In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

They

[the ARRL]

even claim they were responsible for the no-code licence,

Where, Alun? Can you show where ARRL claims credit for the Tech losing
its code test?

They did at the time

Where? Can you cite any references?

1991 is not ancient history yet. I "was there", wrote letters, followed the
issue closely. In 1990, ARRL BoD policy changed from opposition of any form of
nocodetest ham license to support of a VHF/UHF-only limited license. This was
driven by several factors, including member opinion that was divided 50-50 on
that specific issue.

But I recall no claim that the BoD originated the idea.

when the
truth is the FCC would have introduced one 20 years earlier but for the
league's opposition!

Not true!

The Tech lost its code test in early 1991. 20 years earlier was 1971.
The first FCC attempt at a nocodetest amateur license was in 1975, and
if enacted would have not taken effect sooner than 1976. That's 15
years, not 20.

So it's not true because it was only 15 years not 20? That's only a matter
of degree, not substance.

It's an error of ~33% (1/3 of 15 is 5)

It's an indication that your recollection of the occurrences surrounding the
introduction of nocodetest ham licenses in the USA, and the ARRL's role
in them, may be somewhat inaccurate.

So you admit they opposed it for 15 years, and I can assure you they tried
to claim credit when it happened.

Based on what? I can assure you that "they" did not claim credit for coming up
with the idea.

And in 1975, ARRL polled its entire membership with a detailed
questionnaire. A large and pervasive majority opposed a nocodetest ham
license of any kind.

Exactly, the ARRL opposed it.

And that's a good thing. Too bad they couldn't see their way to doing another
such survey or two.

The 1975 survey gave a clear indication of what the membership - almost all of
it - really wanted ARRL to do at the time. How can anyone fault them for
following the clear mandate of the membership?

73 de Jim, N2EY.

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

They

[the ARRL]

even claim they were responsible for the no-code licence,

Where, Alun? Can you show where ARRL claims credit for the Tech
losing its code test?

They did at the time

Where? Can you cite any references?

1991 is not ancient history yet. I "was there", wrote letters, followed
the issue closely. In 1990, ARRL BoD policy changed from opposition of
any form of nocodetest ham license to support of a VHF/UHF-only limited
license. This was driven by several factors, including member opinion
that was divided 50-50 on that specific issue.

But I recall no claim that the BoD originated the idea.

I was there too, and I recall several such claims.


when the
truth is the FCC would have introduced one 20 years earlier but for
the league's opposition!

Not true!

The Tech lost its code test in early 1991. 20 years earlier was 1971.
The first FCC attempt at a nocodetest amateur license was in 1975,
and if enacted would have not taken effect sooner than 1976. That's
15 years, not 20.

So it's not true because it was only 15 years not 20? That's only a
matter of degree, not substance.

It's an error of ~33% (1/3 of 15 is 5)

It's an indication that your recollection of the occurrences
surrounding the introduction of nocodetest ham licenses in the USA, and
the ARRL's role
in them, may be somewhat inaccurate.

So you admit they opposed it for 15 years, and I can assure you they
tried to claim credit when it happened.

Based on what? I can assure you that "they" did not claim credit for
coming up with the idea.

And in 1975, ARRL polled its entire membership with a detailed
questionnaire. A large and pervasive majority opposed a nocodetest
ham license of any kind.

Exactly, the ARRL opposed it.

And that's a good thing. Too bad they couldn't see their way to doing
another such survey or two.

The 1975 survey gave a clear indication of what the membership - almost
all of it - really wanted ARRL to do at the time. How can anyone fault
them for following the clear mandate of the membership?

73 de Jim, N2EY.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:07:35 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:



Leo wrote:

On 12 Feb 2004 00:00:02 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


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?


Three ways:

- the family notifies IC that their beloved ham relative is no longer
a user of oxygen.

Well, technically not quite correct. Oxygen just used in a different
way - ick.

Perhaps that the ham has assumed room temperature? 8^)\

That works...or perhaps, shunted to ground (or earthed, for Alun)!

- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

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





If you think I meant necessary I might have to add a few real characters
in
there to dispel that notion!

Sort of reminds me what I said after a few of my organic chem tests years
ago.

Take care Alun 73 Tom KI3R

In article e8UWb.16891$_44.18036@attbi_s52,
says...

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





If you think I meant necessary I might have to add a few real characters
in
there to dispel that notion!

Sort of reminds me what I said after a few of my organic chem tests years
ago.

I'm watching this whole discussion. BTW, the wags at the Retro Computing
Society of Rhode Island actually proposed a TCP/IP over morse code RFP a
while ago.

Bloody slow but it'd be interesting as morse has the necessary states to
shuttle binary data.

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

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.....

Irrelevant to this group, Leo. ARRL "represents all amateurs." They say
so up front.

W1AW reaches the edges of the known world...a couple provinces of
Canada, as far west as Ohio, down to Atlanta, Georgia. Their concept
of "world."

As with many other things relating to amateur radio, you simply don't
know what you are talking about. Yes, W1AW is heard quite nicely on the
West Coast and can be heard in any states. Pick an appropriate band and
tune it in. W1AW is easily heard in Finland. I've heard numerous W1AW
bulletins and code practice runs when I lived in Guinea-Bissau, Sierra
Leone, Botswana and Tanzania.

Every single radio amateur in the USA "owes everything" to Saint Hiram
Percy Maxim who "went to Washington" in 1919 to "restore ham radio"
after WW One. ARRL tells everyone that, forever and ever. Happened
85 years ago when all the seven-year-old amateur extras in here were
young. Clap clap.

It happens that HPM did go to Washington for the stated purpose. ARRL
says that because it is factual. What have you done for amateur radio,
Leonard?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(James F. Aguiar) wrote in message
.com...
I think the ARRL is doing a super job of taking care of its own cash
cow.

Do you think all of the work done at ARRL Hq could be done by unpaid
volunteers?

According to the ARRL's tax return of 2002 their income was $12
million. That money was going where? :-)

The League has quite a large paid staff. In addition to salaries, there
are the expenses of printing and mailing, the need to maintain the HQ
building and W1AW, the costs for utilities, insurance and all sorts of
other necessities. Where does your money go?

Ham Radio as we know it is changing in the interest of progress
with no considration for the hobby.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, inflexibility to understand the reality of now.

If you don't agree with it, you "don't understand it." :-)

If it isn't written so that anyone can understand it, how can anyone
agree or disagree with it?

I bet if everyone who subscribes
to QST was to cancel their subscriptions,in other words, BOY COTT the
ARRL, their trend of thought would take a sudden change of direction.

Of course it would.

No, it would not. QST sells enough ad space to keep itself going.

It would be difficult to sell ads if there aren't many readers. I'd
change "No, it would not" to "Yes, it certainly would".

However, if the ARRL loses its demographic base to show
advertisers, they will not bother buy more ad space.

No kidding? Once again, you've managed to sum up the perfectly obvious.

But why should the members do that? What issue
would make all of the members decide to drop out?

Perish the thought. BELIEVERS would still belong...just like the
followers of Osama hang onto his very word today...

What's his call?

Who cares about manufactures who pay for glossy pages of advertisment
in QST.

I care about one or two of them.

Do you care enough to buy the very best? :-)

Or are you still designing your own kits?

After all didn't we all used to make our own radios once.

Some of us still do.

"Design them" too! :-)

Unjustifiable snipe noted. I really like the use of quotes too. Reminds
me of your "experience" in amateur radio.

It seems as though the reciepe is to dismantle the hobby of amateur
radio and ARRL is trying to hang on to what ever will keep them going
as money making tax free organization.

What, exactly, is ARRL doing that you disagree with? Please be
specific.

TAFKA Rev. Jim's response to Aguiar's reply ought to be something!

Ask your self, what has the ARRL ever done for you personally or for
anyone you know, I bet the answer is zero, nada.

You lose!

Here are some things ARRL has done for me:

- Excellent publications that helped me learn radio theory and practice

Drexel didn't teach you anyting? :-)

- W1AW code practice helped me improve code skills

W1AW isn't heard in all the states in the union.

You'd be wrong, Mr. "If I need facts, I just make them up".

- PRB-1

To help fight the evil, money-grubbing, dictatorial home neighborhood
organizations?

That isn't what PRB-1 does. It is quite useful in seeing that towns and
cities don't establish regulations which arbitrarily restrict the
installation of antennas and supports.

- Fight against BPL

A few OTHER companies and organizations and LOTS of individuals
have voiced their objection to BPL here, PLC overseas. There's over
5000 Comments on NOI 03-104 on the FCC ECFS not from ARRL.

That's a good thing, but you can't have helped noticing that the ARRL
took the lead in matters relating to the threat to HF radio from BPL.

- Best ham magazine ever printed (QST)


Hardly. RSGB's "Radio Communication" is an English language
monthly with a wider scope of amateur radio interests.

RadComm has a wider scope of amateur radio interests? I don't think so.
It also has far less content than QST because it serves a much smaller
membership.

QST NEVER compared to HAM RADIO magazine during HR's 22
years of independent monthly publication.

It certainly didn't. Ham Radio catered to one thin slice of hamdom.
QST is a general interest magazine, broader in scope than HR or Radcomm.
QST is still printed. HR is defunct.

HR was far better, did
not cater to any BoD stuffiness.

That's pretty easy. No BoD stuffiness. Why? We ain't got no stinkin'
BoD. If you have no membership and if you have a staff of a few people
why would you need a board of directors?

- Representation in Washington and internationally, as well as
information.

Special Interest Groups abound in DC. All it takes is money to pay
them for their services representing the BoD's opinion.

Precisely! The trick is in selecting folks who know something about
amateur radio and the ARRL to represent the League. The ARRL has those
people and they do lobby on behalf of the ARRL.

With the Internet, ALL citizens can now communicate with our
federal government at the speed of enlightenment. We don't have to
be filtered through any organization or SIG having its own agenda.

ALL citizens have had access to paper, envelopes and stamps for
generations. Citizens have had telephones for decades. Are you so much
of a rube that you don't see that lobbyists abound because they are able
to accomplish things? If that wasn't true, there wouldn't be any
lobbyists.

I am glad that I have at least had the past 47 or so years of amateur
radio.

Without the ARRL, do you think we'd still have amateur radio? I don't.

You owe EVERYTHING to your ARRL. Start paying up...

I paid up in 1978. You can pony up too, Leonard and become an Associate
Member.

I've been a ham for 36+ years, too.

Sure. Just like the standards and practices of the 1930s. You are
49 going on 94.

That doesn't make much sense. The standards and practices of the 1930s
have been a ham for 36+ years? The standards and practices of the 1930s
are 49 going on 94?

That is how I feel and I just want to voice my personal opinion even
though I am going to get bashed for it.

No bashing, just some questions. You may *feel* the ARRL does nothing
for you, but the reality is quite different.

ARRL never gave me anything except six issues of QEX that Ed Hare
kindly sent me at league expense...from a stack of unsold issues at Hq.
[the last time I ever received anything from Newington without paying
shipping charges...:-) ]

....and I can see that you are dripping with gratitude.

ARRL has wasted my time, the late Vic Clark included.

How can the ARRL waste your time when 1) you aren't doing anything but
posting newsgroup messages 2) aren't a radio amateur and 3) aren't an
ARRL member. Maybe you spend much of your spare time (and it is
apparent that you have oodles of it) making aluminum foil hats to
protect you from those signals which W1AW is beaming your way.

Dave K8MN

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

They

[the ARRL]

even claim they were responsible for the no-code licence,

Where, Alun? Can you show where ARRL claims credit for the Tech
losing its code test?

They did at the time

Where? Can you cite any references?

