KØHB wrote:
wrote

After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect
in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to
grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of
the 1970s continued into the 1980s.

Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause
that accelerated the growth of the ARS?

No, Hans. Correlation is not causation.

That has to qualify as the most
outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the
current century.

Why? Do you say it's impossible with no evidence?

Look at the facts:

When US hams were allowed back on the air in late 1945, there were
about
60,000 US amateurs. By the time of the 1951 restructuring, the total
had
reached about 90,000 - even though back then the "entry-level" license
was equivalent to what would later be the General.

Of course a good bit of that growth was pent-up demand from the WW2
shutdown, returning servicemen who'd learned radio in the military,
etc.

From the 1951 restructuring to 1964, the number of US hams went from
about 90,000 to about 250,000 - and then the growth stopped dead,
even though incentive licensing would not take effect until several
years
later (1968).

Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity
it did in the post-Sputnik years.

Sputnik went up in 1957 IIRC.

Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for
education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics,
radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude.

Sort of. When Sputnik was launched, there was widespread consternation
because the US was perceived to be lagging the USSR in the "space
race".

It did not help that the Soviets kept being the first to do things in
space time
and again for several years in the late 1950s and early 1960s. First
animal
in space - first human in space, first human to orbit, first woman in
space,
first pictures of the far side of the Moon - the list goes on and on.
The USA
was playing catch-up for several years.

Most of all, the post WW2 growth ended *before* incentive licensing.
And the
incentive licensing changes did not make any big changes to the Novice
or
Technician, and did not remove any power, modes or bands from the
General
or Advanced.

If anything,
dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth ofthe
ARS during that period.

Really? Then *why* did the growth start up again after it was in place,
after almost half a decade of stagnation and even some decline? Why did
the number of US hams grow so fast in the 1970s and 1980s?

If you want to talk about "market forces", consider these:

- The 1960s were a very turbulent time, particularly for young people.
Many were
more interested in political/social causes than in "establishment"
activities like
amateur radio.

- The "space race" and the technological advances it brought made
amateur
radio look a little old-fashioned in some ways. Remember Christmas Eve
1968, when the crew of Apollo 8 showed us the Earth from lunar orbit
via live
TV? How could any terrestrial "DX" compete with that?

- CB radio, established in 1958, became popular in the mid-1960s as
more
and more people found out about it. No test at all, inexpensive,
easy-to-use
equipment, very little effort or skill needed to install or use cb.

- Up until the 1960s, many newcomers were introduced to amateur radio
by
hearing hams using AM voice on the HF ham bands, particularly 75
meters.
There was a natural progression from SWL to ham radio.

But by the early 1960s, the HF ham bands were more full of SSB voice
than
AM. Many SWLs didn't know how to tune in SSB. Many if not most lowcost
SWL-type receivers didn't have BFOs, or the slow tuning rate and
stability
needed to tune in SSB easily.

- Up until 1964 or so, a considerable part of the USA was "Conditional
country" - meaning that a trip to an FCC exam point was not needed for
a lot of potential hams. But around 1964, FCC changed the distance
requirement from 75 to 175 miles, and increased the number of exam
locations so that very little of CONUS was "Conditional country"
anymore.
This meant a lot of hams who wanted Generals or above had to travel
considerable distances to an FCC exam session, rather than going a
few miles to a local ham acting as a volunteer examiner.

If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much
growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in
place?

Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive
effects on our hobby!

What repressive effects? The Novice and Technician did not really
change under IL,
except that the Novice license term was extended to two years in 1967.
The upgrade
to General was the same. Advanced just required another written test.

And the tests weren't all that hard, really, even back then. I got the
Advanced at age 14,
in the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Extra two years later, and it
only took that long because of the experience requirement. How "hard"
could it have been if even a
self-taught-in-radio kid with no hams in the family could do that?

I remember how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was back then.
I was
amazed that experienced hams were so intimidated by having to take
another test
or two. And this was in the Philadelphia metro area, where getting to
an FCC exam
session meant a quick subway ride, not a long cross-country journey.

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirements
are "too high"
and they keep being lowered. Yet the growth resulting isn't sustained.

Maybe the very people we want to attract are those who want a
challenge.

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:
wrote

After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect
in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to
grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of
the 1970s continued into the 1980s.

Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause
that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the most
outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the
current century.

