On Sep 9, 1:52*pm, AJ Lake wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote:
The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code,

The Technician required 5 wpm from its creation in 1951 until 1991.

Interestingly in the 50s the Technician (and Novice) was given
by mail. And any ham friend could give you the code test.
Anyone else could proctor your exam and certify that you
were honest. However I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn
that there were many Techs who never took a code
test and had open book exams.

From 1951 until about 1953 or 54 the Novice and Tech were given at FCC
offices unless you lived beyond a certain distance from an FCC exam
point.

But the new licenses made so much work for FCC that they changed the
rules and made both those licenses "by mail".

There was also the by-mail equivalent of the General license, called
the Conditional. In the mid-1970s it was merged with the General.

I remember that when it was announced that the Conditional was being
phased out, there was a false rumor that FCC would require all
Conditionals to retest. You should have heard the cries of anguish! I
found that puzzling because the tests weren't *that* hard. Now I have
a little better understanding...

I always wondered why if the Tech was an experimenters
license as the FCC claimed it was, why they required a code
test.

Because the international treaty required it. Over time that changed,
but in the 1950s any license that allowed a ham to use the bands below
1 GHz required a code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Tim Shoppa wrote:
[snip]
The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code, as a way to get some CB'ers to take notice. I myself
came to ham radio in the 70's but had no interest in anything having
to do with Technician privileges. I know many other hams who did come
in that way in the 70's, 80's, etc.

Tim N3QE

The original Technician license required passing of a 5wpm receiving &
sending Morse test.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC

Bryan wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote:
[snip]
The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code, as a way to get some CB'ers to take notice. I myself
came to ham radio in the 70's but had no interest in anything having
to do with Technician privileges. I know many other hams who did come
in that way in the 70's, 80's, etc.

Tim N3QE

The original Technician license required passing of a 5wpm receiving &
sending Morse test.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC



I concur from experience in 1982 when I got my Tech license. I had to
take the 5WPM code test at the FCC office. We had the same HF
privileges as Novices and could operate on any frequency above 50.000
MHz. I can't recall, but I "THINK" the first code-free Tech licenses
did not have HF privileges. Now that there is no code requirement for
any class, I think Techs have some HF privileges again...a bit confusing

Scott
N0EDV

Scott wrote:

I think Techs have some HF privileges again...a bit confusing

I was happy when they gave the Technician Class License HF CW privileges
because I thought that it would help the sagging numbers found on
the CW bands. Currently they have the same CW privileges as the General
Class on 80, 40, and 15M HF bands.

I hang mainly on 80 and 40 CW and average a couple of QSOs a day. To this
date I have yet to contact a Tech. (I check QRZ.com when making entries in
my computer log.) So at this point it doesn't seem to have increased CW
activity as much as I had hoped.

BTW using the internet makes QSOs even more interesting. QRZ.com often has
blurbs and photos of the guy you just talked to. Also using Google Maps you
can pinpoint his location, and often using Google Streets you can even see a
photo of his house. Amazing.

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
Bryan wrote:
Tim Shoppa wrote:
[snip]
The controversy in the 70's was the Technician license, a ticket that
required no code, as a way to get some CB'ers to take notice. I myself
came to ham radio in the 70's but had no interest in anything having
to do with Technician privileges. I know many other hams who did come
in that way in the 70's, 80's, etc.

Tim N3QE

The original Technician license required passing of a 5wpm receiving &
sending Morse test.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC

I concur from experience in 1982 when I got my Tech license. I had to
take the 5WPM code test at the FCC office. We had the same HF privileges
as Novices and could operate on any frequency above 50.000 MHz. I can't
recall, but I "THINK" the first code-free Tech licenses did not have HF
privileges. Now that there is no code requirement for any class, I think
Techs have some HF privileges again...a bit confusing

Scott
N0EDV

The original no code Tech had no HF privileges since international treaties
required code for frequencies below 30 MHz.

Today's Technician now has all the HF privileges of the Novice class. Those
privileges have now been expanded also. On 40m, 15m, and 10m, their CW
privileges now cover the same spectrum as the General class license.

Dee
N8UZE

On Sep 8, 7:51*pm, Lawrence Statton wrote:
AJ Lake writes:
You need to understand that the FCC really doesn't want to be
bothered with Ham Radio at all.

I think that the ARRL had more to do with the snafu's of that era. For
example incentive licensing.

So, I'm a young whippersnapper (42 y/o ... got my Tech+ ticket in
1988): *Can someone, without adding TOO much editorial slant, explain
what the 1970s push to incentive licensing was, and with as little
slant as possible explain why it was a SNAFU (or as one 1x2 in the
first club I was in said: *Ruined the service).

