CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

Bob wrote:

We used to have "A" and "B" licences - the "A" was all bands, all modes, and
the "B" was limited to above 50 MHz and didn't require the Morse Test. The
requirement for the Morse was removed, so now it's all amalgamated into one
licence.

Was there much moaning over there over the loss of the code test?

In any of your license changes have practicing hams ever lost frequency
privileges they had previously earned?

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 18, 2:21�am, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
But in 1991 FCC did it [a no-code license] anyway.

I always thought it was silly having a code test for an 'experimenter'
license anyway.

Had there not been a treaty requirement, FCC might have not had a
Morse test for Tech from the beginning. We'll never know.

I never used CW as a Tech. Heck I was too busy working 6M DX
(on AM) during that best of all cycles during the late 50s. But I suppose
could have told the FCC I was experimenting with the ionosphere...

A lot of VHF/UHF experimenting in those days did use Morse Code and
still does today. EME (moonbounce), meteor scatter, aurora,
troposcatter and other "weak signal" work was almost all CW. Most of
it still is. Of course those were specialized things back then.

Then Sputnik went up, and the USSR got a first in the history books.

Yes, remember it well. I listened to Sputnik on my S40.

Then you may remember the reactions. All of a sudden we were #2 and
that wasn't good enough.

It [Russian technology] was a shock that had repercussions in a lot of ways,

Yup. Got me many years of employment (government contracts).

And convinced FCC to be dissatisfied.

nobody wants to be blamed for "incentive licensing version 2"

Can't blame em. One screw up was enough.

Was it really a screw up? I think the real mistake was back in 1952.

What happened was that in 1951 the FCC restructured the ham radio
license classes and added a whole bunch of new license classes. That
restructuring was in part due to proposals from two small groups
(membership a couple of thousand each) who argued that the then-
current US amateur license requirements, even for Class A, were too
easy.

In those days it took an Advanced (old Class A) for full privileges.
Which meant taking another 50 question written test for hams with
Generals. The new Extra also had full privileges but had more
requirements like 20 wpm code, a 100 question written, and 2 years
experience.

But as part of the 1951 restructuring, FCC announced that at the end
of 1952 they'd stop issuing new Advanceds. So if a ham didn't have an
Advanced by the end of 1952, s/he'd have to go for the much more
involved Extra.

A considerable number of hams rushed to get the Advanced before the
door closed at the end of 1952. But then, in a surprising about-face,
in mid-December the FCC announced that as of Feb 1953 all Generals,
Conditionals, Advanceds and Extras would have full operating
privileges.

You can just imagine the reaction from hams who'd worked hard to get
their Advanceds or Extras, then suddenly found the HF 'phone bands
flooded with Generals and Conditionals who had the same privileges.

I don't know why the FCC suddenly reversed their plan, which they'd
taken several years to develop. Or why they didn't just leave things
the way they were in 1952, and left the Advanced open to new issues.

Nobody I have talked to, nor any reference I have read, gives any
reason for that Great Giveaway. And most of the hams licensed after
1952 that I have encountered have no idea of that piece of history.

When I first got interested in getting a ham license I bought the ARRL
License Manual for fifty cents. I clearly remember opening it up and
seeing the chart of license classes and privileges. I thought that it
was incredibly odd that there were six license classes, but four of
them (General, Conditional, Advanced and Extra) all carried exactly
the same operating privileges. What was up with that? I thought then
(and still do) that it made no sense at all.

Generals now have at least as much 'phone space as they
had in 1968,

I could have just kept my old General (or even Tech) license. That's all I
really need these days for CW ragchewing.

The circle is complete.

I remember in the 1960s thinking that the incentive license idea was
good but the application was bad. I thought what should have been done
was to increase the privileges of Advanceds and Extras rather than
taking anything away.

For example, in those days on 80/75 the Novice subband was 3700 to
3750 and the 'phone subband was 3800 to 4000. 3750 to 3800 was where
the foreign 'phone stations hung out to get away from US QRM. Why not
make 3750 to 3800 a phone band for Extras only? And make 3775 to 3800
a phone band for Extras and Advanceds? Similar things could be done to
other bands.

Another incentive would be increased power. The old rule was 1000
watts input; I thought a lot of hams would have upgraded if Extras
were allowed, say, 2500 watts input. Sure it's only a couple of dB but
that never stopped anybody.

I also thought that optional distinctive callsigns for various license
classes would be a good incentive too. (That one actually happened,
but it was many years later).

and we're effectively down to three license classes (almost).

I predict it will be only one license eventually.

Maybe, but it will take a very long time. In seven years we've lost
only about 1/3 of the Advanceds. And the FCC doesn't seem inclined to
give automatic upgrades nor to merge license classes except by
renewal.

I've come across Advanceds who say they like their license because it
supposedly proves they passed 13 wpm code. But in fact it doesn't,
because from 1990 to 2000 one could get any class of license with 5
wpm and a medical waiver.

