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

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.




And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL would be wise to sit this one out for the very reasons that
Carl has listed.

So where is your data (of any kind), Dee?

"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

No matter what stance the ARRL takes or no stance at all, they will
alienate
a portion of the US amateur population [CRS insert ... I think you meant
to
put a "larger" here] than their membership. The number of
non-ARRL members supporting code testing is larger than ARRL's
membership
as
well as the group opposing code testing.

How did you arrive at that pseudo-fact?

Dee, please allow me.

http://www.speroni.com/FCC/

The various surverys that have been taken indicate that the ham
community
is
about 50/50 on this issue. That seems to hold true inside the ARRL
membership as well as outside it. Thus the ARRL will "alienate" half
the
US
ham population no matter what stance they take.

The "various surveys" have all been self-selecting and have no scientific
validity.

http://www.eham.net/survey/539

Gee Carl, you're right. It's NOT 50%. Out of 5,020 votes, PCTA got 62% while
NCTA got 33%. I'll take that split, Dee. ;-)

Me, too!

The 1996 READEX survey, paid for by ARRL, showed that 63% of members
PCTA and 30% NCTA (8% undecided). Nonmembers were 54% PCTA and 37%
NCTA (9% undecided).

This survey also showed something very interesting when age groups
were analyzed. All ages of members were majority PCTA. Here are the
results, PCTA/NCTA/undecided:

65+ - 65%/27%/8%
55 to 64 - 55%/36%/9%
45 to 54 - 66%/26%/8%
35 to 44 - 58%/34%/7%
25 to 34 - 52%/45%/3%
under 25 - 85%/15%/0%

Note that last result - the 24-and-unders are the strongest PCTAs!
These are the young people we are supposed to be wooing, right?

No wonder Len Anderson wants an age limit for a ham license!


Shall we try QRZ...?

Plus, they are all several years old and the demographic and thoughts have
changed a lot since "restructuring."

Late December, 2002 isn't "several years old," Carl.

If you look at the numbers of licensees with less than General class
licenses,
do you really believe that anything approaching 50% of them are in favor
of continued Morse testing?

Yes, I do.

Me, too. The mere fact that someone hasn't done something doesn't mean
they are not in favor of it. Look at how many hams with code test
credit don't have Extras yet, more than 3 years since restructuring.
Is that an indication that the Extra license should be dumped?

Let's look at the "survey" that should have counted the most -
comments to FCC about 98-143. The majority not only favored code
testing but wanted either two code test speeds or three code test
speeds. Yet FCC overruled them.

I have a feeling that majority is going to get overruled again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with
respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side
....
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to
go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL would be wise to sit this one out for the very reasons that
Carl has listed.

So where is your data (of any kind), Dee?

Data on what specifics of the issue? eHam and ARRL have had surveys within
the past year that contradict Carl's statement. And I've already listed
these sources several times before. Must I keep repeating myself?

You are getting my statements mixed up other peoples. I have already
referenced the current data on ARRL membership, ham radio membership,
surveys on Morse code, etc. I then stated that the ARRL may very well be
wise to not take a stance on the issue since the split is roughly even and
no matter what stance they take, a significant number of hams will probably
be dissatisfied.

Carl has stated that most hams want Morse testing to go away and has
provided no data to support that. I and others have pointed out that the
data that does exist contradicts his "belief". These are the recent surveys
done on the various ham radio sites.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to
the split in their existing membership.

Very much so, I'd agree.

However, outside of their membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...

What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree
with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you
operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what?

thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.

It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble
may not be bothered to join the ARRL either.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Hello all,

I just got back tonight from several days of meetings
in Washington.

Wed. when I arrived in Washington, one of the first things
I did was file NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC.

It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org
under the "Articles" link ...

Some will undoubtedly say "What took you so long?"

The answer is simply "We wanted to do the best possible
job of getting it right."

73,
--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm

Well-written petition. I personally oppose it, but it is well-written with
what might be considered a logical rationale giving all of the
justifications for the NCI position. It deserves a chance to be considered,
in my opinion, and I hope that the FCC does issue a call for comments. They
probably will not, believing that the recent reduction to very-slow-code (5
wpm) was a good compromise, i.e. not acceptable to either side. And, it is
very recent. Having said that, I would hope that whatever the outcome, we
should accept it and quit trying to change the law. This requirement
certainly has had a good and lengthy hearing and additional work on this
item is just a waste of time.

It is said that Isaac Newton spent the majority of his career trying to find
the exact displacement of Noah's ark; in his spare time he discovered
gravity.

de KR4AJ

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this
inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off
of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill
they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ...

Carl - wk3c

"Dan Finn" wrote in message
...

Well-written petition. I personally oppose it, but it is well-written with
what might be considered a logical rationale giving all of the
justifications for the NCI position. It deserves a chance to be
considered,
in my opinion, and I hope that the FCC does issue a call for comments.


Thanks for the kind words, Dan ... and for the spirit of faireness your
comments above show.

They
probably will not, believing that the recent reduction to very-slow-code
(5
wpm) was a good compromise, i.e. not acceptable to either side.

I have ZERO doubt that the FCC will consider this matter.
It's merely a question of how soon and how quickly they move.

Carl - wk3c

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

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I had
specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with
helpful answers.

To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL
actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF.

If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this
inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off
of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill
they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ...

I'm a league member, Carl. I (...and I suspect many others.) have written
the league informing them that I do NOT support the removal of Element 1.
While I stopped short of telling them that my family membership was at
stake, it may hve been inferred. (Fine by me.) I also made a point to inform
them of our demographic, young newbies who are NOT put off by the code test
and willing to meet the requirements for HF.

Carl - wk3c

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI