|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: But back in 1968, when I was at the FCC office for the General, the examiner said "why not try the Advanced while you're here?" (Could not do Extra because back then it had a 2 year experience requirement). Question 1: Were you discriminated against by such a rule? No! Since you lived through such a thing, your input would be worthwhile. My view, then and now, was that experience was part of the qualifications. Of course, someone could just toss the license in a drawer for two years and do nothing with it, but such was not the case with anyone I knew. The day the Advanced license arrived, I sat down and calculated when the 2 years would be up, based on the effective date of the license. On the first exam day when it would have been OK to take the test, I was back at the FCC office to get the Extra. So I took it and passed easily even though I had not studied for it at all. I was 14 and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Not a big deal even then because I knew of 12 year old Extras back then. I do believe there is a "toughness effect" that is related to how much trouble a person may have had at the time. They remember that it was fairly hard for them then, so it remained difficult, even though the person learned much more over the years. And since they know a lot now, the old test must have been tough. I did not think any of the tests - written or code - were that difficult. They required one to know a little radio and some basic code skills, that's all. Kind of like when I went back to my old elementary school a year or so ago. I remembered how big the place was, and how big a deal it was to walk from one end of the school to the other. If I hadn't gone back and seen just how small the place was, my perception would have been forever skewed as to it's size and how intimidating it was to a little kid such as I was. I had the same experience going back to my high school after not having been there for more than 25 years. How small it appeared! And I'm about the same size I was in those days. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Perhaps we should have a two class system, with only Generals and Extras? Dang....a two tier license structure not mandated by the government? Heaven forbid...hi. There should be some sort of beginner's license that an average 14 year old honor roll student can get. Just like the cigarette companies, get them while they're young. ;-) There might actually be some merit to that. Teenagers are still quite moldable, and would be excellent candidates to "mold' them into the hams that we want them to be, in the ham community. (Especially with making them code enthusiasts as well.) Now for the naysayers...... this would mean identifying those with the aptitude towards ham radio, not to all the teens, just the "right" ones, whatever that means. -- Ryan, KC8PMX "Symbolism is for the simple minded....." |
|
Dick Carroll wrote:
You can imagine what my small hometown looked like when I returned after 5 years military time away in places like New York, Hartford, Philly, Chicago, Paris and Frankfurt. Probably looked like good old HOME! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Alun Palmer wrote: Dick Carroll wrote in : Alun Palmer wrote: Dick Carroll wrote in : Robert Casey wrote: Dick Carroll wrote: You view the situation as an EE who didn't need to study to work out any of the technical problems on the Extra exam, few that there were. Most applicants have the singleminded goal of passing the exam, and learning beyond that goal is not only unnecessary, it gets in the way of the goal at hand. So they naturally just don't do it. The curent method of testing clearly facilitates that position. I'm a EE, and like any reasonably successful college student, I still made use of the avaliable resources (the question pool) to prepare for the (at the time I took them) elements 4A and 4B. Found a few holes in my knowledge, and filled them in for at least long enough to score well on the tests (missed 1 on 4A, 2 on 4B IIRC). Got the CSCEs, and then the extra on Restructuring Day. Most students only study what is expected to be on the exams. Thus, I could solve calculus exam problems (take the intergral of (csc x^5)/(tan x^2 -1) dx) but I still never got a good understanding of how to use calculus to solve a real world problem. Recently went looking for a "calculus for dummies" type book, but all they had was how to do exam problems. Been there, done that. And obviously it wasn't a problemm and hasn't caused any problem, for you and others similarly situated, nor for the ARS. But.....how about all the Extras out there who have successfully proceeded through the same system and emerged with so little knowledge that they have no idea of even how to design and build a simple *1/2* wave dipole? With little or nothing beyond the question pools in their libraries, many won't even know how or where to look it up. And when(if) the day comes that won't be required to copy ANY Morse code,one of the most used modes in ham radio, at the most basic speed? Which will affect their comprehension of dipoles neither one way or the other. Your linking of CW ability to comprehension of radio theory would be frightening if it wasn't hilarious! Understand that I'm not saying they shouldn't be hams, nor that they shouldn't be allowed some HF access. We all start somewhere. But to allow them licensing into the top echelon of amateurs is ludicrous and negates all that ham radio is supposed to stand for. In short, it reduces the ARS to CB status. Your thinking is so completely addled that I hardly know what to say in reply. To quote a famous person, "There you go again!" The minute I mention MOrse code, suddenly I'm all addled. Right. Only when you try to link passing a Morse code test with ability to understand theory Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your comment is out of line. Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others, that you should spend more time off-line. If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem. It's no one's "problem," senior. U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy. Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a few. I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite the many claims of NCI mavens. Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate with the rest of the world's frequency. Get in tune. LHA |
