"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

email

campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of
5

wpm

and sunset clause.


Now it also must be pointed out that for the initial several weeks
during 98-143 comment phase, those commenting were not
aware of the position being put forth by NCI. How many people
at the time may who said they support ARRLs stance
may have supported NCI's position will never be known. Even
so, the issue is NOT to be decided by any "vote" or majority opinion
of any group or even the public at large. The decision will be,
as it should be, based on what should be proper regulatory
setting of licensing requirments.




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
email
campaign by NCI to get as many comments in support of their position of 5
wpm and sunset clause.

Now it also must be pointed out that for the initial several weeks
during 98-143 comment phase, those commenting were not
aware of the position being put forth by NCI.

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