Pre-incentive licensing generals [Archive]

ai4ep

04-12-2004, 06:49 AM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif well...I may get banned / barred from here ( qrz.com ) for the words that may appear here, but I am NOT angry at an INDIVIDUAL person.
I started in amateur radio in 1991, in amongst some of the earliest "no-code-techs " in northern Alabama. Got chasticized some by other AMATEUR folks who had never talked on 2 meter repeaters to some one who had NOT passed the 5 word-per-minute morse code test. Some did not want us around first year or so, but thank fully we were slowly accepted. Many of the " old timers " tried to teach us the morse code so we could upgrade. Some passed, but some ( like me ) tried and failed. Hey I even went so far for a while to actually buy yeasu ft-847 rigs, icom 706 Mk II, a yeasu ft-100 ( the first models...not the D model out later ) all with the INTENTIONS of passing my morse code test. But I sold them ( now I wish I had at least 2 of them back ). Then I sold all of my 2 meter mobiles that had been modified ( in some days, they ALL " had " to be modified in case it was "needed " {suuure hi hi }, now you can not sell me one that has been modified ). That was around the year 2000.
I started studying for my GENERAL, written was a piece of cake, but dern that code. I could do good till I got to those " 4 digit letters...like the letter F or J or Y, where there is a mix of dits and dahs ") , but with some ( a lot ) of help from FRIENDS I wont MENTION their calls, but their help was/is appreciated I finally with a lot of determination PASSED. It was then that I realized what hard work and determination all these other folks had been through for all these years just to be a " novice " class operator, or general, etc.
But I kept my old call ( kd4amg ) even though I was not well pleased, I still had the EXTRA written test to go...it was/is within reach ( the top of the ladder, the hardest test of all, the biggest accomplishment ). So I studied and studied for about 5 months, finally got the nerve to go back and take the test.
Once I tried ( missed 18 - 19, out of 50 ) nope, that was NOT good enough. Twice I tried, missed 13, I was determined to pass that *&^% test with less than 5 wrong. I not only wanted to pass, I wanted to pass with flying colors. I wanted to ACE it ( zero wrong ). But the best I could do was 3 wrong. But I passed. I wish they would let me take the test to see if I CAN " ace " it but I dont want to be accused of " memorizing the test " so I will not; even though I know there are other EXTRA test sheet I can try. It would not really be worth it. Missing 3 is " ok ".
So you see, I am NOT angry at all of you " no-code-techs ", only the real, real , lazy ones that want/desire a " hand out ". You know who you are.
As you folks already know, I and others have tried various methods to " inspire " you to get your code test passed, and the written for GENERAL and EXTRA class.
Some of you have done that ( which is good )...and... in reality some of you " no-code-techs " do NOT want to get any further in AMATEUR radio than where you are. I DO accept that.

So I guess I will just go the " easy route " ( which I aint used to doing the past 2 years ) and not bug/agitate/harass you folks in the future. When and IF you decide to upgrade, contact me and I WILL try to help ( from 1000 miles away ) . You " no-code-techs " DID pass the standards set by the FCC to be where you are ( no wrong in that )...so I DO offer my humbliest, sincerest, apology for putting in words what has offended ALL of you in the past.
I am sorry. I did wrong.
I can not speak for others, but I can speak for me.

(( hey you would NOT believe how much I shortened this down to this level --- I spent a good HOUR here at this dum key board ))

---ai4ep--

n4ems

04-12-2004, 08:07 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And oh yeah, UP YOURS ARRL! Thanks for nothing!

I can carry a grudge with the best of them. And will carry it to my grave.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My My - aint we cranky. #Oh, by the way, how many pills do I need to get my Ham CB to push that 40K watts o'power? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #

Hope your blood pressure didnt go up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif That grave might not be that far away. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Ta Ta for Now!

Eric
N4DMJ

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 11:18 AM

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 11:24 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ April 11 2004,21:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And oh yeah, UP YOURS ARRL! Thanks for nothing![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Try to remember this:

There is NO other organization that can effectively represent the interests of ALL amateur radio operators. Not RAF, not SPAR, not FISTS, nor any of the other assortments of spilled alphabet soup. Not even, I would venture to add, the NHL.

Perhaps you should print it out and paste it over the dial of your xcvr (crabby OFs always have dials, rarely LCDs).

04-12-2004, 12:12 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ April 11 2004,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif well...I may get banned / barred from here ( qrz.com ) for the words that may appear here, but I am NOT angry at an INDIVIDUAL person. #
I started in amateur radio in 1991, in amongst some of the earliest "no-code-techs " in northern Alabama. Got chasticized some by other AMATEUR folks who had never talked on 2 meter repeaters to some one who had NOT passed the 5 word-per-minute morse code test. #Some did not want us around first year or so, but thank fully we were slowly accepted. Many of the " old timers " tried to teach us the morse code so we could upgrade. #Some passed, but some ( like me ) tried and failed. #Hey I even went so far for a while to actually buy yeasu ft-847 rigs, icom 706 Mk II, #a yeasu ft-100 ( the first models...not the D model out later ) all with the INTENTIONS of passing my morse code test. But I sold them ( now I wish I had at least 2 of them back ). Then I sold all of my 2 meter mobiles that had been modified ( in some days, they ALL " had " to be modified in case it was "needed " {suuure hi hi }, now you can not sell me one that has been modified ). #That was around the year 2000. #
# # #I started studying for my GENERAL, written was a piece of cake, but dern that code. #I could do good till I got to those " 4 digit letters...like #the letter F #or J #or Y, where there is a mix of dits and dahs ") , but with some #( a lot ) of help from FRIENDS I wont MENTION their calls, but their help was/is appreciated I finally with a lot of determination PASSED. #It was then that I realized what hard work and determination all these other folks had been through for all these years just to be a " novice " class operator, or general, etc.
# # #But I kept my old call ( kd4amg ) even though I was not well pleased, #I still had the EXTRA written test to go...it was/is within reach ( the top of the ladder, the hardest test of all, the biggest accomplishment ). So I studied and studied for about 5 months, finally got the nerve to go back and take the test.
# # #Once I tried ( missed 18 - 19, out of 50 ) nope, that was NOT good enough. Twice I tried, missed 13, #I was determined to pass that *&^% test with less than 5 wrong. I not only wanted to pass, I wanted to pass with flying colors. I wanted to ACE it ( zero wrong ). #But the best I could do was 3 wrong. But I passed. I wish they would let me take the test to see if I CAN " ace " it but I dont want to be accused of " memorizing the test " so I will not; even though I know there are other EXTRA test sheet I can try. It would not really be worth it. #Missing 3 is #" ok ".
# # #So you see, I am NOT angry at all of you " no-code-techs ", only the real, real , lazy ones that want/desire a " hand out ". You know who you are.
As you folks already know, I and others have tried various methods to " inspire " you to get your #code test passed, and the written for GENERAL and EXTRA class. # #
# # #Some of you have done that ( which is good )...and... in reality some of you " no-code-techs " do NOT want to get any further in AMATEUR radio than where you are. I DO accept that.

