On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:25:54 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:32:40 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Feb 2004 09:52:50 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip
Without the ARRL, do you think we'd still have amateur radio? I don't.
Um, the rest of the planet does not have the ARRL, and amateur radio
is still going strong there.....
snip
73 de Jim, N2EY
73, Leo
Without the ARRL, US amateur radio would have remained permanently closed
after World War I. The other countries did not have enough amateurs to
justify keeping the frequencies and it is highly probably that they would
have all gone to commercial interests. Everyone wanted the shortwave
frequencies at that time and without the US, the foreign amateurs would
not
have had enough leverage to have held on to the spectrum.
Dee,
Perhaps, but I'm not comfortable that it is fact. In 1917 (or 1916,
depending on the source), there were some 6,000 amateurs operating in
the US - not sure how many there were when amateur radio was turned
back on in 1919, but it was probably less than that, due to losses in
the war. Even at 6,000, though, would that constitute a sufficient
number of amateurs to influence policy on a global scale? Keeping in
mind that the US, as a member of the ITU, has voting privileges but
not an overwhelming influence. Foreign stations still boom over here
today on part of our 40 meter band - because the ITU agreements say
they can. The Americas can request, and debate, and vote upon, but not
control ITU policy. I doubt very much that they could back then,
either.
Although records in the early 1900s are sketchy, if you pick periods in time
that are documented, the number of US amateurs was roughly equal to the rest
of the world combined. This is still true today if one excludes Japan, which
has over 1 million licensed users but with an abysmally low activity rate
(Japanese licenses are for life, many children are licensed in school
programs and never use the licenses, and no renewal is required).
As of our last restructuring,Canadian licences (actually,
"Certificates of Proficiency") are also valid for life - no renewal
required.
While theUS would not have been an "overwhelming" influence, it still would have been
a major player. How long could amateurs in other countries have been
effective against government and commercial interests in the ITU if the US
had remained in an "amateur radio black hole?" It is difficult to say of
course but there would have been much less strength available to resist the
encroachment. Yes one cannot say with absolute certainty which way it would
have gone but I do believe that amateur radio would be a lot less common now
if the US had not been involved. Also keep in mind that due to our form of
government, our civilian population (in this case hams) do have more
influence in shaping our governments approach to items like amateur radio
than is and was prevalent in a lot of countries.
I wonder if that is true - the FCC does not appear to have a history
of implementing what the ARRL requests, for example - and they
represent many thousands of amateurs. Sure, comments and suggestions
are encouraged - but it is not a true democratic process - the FCC is
under no obligation whatsoever to implement the will of the majority.
Plus, the comment and review procedure is massive - thousands of
individual public comments and proposals to go through, another round
of proposals and responses, then review, and on and on - a juggernaut
of a process that may well take years to run its course.
Here, Industry Canada asked our national radio association (RAC) to
gather data on what Canadian amateurs wanted to do with licensing
requirements if the Morse requirement was dropped at WRC-03. The RAC
set up a web page with a questionnaire on it, and opened it up to all
licenced Canadian amateurs (not just RAC members). The results were
collected and tabulated, recommendations prepared, and forwarded to IC
for their consideration. As licensing changes within the Amateur
service do not have an impact on either the general public or
commercial interests, this approach makes sense.
Now there is a system that amateurs have direct influence over!
Also, look at how quickly amateurs in Great Britain, Australia,
Germany and many others were able to have the Morse requirement
dropped following WRC-03. No red tape, no seemingly endless
discussion - just done. Many did this in direct response to the
request of their own national radio clubs to do so if permitted
post-WRC-03. Now there is real democracy in action!
According to The Wayback Machine, it wasn't commercial interests that
wanted control of these bands post-WWI (all radio bands, actually!) in
the US - it was the US Military. The ARRL did a fine job of lobbying
the US government to have the frequencies reopened to US amateurs -
but I don't think that the rest of the world would have walked away
from amateur radio forever if the ARRL had been unsuccessful. And, in
the absence of the ARRL, other alliances may have been formed to lobby
for this right - just like they did in the rest of the world.
I did indeed mean to include military. Sorry about that. In the context of
lobbying the US government for keeping amateur frequencies and re-opening
them after WWI, I do believe that in the absence of the ARRL another body
could have formed (and probably would have) and done the same as the ARRL.
But you know what, we would then be having this same discussion of "ZZZZ"
organization and the people who today slam the ARRL would be slamming the
"ZZZZ." The rest of us would then be defending "ZZZZ". Same game,
different names.
But Dee, other governments re-opened the amateur bands after WW1
without the assistance of the ARRL - in many foreign countries. I'm
neither praising nor slamming the ARRL - just stating that their
achievement was a local, not a global, one. Canadian hams were back
on the air months before the ARRL's victory in the US - I'm sure that
others were as well in various places around the world. Seems natural
enough - activities were suspended due to the conflict, and reinstated
after the hostilities ended. Not everyone's military tried to keep
the bands indefinitely for their own private use!
In fact, your happy ham neighbours to the North were legally
transmitting again as of May 1, 1919 - a full 5 months before the US
amateurs were allowed back on the air on October 1st of that year.
As I recall from history class, the US military hasn't attemped to
enforce US policy up here since 1814 - and never successfully prior to
that
But would they have had enough clout in subsequent ITU conferences to stave
off the commercial and military seekers of the bands. In any disagreement,
you don't want the strongest player sitting on the sidelines or playing on
the other side.
I don't see why not - the ITU voting structure isn't that heavily
weighted based on the size of the US - otherwise, they would be in
business strictly to globalize US policy. Or, countries like China
could assert that as they have 4 times the population of the US, they
should control 4 times as many votes. Countries like Japan could claim
that they have 3 times the number of licenced Amateurs, and monopolize
the process. If that were the case, how many countries would have
remained members of the ITU? None, I'd say.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
73, Leo