1991 is not ancient history yet. I "was there", wrote letters, followed
the issue closely. In 1990, ARRL BoD policy changed from opposition of
any form of nocodetest ham license to support of a VHF/UHF-only limited
license. This was driven by several factors, including member opinion
that was divided 50-50 on that specific issue.

But I recall no claim that the BoD originated the idea.

I was there too, and I recall several such claims.

So point us to them. How were the claims made? They must have
been in QST, right?

when the
truth is the FCC would have introduced one 20 years earlier but for
the league's opposition!

Not true!

The Tech lost its code test in early 1991. 20 years earlier was 1971.
The first FCC attempt at a nocodetest amateur license was in 1975,
and if enacted would have not taken effect sooner than 1976. That's
15 years, not 20.

So it's not true because it was only 15 years not 20? That's only a
matter of degree, not substance.

It's an error of ~33% (1/3 of 15 is 5)

It's an indication that your recollection of the occurrences
surrounding the introduction of nocodetest ham licenses in the USA, and
the ARRL's role
in them, may be somewhat inaccurate.

So you admit they opposed it for 15 years, and I can assure you they
tried to claim credit when it happened.

Based on what? I can assure you that "they" did not claim credit for
coming up with the idea.

And in 1975, ARRL polled its entire membership with a detailed
questionnaire. A large and pervasive majority opposed a nocodetest
ham license of any kind.

Exactly, the ARRL opposed it.

And that's a good thing. Too bad they couldn't see their way to doing
another such survey or two.

The 1975 survey gave a clear indication of what the membership - almost
all of it - really wanted ARRL to do at the time. How can anyone fault
them for following the clear mandate of the membership?

Well?

73 de Jim, N2EY.

Dave Heil wrote:

It happens that HPM did go to Washington for the stated purpose. ARRL
says that because it is factual. What have you done for amateur radio,
Leonard?


Provide a noise floor in here? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Paul W. Schleck wrote in message ...
In (N2EY) writes:


(old stuff snipped to save bw)

So you might accept grandfathering, if it occurred at some asymptotic
point in the past, and only affected a small minority of hams?

Depends on the situation. The old Extra waiver only began after there was no
difference
among the operating privileges of a General, Conditional, Advanced or Extra
(1952 or later). IOW it was
just a title sort of thing - didn't make any difference in practical
application. And anyone who qualified
for it was an OT from the very early days (35 years at least). By the time the
waiver meant anything
in terms of operating privileges, that gap was over 51 years.

According to W2XOY, the upgrade to Extra given to pre-1917 Hams with a
General or Advanced-class license started in 1951:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ham-Ra...y/message/5330

along with the renaming of Class A to Advanced, Class B to General, C to
Conditional, and the introduction of the Novice and Technician.

That's correct.

So there was some short period of time (until the "Giveaway of 1953"),
where this "free upgrade" gave additional phone privileges on 75 and 20
meters for some of those pre-1917 hams. Specifically, those that held a
General class (formerly "Class B") license. That would be *accurate*.

Yes, it would be! I should have mentioned that earlier.

However, very few actually used that waiver, because

- there were not that many hams before May 1917
- there were fewer who had a Class B/General license
- full privs could be had with an Advanced, which was still available
until the end of 1952.

More information on this, just received today, is given below.

And the more I think about it, the more I think the old Extra waiver was a bad
idea, and that there may be
no scenario that would be worthwhile.

What about a proposal that
grandfathers some percentage of hams in-between?

I say no to free upgrades, then.

So nearly all of the previous discussion above is moot because there is
no "free upgrade" scenario that you will support regardless of the
percentage of hams affected, or their status/seniority.

There may be a free upgrade scenario that I would support, but I have
not seen one yet.

Remember that at some time in the future, we may be looking on this
grandfathering as occurring at some asymptotic point in the past, as
with the pre-1917 waiver above.

You mean like when the Advanced has been unavailable for 35+ years and their
numbers are down to about 1% of the ARS total?

Well, yes, that's what I was driving at. You want to wait until then.

