On 10 Feb 2004 19:47:06 GMT, Alun wrote:

Leo wrote in news:1u6i20d300evmf3tgti4gjt5cp20lt8s5e@
4ax.com:

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



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!

Good point - in the grand scheme of things, it's the ITU who is likely
to blame for the continuation of amateur radio on a global scale - the
ARRL is but one fish in the big sea (well, a whale maybe, but it's a
big sea!)

BTW - it looks like you might be back in the British Empire sooner
than you think - I saw somebody trying to show you the door a while
ago in another post hi!) No problem, as your usher noted, there's
some great SSB DX on 7.050 thru 7.100 - might be worth it!

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On 10 Feb 2004 19:47:06 GMT, Alun wrote:

Leo wrote in news:1u6i20d300evmf3tgti4gjt5cp20lt8s5e@
4ax.com:

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



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!

Good point - in the grand scheme of things, it's the ITU who is likely
to blame for the continuation of amateur radio on a global scale - the
ARRL is but one fish in the big sea (well, a whale maybe, but it's a
big sea!)

BTW - it looks like you might be back in the British Empire sooner
than you think - I saw somebody trying to show you the door a while
ago in another post hi!) No problem, as your usher noted, there's
some great SSB DX on 7.050 thru 7.100 - might be worth it!

73, Leo

As I indicated in another post, early on in amateur radio, it would have
been easy for the ITU to have allocated all the frequencies to commericial
and government interests. The size of the US amateur community was, in
those early days, very probably a key element in keeping an allocation for
amateurs.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

As I indicated in another post, early on in amateur radio, it would have
been easy for the ITU to have allocated all the frequencies to commericial
and government interests. The size of the US amateur community was, in
those early days, very probably a key element in keeping an allocation for
amateurs.

There was NO "ITU" before WW2. There was the CCITT.

The size of the US amateur community was, in those early days,
miniscule compared to the broadcasters getting started. Ham radio's
oinks weren't near "numerous" until AFTER WW2.

But, to hear the spin from the league, they and Stl Hiram practically
invented ham radio and saved it from perdition.

Selective editing of the REAL history of all radio doesn't make it
"truth." Except to the devout Believers...

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

As I indicated in another post, early on in amateur radio, it would
have been easy for the ITU to have allocated all the frequencies to
commericial and government interests. The size of the US amateur
community was, in those early days, very probably a key element in
keeping an allocation for amateurs.

There was NO "ITU" before WW2. There was the CCITT.

The size of the US amateur community was, in those early days,
miniscule compared to the broadcasters getting started. Ham radio's
oinks weren't near "numerous" until AFTER WW2.

But, to hear the spin from the league, they and Stl Hiram
practically invented ham radio and saved it from perdition.

Selective editing of the REAL history of all radio doesn't make it
"truth." Except to the devout Believers...

LHA / WMD

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!

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

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

(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


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.

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


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




Exactly, the ARRL opposed it.

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.

In article , Leo
writes:

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!

Good point - in the grand scheme of things, it's the ITU who is likely
to blame for the continuation of amateur radio on a global scale - the
ARRL is but one fish in the big sea (well, a whale maybe, but it's a
big sea!)

Whales are all wet.

"Save the whales, collect the entire set!" :-)

BTW - it looks like you might be back in the British Empire sooner
than you think - I saw somebody trying to show you the door a while
ago in another post hi!) No problem, as your usher noted, there's
some great SSB DX on 7.050 thru 7.100 - might be worth it!

The last time there was any significant increase in HF ham bands
was 1979, 25 years ago.

As far back as 8 years ago, the NTIA's survey of future spectrum
requirements for amateur service indicated that over 1 MHz of
ham band space would be needed...as indicated by a footnote
saying that an ARRL person said that. ARRL has lobbied only for
the "60 meter" band in HF and got all of five CHANNELS. U.S.
league membership dollars at work... :-)

Yurp has a LF band. USA doesn't. Over here there's only the
160 to 190 KHz FREE band (no license required) on LF, sure as
heck no real power required either).

I love all the "effort" expended by the ARRL to get more HF band-
space within borders.

LHA / WMD