So I guess I will just go the " easy route " ( which I aint used to doing the past 2 years ) and not bug/agitate/harass you folks in the future. When and IF you decide to upgrade, contact me and I WILL try to help ( from 1000 miles away ) . You " no-code-techs " DID pass the standards set by the FCC to be where you are ( no wrong in that )...so I DO offer my humbliest, sincerest, apology for putting in words what has offended ALL of you in the past.
I am sorry. I did wrong.
I can not speak for others, but I can speak for me.

(( hey you would NOT believe how much I shortened this down to this level --- I spent a good HOUR here at this dum key board ))

---ai4ep--[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
well said.

ki4bgo

04-12-2004, 12:15 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ April 11 2004,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And oh yeah, UP YOURS ARRL! Thanks for nothing!

I can carry a grudge with the best of them. And will carry it to my grave.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So, progress is the ARRL's fault? That's what this is my friends, PROGRESS!
#When something is no longer useful, it's often thrown away/discarded.
#How many of us still watch TV on a B&W set with a 12 position switch to change channels?
#How many still ride around in the same car we had 20 years ago?
#Not many...I'm sure. But no ones is telling you you CAN'T!
#Same thing with the proposed restructuring... new things MAY be coming, but you can STILL do things the old way if you want!
#For years (before I was a Ham) I heard that the ARRL was a bunch of "old pharts" and..."if you become a ham, don't join those geezers..."
#Now they want to change things and this is also wrong? Now it's "we'll be just like CB, etc..."
#Progress! Move on... or move over!

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 12:52 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4bgo @ April 12 2004,05:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...a B&W set with a 12 position switch to change channels....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And a bottle of bright red Quietrole to keep the damned thing crackle-free. How I miss the smell of that stuff.

ki4bgo

04-12-2004, 01:42 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 12 2004,07:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4bgo @ April 12 2004,05:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...a B&W set with a 12 position switch to change channels....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And a bottle of bright red Quietrole to keep the damned thing crackle-free. How I miss the smell of that stuff.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah! ...Or "New Miracle Blue Stuff for Tuners" ...Dad would pop off the knob, spray the "stuff" in the hole, spin through the channels REAL fast and, "voila" static-free picture for about a month! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K9STH

04-12-2004, 02:38 PM

Incentive licensing had nothing to do with the code / no-code debate. It had to do with certain people within the ARRL and the FCC believing that amateur radio operators should be more "professional" than the true professional radio operators.

In late 1967 or early 1968 the FCC actually proposed rescinding the various band reductions except for 10 KHz at the low end of the 80, 40, 20, and 15 meter bands for CW that were to take effect on 22 November 1968. Incentive licensing had become "the law of the land" on 22 November 1967 but the "drop dead" date for reduction of privileges was 22 November 1968. The ARRL did NOT announce this in QST and used all of their influence with the FCC to keep the extensive band reductions for the Advanced and General Class licensees. Later, in the VERY small print that used to be in the back of QST the ARRL announced and took credit for the fact that the FCC did NOT rescind the reduction in privileges.

The FCC DID rescind the 2nd level of privilege reductions that were to take effect 22 November 1969.

Remember that those who held Advanced Class licenses prior to 22 November 1967 had held the highest possible class of license prior to 1951, that being the old "Class A". In 1951 the FCC established the Extra Class with the only additional privilege being an 8.5 X 11 certificate being issued to the operator. During 1951 the Novice and Technician Class licenses were established and the Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra Class had full privileges.

The ARRL let the amateur radio community think that incentive licensing would apply to all new licensees but that everyone who held full privileges would retain them. Then, when all persons holding Conditional, General, and Advanced Class licenses lost a considerable portion of their privileges, it was a great shock. Even the Novice Class lost privileges since prior to incentive licensing they had phone privileges in the 145 MHz to 147 MHz range. Only the Technician Class retained all of their prior privileges.

The "excuse" that the ARRL and FCC used several years later when petitions were made to restore the privileges to those who lost them due to incentive licensing was that it would be "unfair" to those who had taken the Extra Class tests. At the time there were well under 20,000 Extra Class licensees and about 100,000 who had lost privileges! Was it "fair" to the 100,000 who lost privileges? I think not!

During the mid-1970s, the late A. Prose Walker, who was then the head of the FCC Amateur Radio Division, sat in my shack in Richardson, Texas, defending his "amateurs should be more professional than professionals" attitude. Prose had worked for Collins Radio Company for a number of years at the Cedar Rapids plant and a lot of his friends from work had been transferred to the "new" corporate headquarters in Richardson. Frankly, none of his old friends agreed with him! But, Prose was "hardheaded" and his ideas remained in place at the FCC until the advent of the VE program and with the no-code Technician Class license.

As such, the incentive licensing problem has nothing at all to to with the current code / no-code situation. It does have something to do with the "give the persons who have not earned them many more privileges" attitude. People who had passed theory tests that were much harder for their time than those given today lost privileges. Yet the "trend" today is to give more privileges to those who have done nothing to earn them. That is what the subject of incentive licensing has to do with the situation today.

Many amateurs did upgrade, but even more either dropped out or didn't upgrade. Incentive licensing did more to destroy amateur radio than anything else that has been done at least since World War II.

Glen, K9STH

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 02:45 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 12 2004,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...Incentive licensing did more to destroy amateur radio than anything else that has been done at least since World War II.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No disrespect intended, Glen old moderator chap (I'm not as dumb as I look), but your thesis fails ipso facto: amateur radio has NOT been destroyed—merely changed.
Destruction, like beauty and most other things, is in the eyes of the beholder. There are many folks (and I include myself among them) who don't see it the same way. And, like it or not, amateur radio belongs to us as much as it belongs to you and your "side of the aisle."

ki4bgo

04-12-2004, 02:47 PM

Good post, Glen! I was confusing what's happening now with the restructuring you all went through. I seem to learn something here each day! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KD4LEI

04-12-2004, 03:41 PM

Although I got my Tech license initially as a no coder, I have an old school philosophy on the license issue. #I don't want handouts... #It's ironic I say that seeing that is how I got my license. #I had never heard of amateur radio up until I was in high school. #But I got my license because the timing was such that it was at the time they brought out the no code license. #Does that shock any of you out there that a no-coder says this? #Where is the satisfaction in having it given out without the effort?

I am in the process of studying for General and then plan to go for Extra. #I plan to be ready to pass that test (Extra) by this coming summer or early fall.

I say earn it on one's own merit versus someone "giving it to you." #The satisfaction of that is by far more rewarding.

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 04:04 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD4LEI @ April 12 2004,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...I don't want handouts... #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Did you not take a test? Do you feel that because the test you took was different than those taken by other, earlier licensees, that you did not "earn" your license?

I believe fully that the code requirement will go away, at least through General, and maybe even for Extra, but the "automatic" upgrade may well be denied by the FCC. It is, in my view, the weakest link in the restructuring/relicensing proposals currently under consideration. Uhhh, I hasten to add, WEAKEST link of the NO-CODE proposals currently under consideration—of course, those OTHER proposals have no STRONG links. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But if, for any reason imaginable, the FCC does grant the auto upgrade, will you turn it down? If you have not already moved upwards, will you spurn the proffer and gather in the open fora and burn your license in protest (a la draft cards in that other silly time now not quite far enough removed)?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

KD4LEI

04-12-2004, 04:21 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 12 2004,09:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD4LEI @ April 12 2004,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...I don't want handouts... #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Did you not take a test? Do you feel that because the test you took was different than those taken by other, earlier licensees, that you did not "earn" your license?

