[CW] [Fwd: Pacific Division Morse Code Testing Requirement Survey Results]

[Ken Brown]

  ARRL Member: Yes, life member
Division: Pacific
Polled: Yes

A report on the survey follows. Notice that the BOD's decision goes 
contrary to the membership response on question number 1. I find this 
particularly disturbing, since the new no skill license they are 
proposing gets access to such a large portion of the HF spectrum, I see 
no reason that the 5 WPM test should not be maintained for the General.

I emailed Bob Vallio the division director, telling him my feeling on 
this, and he responded. He asked me to treat his response as a private 
correspondence. I will honor that request and not reveal anything Bob 
said in his response, except what I just told you. I do not know why he 
would want to keep it a secret. If revealing the fact that he responded 
to my email is a violation of trust, well sorry about that Bob. What the 
ARRL is doing is a violation of the membership's trust.

Was the survey in other divisions similar or identical? Anybody else 
seen a talley of responses in other divisions?

DE N6KB

Survey results follow:

Pacific Division Morse Code Testing Requirement Survey



Pacific Division Director Bob Vallio, W6RGG

Pacific Division Vice Director Andy Oppel, N6AJO

January 24, 2004





Here is the report on the Pacific Division License Testing Requirement

Survey.  I want to thank every one who returned their survey to me,
via

e-mail, USPS, and FAX.  My thanks to Vice Director Andy Oppel for the
time

and energy he devoted to this project.



Survey Method

The survey was distributed on December 15, 2003, as an e-mail from
Pacific

Division Director Bob Vallio, W6RGG, to all members of the Pacific
Division

who subscribe to e-mail from their Director and Section Manager. 
Responses

were requested via e-mail reply, U.S. Mail, or fax.  According to the

distribution report, the e-mail was sent to 5,619 members, which is
almost

56% of the 10,065 members in the division. Approximately 1,100
responses

were received via e-mail, 34 via U.S. Mail, and 73 via fax.  This
response

rate (nearly 20 percent) is considered incredibly good for a survey,
which

often have response rates in the 1-3 percent range.  No time limit was

imposed on responders, thus responses were accepted up to the time
this

document was assembled.  Results were recorded on tally sheets and
then

totals from each tally sheet input into a spreadsheet for the
calculation of

sums and percentages. A few members chose not to answer each of the
five

questions -- the questions they did answer were included in the tally
with

no attempt to guess at answers to the others.  A few other members
provided

only a written opinion without directly answering the survey questions
-- no

attempt was made to tally these responses.  While written comments were
not

solicited in the survey (for fear there would not be enough time to read
and

assimilate them all), quite a few were received.  All of these comments
were

read and general themes extracted (see "Conclusions" section below).



Results

The questions asked follow, along with the tally count taken for each

possible response and percentages of the total number of responses to
the

question.  The number of responses to each question ranged from 1,075
to

1,095.



1.  A Morse code testing requirement should be retained for the
General

Class license.



Response Count   Percent

Strongly agree 369 33.7%

Somewhat agree 208 19.0%

Neither agree nor disagree 83 7.6%

Somewhat disagree 131 12.0%

Strongly disagree 304 27.8%

   Total Responses 1095





2.  A Morse code testing requirement should be retained for the Extra
Class

license.



Response Count   Percent

Strongly agree 663 60.8%

Somewhat agree 121 11.1%

Neither agree nor disagree 63 5.8%

Somewhat disagree 79 7.2%

Strongly disagree 164 15.0%

   Total Responses 1090





3.  In the interest of getting new people into the hobby, an
entry-level

license without a Morse code testing requirement, but with limited power
and

limited HF band privileges, should be created.



Response Count   Percent

Strongly agree 461 42.1%

Somewhat agree 250 22.9%

Neither agree nor disagree 114 10.4%

Somewhat disagree 82 7.5%

Strongly disagree 187 17.1%

   Total Responses 1094





4.  In light of BPL and other serious issues that threaten the future
of

amateur radio, how much time and funding should the ARRL put into
retaining

the Morse code license testing requirements?



Response Count   Percent

All out effort.  Save the Morse code requirement or go bankrupt trying
57

5.2%

Significant effort. Devote dedicated staff and budget to this issue.
275

25.3%

Moderate effort.  Form a proposal and submit it to the FCC. 343 31.6%

Minimal effort.  File comments on other proposals and leave it at that.
152

14.0%

No effort whatsoever. (Choose this answer if you strongly wish to
eliminate

the requirement). 260 23.9%

   Total Responses 1087





5.  How much time and funding should the ARRL put into eliminating the
Morse

code license testing requirements?



Response Count   Percent

All out effort.  Eliminate the Morse code requirement or go bankrupt
trying.

51 4.7%

Significant effort. Devote dedicated staff and budget to this issue.
132

12.1%

Moderate effort.  Form a proposal and submit it to the FCC. 236 21.7%

Minimal effort.  File comments on other proposals and leave it at that.
168

15.5%

No effort whatsoever.  (Choose this answer if you strongly wish to
retain

the code requirement). 488 44.9%

   Total Responses 1075



Evaluation of Results

Bias Potential

While sufficient responses were received to achieve statistically

significant results, there is a potential for bias in the results.