I want to wait until someone presents a convincing argument as to why
such giveaways are needed for the good of the ARS.

I want to deal with the matter sooner. At least I got you to explicitly
bound your answers tighter than "never" or 0%. And what would you do
then?

Depends entirely on the situation at the time.

You ask below what is the long-term
plan. I say one aspect of the plan is to be able to look back on this
grandfathering in the same way that we look upon the pre-1917 waiver.

We don't look back on it the same way.

And why was it done?

The Restructuring FAQ at arrl.org omits the mention of waiver of the
written test, so it too is incomplete. I dropped a line to N1KB, who is
listed as the author of the document, with a request for correction and
clarification. He replied to me with pointers to some sources,
including Ham-Radio-History group noted above, which dates the origin of
the waiver, and "free upgrade," to 1951. W1UED just replied today with
an answer as to why. George E. Sterling, W1AE, was the first (and
likely only) radio amateur to come up through the ranks at the FCC and
be appointed Commissioner. The Amateur Extra license first appeared in
the 1920's and lasted through the 1930's, when it was discontinued as a
budget-cutting measure.

It didn't grant much in the way of more privileges, either, and very
few were actually issued.

During the 1951 restructuring, which restored
the Amateur Extra license, W1AE was an FCC Commissioner:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/commish-list.html

As a pre-WWI licensee himself, he thought it would be an appropriate
honor to that group of hams if they were given the restored Amateur
Extra license, and had the political clout to make it happen. So, the
1951 restructuring gave anyone who was licensed prior to April 1917 and
who presently held a General or Advanced-class license, a "free upgrade"
to Extra.

IOW it was one guy's idea, and nobody was going to tell The
Commissioner that it wasn't a good one. Particularly since it only
affected a few hams anyway.

The following QST article describes the 1951 Restructuring and FCC
Dockets 10073 and 10077:

http://www.arrl.org/members-only/qqn... 1&selpub=QST

(ARRL Members-Only Link)

A photocopy of the full article is available for $3 ($5 for non-members)
postpaid from the ARRL.

Don't need it - I have those QSTs.

That still supports my original assertion that free upgrades given to
existing licensees, based on seniority or status, can be
non-controversial, especially when viewed from the long-term future.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they were "noncontroversial" because nobody wanted
The Commisioner mad at them.


To put it simply: Just leave the closed-off classes alone, and let them
go away by attrition.

This is exactly what was done with the Advanced from the beginning of 1953
until 1967 - more than 14 years. What problems did it cause?

The Advanced-class was eventually opened back up to new licensees, so we
do not know what the longer-term effects would have been.

True - but it was well over a decade before that reopening was even
discussed! And FCC had no problem with keeping those folks on the
records, even with a noncomputerized database.

I see no
realistic likelihood that Advanced will be (or even should be) reopened
in any foreseeable future.

That's what folks said exactly 50 years ago, too.

The outcome that you propose, which is to
carry them on the books for at least 35 more years or until they
constitute less than 1% of all hams, may introduce further problems than
the previous, and much shorter, 14-year period.

But all that avoids the main question of "what's the problem"? If
those Advanceds are satisfied with their license, why not let them
alone? If
they're not satisfied, is the Extra written test so difficult that
they
need a waiver?

In 4 years the number of Advanced has dropped by about 17,000. If it
keeps dropping in a linear (not asymptotic) fashion, the last one will
be gone
in less than 20 years.

I
would argue against that, for the reasons I have given previously
(streamlining of license classes, streamlining of band plans, reduction
of regulatory burden, reduction in confusion for amateurs and the FCC,
harmonization with the deletion of S25.5 and with other countries'
regulations, etc.).

All it takes to keep those classes is a few sentences in Part 97.

"A few sentences" in laws or regulations can have non-trivial
implications about the regulatory infrastructure that is necessary to
give them force.

OK, fine.

