|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:30:43 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . On 11 Feb 2004 00:00:18 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: Except for Japanese 4th class licensees, how many hams are there in the rest of the planet? Well, my trusty EuroCall 2003 CD lists 276,446 callsigns in Europe alone - even if a couple of guys died, there's probably more than that now. I don't have figures for Asia, Africa, Oceania or the rest of the Americas (except that there's around 56,000 or so up here...). Quite a few, anyway! DX wouldn't be the same without 'em..... ;) Excluding Japan, the last time I checked the Radio Amateur Call book listed about 600,000+ for the combined rest of the world. Roughly equal to the number of US Amateurs. Sounds about right. (Japan has 1,000,000 hams? That explains the number of Japanese amateur products out there - they built their own user base for 'em!). However, voting rights in the ITU, CCITT or other global entities aren't weighted entirely upon the number of licensees or service users that each country has. If they were, the US could control the ITU like a corporation - claim a 51% user share and set global amateur policy on their own votes alone. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way :) Agreed that the US is obviously a major player - but I'm sure that even if they had gone their own way, the rest of the world would not necessarily follow. The role of agencies like the ITU is to coordinate global resources so as to prevent chaos on the bands - not to act as an agent of US policy. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo |
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:25:54 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . 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. Although records in the early 1900s are sketchy, if you pick periods in time that are documented, the number of US amateurs was roughly equal to the rest of the world combined. This is still true today if one excludes Japan, which has over 1 million licensed users but with an abysmally low activity rate (Japanese licenses are for life, many children are licensed in school programs and never use the licenses, and no renewal is required). As of our last restructuring,Canadian licences (actually, "Certificates of Proficiency") are also valid for life - no renewal required. 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. 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. 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. 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. As licensing changes within the Amateur service do not have an impact on either the general public or commercial interests, this approach makes sense. Now there is a system that amateurs have direct influence over! 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. 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! 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo |
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:29:01 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
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? Not always, Mike. Depends on whether the source of the historical information quotes verifiable references or not. Otherwise, it's just the opinion of the writer. I never take hearsay as fact, however. The fact is, other countries were back on the air well before the ARRL was successful in restoring amateur privileges in the US. Neither the US nor the ARRL was responsible for the restoration of amateur privileges in other sovereign nations. Perhaps the ARRL overstated its importance in the lobbying for the return of Amateur privileges as well - in recent history, the FCC does not always follow their suggestions (incentive licensing comes to mind, for one). Maybe the Government would have told the military to back off and get out of the radio monopolization business? If the military had been successful, there would have been no commercial radio either - just military. But hey, if you're lobbying for something and it ends up going your way, then you get to claim that you made it happen, right! Even if it would have happened anyway - who's to disagree? :) 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. If the international unions were structured like corporations, that would be true. The US would have a majority share, and could implement anything that they wanted based upon the number of 'shareholders' (amateurs, in this case) that they represented. In reality, it's not structured like that at all. Otherwise, how would comparitively small countries like Albania or Turkey have any chance of having their national interests recognized? 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. Perhaps they were a driving force - but if they hadn't been (i.e. if the US military had successfully locked them out after WW1), why on Earth would the rest of the planet have abandoned amateur radio? It might have been different, and ther might have been contention between US military traffic and the rest of the world - but I really don't believe for a second that the US influence over the amateur policies of the rest of the world was ever that strong. Not then - and not today. Historically speaking. - Mike KB3EIA 73, Leo |
Hello, Dee and the group,
at the ITU, each country has only ONE vote, see the post about albania and san marino etc. And about the strength of the national radio clubs like your ARRL, or the RAC, DARC: ARRL is holding abt 25% of the hams, in Europe the average member number of the club is over 60% of all hams in this country. But I agree, lobbying the government is a game they know how to play in the US. 73 & 88 de OE8SOQ Helmut |
|
Mike Coslo wrote in :
Alun wrote: Ah well, Leo, they still think that the United states is the centre of the universe (or even the center of the universe, HI!). We used to think the same thing about the British Empire, and we were wrong too! Trolling, eh? - Mike KB3EIA - 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. |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
.com: "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 D. Flint, N8UZE If you beleive that, you'll beleive almost anything. |
Mike Coslo wrote in
: 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. Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant! 8^) FWIW, I'm really disapointed in thoes two. 8^( - Mike KB3EIA - 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. |
