Leo writes:

In response to the WRC 03 decision on Morse Code, Industry Canada
asked the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC, our ARRL equivalent) to
advise as to what Canadian amateurs want to do with respect to the
Morse testing requirement.

RAC set up an online survey on their website for the month of August,
and invited all Canadian amateurs (both members of RAC and non-members
alike) to voice their opinions. The results have been tabulated and
published, and has been presented to the RAC Board of Directors for
discussion with IC in the near future. The following web site has the
details:

http://www.rac.ca/news/mresults.htm

snip

73, Leo

Hi Leo, and RAC did their typical job of making sure their CW
agenda has the guise of widespread canadian amateur approval.

Noone I know knew of the survey, and I strongly suspect that
if the majority of canadian amateurs had really been aware of it,
the results would probably have been different.

I have discussed the issue over the years with a number of
directors, and Jim Cummings, and cannot express
my disgust at the way it was handled.

cheers, Paul - VA7NT

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

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:16:41 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Erickson)
wrote:

snip

73, Leo

Hi Leo, and RAC did their typical job of making sure their CW
agenda has the guise of widespread canadian amateur approval.

Noone I know knew of the survey, and I strongly suspect that
if the majority of canadian amateurs had really been aware of it,
the results would probably have been different.

I have discussed the issue over the years with a number of
directors, and Jim Cummings, and cannot express
my disgust at the way it was handled.

cheers, Paul - VA7NT

Hmmm - let;s try that paragraph again!

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 have
missed it too..


Duh - @#$%^& typos.....

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..

"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

and

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

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.

Carl - w3kc

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Given that:

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

and

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


OK print the demographic DATA that shows that the ARRL membership is
deficient in Technician class licenses. Right now you are presenting an
unsupported opinion. The policy was never designed to keep them off HF.
The policy was intended to require what the membership believed to be a
valuable communications tool. Based on the Techs I know, just as many (or
just as few) join the ARRL as is typical of holders of other license
classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

As well, consider that the RAC does not represent anywhere near all of
the Canadian amateurs. Their survey was, in all fairness, an open
poll available to members and non-members alike.

Just one problem, though - they did not publicise it well (or at
all...), which limited the votes to those who knew of it or stumbled
upon it - and as Paul pointed out earlier today, this has led to the
suspicion that the deck may have been stacked by RAC's leadership.

73, Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:22:05 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Given that:

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

and

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


OK print the demographic DATA that shows that the ARRL membership is
deficient in Technician class licenses. Right now you are presenting an
unsupported opinion. The policy was never designed to keep them off HF.
The policy was intended to require what the membership believed to be a
valuable communications tool. Based on the Techs I know, just as many (or
just as few) join the ARRL as is typical of holders of other license
classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(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)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.

Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(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)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.


Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to
get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.


YOU aren't NCI, though. Many times one or the other code opponent has
stated that very thing. "Techs don't upgrade because they're happy where
they are".. We've seen this repeatedly.


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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(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)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.


Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to
get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.


YOU aren't NCI, though. Many times one or the other code opponent has
stated that very thing. "Techs don't upgrade because they're happy where
they are".. We've seen this repeatedly.


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



This is your brain....this is your brain on TIT.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(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)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.


Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to
get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.


YOU aren't NCI, though. Many times one or the other code opponent has
stated that very thing. "Techs don't upgrade because they're happy where
they are".. We've seen this repeatedly.

No, I'm not NCI ... but I can speak authoritatively on NCI positions.
NCI has never said that either.

Carl - wk3c

"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

"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