|
Leo wrote in
: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:32:40 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Leo" wrote in message . .. On 10 Feb 2004 09:52:50 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: snip Without the ARRL, do you think we'd still have amateur radio? I don't. Um, the rest of the planet does not have the ARRL, and amateur radio is still going strong there..... snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo Without the ARRL, US amateur radio would have remained permanently closed after World War I. The other countries did not have enough amateurs to justify keeping the frequencies and it is highly probably that they would have all gone to commercial interests. Everyone wanted the shortwave frequencies at that time and without the US, the foreign amateurs would not have had enough leverage to have held on to the spectrum. Dee, Perhaps, but I'm not comfortable that it is fact. In 1917 (or 1916, depending on the source), there were some 6,000 amateurs operating in the US - not sure how many there were when amateur radio was turned back on in 1919, but it was probably less than that, due to losses in the war. Even at 6,000, though, would that constitute a sufficient number of amateurs to influence policy on a global scale? Keeping in mind that the US, as a member of the ITU, has voting privileges but not an overwhelming influence. Foreign stations still boom over here today on part of our 40 meter band - because the ITU agreements say they can. The Americas can request, and debate, and vote upon, but not control ITU policy. I doubt very much that they could back then, either. According to The Wayback Machine, it wasn't commercial interests that wanted control of these bands post-WWI (all radio bands, actually!) in the US - it was the US Military. The ARRL did a fine job of lobbying the US government to have the frequencies reopened to US amateurs - but I don't think that the rest of the world would have walked away from amateur radio forever if the ARRL had been unsuccessful. And, in the absence of the ARRL, other alliances may have been formed to lobby for this right - just like they did in the rest of the world. In fact, your happy ham neighbours to the North were legally transmitting again as of May 1, 1919 - a full 5 months before the US amateurs were allowed back on the air on October 1st of that year. As I recall from history class, the US military hasn't attemped to enforce US policy up here since 1814 - and never successfully prior to that :o0 Source: http://www.ve4.net/history/part1.txt Does anyone have any further documentation pertaining to this subject? I know that the Netherlands didn't regain operating privileges until the early 1920s - Alun, old son, what was the history of this over the pond? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo I have to confess ignorance as to exactly when the hams got back on the air in the UK after WW1. I do know something about the 1927 conference, though. I think that this may be the source of the theory that America saved ham radio, but like most things it's not that simple. Many of the delegates, including the UK, did not want to recognise ham radio as a service in the international regulations. What you have to understand, though, is that they did have amateur radio in these countries, and that it would have continued much the same without ITU recognition. The war was long over by then, and they had all let everyone get back on the air already, long before the conference. This point is noticeably absent from the postings advancing the 'America saved the world' theory. The US proposal was carried, and what it did was to get recognition of the amateur service in return for the code test. This was no loss to American hams, who already had to pass a code test anyway. However, many (most?) of the other countries had no code test before 1927. The UK certainly did not. It's quite possible that many delegates may have opposed the US proposal less because they didn't want to recognise hams, but more because they didn't want a code test! I don't know. The UK clearly had no objection to amateur radio continuing in being, but just didnt consider it to be a service (many people still dispute that point today). If the American proposal hadn't been carried in 1927, it is quite clear that amateur radio would not have dissappeared. Without ITU recognition of amateur radio, it is true that there would have been much more variation in allocations between countries, although there is still quite a bit anyway. I understand that Australia had entirely different HF bands to everyone else at that time, and that might have continued for a while longer at least. So, there is a grain of truth in that it was the US that put forward the proposal that got amateur radio recognised, but it had nothing to do with numbers, as they had only one vote, just as they do today. Unrecognised services exist without needing any permission from the ITU. Just look at CB. Yes, I know you'd rather not(!), but it exists in a large number of countries without any ITU recognition, many of them even using the same channels. Of course, it is a good thing that amateur radio is not in this position, but you all know what I'm coming to next. The price we paid. The @#%#&$& code test! You can all say your piece about whether there should be a code test or not, but there's one thing that none of you can honestly deny. The existence of the ITU code test requirement caused more ill feeling than anything else in the hobby. I did put that in the past tense because it has gone, and the past is the only place it belongs. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