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. 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. How is the ARRL proposal going to affect the rest of the world's amateurs anyway? - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:43:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
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. Mike, I didn't take Alun's message as a troll - just a response in context to the thread to a rather lofty assertion that without the ARRL (and by definition, the US Amateur Radio Service, since that is all the ARRL influences), the world would never have known the joys of Amateur Radio. Which is just a tad jingoistic, I'd say - and nigh-on impossible to substantiate without resorting to theory, opinion and conjecture. 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. How is the ARRL proposal going to affect the rest of the world's amateurs anyway? It won't. Yet, according to the comments earlier in the thread, historically, without the ARRL there would be no amateur radio anywhere in the world. Really? I don't think so. - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
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 |
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. Do you know how all Americans think or feel about whatever issues? I wouldn't presume to assume what "every Canadian thinks" When I've been in Canada, I've met lots of nice folk with lots of differing opinions - Just like us. My boy went to Hockey school there every summer, and we often tagged along for vacation. BTW, speaking of mistaken impressions, every time we went there, the darn temperature was in the 90's. Canada is sure one HOT country!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
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^)\ - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 03:30:43 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Agreed that the US is obviously a major player - but I'm sure that even if they had gone their own way, the rest of the world would not necessarily follow. The role of agencies like the ITU is to coordinate global resources so as to prevent chaos on the bands - not to act as an agent of US policy. If your strongest player is sitting on the sidelines or playing for the other team (i.e. government & commercial interests in the case of ham radio), it's still possible to win the game but it is much harder. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:43:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: 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. Mike, I didn't take Alun's message as a troll - just a response in context to the thread to a rather lofty assertion that without the ARRL (and by definition, the US Amateur Radio Service, since that is all the ARRL influences), the world would never have known the joys of Amateur Radio. Which is just a tad jingoistic, I'd say - and nigh-on impossible to substantiate without resorting to theory, opinion and conjecture. 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. How is the ARRL proposal going to affect the rest of the world's amateurs anyway? It won't. Yet, according to the comments earlier in the thread, historically, without the ARRL there would be no amateur radio anywhere in the world. Really? I don't think so. - Mike KB3EIA - We are not saying that the ARRL was the only thing that made this happen. Simply that they were a significant player in the US and that the US was a significant player in the world. Without the ARRL, US amateurs would have had a much tougher time. If the US amateur community had been seriously weakened, it would have affect to some degree the amateur community in the rest of the world. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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? 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. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article ,
(Tony Pelliccio) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message . com... http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 Summary: 3 classes of license: Novice, General, Extra Can we water it down any more? There are some folks (not me!) who only want one class of license. 5 wpm code test retained for Extra only Why not just elminate the code requirement entirely. To me 5WPM code is so awfully slow that it's painful. 5 wpm is a minimum speed. Someone can always ask for a faster test as an accomodation. Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, Techs and Tech Pluses get free upgrade to General This free ride stuff has got to stop. When was the last one? I agree that the proposed free upgrades are not a good idea. I'm a 20WPM Extra damn it - now I can bitch and moan like the old farts. My friend KH6HZ is probably getting a good laugh out of this. yep. Novice test to be 25 questions on "basics", General to be derived from Tech and General, Extra pretty much as-is. I suppose I can't complain much on this. That's about the same test I took 37 years ago for my Novice... Most of us are pretty much appliance operators - Not me! when is the last time you played around with SMT inside your radio? No SMT in any of my ham gear. It's not necessary. And I have quite a bit of homebrew ham gear. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Alun wrote:
Trust me. All things pass. The Roman empire, the British empire ... you get the idea. Let's try an experiment. Swallow an avocado seed. Report back in a few days and let us know the results. Dave K8MN |
"garigue" wrote in news:UOBWb.11368$uV3.27753
@attbi_s51: 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! |
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:04:35 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote: 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. Do you know how all Americans think or feel about whatever issues? I wouldn't presume to assume what "every Canadian thinks" When I've been in Canada, I've met lots of nice folk with lots of differing opinions - Just like us. My boy went to Hockey school there every summer, and we often tagged along for vacation. BTW, speaking of mistaken impressions, every time we went there, the darn temperature was in the 90's. Canada is sure one HOT country!! 8^) Not right now! We're in the 20's at the moment..... Brrrrrrrrr.....! - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com