I believe fully that the code requirement will go away, at least through General, and maybe even for Extra, but the "automatic" upgrade may well be denied by the FCC. It is, in my view, the weakest link in the restructuring/relicensing proposals currently under consideration. Uhhh, I hasten to add, WEAKEST link of the NO-CODE proposals currently under consideration—of course, those OTHER proposals have no STRONG links. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But if, for any reason imaginable, the FCC does grant the auto upgrade, will you turn it down? If you have not already moved upwards, will you spurn the proffer and gather in the open fora and burn your license in protest (a la draft cards in that other silly time now not quite far enough removed)?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The arguments on both sides are with merit. At the time I got my license, I did not feel whether or not I earned it. I was happy to get on and start learning. I am saying that if I get grandfathered up to General, okay, but why?

I know we're trying to make ways to increase our numbers, but I just want to earn it for myself. So, if this is something that will happen, I want to be preemptive before it's given out to me.

I am not going to "look down" on someone else if they get bumped up, or that they didn't have to take the code. I just want the challenge of earning it for myself. Will I not accept the FCC's offer? I know the point you are trying to make if I say yes. So it is yes... However, if the option has been taken away to not do that, then what option do I have? I am not going to turn my back on what I have worked for up until this point. I will have to accept it, but I will "adapt and overcome." I will read, study, and challenge myself to become General and Extra to whatever ability I can push myself to.

My ultimate goal is to become an elmer so I can pass on what I have learned. I want to keep this precious service/hobby going as long as I am alive.

Does this make sense now?

w5klb

04-12-2004, 04:21 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD4LEI @ April 12 2004,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say earn it on one's own merit versus someone "giving it to you." #The satisfaction of that is by far more rewarding.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yepper buddy. I couldn't had said it better myself.

Let techs like me EARN their priviledges. I don't wan't NO AUTOMATIC upgrades, no handouts, no gimmes.

LEI: I wish you the best of luck upgrading to General. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ky5u

04-12-2004, 04:40 PM

MIV,

I believe I know what you're trying to say when you said:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">amateur radio has NOT been destroyed—merely changed. Destruction, like beauty and most other things, is in the eyes of the beholder. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

But were you there? #Were you licensed before the change? What real experience do you have of the effect the chage had on the hobby then? #My point is that in this case, the "beholder" had to have a wider perspective. #My point is that if you stayed in Berlin for a week in 1948, you might be tempted to say it had not been destroyed in WWII. #Yet had you seen it in 1939 and then in '48, your "beholding" reference is different.

And to "bgo",

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, progress is the ARRL's fault? That's what this is my friends, PROGRESS![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

to answer your question, nobody can say progress is the ARRL's fault. #As I said above, running water in Berlin was progress after the bombs quit falling. #With a wider perspective of pre-war Berlin, it was a long way to fall.

No offense meant, but both progress and judging destruction take more than a snapshot to evaluate. I would value Glen's evaluation for this reason.

ke4pjw

04-12-2004, 04:45 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 11 2004,08:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Remember that those who held Advanced Class licenses prior to 22 November 1967 had held the highest possible class of license prior to 1951, that being the old "Class A". #In 1951 the FCC established the Extra Class with the only additional privilege being an 8.5 X 11 certificate being issued to the operator. #During 1951 the Novice and Technician Class licenses were established and the Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra Class had full privileges.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Tong firmly placed in cheek.....

Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra Class had full privileges?? Why that sounds like some kind of communism! A complete give away!

W5HTW

04-12-2004, 04:46 PM

Glen has the facts correct. He and I usually agree, and we agree here, too, as to the facts of incentive licensing. But we very strongly disagree on the opinion side of it.

I am one of the Generals affected (well, possibly) by it. I had been a General for some thirteen years when IL came along. Like others I knew personally, I griped a little, but not a lot. One reason is I didn't use the low ends of the bands anyway, so it wasn't going to negatively affect me.

One other reason is I was a professional radio operator at the time, working for the US Government. I knew CW in excess of 20 wpm, and used it at work, so an upgrade to Extra was not a fearful mountain. I had the best of both worlds, for I worked in the field which was also my hobby.

Then suddenly, for me, and my few friends (most of whom also worked with me in the same field) the griping, never serious or intense, ended and we made our decisions, quietly and with zero fanfare. Some of them were like me; didn't need those low ends of the bands. Some of them did. All of them were qualified to take and pass the Extra of that day, by nature of our work. Some were more qualified than I, certainly, for my fear was the Extra Class theory, even though my job involved not only operating but maintenance. I could troubleshoot and repair an R390A. Or a 51J3. Or a TMC GPT750 or PAL350. But while I had the practical, applicable skills, I was not at all sure I backed them with written theory.

And I didn't. I took the Extra and failed the theory, but walked out with the Advanced. A few months later I took the Extra again and succeeded.

Perhaps my attitude was swayed by the fact I worked in HF communications, but after a few weeks of the early-on griping among friends, I gave it no further consideration. It was simply something to be done, like going from third grade to fourth grade. It was a step. After passing the Extra I remained with my operating in the General bands. (I sometimes have a hard time 'dating' my Extra, as I took the test in November or December, 1969 but the ticket did not actually arrive until January 1970. So I usually date my Extra Class license as Jan 70. I think it carried a printed date of early January, 1970, a well.)

It is true, as Glen notes, I heard griping on the ham bands for months and months, about the loss of privileges. In my circle of ham friends, though, that griping lasted only a few weeks, and then it disappeared, even among those who elected not to bother to upgrade.

The outcome of this was the Extra Class ticket meant something more than a certificate to hang on the wall. I found I was sought after in the radio clubs to teach both theory and code, and I loved it. Like a "professorship" it offered a degree of respect and honor. It was, if you will, the elite license. It was a mark of real achievement. I recall before Incentive Licensing meeting a couple of Extra Class hams and I was almost in awe of them. It was a deserved status. It was the Master's Degree of ham radio, the Master's status over Journeyman or Apprentice. It was "a license to teach." It certainly isn't that today!

In retrospect I agree, it was not done properly. You do not offer incentive by taking away. (Though we do it as punishment, like "No TV until you do your homework!" There should have been a carrot, a real incentive. But there was nothing to offer.

However, it worked for me, and it worked for some others I knew personally. If that is the case, it must have worked for a whole lot more I didn't know and never met. Those of us who went that extra mile, for whatever reason, certainly felt a justifiable pride in our accomplishment. Some of us did it to recover lost privileges. That wasn't my motivation. My motivation was simply, it was there, and I needed to conquer. After the initial ruling, I gave it no further thought.

Years later I have never, and I emphasize that, never, held animosity or bitterness over the incentive licensing program. I believe the incentive offered was wrong, but the principle I think was great. After all, we were in Cold War days, and we *were* indeed, that "pool of trained operators who could be called up in an emergency." We were, in my words, the "communications reservists" of the US Military, able to be drafted into service, given minimal training, and dropped into the field, ready to operate radios with standardized procedures as well as to repair them and get them on the air in "any way possible." We were skilled, and increasing our skills, for use in national emergency, was a wise move.

That need passed as the military became digitized, and today a ham license is of zero value to the military services. They no longer use 'field jack of all trades' operators, but specializists, who type on a keyboard, OR put up antennas, OR fix transmitters, OR program computers, but none of them do it all. Those days are gone, and the need for hams as communications reservists went the way of the hay burner. Personally I believe that phrase "trained pool of operators" should be removed from the FCC rules, as we aren't, and we haven't been for years. (Likewise, I doubt "59, 73, QRZ?" promotes international good will, either, but that's another thread!)

Today we live with a mixed-up and very invalid remnant of Incentive Licensing. The learner's permit has been removed, replaced by CB, followed by VHF Technician Class, neither of which teaches a darned thing about ham radio. The Expert Class has become the 'common class' and its expert status degraded seriously. So much so, in fact, most of the experts of today can't teach the beginners, as they don't know the answers themselves, so we become a hobby of, as the cliche goes, blind leading the blind. That negates the need for an expert class of license. I feel we should go to a single class of ham radio ticket and stop issuing worthless "class-based" licenses. We don't need class when class means nothing.

In other words, get rid of Incentive Licensing. It is no longer of any value at all, yet it hangs on, dividing the ham poplace. We need a new learner's permit, maybe, and a standard ham license, with all privileges. We need to stop thinking of CB radio as our farm team.

My guess is the FCC is going to further simplify our license structure, in the near future. Perhaps simplier than the ARRL proposal, and I seriously doubt they will retain code testing for even the Extra class. It may be they will go for the one-class ham ticket, perhaps with an entry level, perhaps not. Maybe, after nearly 40 years, Incentive Licensing will be buried.

I, for one, will miss it and what it once meant.

73
Ed

KE4STB

04-12-2004, 05:06 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 12 2004,09:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...At the time there were well under 20,000 Extra Class licensees and about 100,000 who had lost privileges! #Was it "fair" to the 100,000 who lost privileges? #I think not!

...Yet the "trend" today is to give more privileges to those who have done nothing to earn them. #That is what the subject of incentive licensing has to do with the situation today.

...Incentive licensing did more to destroy amateur radio than anything else that has been done at least since World War II.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

MODERATOR:
1: one who arbitrates: MEDIATOR
2: one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a: the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b: the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c: the chairman of a discussion group

MEDIATOR:
1: one that mediates; especially: one that mediates between parties at variance

MEDIATE:
1 a: to effect by action as an intermediary b: to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary
2 a: to act as intermediary agent in bringing, effecting, or communicating b: to transmit as intermediate mechanism or agency
intransitive senses
1: to interpose between parties in order to reconcile them
2: to reconcile differences

Nonpartisan? #Accord? #Intermediary? #Reconcile?

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 05:16 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD4LEI @ April 12 2004,09:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My ultimate goal is to become an elmer so I can pass on what I have learned. #I want to keep this precious service/hobby going as long as I am alive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
May your tribe increase! I meant neither disrepect nor dishonor—I wished merely to remind everyone (and using you and your post as the vehicle, for which I hope you will forgive me), should the eagle dump in the automatic upgrade way, those who qualify as the dumpees of such "largesse" should not suffer disparagement and ill will at the hands (or keys) of the cogniscenti who, by dint of sweat, shreded mental muscles and inhuman toil (tote dat barge, etc) upgraded by way of our ancestors.
Probably too much to hope for, however, given the way some of the least desirable cliques among us still hoot about "extra lites" and other demeaning terms.

KC2HJN

04-12-2004, 05:21 PM

This looks like just another thread to bash new hams. Another "when I was your age" type of post.

I am a no-code tech. Guess what? I am proud of that fact. I took the test given to me and passed. I therefore EARNED my license.

I did NOT become an amateur radio operator to please other amateurs, I did it for myself. I am happy where I am now. IF and WHEN I feel like upgrading, I will. For myself. NOT to please some "I had to do it this way" guy.

If someone has a problem with me because of when I took the test, then that problem is theirs, not mine.

To those saying things like "I wish I could have taken the harder test so I could have earned it", I ask why? To please the guy saying your not as good because you didn't take your test in front of an FCC examiner and pass 20 wpm? So what. You see, passing a test doesn't make you an expert, it is a license to learn. Even a DOCTOR who has graduated medical shool and "earned" his license still has to consult other doctors many times.

Learn new things to better yourself, not to please others.

You know, when I was in elementary through high school, we had to take computer classes. I had to learn about how computers worked and do a little programming. Did those who took their ham licenses in the 1950's do the same when thay were in school? No. Does that mean my diploma means more than theirs? No it doesnt. I happen to know a lot and do a lot with computers as a hobby. I learned 99% of what I know now AFTER I graduated. I learned because I wanted to, not so I can tell others I am better.

ok, the ranting is over now...
73 all

ke4pjw

04-12-2004, 05:23 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4stb @ April 11 2004,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nonpartisan? #Accord? #Intermediary? #Reconcile?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, Glen moderates AND has an opinion. I have never known him to moderate anyone who didn't deserve it, including myself.

KD4LEI

04-12-2004, 05:30 PM

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 05:40 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ April 12 2004,09:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MIV,

I believe I know what you're trying to say when you said:

...amateur radio has NOT been destroyed—merely changed....
My point is that if you stayed in Berlin for a week in 1948, you might be tempted to say it had not been destroyed in WWII. #Yet had you seen it in 1939 and then in '48, your "beholding" reference is different.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I do understand the trauma (probably too strong a term, but nonetheless conveys a dissatisfaction greater than mere disagreement) over the changes that have been wrought over time. I do not disparage these feelings in the least, though I do disagree, and strongly so, with the manner used by many of our "confreres" when giving vent to these frustrations.
I do believe the Berlin metaphor to be a little over the top.

HTW:
As hard as it may be to believe, I do sympathize with most of your (and others as well) dismay at the way things have proceeded. I want to see code dropped entirely as a test requirement, but I hope that the tiered license structure is retained and that testing to advance would be tightened up somewhat.
Unlike many, I believe that there should be far more emphasis on rules, procedures, safety than on theory in the introductory and intermediate level tests (face it or not, most folks today are "appliance operators" and damned few—at any license level—can do much more than replace a board or module with any hope of success in most of these rigs) and leave the more esoteric material for the top license.
addendum: That may be the one thing I dislike most about the current state of affairs: what has been done to the Technician license over the years. They should have changed the name if they were going to rewrite the entire emphasis.
Sorry: got a little carried away here.

KC2HJN

04-12-2004, 05:47 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HJN

I am not implying in the slightest that I am somehow above you. So please do not take it that way. I just prefer the challenge.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

KD4LEI,

Sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, I sometimes ramble on. I wasn't saying that you thought you were better. Only that you should be proud of yourself for YOU and not to please someone else.

You can learn anything you want to regardless the circumstances under which you took the test. Just because some of the old timers get a bit down on us "newbies" doesn't bother me. To some, amateur radio is their life, and anyone who doesn't meet their standards is a lazy good for nothing, no matter what they might do in their real life.