--XE2/N1GAK

Here's a history in three parts. It was written in 1999 and so doesn't
cover the 2000 restructuring, but you'll find a lot of background in
there.

Part 1:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source

or:

http://tinyurl.com/6o8bzf


Part 2:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source

or:

http://tinyurl.com/6lupxx


Part 3:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source

or:

http://tinyurl.com/6dosbw

---

A couple of points:

1) "Incentive licensing" came into being in the 1960s
2) It wasn't a new thing, but rather a return to the way things used
to be before 1953. Except it was a lot more complicated.
3) ARRL had a big role but wasn't the only one involved. There were at
least 10 other proposals given RM numbers by FCC, over 6000 comments
at a time before ECFS and the internet, and the result went into
effect in 1968.
4) The Tech had a code test until 1991.
5) The ARRL did not want the VE system. FCC pushed it on us to save
money.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks. I thot no-code was prior to 89 but maybe not. The debate goes way
back.
wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 7:51 pm, Lawrence Statton wrote:
AJ Lake writes:
You need to understand that the FCC really doesn't want to be
bothered with Ham Radio at all.

I think that the ARRL had more to do with the snafu's of that era. For
example incentive licensing.

So, I'm a young whippersnapper (42 y/o ... got my Tech+ ticket in
1988): Can someone, without adding TOO much editorial slant, explain
what the 1970s push to incentive licensing was, and with as little
slant as possible explain why it was a SNAFU (or as one 1x2 in the
first club I was in said: Ruined the service).

--XE2/N1GAK

Here's a history in three parts. It was written in 1999 and so doesn't
cover the 2000 restructuring, but you'll find a lot of background in
there.

Part 1:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source

or:

http://tinyurl.com/6o8bzf


Part 2:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source

or:

http://tinyurl.com/6lupxx


Part 3:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...n&dmode=source

or:

http://tinyurl.com/6dosbw

---

A couple of points:

1) "Incentive licensing" came into being in the 1960s
2) It wasn't a new thing, but rather a return to the way things used
to be before 1953. Except it was a lot more complicated.
3) ARRL had a big role but wasn't the only one involved. There were at
least 10 other proposals given RM numbers by FCC, over 6000 comments
at a time before ECFS and the internet, and the result went into
effect in 1968.
4) The Tech had a code test until 1991.
5) The ARRL did not want the VE system. FCC pushed it on us to save
money.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(AJ Lake) wrote in
:

Got my Novice in 57. Been doing CW ever since. But only as a hobby

You do realize that ham radio itself is only a hobby, don't you?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert Hyman wrote:
(AJ Lake) wrote in

Got my Novice in 57. Been doing CW ever since. But only as a hobby

You do realize that ham radio itself is only a hobby, don't you?

In the 50s some hams I knew not only used ham radio
as a hobby but actually got paid for working CW, either aboard
ship or at coastal commercial radio stations. I had the CW
(and technical) skills at the time to be considered for employment.

So as I said I've worked CW since 57 but only as a hobby...

I changed the header subject to better reflect the discussion.

Unfortunately we lose the thread that way: I think here is where it
departed:
"raypsi" wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 2:54 pm, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, raypsi wrote:
Hey Gary,

Rocks aren't cheap ...
I know the real reason crystals took a back seat, and it's not what anybody
thinks
happened.

73 OM

n8zu

now even the Extra Class is code free.

As is the free memorization EC exam. No real electronic knowledge
required to pass.

And no experience necessary.

Typewriters, VCRs and CW are all obsolete by todays
technical standards. Some still use them because like
you and I they like to. That doesn't make them less old
technology. (Think horse/buggy analogy)

So obsolete means there is no commercial or consumer application that
immediately comes to mind, or does it mean that it is fun to do???

So the word "obsolete" is a subjective word reflecting your own usage.
Could something be obsolete if it was old but was better suited to your
application? Or does that make your application obsolete? Is the
automobile obsolete because of air travel? Is rail transportation obsolete
because of trucks? Does obsolete most often refer to something you don't
want someone else to use? Is the word "obsolete" obsolete because too many
definitions have become attatched to it?

OK WHICH DIGITAL do you use.
Head copy.
how are you going to make the contact that is gone in 60 seconds
I'm not. I prefer CW ragchewing. Different strokes...

Bingo! Now what of the guy that has called CQ two or three times and goes
away?
Head copy is the only way to pounce on the contact before they QSY or
someone else picks them up.

It means YOUR BRAIN might not be obsolete after all!!