Morse Code test speeds for an amateur license were
increased from 10 wpm to 13 wpm, circa 1936, at the
request of the ARRL president in a letter to the FCC.
See Page 82 of "Fifty Years of ARRL" -- that's no
deep dark secret.

But it's not the whole story.

The request was for an increase from 10 wpm to
12-1/2 wpm. The FCC "rounded up" to 13 wpm
on their own.

The same letter requested more comprehensive
WRITTEN exams,
updated to the current technology then used by hams.
This was also granted by the FCC. There were only
three classes of license at the time, and all required
the same code speed.

The code speed increase is often remembered. The
written test improvement is rarely if ever
remembered.

This whole situation is frequently "spin doctored"
by those who say the code test speed was
raised to limit the number of amateurs.

For example, it was claimed by WA6VSE (now WK3C)
back in 1999 that:

"The ARRL wanted faster code tests PURELY as a
means of slowing growth in the amateur ranks, contending
that (with about 30,000 hams at the time) "the bands are
approaching saturation" ... clearly a ridiculous claim."

The saturation thing was a very realistic claim. And there
were 46,000 US hams, not 30,000.

Here's "the rest of the story":

The ham bands of the time consisted of 160, 80, 40, 20, 10,
5, 2-1/2 and 1-1/4 meters. Nothing else.

The bands below (shorter in wavelength) than 20 meters
were sparsely populated by hams, due to the difficulty of
getting simple 1930s equipment to work at all on
such frequencies, and the limited results that could be expected.

160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.

10 was not as popular because of its varying propagation and
equipment difficulties.

So most hams were on 80, 40, and 20, using simple, Depression
era stations. A "pair of tens and a three tube blooper" (push pull
self-controlled oscillator transmitter and regenerative receiver)
was typical, and many hams did not even have that. Home-made
stations were common - a station that had no home-brew was
very rare.

Yes, crystal controlled, multistage transmitters and single signal
superhet receivers were in use, but only by a few wealthy hams.
There were even some amateurs using SSB voice, but the cost and
complexity of such a station kept their numbers to a handful. Those
hams who did use voice were almost all using double-sideband-
with-carrier AM, and took up 6 to 10 kc of the band each.

In practice, ham QSOs of the day rarely had both stations on the same
frequency. Many of the simple transmitters of the 1930s were not
designed for rapid QSY, and straying outside the band was too easy.
Crystal controlled operation was even less flexible.

So most QSOs used up two frequencies - what would be called "split"
operation today. This meant that the QRM was twice as bad as if
everyone had "zero beat" QSOs.

In order to make contacts under such conditions, it was necessary to
tune through the band pretty quickly, to hear any replies to a CQ.
This meant receivers with fast tuning rates and not too much
selectivity.

The result was that each QSO required much more room than today.

The total available spectrum on 80, 40, and 20 added up to only
1200 kilocycles. (We're talking about the '30s, so I use the historic
term).
Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.

Saturation was not the only problem. There were about 19,000 USA
licensed hams in 1929. Their number had grown slowly but steadily
from the post WW1 reactivation ten years earlier.

In 1929 there came new regs that dramatically cut the width of the
bands (40 was once 7-8 Mc., 20 was 14-16 Mc.) and required much
cleaner signals from ham stations. Yet over the next few years, in the
depths of the Great Depression, the number of US ham licenses almost
tripled, to 46,000. In addition, many newcomers left the hobby quickly

- at one point in the early '30s, turnover approached 40% per year.
That
meant most hams were newcomers, often technically and operationally
lacking in skills and knowledge. One less-than-knowledgeable ham
with a faulty transmitter could make a real mess on the band. Worse,
a ham who strayed out of the band could mess up nonamateur radio
services in a big way.

The very existence of amateur radio in the 1930s wasn't very secure.
Even after hams were allowed back on the air after WW1, there were
several efforts to kill off or severely restrict amateur radio all
through
the 1920s. Amateur radio did not achieve international treaty status
until 1927, and the price for that status was the extreme loss of
bandspace on 40 and 20 meters listed above. The 1927 treaty also
required clean signals, Morse Code testing and written testing of
all radio amateurs.

Those in the 1930s who knew the history understood that if amateurs
strayed
out of their bands too much, the same forces that had tried to kill
off amateur radio in the '20s might well succeed in the 1930s.

The idea was to slow the rapid turnover *and* insure that new hams were
more
operationally skilled and technically knowledgeable, by requiring a
little more code speed and a lot more technical knowledge.

Today we have far more bandwidth, far more sophisticated equipment,
and far more options in choice of band and mode.

Before criticizing the actions of almost 70 years ago, one should first

get a clear picture of the conditions of the time. Critics of the ARRL

action are invited to build an operating amateur station, using only
parts
and techniques available in the early '30s - and do it on a
Depression-era budget, as well. Then try to use said station on the ham

bands, and see what conclusions are drawn.

The point of all this is that ham radio was VERY different in the '30s,
and solutions that seem simple and obvious today were not practical
for most hams back then. What is really amazing is that so many hams
succeeded, using such simple equipment.

A big part of the story was the use of CW, and the operating skills of
the
hams of the day. But in some circles it is electropolitically
incorrect
to talk about operating skills in a positive manner. Or to suggest
that
perhaps the Ancient Ones knew something about what they were doing.

73 de Jim, N2EY