Sounds pretty dump huck to me, too.

Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity
it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for
education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics,
radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude. If anything,
dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth ofthe
ARS during that period.

Amateur Radio might have been mainstreamed. Instead it remains a
basement or attic activity, hidden from view by most Americans.

If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much
growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in
place?

Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive
effects on our hobby!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Amateur Radio?" Isn't that like CB?

wrote:
KØHB wrote:

If anything,
dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth of the
ARS during that period.

Really? Then *why* did the growth start up again after it was in place,
after almost half a decade of stagnation and even some decline? Why did
the number of US hams grow so fast in the 1970s and 1980s?

If you want to talk about "market forces", consider these:

- The 1960s were a very turbulent time, particularly for young people.
Many were
more interested in political/social causes than in "establishment"
activities like
amateur radio.

That's why Cop McDonald had a regular column in the counter-culture
magazine, The Mother Earth News. That's why Dentron ran advertisements
in that magazine.

- The "space race" and the technological advances it brought made
amateur
radio look a little old-fashioned in some ways. Remember Christmas Eve
1968, when the crew of Apollo 8 showed us the Earth from lunar orbit
via live
TV? How could any terrestrial "DX" compete with that?

K8MN might be able to answer that. He was so upset by not getting to
play DXer from Vietnam that he made a career change because of it.

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirements
are "too high"
and they keep being lowered. Yet the growth resulting isn't sustained.

Who is saying, "too high" or "too hard?" The argument is over
"relevance."

Maybe the very people we want to attract are those who want a
challenge.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Direct them to the nearest military recruiting station. Oh, never
mind.

Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:46:58 GMT, KØHB wrote:

Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside
the deadline dates?


Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before,
after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline.

You left out "aloft" and "below", Master Chief..... ggg

Sunuvagun!

For the barracks lawyers, Part 1 of the FCC Rules and Title 5 of the
C.F.R. deals with such minutia. When they totally foul interpretation
of it up, they can hire a REAL lawyer to teach them about it.

de Hans, K0HB

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

No need. Premature and late filers will be dealt the wrenchy smitch.

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote


After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect
in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to
grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of
the 1970s continued into the 1980s.


Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the
cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the
most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark)
in the current century.

Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the
popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the
hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies
like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this
attitude. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an
accelerant) on the growth of the ARS during that period.


If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much
growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in
place?


Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive
effects on our hobby!

73, de Hans, K0HB


We will never know for sure whether it had a beneficial or adverse effect on
the hobby. Although it may have made it harder to get full privileges, it
seems to have made it easier to get beginner and intermediate privileges.
The prospective ham could take the journey in smaller steps and have
meaningful privileges along the way. Although the implementation was poorly
handled (i.e. some people actually losing privileges), the concept of having
a series of smaller, easier to manage steps makes sense if you want to get
people involved in the hobby. They don't have to go all out to sample the
hobby. They can get basic privileges and see if they like it before they
dive into it fully.

Personally I think that the previous 5 license approach was too many and
that 3 steps is about right. However as far as the written test material
goes, I think the jump in difficulty from Tech to General is too small and
the jump from General to Extra is too large.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote

Although it may have made it harder to get full privileges, it seems to have
made it easier to get beginner and intermediate privileges. The prospective
ham could take the journey in smaller steps and have meaningful privileges
along the way. Although the implementation was poorly handled (i.e. some
people actually losing privileges), the concept of having a series of smaller,
easier to manage steps makes sense if you want to get people involved in the
hobby. They don't have to go all out to sample the hobby. They can get basic
privileges and see if they like it before they dive into it fully.

Neat sounding theory, but that isn't the way it happened.

Dis-incentive licensing which went into effect in the fall of 1968 did not
introduce any new "steps".

Those "steps" originated at the restructuring in the early 50's when the
six-class license structure was put in place.

From the introduction of that license structure in early 50's until 1968, all
the top 4 license classes had exactly the same privileges. The license
structure (and the test structure) remained the same after dis-incentive
licensing was introduced.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote

After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect
in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to
grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of
the 1970s continued into the 1980s.

Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the
cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the
most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark)
in the current century.

Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the
popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the
hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies
like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this
attitude. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an
accelerant) on the growth of the ARS during that period.

If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much
growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in
place?

Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive
effects on our hobby!