Anyway, didn't mean to offend anyone...just talking in general.

73

K9STH

04-12-2004, 07:52 PM

STB:

I wear two hats in this forum. One is as the moderator and one as a participant. I was a participant long before I was asked to moderate by the "powers that be" of the site.

When I am moderating I put that fact under my signature. When I am participating I do not indicate as such. When I am participating I am just as "open" to comments, disagreements, etc., as any other person who posts on QRZ.com. However, when I do have to put on my moderator's hat then my mood changes, and what I post does need to be heeded by the other participants in this forum.

I believe that virtually every other person who posts in this forum knows which hat I am wearing. If you don't like it, then you are just going to have to not like it! If you disagree with me on a technical basis or just in your opinion, you are most certainly free to express such with no reprecussions from me. That is, so long as you obey the "rules of the road" of QRZ.com which are

No profanity

No obscenities

No Personal attacks

If you cannot obey these rules, then you will be asked to leave. If you do not leave on your own accord, then you will be banned. Personally, I have only been responsible for a very few (like less than 5) persons being banned from this site in the over 3 years that I have been a moderator. Really, it takes a lot before I suggest banning someone. There are several others on the staff of QRZ.com that are much more likely to ban someone than I will. But, the quickest was to get banned is to consistantly not obey the "rules of the road".

Virtually all of QRZ.com is intended for a "G" audience. In the Talk & Opinions forum I do allow more of a "PG" level. However, I do strongly suggest keeping the "PG" more towards the "G" end and not to the "R" end. Getting into the "X" or "NC-17" range is a sure way to get oneself banned! These rules have been set forth by Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ, the owner of QRZ.com. If you believe that you should be allowed to get a little more "racy" in your comments, then please take it up with Fred. I just enforce the rules as he has set them.

Thus, I "appreciate" your definitions. However, frankly, I intend to ignore them!

Glen, K9STH

ky5u

04-12-2004, 07:59 PM

MIV,

Interesting response:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do understand the trauma (probably too strong a term, but nonetheless conveys a dissatisfaction greater than mere disagreement) over the changes that have been wrought over time. I do not disparage these feelings in the least, though I do disagree, and strongly so, with the manner used by many of our "confreres" when giving vent to these frustrations.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I think you're trying to change the subject on me. Our discussion was on Glen's post and the sharing/broadning of perspective. Now he's being lumped into the "many of our conferes" catagory. His post gives us historical perspective while many here are taking out frustrations on junior licensees. There's a big difference, wouldn't you say?

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 08:27 PM

AG4YO:
I guess I wasn't clear in my response. I was referring originally to the hyperbole of "destroyed" and trying to draw out reasoning that because something has been changed in ways that many folks do not like, amateur radio still exists in this modified, if unappreciated form, and is thus changed, but not destroyed.
I understand and appreciate the sadness, better term than trauma, that results from the felt loss of what lots of people believe to be more a part of themselves than a mere avocation.
I believe what I understood your metaphor to be: a comparison of a thriving pre-war to a flattened post-war Berlin as an analogy for pre-incentive vis-a-vis post-incentive amateur radio to be somewhat exaggerated.
As to the confreres, perhaps I should not have used the term; I often tend to tongue-in-cheek, and not always when and where it is most appreciated. Sorry.

And, yes, I would so say.

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 09:19 PM

My head is in my hands. I apologize to one and all. All may swans have returned as geese—crows. I just returned from a peek at the Questions and Answers threads on the Open Forums and a brief read of a question from an Extra about 72ohm CATV coax.

I wonder where Jim Jones left that box of Kool Aid....

ky5u

04-12-2004, 09:35 PM

No problem, MIV.

My Berlin example was for illustrating the value of perspective. Not for comparing bombed out Berlin to Amateur Radio. I would not trivialize that era...

I have found that when you are subtile here, your point is often lost. I thought it would be a clear example of perspective.

KL7FZ

04-12-2004, 10:06 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 12 2004,10:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This looks like just another thread to bash new hams. Another "when I was your age" type of post.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This was not meant as a "new-ham bashing thread". It is about the effect of Incentive Licensing and the perfidy of the ARRL in its role as representing the good of Amateur radio.
# As a new ham I joined the ARRL and thought it was a great organization. But the proposal and introduction of Incentive Licensing by the League was a blow to the very heart of Amateur radio which was still enjoying immense popularity at the time. And also, still enjoying the post war technology and economic boom, and population growth. Hams were at the forefront of cutting edge technology at the time. #But even more importantly, they had the pride and patriotism that had been instilled in them as a result of their involvement in WWII.
# Almost all hams at the time were quite respectful of each other and enjoyed a comaradarie born of the unifying factor of earlier world events and the subsequent succesfull outcome.
# BUT the introduction of incentive licensing proposal by some in the ARRL smacked as a stab in the back from within our own ranks. Betrayed by our own people. By the very people who were supposed to be working for our improvenment and good. And against the wishes of the majority of their own members. Total disrepect for the people that elected and trusted them.
# THIS IS WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT.
# This one action, was the cause of loss of a great number of talented and capable amateurs. And #major disillusionment of many others.
# That our own representative organisation would propose we take away from our own people what they had already earned and had been using for many years.
# I was a very young ham and had a HUGE sense of pride and accomplishment from having my General license and having been on the air for a while. Then to find that others were working to take away what I had was a most severe blow.

OK. Now that I have gotten that out of the way....
# Some #personal observations for those who are concerned about the other, you know the "New Ham" stuff.
##I had many chances over the years to upgrade. I had my code speed well over the 20 WPM at the time and was just going in the Air Force and was in one of their most advanced elctronics programs. Even found myself teaching some of the courses to some EEs.
# But the actions of the ARRL stuck in my craw for a long time. I could not get on the air on HF without being restricted to a MUCH SMALLER band segment. It really burned me up. And still does. My feelings are fading a bit now with the passing of time. But they came back when I sat for my Extra class test recently. I knew the VEs. And I knew that a couple of them did not have anywhere near the experience with, or knowledge of, radio and electronics that I have. And they were testing me! And then the test was a joke by my standards. I took it cold. No study or preparations. I will readily admit I did miss 4 questions. I will profess that I did not remember some things that a little refresher would have brought back. But as I went through the test I began to get more and more angry. Some of the questions I had #seen on the Novice test 40 years earlier. This coupled with the level of expertise of some of the VEs had me to a point where I could barely see the paper in front of me by the end of the test. It was mostly red I was seeing.
# I also admit I was angry at myself for letting myself get talked into taking the test. I was just there to drop off some paperwork. I had considered, and now knew for certain, the upgrade to Extra, was really a downgrade in the in actual level of knowledge and competency required.
# Someone, in an earlier post, mentioned progress. I have to ask, is it progress when you are required to know or learn less in order to qualify for any situation or position? If you were to hire a person for a job, do you want some one who is willing to learn and put forth effort to increase their knowledge and competency? Or each time that position is filled, do you want someone who knows less and can perform less adequately? Where does this end?
# #You know there are several great examples of what happens with this scenario. While they are not real, being as we are dealing with future possibilities, they can still be enlightening and cause serious thought.
##There were episodes of Star Trek that dealt with future civilizations that had been taken care of so long that they no longer had the skills to take care of themselves if the infrastructure failed.
# The great book and movie the "TIME MACHINE" is another great example of what could happen if the technological level of the populace is allowed to slowly decay. You end up with beings not able to care for themselves or enslaved by others who have managed to keep a modicum of knowledge or have advanced while the others stood still. The present situation with Amateur Radio is a small example of the beginning of this slide into technical decadence.