* Distributing the survey via e-mail excludes those members without
e-mail

access, as well as those who did not subscribe to e-mail from their
Director

and Section Manager.  The roughly 44% of the membership in the Pacific

Division that did not receive the survey may very well have a somewhat

different demographic makeup compared with those it did reach.  In

particular, persons with e-mail access tend to be somewhat younger
than

those without e-mail access.

* The demographic makeup of the Pacific Division is quite a bit
different

compared to other divisions because in addition to Northern California,
it

includes the states of Nevada and Hawaii, and the U.S. possessions in
the

Pacific.  Moreover, parts of Northern California are often cited as
among

the most politically liberal in the U.S.  Hence, caution must be
exercised

in assuming that these results are representative of ARRL membership
at

large.

* Based on the written comments received, a large number of
respondents

believe that removal of the testing requirement jeopardizes the
continued

existence of sub-bands devoted to CW as an operating mode. This is

unfortunate as it clearly introduces bias toward retention of the

requirement.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure the magnitude
of

such bias, and no time remains to conduct a follow-up survey.

* Three survey respondents were highly critical of the reference to BPL
in

question 4, further commenting that the questions were attempting to
lead

the responder to an answer.  It is fair to note that all three of
those

offering the criticism were highly in favor of retaining the Morse
code

testing requirement, and that no one was critical of the identical
reference

in question 5.  Questions 1 and 2 already asked how strongly they agreed
or

disagreed with retaining the testing requirement, and BPL was
deliberately

introduced as an issue after those questions.  The very purpose of
Questions

4 and 5 was to ask how much the ARRL should devote in effort and
financial

resources, in carrying out their wishes vis-�-vis the Morse code
testing

requirement. Those questions cannot be answered without mentioning the
other

issues.  There are members who feel that the ARRL should have filed
comments

with the FCC for every Morse code testing proposal filed with the FCC
thus

far -- these questions were an attempt to see how widely held this
feeling

is.  Furthermore, the results (30% favoring a significant or
substantial

effort be undertaken to preserve the testing requirement) seem well in
line

with the number strongly favoring retention of the requirement (33%), so
any

bias introduced here seems nominal.

Conclusions

* A significant number of survey responders favor retention of the
Morse

code testing requirement for the existing General class license -- 52.7%
in

favor, 39.7% opposing, 7.6% neither for nor against.

* An overwhelming majority of survey responders favor retention of the
Morse

code testing requirement for the existing Amateur Extra class license
--

71.9% in favor, 22.3% opposing, and 5.8% neither for nor against.  Of
those

in favor, most had very strong opinions -- 60.8% strongly agree, 11.1%

somewhat agree.  It would seem that the Amateur Extra class code
testing

requirement is very much a "sacred cow".

* A significant number of survey responders favor an entry-level
license

without a Morse code testing requirement, but with limited power and
limited

HF band privileges -- 52.7%.  A number answered in opposition of this
effort

with comments that the existing Technician class handles this if the
code

requirement is simply removed.  While this interpretation of the
question is

not quantifiable, it is safe to assume that the number in favor of a
new

entry-level license is somewhat (but perhaps only slightly) higher than
the

survey results indicate.

* The level (in terms of staffing and funding) at which respondents
expect

the ARRL to respond to their wishes regarding Morse code testing is all
over

the map, as shown in the results of questions 4 and 5. There is no
clear

single level that will please even a simple majority.



Common Themes Among Comments

Although written comments were not solicited as part of the survey,
quite a

few respondents included them.  The common themes noted in these
comments

are:

* Arguments in favor of retention of the Morse testing requirement:

o Removal of the requirement would be more "dumbing down" of the
license

requirements.

o It is a gateway that keeps undisciplined people and poor operators out
of

the service.  Several cited "protecting the lower part of the bands" as
a

motivation.  Many others cited CB operators.

o It is a traditional rite of passage -- "I had to do it, so you should
also

be required to."

o Morse code is a tradition that binds all amateurs together.

o People who have to work harder for their license will appreciate it
more,

and therefore be better (or more devoted) operators.

o "If I can pass the code test, anyone can", or "Those who say they
cannot

pass the code test are just plain lazy and haven't worked hard
enough."

o CW is more reliable than other modes, so every amateur should learn
it.

o Removal of the code requirement jeopardizes CW sub-band allocations.

* Arguments against retention of the Morse testing requirement:

o There are some who just cannot learn Morse code well enough to pass
the

test.

o The requirement keeps good people out of significant facets of the
hobby.

o A requirement to demonstrate CW proficiency in order to use non-CW

operating modes on HF frequencies defies logic.

o Morse code is less important given the newer digital modes.

o CW is the only operating mode with a specific test requirement.

o There is no incentive for young people to learn Morse code.

* A number of respondents argued for increased code speed
requirements,

especially for the Amateur Extra class license.  There seemed to be no

understanding of the FCC's reason for reducing the requirement (most

informed sources believe it was to escape from all the "special

accommodation" procedures for those with various medical issues), or
how

unreceptive the FCC is to any notion of increasing the code speed in
the

current testing requirement.

* Nearly everyone indicated their appreciation of being asked for
their

opinion.

* Several dozen respondents suggested a more difficult written test
should

the Morse code requirement be dropped.

* At least 3 respondents cited the Novice class license as fulfilling
any

need for an entry-level license (apparently not aware that this class
was no

longer available for new licensees).  Several others pointed to the

withdrawal of the Novice class license as a serious mistake.