We will never know for sure whether it had a beneficial or adverse effecton
the hobby. Although it may have made it harder to get full privileges, it
seems to have made it easier to get beginner and intermediate privileges.

Well, sort of, Dee.

The requirements for Novice didn't change at all. The requirements for
Tech
did not change until 1987, when the single written that had been used
for both Tech and General was split into two elements.

The prospective ham could take the journey in smaller steps and have
meaningful privileges along the way. Although the implementation was poorly
handled (i.e. some people actually losing privileges), the concept of having
a series of smaller, easier to manage steps makes sense if you want to get
people involved in the hobby. They don't have to go all out to sample the
hobby. They can get basic privileges and see if they like it before they
dive into it fully.

That was the genius of the Novice license.

What really torqued off a lot of hams was that for all the time they'd
been hams,
the General/Conditional had been the top license for all intents and
purposes. Sure, the
Advanced still existed, but it was closed to new issues and conveyed no
additional operating privileges. The Extra was there too, and a few
thousand
hams got one, but again there wasn't much reason to get one.

What IL did was move the finish line a lot further away.

So for most post-1952 hams, the license process consisted of learning
enough to get a Novice, using the Novice year to learn enough to get a
General or Conditional, and then enjoying full amateur privileges. IL
added two more license steps to full privileges, and the tests for
those two steps were not usually available by mail.

Some might say that there were actually three or four steps added - two
written tests and one or two code tests (depending on whether you
consider the sending and receiving code tests as one or two).

Personally I think that the previous 5 license approach was too many and
that 3 steps is about right. However as far as the written test material
goes, I think the jump in difficulty from Tech to General is too small and
the jump from General to Extra is too large.

If it were up to me there would be four steps, and all four would
contain a mix
of HF, VHF and UHF privileges. But FCC's vision is different, and they
said so in
the NPRM.

From what I've read from FCC, the step from Tech to General is
intentionally kept
rather small to encourage Techs to upgrade to General rather than to
Tech Plus
or "Tech-with-HF".

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

I have proposed to the FCC that the "standard" full privilege license technical
requirements should be about on a par with the current Extra requirements.

And that there should be one other level, a "learners permit" with a generous
term of ten years to study and gain experience to qualfity for a "full
privilege" license.

Sorry to spoil your (il)logic.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:26:17 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:

I opt NOT to bother with CB radio since it is not to my needs
in communicating anything by radio. The little two-way radio
terminal called a "cell phone" serves both me and my wife very
adequately in mobile communications needs.

You're quite right, sir. A cell phone meets your needs. You needn't
bother with CB or amateur radio.

indeed he NEED and you need not

My old Johnson...still works...

That's nice.

Jimmy, who never worked IN the FCC (and will never do so),
thinks that just having an amateur license means he had
"something to do with amateur radio regulations." :-)

Will you ever work IN the FCC, Len?

is something lacking in your reading skil dave

it seems that way


Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in
amateur radio, anyway.

not what I hear

You have to give Jimmy some slack, Mark. Since his receiver
can't pick up anything outside the "low end" of HF ham bands,
he thinks HF is still "alive with the sounds of morse code"
(as if Julie Andrews were singing it on top of a hill).

Does your venerable Icom receiver still hit the bottom end of the HF ham
bands, Leonard? You must think morse code is dead, poor morse is dead
(as if Gordon McRae were singing it out by the corral).

no he doesn't think is dead just dying

I do too just not fast enough you Jim and steve certain makes a decent
case for the notion that CW uUSE casues brain damage in some people

Dave K8MN

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

KØHB wrote:
wrote

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.

3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.

4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?

5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long
as time and the wallet hold out.

In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.

And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the
current Tech is "too hard".

I have proposed to the FCC that the "standard" full privilege license technical
requirements should be about on a par with the current Extra requirements.

That's good.

And that there should be one other level, a "learners permit" with a generous
term of ten years to study and gain experience to qualfity for a "full
privilege" license.

Except FCC turned you down.

Sorry to spoil your (il)logic.

I didn't say *you* were for lowering the requirements, Hans. But if
you haven't seen anyone saying the license requirements are/were
"too high" in the past 20 years, you haven't been paying attention.

PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night.

Sorry, I'm not set up for 160 here. Sold my Viking 2s and Valiant.
(sigh).

73 de Jim, N2EY