In article , "Tom W"
writes:

Please cite references. I have before me two historical accounts
which both agree that the ARRL first broached the subject of incentive
licensing, as well as the QST editorial from 1963 which rationalized
it. Web pages such as "The Wayback Machine" also agree that the
League first proposed the changes which were finally implemented in
1967.

First off, recall that the reasons given for "incentive licensing" were things
like the trend towards decreased homebrewing/experimenting and increased
'appliance operating', use of HF DX bands for local communications, perceived
lack of technical knowhow and operating skills, etc.

I have before me two historical accounts
which both agree that the ARRL first broached the subject of incentive
licensing, as well as the QST editorial from 1963 which rationalized
it.

Which 1963 QST editorial on the subject? There were several of them, not just
one. February, March, June, July, and November. The early ones ask what members
think, the later ones tell what the ARRL BoD proposed and why.

Here's the first reference I found - not the only one, just the first:

QST, June 1963, page 9, in the editorial:

"A number of persons highly-placed in the communications regulatory field,
thoroughly experienced in international conference matters, and amateurs
themselves, have joined us in expressing concern over the recent trends in
amateur radio. They agree we must adhere to our basic principles more closely
if we are to keep any semblance of our frequency assignments. They feel that
amateur radio has been built on a sound basis, and is largely in a healthy
condition, but is tending to move in the wrong direction. They predict that a
conitnuation of the present trend will most certainly cause us severe
difficulty".

Now, who are these "persons"? Obviously they're folks at the FCC, saying in so
many words that they're concerned about the way things were going and that
if the something wasn't done, we'd be in "severe difficulty".

Was ARRL's proposal the first? Yes! But it's clear to me that FCC passed the
word along that *something* had to change, or there'd be big problems ahead for
hams.

It is also interesting to read the "Correspondence" section. Lots of folks for
and against any sort of license changes. There were some who were extremely
ticked off that ARRL even asked the question - and this was *before* any
decision was reached by the BoD.

Most interesting of all was a 5 page article in QST for October, 1963, called
"Two Plus Two Equals Four". It's basically about how amateur radio had to
justify its existence as more than "just a hobby" in order to survive as a
service, and which subtly but clearly pushes the IL agenda. The author was
known as W0DCA, W4CXA - and also as A. Prose Walker.

73 de Jim, N2EY