[CW] Re: [Fists] ARRL Pacific Div. CW Survey Results

[Trevor Jacobs]

I'd like to know why I didn't get this survey since I'm subscribed and in
this call area???

73's Trev - KG6CYN
http://www.qsl.net/kg6cyn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Reid" <jimr.reid@verizon.net>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>; <fists@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: [Fists] ARRL Pacific Div. CW Survey Results


> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fists mailing list
> Fists@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists