Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in
regards to FCC NPRMs.

Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and
commenters' views on code testing.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en

http://tinyurl.com/7t3te

It was posted Mar 12 1999, by WA6VSE. Here's a relevant quote


BEGIN QUOTE:


Here's a summary of how the numbers came out ... more detail will be
available from the NCI website soon ... special thanks to Larry Close

[Larry Klose, KC8EPO]

who put in a herculean effort to read EVERY record in the ECFS database
and do a very comprehensive statistical analysis of the body of
comment.


Code Exam Proposal Summary

Position Supported # %
No Code Comments 711 43% (favoring 5 wpm MAX or NO code test)
Pro-Code Comments 607 37% (status quo, including rants for faster
code tests)
ARRL Comments 331 20% ("I support the ARRL proposal" or
supporting 5/12/12)
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL COMMENTS 1649 100%

END QUOTE

(the bit about "rants" is from the poster of the results, not KC8EPO)

Larry eliminated dupes and responses that did not address the
code test issue.

It's clear that:

57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 2 or 3 code test speeds.

57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12, 13 or 20 wpm for Extra.

57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced.

80% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm for General

But only 43% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm or less code
testing.

57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

For the record, I supported 5 wpm for General, 12 or 13 wpm for
Advanced, and 20 wpm for Extra.


73 de Jim, N2EY

and that is 5 years ago, and with people screaming how that it would be
disaster

wrote:

massive cut

Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in
regards to FCC NPRMs.

Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and
commenters' views on code testing.

57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

For the record, I supported 5 wpm for General, 12 or 13 wpm for
Advanced, and 20 wpm for Extra.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked

I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked

I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

If you only knew how wrong you are... hihi

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked

I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

If you only knew how wrong you are... hihi

intersting ask a question get 2 answers that are basicaly the same rude
to polite the other

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Then why ask in the first place?


one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked


Exactly. A comment that points out something that
was overlooked will have much impact. Not so for
many comments that say "This should be, because it
is "right and good"...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Lol! Thanks for the honest answer, Phil. As always, it's appreciated.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Wow! Howdy, Phil!

Kim W5TIT