All age groups showed a majority to be procodetest, h bzzzzzt.... if this were true, there wouldn't be such a push to remove it. Sorry but it's on it's going the way of the dinosaur, just without as much darwinian effeciency. Clint KB5ZHT |
Any twist of logic, any tactic or spin of the issue to try to
stave off the inevitable... the long overdue removal of code testing. Nothing more. Clint "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate with the rest of the world's frequency. Get in tune. LHA |
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. |
"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, and in general most hams do that aren't the ones clinging to desperate delusionary hopes in certain internet NG's. Yep, it's outta here, CW testing is soon to be extinct. It's goneski. Clint |
"N2EY" wrote:
Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members worldwide (snip) Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years. 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). To now try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation. Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim. The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into question a person's sanity. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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. and in general most hams do How do you know? The ARRL/READEX survey was a true random sample. What scientific survey or polling have you done to verify your claim of "most hams"? that aren't the ones clinging to desperate delusionary hopes in certain internet NG'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. |
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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Dick Carroll wrote: You can imagine what my small hometown looked like when I returned after 5 years military time away in places like New York, Hartford, Philly, Chicago, Paris and Frankfurt. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm... Probably looked like good old HOME! 8^) After growing up in metro Philly, I found the Finger Lakes region of New York State much more to my liking. But the job is here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. mmm, yea, it pretty much *is*. |
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." ....heh, and people a while back took exception to my use of the term "jack booted CW nazis". Clint |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dick Carroll writes: Well since I *didn't* make any such linkage, and never have, your comment is out of line. Senior, YOU've made so many out-of-line outright insults of others, that you should spend more time off-line. Thanks for the grin, Leonard. Might I suggest that you follow your own advice? If you don't believe that proficiency in radiotelegraph operations is a serious part of ham radio, that's your problem. It's no one's "problem," senior. U. S. amateur radio is NOT exclusively about radiotelegraphy. ....and no one has indicated belief that it is. None of that is your concern. You aren't involved in any way. Not in the regulations, not in the law, only in the imaginations of a few. You've got a pretty good imagination yourself, old timer. You keep, for example, imagining that you are involved in amateur radio. I know no one who has ever linked it to technical knowlecge, despite the many claims of NCI mavens. Senior, your inductive reasoning doesn't have the capacity to resonate with the rest of the world's frequency. Get in tune. Get "Tune In The World With Amateur Radio". Dave K8MN |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members worldwide (snip) Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years. "Ranting"? Perhaps I could have worded my post better. 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. The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have joined NCI. 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? The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of publicity in the amateur press. Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much shorter time. To now try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation. 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? Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim. I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way. The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into question a person's sanity. How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys showing the opposite? And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Incorrect. What "push"? Based on membership numbers, NCI has fewer than 5000 members worldwide (snip) Oh, come on, Jim. What is this "what push" nonsense? The push to remove code testing that so many pro-code test advocates, including yourself on occasion, have been ranting about in this newsgroups for so very many years. "Ranting"? I have to agree with Jim's ???... Jim has never been one to "rant." Perhaps I could have worded my post better. I didn't see anything "ranting about it." 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. The fact remains that out of over 680,000 US hams, fewer than 1% have joined NCI. So? The issue isn't to be decided by some unilateral vote of only licensed hams. The issue is one of appropriate regulatory test requirements. 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? The restructuring NPRM gathered fewer than 2500 comments, even though the comment period was extremely long and the whole thing given lots of publicity in the amateur press. Compare that to how many comments the NOI on BPL has gathered in a much shorter time. One could also argue that most hams don't really care that code testing ends...certainly not enough to file comments that indicate a desire to keep code....and probably because they know the end result is only a matter of time. To now try to move the focus solely to NCI, while knowing full well that so many others are involved, is just not being honest about the situation. 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 difference does it make anyway? Do you honestly think denying the push to remove code testing will somehow make it go away? Do you honestly think denying the existence of others outside NCI will somehow make them disappear? It isn't going to happen, Jim. I'm not denying any of that. Sorry if it seemed that way. The "push" has certainly been far more than just NCI. If it was only NCI, how do you explain the ITU treaty change by with not one vote against the change...and how do you explain the IARU possision...again, almost a unanomous set of votes in each region except for a couple of no votes and abstentions. The movement to end code testing has never been stronger. To deny that, in light of all that has happened over the last few years, would bring into question a person's sanity. How about the claim that most hams want it, despite all the surveys showing the opposite? The FCC doesn't care about percentages...and it shouldn't. See above my comment about the decision being what is proper test requirments as opposed to what any majority of hams may want. Additionally, I never saw any true survey that could be justifiable stated as accurately reflecting ALL hams. And if it's such a done deal, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 back in July? Process. Better in the government mindset to open the comments and see what comes forward. So far, NOTHING new has been offered by PCTAs that hasn't already been sifted through and discounted by the FCC in prior reviews (e.g. NPRM 98-143 primarily). Without doubt, absent the treaty requirement, the ball is totally in the PCTA's court to justify keeping any code test...and so far there's nothing new. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
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 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 |
|
"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/ |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message
... 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. That sounds to me like a thinly veiled "filtering tool" again; using some form of exam or entrance requirement to "filter" out types of people that are designated as undesirable by...you guessed it: *other* types of people. I am of the ilk that anyone who passes whatever entrance there is into ham radio (whether it be in written or mode-test form--just whatever entrance there is into ham radio at the particular time someone is interested) is welcomed to ham radio. I'd rather have the opportunity to let the majority environment of ham radio be the positive influence on someone who may otherwise not be "desirable" and let them warm up to the service, in general. Closing the door right up front never allows us the opportunity to be a positive influence; and that is a loss. If Beavis did get a license, then ham radio would sound like the old 147.435 machine on L.A...... W6NUT IIRC Even Beavis and Butthead have the potential to be a great couple of guys. Everyone has potential. Kim W5TIT |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "Robert Casey" wrote in message ... 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". More likely "granddaughter", though. Also I mention the honor roll student in the sense that Beavis and Butthead would not be able to pass the license tests. heh...heh...tests.....heheh That sounds to me like a thinly veiled "filtering tool" again; using some form of exam or entrance requirement to "filter" out types of people that are designated as undesirable by...you guessed it: *other* types of people. heh...heh....she said filter...heh...heh "Make them jump through the written test hoop" "I had to take written tests..." "We'll be overrun by appliance operators!" I am of the ilk that anyone who passes whatever entrance there is into ham radio (whether it be in written or mode-test form--just whatever entrance there is into ham radio at the particular time someone is interested) is welcomed to ham radio. Same here - unless there is something which definitely disqualifies a person from eligibility (like unresolved convictions for violations of the Communications Act). I'd rather have the opportunity to let the majority environment of ham radio be the positive influence on someone who may otherwise not be "desirable" and let them warm up to the service, in general. Closing the door right up front never allows us the opportunity to be a positive influence; and that is a loss. You miss the point, Kim. The whole long dragged out argument is about what those entry requirements should be. Robert wants an entry level test that an "average honor roll high school student" could pass. Right away, one has to ask - why an honor roll student? And what about a middle schooler? My point about the 6 year old General and the 8 year old Extra is that even the pre-restructuing exams were such that children much younger than high school could pass them. And I am on record that there should not be a minimum age requirement for any class of amateur license. There is also the idea that rather than "closing the door right up front" (good turn of phrase, btw) that