In article , Leo
writes: As of our last restructuring,Canadian licences (actually, "Certificates of Proficiency") are also valid for life - no renewal required. If there are no renewals, how does IC know when a ham dies? Or is the situation like Japan, where the license is only cancelled if someone makes the effort to tell the govt. (with proper documentation) that the ham in question is, indeed, dead, and to cancel the license? While theUS would not have been an "overwhelming" influence, it still would have been a major player. How long could amateurs in other countries have been effective against government and commercial interests in the ITU if the US had remained in an "amateur radio black hole?" It is difficult to say of course but there would have been much less strength available to resist the encroachment. Yes one cannot say with absolute certainty which way it would have gone but I do believe that amateur radio would be a lot less common now if the US had not been involved. Also keep in mind that due to our form of government, our civilian population (in this case hams) do have more influence in shaping our governments approach to items like amateur radio than is and was prevalent in a lot of countries. I wonder if that is true - the FCC does not appear to have a history of implementing what the ARRL requests, for example - and they represent many thousands of amateurs. Actually the ARRL has a pretty good track record on that account. PRB-1, and RF exposure, to name just two. Sure, comments and suggestions are encouraged - but it is not a true democratic process - the FCC is under no obligation whatsoever to implement the will of the majority. As was made clear in the 2000 restructuring. Plus, the comment and review procedure is massive - thousands of individual public comments and proposals to go through, another round of proposals and responses, then review, and on and on - a juggernaut of a process that may well take years to run its course. It's not really that bad. The various proposals will be allowed to run their course, comments categorized by a few characteristics, and then the FCC takes what it thinks are the best features and makes an NPRM. Here, Industry Canada asked our national radio association (RAC) to gather data on what Canadian amateurs wanted to do with licensing requirements if the Morse requirement was dropped at WRC-03. The RAC set up a web page with a questionnaire on it, and opened it up to all licenced Canadian amateurs (not just RAC members). The results were collected and tabulated, recommendations prepared, and forwarded to IC for their consideration. Which may or may not be a fair process. For example, what protection was there to avoid multiple "votes" by the same person? What provision for those who do not have internet access? As licensing changes within the Amateur service do not have an impact on either the general public or commercial interests, this approach makes sense. Some would dispute that! For example, if amateur radio were to wither away, at least some of the frequencies could be reallocated to other services. If amateur numbers grow like mad, there could be pressure to expand amateur allocations. There's also the effect that the loss of amateur public service on the general public. btw, there's a new book out called "10 Days In Utah: The Search For Elizabeth Smart" which documents the use of ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) help in providing communications for the search for kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Now there is a system that amateurs have direct influence over! What about the input from nonhams? Or is commentary limited to those already licensed? Also, look at how quickly amateurs in Great Britain, Australia, Germany and many others were able to have the Morse requirement dropped following WRC-03. No red tape, no seemingly endless discussion - just done. A number of reasons: 1) Much smaller amateur populations 2) Much more homogenous (sp?) populations and culture 3) Ground work prepared far ahead of WRC-03 so there was little doubt of the outcome if/when the treaty changed 4) Much higher percentage of hams belonging to national organization.(in many countries, it is practically or legally a requirement to be a member) 5) Complete disregard of dissenting opinions. Many did this in direct response to the request of their own national radio clubs to do so if permitted post-WRC-03. Now there is real democracy in action! Only if it can be shown that what the national radio clubs want was really a majority opinion! I recall reading that a survey of German hams showed that a majority wanted the code test to stay - but they were overruled. And the number of countries who have made this change is only a small percentage. If the ARRL can be faulted for anything in this restructure thingie, it's that they did not have a proposal ready to go in mid-July of 2003. Everyone knew that Wrc-03 was going to happen, and that the chances were very very good that S25.5 would change. So where were the surveys, discussions and proposals before WRC-03? According to The Wayback Machine, it wasn't commercial interests that wanted control of these bands post-WWI (all radio bands, actually!) in the US - it was the US Military. The ARRL did a fine job of lobbying the US government to have the frequencies reopened to US amateurs - but I don't think that the rest of the world would have walked away from amateur radio forever if the ARRL had been unsuccessful. And, in the absence of the ARRL, other alliances may have been formed to lobby for this right - just like they did in the rest of the world. I did indeed mean to include military. Sorry about that. In the context of lobbying the US government for keeping amateur frequencies and re-opening them after WWI, I do believe that in the absence of the ARRL another body could have formed (and probably would have) and done the same as the ARRL. I disagree. One of the key factors was that the pre-war ARRL directors put up money to restart the League, lobby in Washington, restart QST and ask the old membership for help. It was because they had a base of operations already established that they were able to get going again quickly. For a modern-day example, look at the BPL situation. Does anyone think that unpaid volunteers working in their spare time could do the work of W1RFI and others in making observations, gathering data, preparing serious engineering commentary, coordinating with other services, and all the other things needed to fight the "professionals" who want BPL? What other group of hams could do what ARRL has done in the BPL area? But you know what, we would then be having this same discussion of "ZZZZ" organization and the people who today slam the ARRL would be slamming the "ZZZZ." The rest of us would then be defending "ZZZZ". Same game, different names. But Dee, other governments re-opened the amateur bands after WW1 without the assistance of the ARRL - in many foreign countries. How many? Remember too that there were no "amateur bands" in those days. Amateurs were simply assigned wavelengths shorter than 200 meters at the whim of the governments. Note also that amateur radio did not exist as a separate radio service, but rather as part of "experimental and educational" stations. IOW, stations that could not be classed as marine, military, government, or commercial. And although other govts. may have allowed their hams back on the air, when it came time to have international conferences (1924, 1925, 1927), many of those same countries proposed rules that were so restrictive as to essentially eliminate amateur radio. I'm neither praising nor slamming the ARRL - just stating that their achievement was a local, not a global, one. Canadian hams were back on the air months before the ARRL's victory in the US - I'm sure that others were as well in various places around the world. Such as? Most of the histories of amateur radio in other countries start in the 1920s. Seems natural enough - activities were suspended due to the conflict, and reinstated after the hostilities ended. Not everyone's military tried to keep the bands indefinitely for their own private use! In many countries there were no or very few hams before WW1. But would they have had enough clout in subsequent ITU conferences to stave off the commercial and military seekers of the bands. In any disagreement, you don't want the strongest player sitting on the sidelines or playing on the other side. I don't see why not - the ITU voting structure isn't that heavily weighted based on the size of the US - otherwise, they would be in business strictly to globalize US policy. Or, countries like China could assert that as they have 4 times the population of the US, they should control 4 times as many votes. Countries like Japan could claim that they have 3 times the number of licenced Amateurs, and monopolize the process. If that were the case, how many countries would have remained members of the ITU? None, I'd say. Each country gets one vote. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Leo wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:44:04 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:15:37 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant! No rant intended, Mike. Just looking for facts! You wouldn't happen to have any on you, would you? :) Facts? I have the history I've read. I'll have to take that as a 'no' then.... Do you always take history as fact? Do you take ARRL sole-source history as "fact?" FWIW, I have read that the US amateurs and their representatives were pretty much the driving force in Amateur radio post WW1. The numbers of Amateurs in the US was roughly equal to the Amateurs in the rest of the world. These numbers coupled with a few organizations that represented them from one country instead of spread out over the globe, would naturally have a major influence on the hobby/avocation. Feel free to believe what you want to believe. The entire four-decade period up to about 1930 was one of great change, reorganization, new technology discovery, etc. in "radio." Something involving communications at the speed of light and without wires was suddenly created after 1895. NO ONE had a real coherent, expert prognostication of the future of "radio" in the early days, those first four decades. Everyone involved with this new thing was groping in the dark, experimenting, entrepreneurs seeing potential profit, tinkerers busy with a fascinating new technological interest. As to communications by 1895, there was already the beginnings of international cooperation in wired commercial telegraphy standards and practices, that made firm over two decades prior to that turning-point year. [Marconi's experiments started in 1895 but were witnessed by only one other person...a full demonstration was not done until the following year] This whole last decade of the 1800s involved a lot more international discussion of other things besides mysterious "radio." As with any technological breakthrough showing potential monetary profit, lawyers and courts began to get busy on patent disputes which continued on into the 1930s; one of the things affecting Ed Armstrong's personal life and subsequent depression was a constant coming and going to courts for patent suits that lasted over a decade. The newly- formed Marconi Company in England was proceding at a fast pace to attempt international control of as many patents in "radio" as possible. International political relations were a fighting ground, made worse by the armed conflict of World War One. Lots and lots and lots of folks in the commercial and government fields were fighting it out to control "radio" in all manner, shape, and use. With the advent of the first active control valve for electrons, the triode vacuum tube promising miraculous applications for other than radio, the fighting got worse. The beginnings of the RCA Corporation (originally Radio Corporation of America) was due to an effort to keep "foreign" monopolization of "radio" technology out (i.e., England was as "foreign" as anybody to American businessmen and government men). The main cause was the mechatronics of radio (on the way to obsolescence then) to be replaced by electronics, the "foreigners" trying to hold control of the mechanical side of radio away from US. The beginnings of broadcasting was in the 1920s with enormous potential profit for business. There was NO regulation of radio in the USA until 1912 and everyone plopped down on whatever "frequency" they were comfortable at (or that primitive technology of that time allowed). RF-wise, the spectrum was chaos. With the first regulation of the EM spectrum came the restricted-to-broadcasters broadcast band at the low half of the MF band. Tinkerers such as amateurs were shoved off to a relatively unknown region of "short waves," largely unexplored territory at wavelengths shorter than 200 meters. Broadcasters needed fixed frequencies for thousands, then millions of listeners, listeners having still-primitive technology receivers. Broadcasting had the potential for enormous control over public opinion, especially for the thought-control processes known as "advertising" (already begun in printed media). Wired telegraphy didn't just disappear but it was in a steady decline from the previous turn of the century. The cause was the teleprinter displacing the telegraphers reading paper tapes. "Stock tickers" with their pretty glass domes were appearing on executives' desks able to tell those executives quickly how stock values were going. Telegrams were delivered with nice printed strips of text glued onto message forms, no longer scribbled with handwriting or that new writing machine called a "typewriter." Teleprinters did the text printing. Teleprinting didn't need morse code specialists at wired communications circuits. Even as the commercial morse comm carriers were peaking at their busiest time, the teleprinters were edging them out, first at a small scale then on and on in a juggernaut of displacement of old, manual wired comm technology. The maritime world got a bonanza, a miracle in "radio" able to reach over the visible horizon. It was something they never had before. Maritimers could get by on LF with relatively slow pace of water travel. The maritime world was the first big user of "radio" and the radio operators got their nickname of "Sparkies" from using that high-tech transmitter known as "spark." Arc, spark, and alternator "transmitters" reached a peak of 1 MegaWatt on LF...but eventually would have to go since they transmitted simultaneously on MF and on up into HF (mostly without realizing it). While "radio" was