The first license class to disappear completely will be the Tech Plus,
because FCC has been renewing them as Technician since April 2000. In
another 19 months the last Tech Plus should disappear.

The Novice license totals are now well under 20,000 (from 50,000 in
2000) and is also dwindling.

Who will be the very last Novice? The very last Advanced? How long
will it take for those license classes to disappear?

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

AJ Lake wrote:

Was there much moaning over there over the loss of the code test?

Some of the "old timers" complained, but most accepted it.

In any of your license changes have practicing hams ever lost frequency
privileges they had previously earned?

There are occasional changes, but they are mostly in our favour (like when
we got 50 and 70 MHz bands, previously used for VHF TV).

Bob

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 18, 7:30�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
Had there not been a treaty requirement, FCC might have not had a
Morse test for Tech from the beginning.

The treaty applied to 30MHz and below.

No, it applied to 1000 MHz and below, back when the Technician was
created.

Originally the treaty required Morse Code testing for all amateurs.
Then in the late 1940s (1947 Atlantic City conference, IIRC),
additional wording was added that removed the requirement for licenses
that only allowed operation above 1000 MHz.

Over time that 1000 MHz limit was lowered, until it finally reached 30
MHz. And then in 2003 the whole code test thing was made optional.

Techs couldn't go there.
The treaty wouldn't apply to them.

The treaty in effect in 1951 applied to them.

A lot of VHF/UHF experimenting in those days did use
Morse Code

Techs only had 220 and up. Why require a 5 WPM test for moon bounce??

What mode would a 1950s or 1960s ham use for moonbounce? Aurora?
Meteor or tropo scatter? Satellite comms?

and still does today. EME (moonbounce), meteor scatter, aurora,
troposcatter and other "weak signal" work was almost all CW.

If Techs do all that CW work today *without* a code test, what
justification
is there for requiring the code test back then?

1) The treaty
2) Those modes were new back then.

The big question is, how many Techs actually did that stuff?

Was it [incentive licensing] really a screw up?
I think the real mistake was back in 1952.

My old boss used to moan bitterly about the 52 license change
when I worked
for him in the 50s. He had been a Class A.

And he still was, only they called it Advanced and it made no
difference in privileges.

But the difference is that in
that change he *didn't lose* any privileges.

Instead, a lot of hams got them for free.

He did lose privileges with the
later Incentive Licensing change though. Which change do
you think he felt
worse about?

Sounds like a sense of entitlement to me.

You can just imagine the reaction from hams who'd worked hard to get
their Advanceds or Extras, then suddenly found the HF 'phone
bands
flooded with Generals and Conditionals who had the same privileges.

Probably like having the HF frequencies flooded by no-coders... 8-O

No, much worse.

The FCC has been reducing license requirements for almost 30 years, so
the final dropping of the code test should have been no surprise for
anyone. In fact I am still amazed that it took FCC 3-1/2 years to do
it after the treaty changed. I figured six months, tops.

But in the late 1940s the FCC went through a long process of
developing a new license structure that was a lot more complex than
the old ABC system. And when they rolled it out, one of the big
features was that the all-privileges license would be harder to get.

Then at the last minute they tossed away most of the idea and went in
a completely different direction.

Another incentive would be increased power.

If I were made boss, the maximum power allowed for any class
would be 100W.
And if used as an incentive, start at say 25 W for the entry
license.

How's anybody gonna work EME with that?

Just
think of the reduction in neighbor complaints. Just think of the
increase in operator skill...

But to do it you'd have to take privileges away from almost every ham.
Worse, they could not get those privileges back.

You'd also make a lot of expensive gear practically worthless.

Who will be the very last Novice? The very last Advanced? How long
will it take for those license classes to disappear?

They will likely disappear when they change to one license...
(Like the Class A disappeared.)

But the Class A didn't disappear.

In the 1951 restructuring, it was renamed "Advanced", and survives to
this day. When it was first closed to new issues at the end of 1952,
FCC still kept it on the books. That made a big difference in 1968 and
1969 when the IL changes happened, because Advanceds had a lot more
'phone space than Generals after those changes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 19, 2:03*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
AJ Lake *wrote:
The treaty applied to 30MHz and below.
No, it applied to 1000 MHz and below
back when the Technician was created

Do you have the sources?

Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down
through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic
City conference.

The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL.

I couldn't find anything but 30MHz.

You need to look further back than the 1980s.

But I'll
stand corrected since you're certainly the undisputed historian here.

Works for me!

What mode would a 1950s or 1960s ham use for moonbounce? Aurora?
Meteor or tropo scatter? Satellite comms?

CW was the best weak signal mode in those days. Your point?

That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse
Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it
made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license.

You can just imagine the reaction from hams who'd worked hard
to get
their Advanceds or Extras, then suddenly found the HF 'phone
bands flooded with Generals and Conditionals who had the same privileges..