The difference between an Advanced and an Extra for enforcement
purposes is just 8 little slices on 4 HF ham bands. Is that a real
enforcement burden?
Four of those slices (the lower 25 kHz of CW/data) are the same as for
General, too, so the effective difference is just the 'phone subbands
on 75/40/20/15.

An Advanced-class license is one more alternative to
program into the licensing computer,

It's already there!

one more piece of regulation to be
understood and enforced by regulators,

Already in place.

and overall, one more class of
amateurs to track and incorporate into any regulatory policies and
agendas. The implementation of all of that is significantly more than a
few sentences.

No, it isn't. Look at Part 97 and see just how much would come out if
all Advanceds were upgraded to Extra. It's not very much.

Also, note that the free upgrades would *create* work for FCC, by
requiring that the databases and licensing stuff be updated to change
all those licenses.

Will FCC issue a new license to every ham that gets a free upgrade, or
will they
keep their old ones until renewal/upgrade time, which may be 12 years
hence (if someone just renewed, and doesn't renew again until near the
end of the grace period).

If license classes are consolidated to a smaller number, one alternative
is simply to grandfather existing hams, which the ARRL has advocated.

A more accurate term is "free upgrade", because that's what it is.

"Grandfather" implies letting a person keep what they already have without
recertification. That's not what is proposed by the ARRL BoD for Techs and
Advanceds.

One other implicit alternative (say, #5), is to make every Novice,
Advanced (and possibly non-Plus, or would that be non-Plussed, Tech)
come back in to take written tests to upgrade to the next level, or
otherwise lose privileges.

That's the worst alternative.

Which is why I specifically identify it and dismiss it early.

I would argue against that also, for the
reasons I have also given previously (it is impractical to retest
everyone,

It could easily be done over time by saying that you either retest before Date
X
or you'll be reclassified at a lower license class.

There is a legitimate distinction between "easy" and "straightforward."

In this case they're the same. The VECs do the testing and most of the
paperwork. That's why FCC required existing Tech Pluses from before
March 21, 1987 to do a testless VE session in ordr to get Generals.

Anyone with engineering experience surely knows that something could be
conceptually simple, but still complex and time-consuming in its actual
implementation.

Been there, done that.

Mass re-testing might be straightforward, but would not
be easy within FCC and VEC budget/manpower constraints.

We're talking about spreading it out over many years. And there's an
upside - some of them will upgrade all the way to Extra while they're
at the VE session.

Besides, if things go the way NCVEC wants, they won't have the
"burden" of code tests anymore anyway, so what's the problem?

Mass re-testing would be a regulatory burden for the FCC,

Not if it were spread out over time, as outlined above.

a personal
burden on VEC's who would have play de-facto judge and jury for large
numbers of existing peers, friends, fellow club members, etc.,
concerning whether or not they could retain former privileges (what
volunteer would want to endure that for very long?),

How would that be any different than now? VECs don't pass judgement on
written tests, they simply proctor and grade them in multiple-choice
format. Where's the "personal burden" other than the crowd being a
little bigger?

Or do you imagine that the VECs would somehow sit in judgement?

and would go
against where the FCC is heading, which is towards less regulation and
fewer grand schemes.

Like BPL?

I might also argue that mass-retesting is sounding
very much like a repeat of the scenario played out in the 1960's with
Incentive Licensing.

And that would kill it stone dead.

There's another angle, too:

Mandatory retesting would reveal how many hams were either totally
inactive or had lost interest to the point that they'd let the license
expire. Would probably cause a massive drop in the number of hams on
the database. Not a good thing from a political point of view.

By the same token, if FCC automatically issues new licenses to all
free-upgraded hams, a number of them will come back labeled "not at
this address" or "deceased" or some such. Which could have a similar
effect to the above. And since it's a requirement to keep FCC aware of
address changes....

There's a lot of debate in this newsgroup about the Incentive Licensing
scheme of the 1960's, who initiated it, what was intended, who supported
it, why it failed, who was to blame, etc., but one thing that most can
agree on is that it's very easy to start out with good intentions, and
what comes out the exit door of regulatory agencies might be
unrecognizable as something that would give the desired result.

