In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:


Fun fact:

When the results of the 1996 ARRL/READEX survey were tabulated, one of the
results shown was the support for/opposition to code testing broken down by
age
group.

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, but the *most*
procodetest
group were the youngest! Hams under 24 at the time were 85% procodetest/15%
anticodetest. Almost a 6 to 1 ratio!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Very interesting, indeed.

Yep. Remember, though, that those are the results of a scientific survey done
in 1996.

It does, however, contradict the claim that young people don't want to take
code tests.

Even if it can be shown that the majority of hams and other interested parties
favor continued code testing, there's no obligation for FCC to follow that
majority.

A majority of those who commented to FCC on 98-143 wanted *at least* two code
test speeds. But FCC went to 5 wpm for all classes of license and set the stage
for complete code test elimination.

This could provide excellent support to replies
to the code testing petitions recently assigned RM numbers by the FCC.
Can you provide a URL?

It was in QST back in 1997. If it's online anywhere, it should be on the ARRL
website.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

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.

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.

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.

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.


I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim. I
believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing. I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing. Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.
Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.


As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?


How do you know what? That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who
are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.


Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?


What is it with your obsession with NCI? Are you campaigning for members
or something? There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.


And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?


As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything. Something will happen
sooner or later. Give it time.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...

Unless you are putting more into what was typed or seeing it completely
different, no, I didn't admit more than what I wanted to.....

People in the teen age groups are still forming their identities and
becoming what they might be for the rest of their lives typically. If
you
have differences with the word "moldable," then that is your problem.
Influenced maybe a better word then??

Ryan, KC8PMX


I wasn't argueing about the definition of the term "moldable", really...
and
actually influenced would be a bit less condescending and not give you
such an appearance of wanting to be dictatorial... I was putting more
emphasis on the part that said "..into the hams that *we* want them to
be."

The "type of hams we want them to be" I guess woud be different for
different groups, but in general, rule-abiding and professional/courteous in
operation to be a positive representation of us all licensees.



...heh, and people a while back took exception to my use of the term
"jack booted CW nazis".


Gee.... ya think?? I love "shock value" even if I don't really believe in
whatever is the "shock."


Ryan

N2EY wrote:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:



There should be some sort of beginner's license that an average 14 year
old honor roll student can get



That would require an extensive reworking of the current tests. We've got at
least one 6 year old General and an 8 year old passed the old Extra.



I mean "average honor roll high school student", not "Einstein's
grandson". Also
I mention the honor roll student in the sense that Beavis and Butthead
would not be
able to pass the license tests. If Beavis did get a license, then ham
radio would
sound like the old 147.435 machine on L.A...... W6NUT IIRC

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.

I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim.

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7
years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in many
"surveys".)

I
believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing.

Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to
conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997.

I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing.

The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes and
age groups. Surveying club members doesn't.

Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

How do you know what?

How do we know that there are "far more outside that organization..involved"?

I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham, etc.

That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who

are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are* members of
NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How many
different people have posted to rrap in the past year?

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?

What is it with your obsession with NCI?

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt strongly or
even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that organization.
Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact that
if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed based on
those numbers alone.

Are you campaigning for members
or something?

Just the opposite ;-)

There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.

That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code testing.

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?

As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything.

That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for every
rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a
burden"

It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend that
FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to do
so. Are they mistaken?

Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time.

Something always happens, given enough time.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart wrote:

(snip)

My point is that the whole issue is not a mass movement.
Clint claimed, without any proof, that most hams want
code testing gone. Yet surveys show the opposite.

I certainly haven't seen a survey recently that could be said to
accurately represents the views of the entire ham radio community, Jim.

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the ARRL/READEX survey is 7
years old. But it's the most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected as is the case in
many
"surveys".)

But in these last 7 years, the ham community probably lost
10% to SK status. Most of those were probbaly
pro-code and it is likely the survey, if done today,
would show the continuing shift away from support
of code testing.

believe you recenty posted the results of a survey done by some club that
shows the majority surveyed supported code testing.

Not "some club". ARRL hired READEX (a professional survey organization) to
conduct the survey in preparation for WRC 1997.

Asabove, too much time has passed for ayone to consider
those results to be accurate in relation to the current ham
population.

I don't doubt those
results at all. If you surveyed the local club here (and their friends
outside the club), the majority would also support code testing.

The ARRL/READEX survey sampled the entire country and all license classes
and
age groups. Surveying club members doesn't.

Of course,
the club members here are fanatics in their support of code testing, even
to
the point of openingly ridiculing Technicians who attend the meetings.

That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham" behavior.

Unfortuneately, it is real ham behavior. Hopefully
it is just an aberration of some hams...although we have
seen such attitudes voiced in the newsgroups by
more than one or two posters in the past.

Because of that, few who oppose code testing, and even fewer Technicians,
attend that club's meetings or socialize with the members. Find me a
survey
that is truly unbiased and I'll be glad to discuss the results. Until
then,
discussing the results of surveys is simply a waste of time.

Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM.

I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway.

As you well know, NCI is only a tiny part of the overall
movement to end code testing - far more outside that
organization are involved (including some in this newsgroup
you've personally discussed this issue with).

How do we know this?

How do you know what?

How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?

Who's on first? What? :-) :-)

I see the same small number of people in this newsgroup, at qrz.com, eham,
etc.

That you've talked to people in this newsgroup who

are not NCI members yet are still opposed to code testing? I suspect the
vast majority of those in this newsgroup who oppose code testing are not
members of NCI.

Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered here *are*
members of
NCI. But there are really not that many on either side who post here. How
many
different people have posted to rrap in the past year?