# OK. That is my rant for today. WOW! How Cathartic! I feel much better. Well.... Not really, but what else can I do? The forces of evil and entropy are powerful and relentless.
# And the lights are getting dim. And it's so cold. Ma? Ma? Is that you Ma? I'm a'coming home soon Ma. The world's finally got me. I think I'll just lay down here and close my eyes for a while. Ah............................

Shoot! Will someone go turn off the rig? I think it's drifting again. I can hear someone asking for his personal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

#From the Great White North
#KL7FZ

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 11:01 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ April 12 2004,15http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This was not meant as a "new-ham bashing thread". It is about the effect of Incentive Licensing and the perfidy of the ARRL...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think that if the ARRL did all that to me, I would sell all my gear and take up a new hobby. I wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction of knowing I was still anywhere that they could influence and sting me again. Yep, only thing to do is sell out....

Wattya got up there that you wanna sell? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Oh, yeah, to save time, you pay the shipping.

W7KCU

04-12-2004, 11:20 PM

The biggest thing I regret #about the "I.L." debacle #
was the loss of all the U.S.Ham Radio #manufacturers,i.e.Hallicrafters,National,Collins,S wan,
Heathkit,etc.,etc.,etc. & all the lost jobs @ that time !
"P.O." Hams #didn't buy Radio equipment ! Don't some of you younger Hams ever wonder what happened to all of these manufacturers, except for "Boat Anchors" on eBay,eHam,QRZ,etc.?

George---WA5MKA #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

W3MIV

04-12-2004, 11:44 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA5MKA @ April 12 2004,16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The biggest thing I regret #about the "I.L." debacle #
was the loss of all the U.S.Ham Radio #manufacturers,i.e.Hallicrafters,National,Collins,S wan,
Heathkit,etc.,etc.,etc. & all the lost jobs @ that time !
"P.O." Hams #didn't buy Radio equipment ! Don't some of you younger Hams ever wonder what happened to all of these manufacturers, except for "Boat Anchors" on eBay,eHam,QRZ,etc.?

George---WA5MKA #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Even lycra can't cover this stretch. The ARRL has upset the entire US economy with incentive licensing. Wait'll John Kerry gets hold of this, Bush'll be toast!

KC2HJN

04-13-2004, 12:38 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This was not meant as a "new-ham bashing thread". It is about the effect of Incentive Licensing and the perfidy of the ARRL in its role as representing the good of Amateur radio.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That may not have been the intention of the article, but by comparing pre incentive generals to post incentive generals, and by the tone of the article (a belief that things were better before) you degrade those who came later and had no choice but to take the test given them.

If you have a problem with the ARRL, that's fine, but don't drag those into it that had nothing to do with the changes.

Many OT like to put down (not saying you were actually trying to) the new hams. Man, I wasn't even ALIVE when incentive licensing went into effect. I recall reading somewhere (didn't actually confirm this) that the test in the early 50's or so was VERY easy, something like 10 questions. Were those people who took that test no good? No, they took what was available.

Anyway, I know you weren't trying to put anyone down, but that's kind of how it came across.

73

w5alt

04-13-2004, 01:15 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 12 2004,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I recall reading somewhere (didn't actually confirm this) that the test in the early 50's or so was VERY easy, something like 10 questions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can't speak for the tests of the 50's, but here is a copy of the ARRL License Manual Questions for Novice in 1967 (http://www.spar-hams.org/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=94). You be the judge.

73,

AB8RU

04-13-2004, 01:39 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n4dmj @ April 12 2004,06:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And oh yeah, UP YOURS ARRL! Thanks for nothing!

I can carry a grudge with the best of them. And will carry it to my grave.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My My - aint we cranky. #Oh, by the way, how many pills do I need to get my Ham CB to push that 40K watts o'power? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #

Hope your blood pressure didnt go up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif That grave might not be that far away. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Ta Ta for Now!

Eric
N4DMJ[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
40 Killowatts what are you talking about ? there is theroetically no RF Amplifier for Amateur Service that can amplify such. only place you will see that kind of power is prehaps a AM or a FM Commercial Broadcast Transmitter . I just looked at the Electric Bill averaging a Power Amp Tube around $27K in a electric bill.

better go reread CFR 47 Part 97 as to how much power your station is limited in actuallity not in fantasy.

you are probably will have either a Push Pull Amp or a single tube amp or even a set of high power transistors that will produce some power levels.

Let alone a High power TV Tube is either Forced Air, Water/ Coolant or Special Fluid type cooling.

That stuff that CBers are stretching the story is absurd and they are no even close to Broadcast Engineering to begin with.

Stick to Facts not Fantasy !

otherwise people will think otherwise.

KC2HJN

04-13-2004, 01:54 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ April 12 2004,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 12 2004,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I recall reading somewhere (didn't actually confirm this) that the test in the early 50's or so was VERY easy, something like 10 questions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can't speak for the tests of the 50's, but here is a copy of the ARRL License Manual Questions for Novice in 1967 (http://www.spar-hams.org/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=94). You be the judge.

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thanks Walt, I haven't really seen any of the old tests.

I don't know, doesn't seem too hard. Actually seems pretty easy, like studying for one night would probably be enough to pass. I haven't taken the general so I don't know how it compares to that but if I remember correctly, it seems easier than todays tech exam.

If that is the "hard" test you guys are complaining that you had to take......c'mon now.

73

KL7FZ

04-13-2004, 07:59 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 12 2004,14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My head is in my hands. I apologize to one and all. All may swans have returned as geese—crows. I just returned from a peek at the Questions and Answers threads on the Open Forums and a brief read of a question from an Extra about 72ohm CATV coax.

I wonder where Jim Jones left that box of Kool Aid....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I just had to go look up that post. Geez! Extra class. Yep.
#When you read stuff like that, you just don't know whether to laugh or cry.

#They should make it mandatory to own a handbook if you are a licensed ham. I know that would not make them use it...but maybe, just maybe, some would.

W5HTW

04-13-2004, 02:22 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 12 2004,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ April 12 2004,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 12 2004,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I recall reading somewhere (didn't actually confirm this) that the test in the early 50's or so was VERY easy, something like 10 questions.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can't speak for the tests of the 50's, but here is a copy of the ARRL License Manual Questions for Novice in 1967 (http://www.spar-hams.org/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=94). You be the judge.

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thanks Walt, I haven't really seen any of the old tests.

I don't know, doesn't seem too hard. Actually seems pretty easy, like studying for one night would probably be enough to pass. I haven't taken the general so I don't know how it compares to that but if I remember correctly, it seems easier than todays tech exam.

If that is the "hard" test you guys are complaining that you had to take......c'mon now.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's see .... wasn't he talking about the Novice test?

See if he can come up with a link to a General test from the 60s.

