[CW] ARRL Pacific Div. CW Survey Results

[Jim Reid]

The following came out today from the Director of the
Pacific Division,  Bob Vallio, W6RGG.

"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-- noattempt 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 eliminatethe 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 retainthe 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. "

And that ends the survey results from the Pacific Division Director.
I presume these results will be circulated among all the ARRL
BOD;  perhaps too late to augment the current ARRL "restructure"
proposal the BOD approved earlier this month?  See:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1

Or,  perhaps the BOD members were well aware of the
trend of this survey at the time of their meeting,  1/16/04?
If so,  guess they figured a 5 wpm test was sufficient to
grant Extra Class licenses in response to 70+% agreememt
that that license should require a CW test.

73,  Jim  KH7M