Someone used to post a Top 10 every month.

Who are "so many others", Dwight? If they really exist, why
haven't they signed on to NCI, which costs nothing more than
a few mouse clicks?

What is it with your obsession with NCI?

No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who felt
strongly or
even mildly that code testing should go would *not* join that
organization.
Particularly given the ease of doing so. And particularly given the fact
that
if the membership numbers got big enough, a majority could be claimed
based on
those numbers alone.

A mojority is nice, but as we've already seen, not really
needed when the decision to keep code testing can't be justified
to begin with (ref: R&O of 98-143)

Are you campaigning for members
or something?

Just the opposite ;-)

Keep doing your "just the opposite" because it helps
let others know we exist.

There is no requirement whatsoever that says those who oppose
code testing must join that organization. I haven't joined it. Neither
has
my wife. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who is opposed to code
testing who has joined. Of course, there are many organizations in this
country I haven't joined. Therefore, NCI is certainly nothing special in
that regard.

That says nothing about how many actually are opposed or support code
testing.

Why does it matter anyway?

And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1
back in July?

As you well know, the FCC has rules and regulations to follow, Jim.
Because of that, they can't "just dump" anything.

That's not what Phil Kane says. A complete NPRM cycle is not required for
every
rules change. Particularly when the change is characterized as "removing a
burden"

True, but the FCC isn't stupid either. A few months of process
helps avoid complaints down the road.

It's also what both the NCI and NCVEC petitions say. Both of them contend
that
FCC has the authority to just remove Element 1 immediately, and ask FCC to
do
so. Are they mistaken?

No, I don't think they are mistaken, I just think the FCC is
doing the process path because it is, in the end, less
controversial...(IMHO).

Something will happen sooner or later. Give it time.

Something always happens, given enough time.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, but the *most*
procodetest
group were the youngest! Hams under 24 at the time were 85% procodetest/15%
anticodetest. Almost a 6 to 1 ratio!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Very interesting, indeed.

Yep. Remember, though, that those are the results of a scientific survey done
in 1996.

It does, however, contradict the claim that young people don't want to take
code tests.

Jim:

Yes, indeed...ironic, isn't it, since that has been one of the NCTA's most
well-used arguments.

Even if it can be shown that the majority of hams and other interested
parties
favor continued code testing, there's no obligation for FCC to follow that
majority.

Unfortunately true. And, IMHO, they will not. I already consider code
test abolition to be a done deal. What matters now is what happens
next.


A majority of those who commented to FCC on 98-143 wanted *at least* two code
test speeds. But FCC went to 5 wpm for all classes of license and set the
stage for complete code test elimination.

Indeed they did. All they're doing now with the current petitions is just
going through the motions so nobody can accuse them of not following
their own procedures before the pull they plug on code testing.

This could provide excellent support to replies
to the code testing petitions recently assigned RM numbers by the FCC.
Can you provide a URL?

It was in QST back in 1997. If it's online anywhere, it should be on the ARRL
website.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I'll take a look-see. Quite frankly, my response to the latest petitions will
probably just be the "I agree with the FISTS petition" variety. I can't think
of anything new to add, and I believe the FCC already has it's mind made
up. Moreover, I'm not sure that a meaningless 5 WPM code testing
requirement is worth saving. If there were a chance of keeping 5 for
General and bumping back up to 12 for Extra, I'd be willing to fight for it,
but that's simply not going to happen. Like all good liberal socialists,
the NCTA doesn't want to compromise...they want the world handed
over to them on a silver platter. I've never seen an encouraging level of
passion on the part of the PCTA, and again using a political metaphor,
they, like the Republicans, can't seem to get their act together. Even
the FISTS petition is too little, too late. Nancy Kott gave us a good
start at the '97 Dayton Hamvention, then ran out of gas. The ARRL's
support for code testing has been half-hearted at best. If a couple
hundred thousand ARRL members had told the League that they'd
cancel their individual memberships and club affiliations if code testing
were reduced in any way, we probably wouldn't be looking at a future
ARS without code testing. We will now have to live with the consequences.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote:

Neither have I, Dwight. As I have pointed out, the
ARRL/READEX survey is 7 years old. But it's the
most recent *scientific* survey we have. (Its 1500
respondents were chosen at random, not self-selected
as is the case in many "surveys".)


Okay, perhaps it wasn't you. Someone posted the results of a survey done
by some club or group in Minnesota, Michigan, or somewhere like that, just a
week or so ago and I thought you were talking about that survey. I haven't
seen the survey you're talking about here so can't really comment on it.


That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Not "real ham"
behavior.


Luckily, it is rare. The club in Washington was very open to all. This
club isn't. Sadly, the fact that a club elsewhere is different doesn't
really help those who are here. I've considered starting an alternative
club, but I'm afraid the strong position of that club will quickly turn
anything like that into a pro-testing versus anti-code testing situation
(fed by members of both groups) which will not really benefit anybody in the
long term.


How do we know that there are "far more outside that
organization..involved"?


Well, since most Amateur Radio operators don't join any type of club
(local, ARRl, or whatever), it's a fairly safe assumption.


Most of those opposed to code testing I have encountered
here *are* members of NCI. (snip)


Do you know that for a fact, or did you just assume they were members like
you did with me?


No "onsession" at all. I'm just curious as to why someone who
felt strongly or even mildly that code testing should go would
*not* join that organization. (snip)


Do you feel most who support code testing are members of FISTS or other
such clubs? I don't think so. Based on what I've seen, there is a general
trend throughout this country not to participate in clubs or other such
groups. About the only exception to that is national political groups, which
seem to be gaining members.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/