|
An English Teacher
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 |
An English Teacher
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? |
An English Teacher
|
What Law is Broken?
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. |
An English Teacher
"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 |
An English Teacher
"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 |
An English Teacher
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 |
An English Teacher
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. |
An English Teacher
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 |
An English Teacher
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com