[CW] (no subject)

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/04 6:00:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, N7DC at cs.com 
writes:


> "The CW and license restructuring deals
> were two of the biggest concerns in recent years.  However, the League did
> not send out a poll.  I don't know about anyone else, but I am in favor of
> this funny little thing called "accountability".


Me too - that's what director elections are for.

> 
> But they DID put out a poll about CW, of which I was a responder.  

When?

There was a survey in 1996, and the results were published. There was also 
allegedly a survey last year, but the survey was *not* published. I protested 
this all the way up to Jim Haynie. He put it back on the BoD.

Some Directors did formal polls, others informal, others did nothing. My 
director is procodetest but he's in the minority.

They ignored what I said, and apparently what the majority said.  

How do we know what the majority said?

Therein lies the 
> problem, just as you stated.  I never saw who voted for what.
> 
That's why we need some new directors.

The way it looks to me is that ARRL is between a rock and a hard place on the 
issue. There isn't a clear majority either way, from what I see. One survey 
gives a slim majority one way and another a slim majority the other way, and 
the survey questions are usually pretty sloppy too.

The *big* problem is that FCC doesn't seem to want code testing anymore. Read 
the Report and Order to 98-143 - FCC pushes away every reason for continued 
code testing except the treaty. Now the treaty is gone. Frankly, I'm surprised 
FCC hasn't just unilaterally dumped Element 1 on its own. 

The ARRL leadership is more focused on fighting BPL anyway. Heck, if BPL ever 
gets going in a big way, it won't matter whether we have code tests or 
written tests either, because 1.7 to 80 MHz will be virtually useless for us. So 
they've decided to put their resources to work fighting BPL rather than fighting 
for code tests because they see the former as a real threat and the latter as 
a lost cause. 

If you think ARRL is bad, take a look at what NCVEC proposes. Worse, read the 
"Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" paper that is the thought process behind 
NCVEC's proposal. Makes ARRL look wonderful by comparison. 



73 de Jim, N2EY