what is being attempted is to have the learning and testing process be a positive influence. If Beavis did get a license, then ham radio would sound like the old 147.435 machine on L.A...... W6NUT IIRC Even Beavis and Butthead have the potential to be a great couple of guys. Everyone has potential. Of course - but what matters is what is demonstrated. And how are the license test requirements decided? Put aside the code test brouhahah for a moment, and let's look at the writtens. At one extreme, the writtens could be derived from an enormous pool of questions covering every aspect of amateur radio in such detail that they'd require a photographic mempory and/or a thorough understanding of the rules, theory and operating practice to pass. At the other extreme, the writtens could consist of a few extremely basic questions such as "Where are the rules of the ARS to be found?" and "Who is required to follow those rules?" and "Do you solemnly swear/affirm/cross-your-heart-and-hope-to-die-promise to follow the rules of the ARS?" with everything else left up to the licensee and the amateur radio community. Most folks will now say "Oh no, I mean something between those two extremes!" And that "middle ground" all comes down to somebody's opinion, nothing more. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Bill Sohl wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , 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. Really??? Where is the documentation to back up that statement in the face of the large majority of code supporting commentors to 98-143? Senior, you need to look at public documentation (information available to all) before you move your stunner to "kill" setting. The ONLY statistical study on NPRM 98-143 Comments was done INFORMALLY by one of the later Commenters who was apparently interested enough to take the time to examine each and every one of (then) over 2000 Comments. Those two are still in the FCC ECFS, part of the 2.760 total documents on 98-143. LHA |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , 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? Bill, it doesn't really matter...:-) Once a "survey" was done, it is FIXED for all time as indicating "what hams do" years and years after... :-) Case in point: FCC 98-143 was the NPRM for restructuring, was issued 5 years ago. The R&O giving the restructuring changes (99-412) was issued late in 1999. Anyone can go to the FCC ECFS and get any of the Comments on the record, they are still available, all 2,760 of them. The latest Comment, from a 1x3 who puts "PhD" after his name, bitched about the 5 WPM morse top rate, was filed in September 2003! Five years later a few folks haven't gotten the news... :-) [in 2001 the FCC issued 01-108 to deny at least 5 petitions to bring back high-rate morse testing, two years before the "PhD" decided to complain. Gotta love all these aware and informed morsemen! :-)] LHA |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: "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. Lessee...if the average ham is licensed 60 years (that doesn't mean every ham is alive when the license expires), the death rate is 1/60th evey year. That's about 1.6% per year. 10% SK in 7 years is a very reasonable guess. Most of those were probbaly pro-code Not really! Here's the published results from page 55 of QST for February, 1997 (rounding may result in totals of 99% or 101%): (results are listed by age group - favor/oppose/no answer): 0-24 years - 85%/15%/0% 25-34 years - 52%/45%/3% 35-44 years - 58%/34%/7% 45-54 years - 66%/26%/8% 55-64 years - 55%/36%/9% 65+ years - 65%/27%/8 All ages - 63%/30%/8% While the 65+ group is 2% more procodetest than the overall average, the next youngest group is 8% less procodetest. and it is likely the survey, if done today, would show the continuing shift away from support of code testing. Maybe - or maybe not! Faced with the possibility of complete elimination, support for the code test might be greater. Lacking a more recent survey that is at least as scientific as the ARRL/READEX survey, we just don't know. 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 disagree! You're assuming your conclusion. The best we can say is "This is 7 year old data and must be regarded as such". 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. It's real behavior by a few hams. No "real ham" behaves that way. 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. In these parts, such behavior by club members would get them a good talking-to. If it persisted, they'd be ex-members. In any club I know of, anyway. 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. The comments to 98-143 were majority in favor of at least two code test speeds. 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. Same 10 most months, too. 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) We've already agreed to disagree on that. Point is, the claim that most hams want to end code testing is pure speculation. Are you campaigning for members or something? Just the opposite ;-) Keep doing your "just the opposite" because it helps let others know we exist. HAW!!! 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? Only to the claim of what most hams want. 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. Really? ;-) 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). You just verified my point that FCC could, indeed, just dump Element 1 without the whole NPRM cycle. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "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. Really??? Where is the documentation to back up that statement in the face of the large majority of code supporting commentors to 98-143? 98-143 is over 5 years old. If you can't fuigure out the logic and basic assumptions that reflect the probable changing, then so be it. Believe whatever makes you happy. 