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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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


All very interesting and sanitized I am sure. IMHO the reality of it all
was the 'CLASS A' crowd were ****ed because of the Technican and Novice
licenses and wanted a return to the pure days of pre war USA.

So they tried to hornswaggle to FCC and the amateur community. It didnt
work then....and it won't work now. Hams are not that dumb.

Dan/W4NTI

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

All very interesting and sanitized I am sure. IMHO the reality of it all
was the 'CLASS A' crowd were

[expletive deleted]

because of the Technican and Novice
licenses and wanted a return to the pure days of pre war USA.

Dan,

Why would the "Class A" folks be angry about Techs and Novices? The Techs were
all on VHF/UHF, and the Novices were limited to little bits of three HF bands
with CW only, plus a bit of 2 meters.

It would make much more sense that they were still grumbling about the Great
Giveaway of December 1952, which gave all privs to Generals and Conditionals.
Previously, if you wanted to work 'phone on any ham band between 2 and 25 MHz
you needed an Advanced (Class A) or Extra. Opening up the 'phone bands in early
1953 flooded them folks who had taken much easier written tests than the Class
A crowd.

So they tried to hornswaggle to FCC and the amateur community.

Well, they *said* they had majority support, and if you look at reports of the
time about FCC comments it seems that they did - a very slight majority.

When you've got folks like A. Prose Walker saying something needs to be done or
the ham allocations will be in big trouble, should he simply be ignored?

It didnt
work then....and it won't work now.

It seems to me that what happened then was that they raised the number of steps
and the requirements for a full privs license. Now, it seems that most
proposals, including ARRL's want to *lower* the number of steps and the
requirements for a full privs license. (Isn't that what happened in 2000?)

But I'll agree with you on this: Monkeying with the license requirements will
have only slight effects in what hams actually do. Did taking all those IL
cause lots of hams to suddenly put down the checkbook and pick up the sodder
arn? NOPE!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hams are not that dumb.

"N2EY" wrote
|
| When you've got folks like A. Prose Walker saying something needs to
be done or
| the ham allocations will be in big trouble, should he simply be
ignored?
|

A. Prose Walker, rest his soul, was an ARRL toady who didn't say
anything until it had been blessed by George Hart.

73, de Hans, K0HB