not a popular topic of conversation at the ordinary dining table then, many were involved in its use and millions of dollars involved in equipment contracts. "Radio" was already big business by the start of 1920. Displaced morsemen, downsized from landline wire comms by the teleprinter and telephone, took to radio. Early radio could only communicate by simple on-off keying of primitive RF generators. Landline telegraphy was on-off keying of a battery source. Landline telegraphers need only learn how to twist radio knobs, throw radio switches to use their morse skills. They "upgraded" to high-tech of the times...and invented all sorts of mythology about their new craft using old skills. That mythology persists in some minds today. The print media ate all the mythology up and printed glorious tales of "pioneering in technology" in the exaggerated prose of earlier times around the previous turn of the century. Journalism it was not, storytelling it was. Now I don't know that for sure, since I wasn't around then, but it seems sensible and logical enough, so I assign it a good probability. If the only source of information comes from one source, a special interest group, you should be aware that some things ar (deliberately) left out in order to improve the status of the particular special interest group. You will be hard-pressed to find objective history of the radio amateur organizations that existed before the formation of the ARRL from ARRL publications. Such history does exist in 90-year-old archives of other print media, of government records, of patent papers. Special interest groups must be self-serving for survival. ARRL is a special interest group. For a more objective view of early radio history, Thomas H. White has done a superb job of presenting a part of that overall history in the USA. See it beginning at - http://earlyradiohistory.us/index.html No special interests involved other than showing a more complete picture of early USA radio history, of ALL radio, not just amateurism. Fascinating stuff to see all the chaos, change, triumphs and tragedies in the first few decades of a more-than-fascinating technology. Or, you can be content with being spoon-fed "history" from a single source who controls what they want you to hear. Your choice. LHA / WMD |
In article ,
(Tony Pelliccio) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message . com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 I suppose I can't complain much on this. Most of us are pretty much appliance operators - when is the last time you played around with SMT inside your radio? TAFKA Rev. Jim has both an MSEE and BSEE and has been a 40 WPM extra special for over 36 years. I doubt he has ever diddled with any surface mount devices...that isn't operating morse code. LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Alun wrote: Mike, how is it anti-US to point that the world doesn't revolve around America? Of course, if you think it does, then you're probably beyond help. It's a troll, Alun. Go post the same message anywhere on netnews and watch the reaction. You ADMIT to personal trolling, yet accuse others of that act? Tsk, tsk, tsk... If you don't believe it, then you're probably beyond help. Of course the world doesn't revolve around the US. The world revolves around it's axis. Different kind of spin than what the league is revolving... How is the ARRL proposal going to affect the rest of the world's amateurs anyway? W1AW will have more "important message alerts to amateurs!" Or maybe Sumner's "Residence Radio Club" will have a 24-hour cue-so party with the world through Geneva? The PCTA will come on here more than once a day and call the NCTA "putz" and "scum?" I know...there will be an important editorial in QST on the evils of pornography and the horrifying antics on broadcast radio-TV! In CW nobody can tell you are breathing hard... LHA / WMD |
In article , Alun
writes: Not atall. I'm serious. We did think we were the centre of everything, but that is an illusion that passes. Trust me. All things pass. The Roman empire, the British empire ... you get the idea. Mike is trying to "head them off at the pass." :-) That's as good as Custer looking around the Big Horn Battlefield and wondering "where did all those #$%^!!! indians come from?" LHA / WMD |
In article , Alun
writes: They even claim they were responsible for the no-code licence, when the truth is the FCC would have introduced one 20 years earlier but for the league's opposition! It's going to be somewhat interesting to hear the Devout spin that around now...unfortunately, there's no real creation in religious beliefs and barking dogma of jingoism. "Our karma ran over their dogma..." :-) LHA / WMD |
|
The price we paid. The @#%#&$& code test! Alun .... We really don't have to tolerate that type of language on this newsgroup ..... I wish more guys would use the above symbols than the language ....then we could use our imagination. I translate the above string as "necessary" give or take a few characters. God Bless 73 Tom KI3R |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com