No the Novice test was not hard. A few formulas on antenna and wavelength, plate power input calculations, crystal tolerance and frequency determination, (Novices were crystal bound) and AM, (Novices could operate voice on two meters) The rest was pretty much rules and operating procedures, as I recall. I think most teens of that day could study a few days and pass it. I did, at age 16. Not hard at all.

Hey ALT. See if you can find a sample of the General or Extra test from the sixties for his perusal. Or even the Advanced.

Ed

K9STH

04-13-2004, 03:06 PM

RU:

Collins Radio Company used to make all sorts of 20 KW HF amplifiers and even a few 50 KW amplifiers that covered the 2 MHz to 30 MHz range. These were installed usually as part of the communications shelters that were carried on the bed of the old "6 by" trucks that the military was "very fond of". Also, these amplifiers had "auto-tune" circuits and could load just about anything.

More than one of these amplifiers made its way into the illegal Class "D" Citizen's Radio Service market.

The antenna technicians at the old Collins Radio Company antenna range (located at the Arapaho Road facility in Richardson, Texas) used to use a 10 KW or 20 KW amplifier running "full bore" to test the log-periodic antennas that Collins was manufacturing for the United States military. Since the antennas were being tested for the military, and since the technicians had to hold a commercial radiotelephone license, they could basically transmit on any frequency that they wished. One of their "favorite" frequencies was Class "D" Citizen's Radio Service channel 19.

The technicians would "dial up" the frequency on the KWM-2A driver and then transmit. Since the log-periodic antenna had a minimum gain of 10 dBd, between 100,000 and 200,000 watts e.r.p. was put on channel 19. Usually there would be several seconds of silence followed by the "what was that!" comments followed by all sorts of stations calling the station that just tested. Of course the test transmissions were made using USB, but it would really "stir the pot" on channel 19 for a while.

Glen, K9STH

W0LPQ

04-13-2004, 03:40 PM

Glen, we used to have quite a few frequencies in the 27mc range that were experimental and very legal to use. Those also included that very power level. Some of the transmitters were destined for the VOA stations and others as you mention were in the military 6X6 (or duece and a half) semi trucks. The generators were as I remember, PE-95's on a trailer.

Several of the 27mc and a couple in the 26mc range were military, where we could even use the 45kw 205J transmitters. Those caused CB'ers to "be quiet for a while".

73

Bill, W0LPQ
Collins Avionics Field Service, Retired

w6ez

04-13-2004, 03:41 PM

I saw that this thread was not supposed to be a new ham bashing thread so here is my story.
I was first introduced to ham radio in the early '60s by my then brother in law W6IHY (sk) . I was pretty much hooked and while I was studying I built a heathkit CB radio, then another one, and got my Dad to get a license so the whole family could use the radio. I was still working towards ham radio until I discovered girls and motorcycles. Ham radio went on hold. Cb followed in a couple of years.
I had nothing to do withradio until early '92 right after my wife died at the age of 37. I needed something to do and I bought a CB. HoooHAWWW! My how that had changed.
I could NOT stand 10-4 this and rodge dee that.
That lasted less than a year and I was back knocking on ham radio's door. I entered the ranks like most did at that time, no code tech, because I didn't pass the 5wpm test. Hey, nobody told me ypu couldn't learn cw in 7 days.
So I was a no code tech for a year and went through the same old stuff a lot of others did. Getting jammed off the repeater by the "real" hams, being told that I wasn't welcome and all that. Still I had a small circle of friends that ham entered ham radio at the same time as I, so we hung out together and did ok.
I upgraded to tech plus in less than a year, and then went for my general a year after than. To be honest, I have NEVER worked so hard on anything in my life. I am not an easy CW learner, and since I had not learned cw the correct way for 5wpm 13wpm caused me to re learn everything. (There are still holes in the sheet rock in my garage where I put my fist through the wall while learning 13wpm cw)
As it turend out I was never a general because I passed the 13wpm cw teat and then started studying for the written but couldn't find a test when I was ready so I worked on the advanced during this time and took them both on the same day. A year later I went to extra and yes, going to 20 wpm was a lot easier.
So I too came in after the door was shut on the "real hams" who took their tests in front of the FCC and sat in the freezing rooms with all the tables sitting in alligator infested water while snakes coiled around their ankles.
But I did work for it, and for me it was hard work.
As far as the new people who come in now I can't really hold it against them that the requirements are lower. All they have to do to get licensed is what the FCC says they are required to do. But as far as the ones who have decided to sit on their hands and wait that is a different story.
I have one, used to be very close friend, on whom I have spent hundreds of dollars out of my own pocket trying to help him learn CW. Now he says, he will just wait, it is a gimme now. I don't hang out with him much anymore.
Any way this is way too long now, but the point is I was always the under acheiver in school. I was one of the class dummies to be truthful. So if I could do it, anyone can now.
It is just a matter of attitude, nothing more.

W5HTW

04-13-2004, 07:20 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0LPQ @ April 13 2004,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Glen, we used to have quite a few frequencies in the 27mc range that were experimental and very legal to use. Those also included that very power level. Some of the transmitters were destined for the VOA stations and others as you mention were in the military 6X6 (or duece and a half) semi trucks. The generators were as I remember, PE-95's on a trailer.

Several of the 27mc and a couple in the 26mc range were military, where we could even use the 45kw 205J transmitters. Those caused CB'ers to "be quiet for a while".

73

Bill, W0LPQ
Collins Avionics Field Service, Retired[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My turn to say "thanks for the memories." Actually I never used any of the 20 or 40 KW rigs. But we had plenty of the 208U10s around (a wee dab too big for the trucks, though!) and the 204s, which were a 5 KW rig.

But while on the subject - you are probably the guy to ask! We had several other Collins transmitters, older, CW and AM types. One of them, as I recall, was a bit remindful of a KW-1, (but it wasn't.) It delivered maybe 1 kilowatt carrier to the antenna. We used it some on CW but mostly on AM. When we switched to the newer rigs (like the 208U10, and went to low-level AM operations to drive those amps) I was offered this particular transmitter. I turned it down, as it was too much for me to try to lug around. It was crystal controlled, mechanical auto-tuned (though we did not use that feature on it) and may have had ten crystal positions. Those BIG crystals!

The other transmitter that was also offered to me, yeah, free of charge, was what I seem to recall was a 231-D. 5 KW AM output, in three wide and tall racks. (We used it now and then on CW as well, but mostly on AM.) Ten channels, crystal controlled, mechanically auto-tuned. It would have taken my entire living room, and, of course, I believe it ran on 208 three phase. Yeah, I turned it down, too!

However I did make off (legally) with a custom-made one KW CW transmitter that was taken our of service. I think it weighed only about 400 pounds.

I loved the 208s - dial up a freq on the PMO, tune the SBE-1A, then punch the tune button and go about your business! We ran them mostly at 5 or 7 KW, rarely full bore. Like the 204s - we ran them at 2 or 2.5 KW, often on A2, or 3 KW on A1.

And there was one other rig. A Collins transceiver. Kinda remindful of the aviation ones - flat, wide, a small control head. ISB, CW, AM, and a built-in 100 MW exciter. I have seen similar ones on e-Bag, but not the same thing at all.

