Leo wrote in
:

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.

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.

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 0

Source: http://www.ve4.net/history/part1.txt

Does anyone have any further documentation pertaining to this subject?
I know that the Netherlands didn't regain operating privileges until
the early 1920s - Alun, old son, what was the history of this over the
pond?


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

73, Leo



I have to confess ignorance as to exactly when the hams got back on the air
in the UK after WW1.

I do know something about the 1927 conference, though. I think that this
may be the source of the theory that America saved ham radio, but like most
things it's not that simple.

Many of the delegates, including the UK, did not want to recognise ham
radio as a service in the international regulations. What you have to
understand, though, is that they did have amateur radio in these countries,
and that it would have continued much the same without ITU recognition. The
war was long over by then, and they had all let everyone get back on the
air already, long before the conference. This point is noticeably absent
from the postings advancing the 'America saved the world' theory.

The US proposal was carried, and what it did was to get recognition of the
amateur service in return for the code test. This was no loss to American
hams, who already had to pass a code test anyway. However, many (most?) of
the other countries had no code test before 1927. The UK certainly did not.
It's quite possible that many delegates may have opposed the US proposal
less because they didn't want to recognise hams, but more because they
didn't want a code test! I don't know. The UK clearly had no objection to
amateur radio continuing in being, but just didnt consider it to be a
service (many people still dispute that point today).

If the American proposal hadn't been carried in 1927, it is quite clear
that amateur radio would not have dissappeared. Without ITU recognition of
amateur radio, it is true that there would have been much more variation in
allocations between countries, although there is still quite a bit anyway.
I understand that Australia had entirely different HF bands to everyone
else at that time, and that might have continued for a while longer at
least.

So, there is a grain of truth in that it was the US that put forward the
proposal that got amateur radio recognised, but it had nothing to do with
numbers, as they had only one vote, just as they do today.

Unrecognised services exist without needing any permission from the ITU.
Just look at CB. Yes, I know you'd rather not(!), but it exists in a large
number of countries without any ITU recognition, many of them even using
the same channels. Of course, it is a good thing that amateur radio is not
in this position, but you all know what I'm coming to next.

The price we paid. The @#%#&$& code test! You can all say your piece about
whether there should be a code test or not, but there's one thing that none
of you can honestly deny. The existence of the ITU code test requirement
caused more ill feeling than anything else in the hobby. I did put that in
the past tense because it has gone, and the past is the only place it
belongs.

73 de Alun, N3KIP