Probably like having the HF frequencies flooded by no-coders... 8-O

No, much worse.

Ouch. I guess you don't like no-coders on your HF bands.

Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask.
But that's ancient history now.

What I was saying was that the Class A/Advanceds, and the Extras, of
1952 had been led to believe that the investment they had made in
earning those licenses would continue to be paid off by having more
privileges. All the FCC actions up to that time indicated it.

But at the last minute the FCC did the opposite.

If I were made boss, the maximum power allowed for any class
would be 100W.

How's anybody gonna work EME with that?

EME is possible with a 100 watts. But CW ain't up to it. It takes
digital signal processing...

Actually that's not true. Hams have done EME on microwave frequencies
with less than 100 watts and CW. But it takes a high gain antenna.

But the Class A didn't disappear. In the 1951 restructuring,
it was renamed "Advanced",

In a prior post you said the Tech+ will "disappear" because it will be
renewed (and thus renamed) a Tech.

That's right. It's been happening since April 2000.

Now you say the Class A *didn't
disappear* when it was renamed as the Advanced. Can't have it both
ways...

There's a difference between a class disappearing and being renamed.

When the last Tech Plus either expires or is renewed as a Tech, the
Tech Plus class will have disappeared, having been merged with the
Tech. Just like what happened to the Conditional class back in the
late 1970s.

But the Class A/Advanced folks were and continue to be kept as a
separate license class.

73 de Jim, N2EY

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

N2EY wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:

Do you have the [treaty] sources?

Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down
through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic
City conference.

So you don't have a source. Maybe I gave in too quickly... 8-O

The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL.

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.

You need to look further back than the 1980s.

I tried hard to find a source to prove me right, but no luck. That's
why I wanted to see your source that proved me wrong.

That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse
Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it
made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license.

Wouldn't it be better to give a solder test to an experimenter?

Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask.
But that's ancient history now.

Is that the old 'weeder' reason or the old 'I had to do it' reason?

EME is possible with a 100 watts. But CW ain't up to it. It takes
digital signal processing...

Actually that's not true. Hams have done EME on microwave frequencies
with less than 100 watts and CW. But it takes a high gain antenna

With digital processing it can be done with a Yagi. You think we ought
to add a separate digital processing test to the Tech?

CW is a hobby (off topic BWTH)
 

On Sep 19, 7:16�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
N2EY wrote:
AJ Lake wrote:
Do you have the [treaty] sources?
Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down
through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic
City conference.

So you don't have a source.

No, I do have a source.

Here are the facts:

Amateur radio was first officially recognized as a separate radio
service at the Paris radio conference of 1927. As part of the
regulations/treaty, all amateurs had to be Morse Code tested.

At the Atlantic City radio conference of 1947, the Morse Code test
requirement was modified so that a Morse Code test was not required
for amateur licenses that only allowed operation above 1000 MHz. This
rule was in effect when the Technician Class license was created by
FCC in 1951. There's an article explaining all this in QST for
October, 1947.

At the Geneva radio conference of 1959, the requirement was modified
so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur licenses that
only allowed operation above 144 MHz. This is explained in a QST
article in the issue for March, 1960.

At the radio conference of 1979, commonly called "WARC-79", which
resulted in the 30, 17 and 12 meter bands, the requirement was
modified so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur
licenses that only allowed operation above 30 MHz. This is explained
in a QST article in the issue for February, 1980.

So the USA could not have created the Technician license in 1951
without a code test unless that license had not allowed any operation
below 1000 MHz.

The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL.

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.

When were these "dark days"?

You need to look further back than the 1980s.

I tried hard to find a source to prove me right, but no luck. That's
why I wanted to see your source that proved me wrong.

It's not about "luck", it's about knowing the history.

That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse
Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it
made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license.

Wouldn't it be better to give a solder test to an experimenter?

No. The license is for operating, not building. Anyone can build
whatever equipment they want with no license at all, but to put it on
the air legally requires a license.

Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask.
But that's ancient history now.

Is that the old 'weeder' reason or the old 'I had to do it' reason?

Neither. It's the "reasonable requirement to know what you are doing"
reason.

The basic argument against the code test comes down to this:

Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it?
Those who want to use it will learn it on their own, and those who
don't will learn it and not use it.

That same argument can applied to almost anything in the written
tests, though.

For example:

Why should anyone have to learn about VHF/UHF if they only intend to
use HF?

Why should anyone have to learn about solid-state if they only intend
to use tubes?

Why should anyone have to learn about FM, SSTV, RTTY, etc., if they
only intend to use CW, AM or SSB?

Why should anyone have to learn about theory if they only intend to
use manufactured gear?

Why should anyone have to learn about RF exposure safety if they only
intend to use low power?

Etc.

What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
says there should be no real test at all. FCC tried having a radio
service with no test - it didn't work out too well.

73 de Jim, N2EY