RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 12th 04, 03:11 PM

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

They

[the ARRL]

even claim they were responsible for the no-code licence,

Where, Alun? Can you show where ARRL claims credit for the Tech
losing its code test?

They did at the time

Where? Can you cite any references?

1991 is not ancient history yet. I "was there", wrote letters, followed
the issue closely. In 1990, ARRL BoD policy changed from opposition of
any form of nocodetest ham license to support of a VHF/UHF-only limited
license. This was driven by several factors, including member opinion
that was divided 50-50 on that specific issue.

But I recall no claim that the BoD originated the idea.

I was there too, and I recall several such claims.

when the
truth is the FCC would have introduced one 20 years earlier but for
the league's opposition!

Not true!

The Tech lost its code test in early 1991. 20 years earlier was 1971.
The first FCC attempt at a nocodetest amateur license was in 1975,
and if enacted would have not taken effect sooner than 1976. That's
15 years, not 20.

So it's not true because it was only 15 years not 20? That's only a
matter of degree, not substance.

It's an error of ~33% (1/3 of 15 is 5)

It's an indication that your recollection of the occurrences
surrounding the introduction of nocodetest ham licenses in the USA, and
the ARRL's role
in them, may be somewhat inaccurate.

So you admit they opposed it for 15 years, and I can assure you they
tried to claim credit when it happened.

Based on what? I can assure you that "they" did not claim credit for
coming up with the idea.

And in 1975, ARRL polled its entire membership with a detailed
questionnaire. A large and pervasive majority opposed a nocodetest
ham license of any kind.

Exactly, the ARRL opposed it.

And that's a good thing. Too bad they couldn't see their way to doing
another such survey or two.

The 1975 survey gave a clear indication of what the membership - almost
all of it - really wanted ARRL to do at the time. How can anyone fault
them for following the clear mandate of the membership?

73 de Jim, N2EY.