T'anks - a trip down high power lane. Yes, once somewhere in the Far East I put a 204U on 20 meters - for a few seconds. Decided it was not a wise idea. (I did frequently use a Harris HFL-1000 amplifier, though, behind my CE-20A exciter and Lakeshore VFO - but they wouldn't give me the Harris! Now THAT I would have taken!

Oh, once upon a time I put a GPT750 on 27 MHZ. Just a carrier. It got the desired results. "Hey, my radio just went dead." Long time ago.

73
Ed

w9obf

04-13-2004, 07:41 PM

Having read all of the posts, pro and con, I have to come down on the side of KL7FZ and K9STH. What the ARRL did to us back in the late 60's on the IL issue showed no regard whatsoever for the thousands of hams who wound up losing frequency space. The League paid a heavy price for what they did, in the short run they lost a lot of members, in the long run they lost a lot of credibility.

W3MIV

04-13-2004, 07:46 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w9obf @ April 13 2004,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Having read all of the posts, pro and con, I have to come down on the side of KL7FZ and K9STH. #What the ARRL did to us back in the late 60's on the IL issue showed no regard whatsoever for the thousands of hams who wound up losing frequency space. #The League paid a heavy price for what they did, in the short run they lost a lot of members, in the long run they lost a lot of credibility.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are quite correct on all counts. But what other organization do you have to represent you? Will you stand alone, or will you join with more than one hundred thousand other amateurs and try to present some sort of united front as more and more issues like BPL pop up again and again?
Think about it. How far does carrying old burdens of grudges get us?

ky5u

04-13-2004, 09:41 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> MIV:You are quite correct on all counts. But what other organization do you have to represent you? Will you stand alone, or will you join with more than one hundred thousand other amateurs and try to present some sort of united front as more and more issues like BPL pop up again and again?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Excellent point! #If you let this make you quit the ARRL or not join, then you're taking the lazy way out. #It's easy to just "quit". #It sounds impressive to say on the air too..."..yeah I quit the ARRL...hit 'em where it hurts! Yadda-yadda-yadda"

I disagree. I urge ARRL members to hold fast and don't quit #Change the orgainzation, throw out the bums, whatever, but don't wimp out. #Amateurs need a voice like the League on our side. We just need to ensure it remains OUR voice, not just the board's voice.

K9STH

04-13-2004, 10:04 PM

Unfortunately, in most areas there are not many amateur radio operators who are members of the ARRL who are willing to run for office. The exact reasons are varied, but the the fact is that those who are willing to run are usually part of the "establishment".

I know in specific areas that there is a concentrated effort to find someone who represents a point of view different from that which is now in effect. Unfortunately, so far, no one has accepted the responsibility of running for office.

If you look at the actual number of amateurs who vote for the various ARRL officials you will see that a VERY small percentage of members actually take time to vote. Thus, only a handful of ARRL members are actually running the organization.

Since I have not been an ARRL member for decades, I cannot in good conscience take any position towards the internal politics of the organization. However, when the ARRL takes a position (such as petitioning the FCC) that affects amateur radio outside of the organization then they are "open game" for anyone.

Glen, K9STH

KL7FZ

04-13-2004, 10:18 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ April 13 2004,14:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> MIV:You are quite correct on all counts. But what other organization do you have to represent you? Will you stand alone, or will you join with more than one hundred thousand other amateurs and try to present some sort of united front as more and more issues like BPL pop up again and again?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Excellent point! #If you let this make you quit the ARRL or not join, then you're taking the lazy way out. #It's easy to just "quit". #It sounds impressive to say on the air too..."..yeah I quit the ARRL...hit 'em where it hurts! Yadda-yadda-yadda"

I disagree. I urge ARRL members to hold fast and don't quit #Change the orgainzation, throw out the bums, whatever, but don't wimp out. #Amateurs need a voice like the League on our side. We just need to ensure it remains OUR voice, not just the board's voice.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe what we, and the ARRL, really need is some competition. Maybe another organization, with its collective head screwed on right, with the real best interests of Amateur Radio in mind, could bring about the necessary changes. Competition between the two should straighten out the ARRL and change their view of Amateur Radio from a way to make money and keep a neat job to a real representation of the amateur ranks......NAW! Won't work.
It is my belief, given the latest proposals, that the main interest of the ARRL is just making money and keeping their jobs. They don't care about the level of Amateur competency. They only care about having a lot of paying members.
# A don't trust them as far as I can throw a BC-610. Or ART-13.
# KL7FZ

KL7FZ

04-13-2004, 10:22 PM

W3MIV

04-13-2004, 10:30 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KL7FZ @ April 13 2004,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe what we, and the ARRL, really need is some competition. Maybe another organization, with its collective head screwed on right, with the real best interests of Amateur Radio in mind, could bring about the necessary changes. Competition between the two should straighten out the ARRL and change their view of Amateur Radio from a way to make money and keep a neat job to a real representation of the amateur ranks......NAW! Won't work.
It is my belief, given the latest proposals, that the main interest of the ARRL is just making money and keeping their jobs. They don't care about the level of Amateur competency. They only care about having a lot of paying members.
# A don't trust them as far as I can throw a BC-610. Or ART-13.
# KL7FZ[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Easy to post, extremely difficult to bring about in real-world terms. Consider all of the behind the scenes work that takes place that never rises to the point of public exposure—it is always thus when working within regulatory bureaucracies: heads tucked down take no frag. ARRL is, simply put, the only organization that has both the credibility and contacts to effectively lobby for amateur radio. Not SPAR, not FISTS, not RAF (whatever it is in reality)—only ARRL. Face the fact and get involved. If you feel strongly and can make the commitment (which is rather large), do run for an office and raise a ruckus.
Cynicism, however, is (like libertarianism) like autoeroticism (I won't resort to the "m" word)—all feel good with no effect. We need effect, and as time passes, will need even more.

I don't care how long you've been out of ARRL. Get involved and return to the fold. You are needed now and will be more needed in the future. This is especially true of the younger amateurs now coming in and moving up.

KL7FZ

04-13-2004, 10:40 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 13 2004,15:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Easy to post, extremely difficult to bring about in real-world terms. Consider all of the behind the scenes work that takes place that never rises to the point of public exposure—it is always thus when working within regulatory bureaucracies: heads tucked down take no frag. ARRL is, simply put, the only organization that has both the credibility and contacts to effectively lobby for amateur radio. Not SPAR, not FISTS, not RAF (whatever it is in reality)—only ARRL. Face the fact and get involved. If you feel strongly and can make the commitment (which is rather large), do run for an office and raise a ruckus.
Cynicism, however, is (like libertarianism) like autoeroticism (I won't resort to the "m" word)—all feel good with no effect. We need effect, and as time passes, will need even more.

I don't care how long you've been out of ARRL. Get involved and return to the fold. You are needed now and will be more needed in the future. This is especially true of the younger amateurs now coming in and moving up.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sorry OM, you REALLY don't want me near those guys. There would be some flat noses and black eyes before I was through!
Besides, being in Alaska, really puts us up here at a major disadvantage. Travel to and from would be a killer. And the further I have to travel, the more agitated I become. So by the time I got to New England...well....you know.....POW!
#Better I stay here and away from those guys. Best for BOTH of us!
KL7FZ