"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 |
"Dave Heil" wrote | That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the | rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing. | | So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof that | the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up? It's clear he doesn't wish to be confused with any facts which spoil his rant. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"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 |
"Alun" wrote Not atall. I just haven't seen anything convincing. With all due respect, you're the one that advanced the notion that Barry Goldwater had authored some legislation the give Novices free examinations, but have no evidence of that other than you "read something". Strike #1. The FCC rules allow ALL exams to be free, so there'd be no need for a separate legislation to give free exams to Novice applicants. Strike #2. There is media evidence contemporary to the era which shows one VEC trying to persuade the FCC to REQUIRE all other VEC's to charge a fee for the Novice exam. Strike #3. Looks to me that YOU'RE the one who needs to show US something "convincing". Good luck on this one now. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
"Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... I beleive the R2 bandplan allows phone down to 7045, same as R1. In R3 it's 7030! R2 hams operatong phone 'on 7050 and lower' are abiding by the ITU bandplan unless they go below 7045. Keep in mind that outside the US, those are just band plans. According to postings I read elsewhere, they are ignored with some regularity. It becomes even more common to ignore them during some contests. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I can't speak for hams in every country in the world, but being originally from the UK I would say that most there would be horrified at the idea of operating phone below 7040, for example. The cutoff used to be 7040 before they set aside 7035-7045 for RTTY. That is one aspect of it being voluntary, you will find people who continue to use a frequency after the bandplan is changed. In a similar way, phone is supposed to be above 14.112 on 20, but it used to be 14.100. The RTTY sections were carved out of the top of CW and the bottom of phone. Phone below 7.040 or below 14.100 is not something I hear when I tune around. It's easy for US hams to form an impression that there are lots of DX hams operating phone on CW frequencies, but there really aren't. It's just that few realise how far down phone extends in the IARU bandplans. Contests are another matter, but that cuts both ways, i.e. you will also find CW on phone frequencies during CW contests. 73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK) As far as the phone goes, I'm reporting what I've read posted by Europeans rather than my own impressions. At least for US CW contests, I don't find the CW climbing into the phone portions. In some cases the rules specifically state that the contacts are to be limited to the "traditional" CW portion. In the remainder of the cases, we're just so conditioned to sticking below the split point that we stay there anyway in a contest. Although the contesters do ignore the digital, etc bandplan recommendations. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com