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 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. Ah. So maybe that change "in the last few years" wasn't so striking, after all. Actually, I'm certain there was yet a continuing shift away from support for code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Dwight: 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. N2EY: Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM. I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway. So you think Bill Cross is obfuscating when he says that FCC wants the ham community to decide what our rules are to be, for us to reach a concensus?? Not at all, but I also believe that when it is obvious to the FCC that a rule change is appropriate...even if a majority of hams oppose that change...the FCC will do what it believes is right and in the public interest. 98-143 serves as a bellweather to that since, if most hams favored 5wpm General and 12 wpm Extra, the FCC didn't buy it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: The ARRL/READEX survey showed that a majority favored code testing, and that the youngest age group was the most strongly procodetest. When was the survey done? Late 1996. Results in Feb 1997 QST If it is more than two years old, it is almost useless as there has been significant change over the last few years. What significant change? How do we know what the change has been since restructuring? At least a few hams have publicly renounced their NCI membership here, saying that 5 wpm was the right level and they could not support complete code test elimination. Maybe they're an anomaly - maybe not. The comments to 98-143 were categorized by an NCI staffer (disproving any possible claim of bias by procodetest evaluation of the comments) and the resutls showed that the *majority* of commenters not only wanted continued code testing, but wanted at least 2 code test speeds. This was true despite an campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of 5 wpm and sunset clause. Now it also must be pointed out that for the initial several weeks during 98-143 comment phase, those commenting were not aware of the position being put forth by NCI. So? Anyone could revise their comments. And the comment period was extremely long, so time wasn't a factor. How many people at the time may who said they support ARRLs stance may have supported NCI's position will never be known. Sounds like straw-grasping to me, Bill. Suppose FISTS had jumped in with a proposal? Suppose ARRL had gone for 5/13/20 wpm? Etc. Even so, the issue is NOT to be decided by any "vote" or majority opinion of any group or even the public at large. The decision will be, as it should be, based on what should be proper regulatory setting of licensing requirments. I'll bet that if the majority opinion had been "5 wpm and drop it completely as soon as the treaty allows" we'd no longer have Element 1. And if there had been a bigger majority for testing greater than 5 wpm, we'd have that, too. Of course things may have changed since then. But for someone to claim, without more recent evidence, that most hams want code testing to disappear is simply wishful thinking. Strange, the news doesn't indicate any group of young people demonstrating for the retention of the amateur license code test. Nor the elimination of the amateur license code test. Irrelevant. Good, since I believe it was you that mentioned that fact in the first place. If it is irrelevent, why bring it up? I did not mention anything about young people "demonstrating". Len did. My point was that the strongest majority of procodetest folks was the youngest age group - according to the survey, anyway. Why do you say things about the "young hams" that you know not of? The evidence of the survey is clear. You can "stick head and eyes in the sand" but it is still there. Again, what is the date of that survey? 1996 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Bill Sohl wrote: Dwight: 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. N2EY: Then consider the comments to the restructuring NPRM. I agree...surveys, votes, etc hold little sway with the FCC anyway. So you think Bill Cross is obfuscating when he says that FCC wants the ham community to decide what our rules are to be, for us to reach a concensus?? Not at all! What Mr. Cross (W3TN) means, I think, is that the *preferred* method of rulemaking is for the amateur community to "discuss amongst themselves" and come up with a consensus plan for some issue or other. Then present said plan to FCC. Example: New Q&A pool is developed by QPC and presented to FCC for approval. Few or no protests to the new pool; consensus acheived. FCC approves new pool. Quick and easy. But when consensus cannot be reached, FCC has to make a decision. And that decision is based on many factors. In the case of code testing in regards to 98-143, the factors for reducing code testing won and the majority opinion lost - in FCC's opinion. The medical waiver headaches alone.....(One could argue that there was a consensus reached that medical waivers were not a good idea. So FCC eliminated them....) Suppose, just suppose, that the comments to 98-143 had been 80-90% to reduce to 5 wpm to meet S25.5 and eliminate all code testing as soon as the treaty permitted. Do you think Element 1 would still be in place today? I don't. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... At least a few hams have publicly renounced their NCI membership here, saying that 5 wpm was the right level and they could not support complete code test elimination. Maybe they're an anomaly - maybe not. By my best recollection there have been *maybe* about 6 or 7 who have upgraded, decided "I've got mine." and decided they wanted to keep the 5 wpm ... out of thousands of NCI members. Carl - wk3c |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com