"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 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

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.

and that's why it's only a matter of time before the code testing is gone.
The PCTA crowd doesn't help itself much when it presents itself with
such an air of arrogance and aggressiveness. One ham in here actually
expressed an interest in having special new call signs issued to the new
hams that upgrade without the code test when it's dropped from the
testing requirements so "the old ham crowd will know who *not* to
talk to"... now, just what do you think the new hams are going to think
of this kind of behavior? it's not a wonder at all that the PCTA side
of the issue is losing.

Clint