In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

The point I have is the ARRL has proven beyond a doubt they are a bunch
of world class hypocrites.

And who elected the directors, Dan?

I don't know who 'elected' the directors. I know I didn't.

Every member with a license gets a ballot. If you didn't vote...

They trash ham radio with 'Incentive Licensing' to
FORCE hams to upgrade and 'improve'.

How did "incentive licensing" trash ham radio? btw, it was FCC's idea,
and they made it clear they weren't going to leave the system alone.

It trashed ham radio by creating a CLASS system in our ranks, forcing
seperation by license class, making one feel superior and others thus
inferior. This was NOT THERE before Incentive Licensing.

There were "class distinctions" before IL, Dan. I heard folks say, way back
then,
that Novices and Techs weren't "real hams".

People who look down on others because of license class usually look down for
other reasons too. There were the Collins owners who looked down on the Drake
folks, etc. The SSB-vs-AM stuff. The appliance ops vs, the homebrewers. DX vs.
traffic handlers, contesters vs. ragchewers, etc. That sort of thing comes from
the
person, not the system.

The FCC did not propose Incentive Licensing. It was the ARRL back about
1963 or so. The FCC followed up on it and 'modified' it and it was
implemented beginning November of 1968.

Why do I know this? Because I read QST cover to cover while stateside in
the military. And when I went overseas I lost track due to military
activities. I returned to the USA in 1968.

I was a ham back then, too, Dan, and I read the same mags.

We're not going to agree on who started it, but I think we can agree on these
things:

1) Whoever started it, the ARRL BoD pushed IL from 1963 onwards
2) What the FCC finally enacted in 1967 was very different from what
ARRL proposed in 1963
3) ARRL claimed that a majority of hams at the time supported IL. Others
claim a majority opposed it. Nobody *really* knows, just as nobody
knows what would have happened otherwise.
4) There's still a lot of bad feeling about the whole thing.
5) The present ARRL BoD and Hq folks are a completely different lot
than was there in the '60s

I operated on 7.010 and received
a notice of violation from the Cleveland Ohio FCC monitor. I was out of
band for my class of license.

And if the original 1963 ARRL proposal had been enacted, you would not have
been in violation.

Then 40 years later they totally
reverse themselves.

Who? I don't think there's a single person at Hq or in the Board of
Directors today who was a League official of any kind back in the
'60s. Most of the '60s BoD and Hq folks are dead.

So it's a completely different bunch that reversed the policies.

So what *should* be done, Dan? Do you support Hans' 2-level idea?

73 de Jim, N2EY