In (N2EY) writes:


In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

"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

(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.

"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

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
All this so the top HAMs have something to gloat about.

Heres what so Stupid, there is nothing to prevent you from being a "TOP HAM"

I recall that you weren't going to downgrade to Extra-lite, but then you did.