Agreed! The original 1963 ARRL IL proposal bore little resemblance to
what finally came out the door.

And in 1999, the R&O bore little resemblance to the NPRM. Example: The
NPRM called for Advanced to stay.

Hence
the expression, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Mass
re-testing could also be viewed as well-intentioned, but ultimately a
road to hell.

That argues for leaving everything just as it is now. OK, fine,
we'll just do that.

So, it's a good thing that neither of us are arguing in favor of testing
to avoid losing privileges, right?

Depends on whether privs are actually "lost".

and such existing hams are a large, stable user base such as
that in the definition of grandfathering below).

"Large, stable user base"? We don't really know about that. How many
of those folks are active? Why have so few Advanceds upgraded to
Extra?

You are teetering very close to making a non-falsifiable argument here.

A true statement is, by definition, non-falsifiable, is it not?

You argue here, and in other threads, that Advanced should be left alone
because:

- There are still quite a few of them, who are happy with their present
privileges, who would get a free upgrade unfairly, and crowd the Extra
phone bands.

Not just the phone bands!

*AND*

- There may not be very many of them, active at least, so any upgrade
would not give much benefit, anyway.

Covers all bases, doesn't it?

You also argue that Novice should be left alone because there aren't
very many of them, but then advocate restructuring that you believe
would bring back its "heyday" with many more licensees in that class,
which of course, should then be left alone.

The idea is that the Novice would be *changed*, not simply reopened.

Which is it? Too many, or too few, to justify elimination?

The idea is to cover all bases. Does anybody really know why so few
Advanceds have upgraded?

If neither
is a sufficient criteria to argue for or against elimination of a
license class, then that's a non-falsifiable argument.

The idea is to do what will give the best results for the ARS with the
minimum amount of negative effects.

IOW, we allow them to continue doing what they're doing because they've shown
a lack of problems in the past. But we require more of new systems.
It *doesn't* say we allow free upgrades.

When you say "we require more of new systems" above, are you referring
to people or license classes?

I'm referring to *systems*.

There is a subtle distinction. A group
of people may not want to change, but license classes may need to. A
set of license classes is a ladder, to be climbed as far as the licensee
wishes to develop his skills.

Some reject that idea, and say that there should be just one license
class. How do we answer them?

It is also a taxonomy, with a specific
regulatory purpose. That purpose is to ensure that limited frequency
spectrum is being put to the best and highest use via the distribution
of privileges over that spectrum. Implicit in this is structuring the
license class system to ensure that all amateur radio spectrum (HF, VHF,
UHF, Microwave) is not only used, but used well, in ways that fulfill
the Basis and Purpose (FCC Part 97.1).

But how can any license structure actually do that? Or, to take a
different
approach, why not have just one class (as some have argued here) with
all amateur privileges?

Since technologies, modes, and frequency usage patterns change over
time, the taxonomy should change as well, hence the need for periodic
restructuring over amateur radio's 100-year lifetime (Though I would
argue that not doing the "Giveway of 1953," and staying with the 1951
restructuring until the no-code issue came to a head in the 1980's,
would have avoided the backlash that resulted in Incentive Licensing of
1968).

I agree! So *why* was the "Great Giveaway" of December 1952 done,
particularly since FCC had just spent several years going in the
opposite direction? Why was the restructure of 1951 turned on its head
just as it was going into full effect?

Was it:

- Sudden personnel changes at FCC?
- Desire to push the use of SSB by hams?
- Desire to get hams off of 10-11 meters (the only HF bands open to
General and Conditional 'phone) to alleviate TVI?
- Desire to get more hams using HF mobile (which was only opened to
hams after WW2)?
- Combination of the above?

I have yet to find a definitive answer to why the "Great Giveaway" was
done, either in the written histories or in the recollections of hams
from that time. The answer could be as simple as "The Commissioner
changed his mind".


Out of time right now. Will answer the rest in Part Two

73 de Jim, N2EY