The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored
to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals
an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in
order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the
General class hams."


All this so the top HAMs have something to gloat about.

"Tom W" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

"google blogger" wrote in message
roups.com...

Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the Incentive
License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio.


Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the idea of
the FCC.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed incentive
licensing.

From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html:

"In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a small
minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on
complaints they claim they received from members and operators in
other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an
editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the
Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments.
The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored
to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals
an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in
order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the
General class hams."

Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened.

FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply
"because it
was there". And some did - but not many.

As early as 1958, FCC asked why there were so few Extras. They were
concerned about certain trends in amateur radio they didn't care
for, such as increasing use of manufactured equipment whose inner
workings the ham-owner had only a vague concept of.

FCC asked ARRL for proposals in 1958, and again in 1963. ARRL put
together a
very simple proposal in 1963, *in response to* FCC's request. It
consisted
of just two items:

1) Reopen the Advanced class license to new applicants (it had been
closed
at the end of 1952)

2) Require an Advanced or Extra class license to use 'phone on the 80,
40,
20 and 15 meter ham bands. (back then 30, 17 and 12 meters were not
ham bands).

That was the whole proposal. No additional code testing would be
needed to
retain full privileges. No subbands-by-license-class except those
already
in place for Novices. No new limitations on CW. Existing Advanceds
wouldn't have to do a thing. Existing Generals and Conditionals would
have to take
one additional written test to get their 80 thru 15 'phone privileges
back.

This proposal was nothing new - it was essentially a return to the old
"ABC" system that had existed from the mid '30s to February 1953, and
which FCC
had revised in 1951 by adding Novice, Tech and Extra and renaming the
ABC classes of license.

The 1963 ARRL proposal got an RM number and the commentary began...

FCC looked at that simple proposal, and then asked for more. They got
quite
a bit of response from the amateur committee, and at least 10 of the
proposals were assigned RM numbers. There were at least 11 proposals
with
RM numbers by 1965.

Commentary to ARRL was mixed, to say the least, but a slight majority
were
in favor of "incentive licensing" changes. ARRL and FCC took that as a
mandate...

Out of all these proposals FCC put together ideas and came up with a
proposed
scheme that bore little resemblance to the 1963 ARRL proposal. It was
far more
draconian, restrictive and encompassing than anything ARRL proposed,
and was strongly opposed. Finally a compromise was announced in 1967.

Over 6000 comments were received by FCC on the matter, even though the
number
of hams back then was less than a quarter million and there were no
online
comment systems. The whole process took years (1963-1967).

Most hams then and today are not aware that FCC asked first. But they
did.

And I'll ask the question again:

How did incentive licensing "trash ham radio"?


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Tom W" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2004 12:19:26 -0800, N2EY wrote:
"Tom W" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint
wrote:

"google blogger" wrote in message
roups.com...

Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the
Incentive
License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio.


Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the
idea of
the FCC.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed incentive
licensing.

From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html:

"In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a small
minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on
complaints they claim they received from members and operators in
other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an
editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the
Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments.
The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored
to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals
an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in
order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the
General class hams."

Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened.

FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply
"because it
was there". And some did - but not many. ...

Please cite references. I have before me two historical accounts
which both agree that the ARRL first broached the subject of incentive
licensing, as well as the QST editorial from 1963 which rationalized
it. Web pages such as "The Wayback Machine" also agree that the
League first proposed the changes which were finally implemented in
1967.

In fact, http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html goes on to say:

"On May 3, 1963, the ARRL Board of Directors adopted their official
position on incentive licensing. Their proposal would completely take
away all General and Conditional class phone privileges on 75, 40, 20,
and 15 meters in a two-year phase-in period. In other words, the
ARRL's incentive licensing would only allow HF phone operation for
Generals and Conditionals on 10 meters and on the small sliver of 160
meters that was available in the days of LORAN Radionavigation. The
ARRL also suggested reopening the Advanced class license again to
those who held a General or Conditional license for one year.
Strangely, the ARRL did not suggest that Extras be given exclusive
frequencies, nor did they propose exclusive CW frequencies. Rather,
they just wanted exclusive access to the 75 through 15-meter phone
segments for the Advanced and Extra class licenses ..."

Based on all of these items, it appears to me that your account could
well be someone's revisionist history. I can find nothing in the
literature to support it, but can easily find material which refutes
it.

Thank you for all the refrences. I also 'remember' it that way. As I
stated to Dee D in another post.

73

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tom W" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2004 12:19:26 -0800, N2EY wrote:
"Tom W" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint
wrote:

"google blogger" wrote in message
roups.com...

Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the
Incentive
License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio.


Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely
the
idea of
the FCC.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed
incentive
licensing.

From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html:

"In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a
small
minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on
complaints they claim they received from members and operators in
other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an
editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the
Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments.
The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be
restored
to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the
Generals
an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that
in
order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the
General class hams."

Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened.

FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply
"because it
was there". And some did - but not many. ...

Please cite references. I have before me two historical accounts
which both agree that the ARRL first broached the subject of incentive
licensing, as well as the QST editorial from 1963 which rationalized
it. Web pages such as "The Wayback Machine" also agree that the
League first proposed the changes which were finally implemented in
1967.

In fact, http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html goes on to say:

"On May 3, 1963, the ARRL Board of Directors adopted their official
position on incentive licensing. Their proposal would completely take
away all General and Conditional class phone privileges on 75, 40, 20,
and 15 meters in a two-year phase-in period. In other words, the
ARRL's incentive licensing would only allow HF phone operation for
Generals and Conditionals on 10 meters and on the small sliver of 160
meters that was available in the days of LORAN Radionavigation. The
ARRL also suggested reopening the Advanced class license again to
those who held a General or Conditional license for one year.
Strangely, the ARRL did not suggest that Extras be given exclusive
frequencies, nor did they propose exclusive CW frequencies. Rather,
they just wanted exclusive access to the 75 through 15-meter phone
segments for the Advanced and Extra class licenses ..."

Based on all of these items, it appears to me that your account could
well be someone's revisionist history. I can find nothing in the
literature to support it, but can easily find material which refutes
it.

Thank you for all the refrences. I also 'remember' it that way. As I
stated to Dee D in another post.

73


I too appreciate the detailed references. Facts are always good to have. I
was unaware that the initial concept was put out by the ARRL. I was looking
only at the final version that the FCC developed, which was substantially
different than the ARRL's proposal and which the ARRL then opposed due to
these significant differences.

FYI, in conversation, I prefer Dee rather than Dee D even though I use more
formal signature.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

I too appreciate the detailed references. Facts are always good to have.
I
was unaware that the initial concept was put out by the ARRL. I was
looking
only at the final version that the FCC developed, which was substantially
different than the ARRL's proposal and which the ARRL then opposed due to
these significant differences.

FYI, in conversation, I prefer Dee rather than Dee D even though I use
more
formal signature.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Thats what I like about you Dee, your ability to recognize constructive
comments and not fly off the handle.

Dan/W4NTI

"Tom W" wrote:

In fact, http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html goes on to say:

"On May 3, 1963, the ARRL Board of Directors adopted their official
position on incentive licensing. Their proposal would completely take
away all General and Conditional class phone privileges on 75, 40, 20,
and 15 meters in a two-year phase-in period. In other words, the
ARRL's incentive licensing would only allow HF phone operation for
Generals and Conditionals on 10 meters and on the small sliver of 160
meters that was available in the days of LORAN Radionavigation.

Great article! Thanks for posting that link. I learned a few things I
never knew before. (I was just starting to get interested in radio in
1963.)

It's amazing that ham radio has survived at all when you consider how
much needless tinkering with the license structure has gone on over
the years, and how much discontent it has created.

Art Harris N2AH

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
"Tom Winston" wrote in message ...
On 19 Jan 2004 10:08:20 -0800, N2EY wrote:

Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, ...

That's not an upgrade; that's a downgrade. Advanced class licensees
passed the Extra class written exam, and passed a 13 wpm code test.
Furthermore, most Advanced class licensees took the older Extra exam
-- an exam that's a lot tougher than the current Extra exam.

Uhhhh...in what universe?

The only "Advanced" class licensees that I know of that took an
Extra written test but didn't upgrade were one's who failed the 20WPM.

Then he didn't pass the Extra exam.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Tom Winston wrote:
On 19 Jan 2004 10:08:20 -0800, N2EY wrote:
Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, ...

That's not an upgrade; that's a downgrade. Advanced class licensees
passed the Extra class written exam, and passed a 13 wpm code test.
Furthermore, most Advanced class licensees took the older Extra exam
-- an exam that's a lot tougher than the current Extra exam.

Possession of the Advanced class license proves that the holder met
higher standards than the current crop of Extras.

So thanks, but no thanks. When I want to downgrade, *I* will make
that decision.

But one can still tell: The PRIOR CLASS field will still say "A".

Just go away, ARRL, and keep your grimy paws off my license.

That part I agree with; they can't seem to leave anything alone without screwing
it up.

"D. Stussy" wrote

|
| But one can still tell: The PRIOR CLASS field will still say "A".
|

Not in all cases. My "prior class" was Conditional.