PDA

View Full Version : Incentive Licensing redux


K3UD
04-13-2004, 04:04 PM
I received an interesting email concerning Incentive Licensing and how it possibly came to be. The writer had a theory that the widening perceived technology gap between the US and the Soviet Union in the 50s which led to the Soviets placing Sputnik into orbit at a time when our rockets were blowing up on the launching pad and our schools were not emphasizing science and advanced math forced the FCC into an evaluation of the Amateur Radio service, at a time when our whole technical infrastructure was being re-evaluated.

There is an interesting sidebar to the Sputnik episode. According to some sources, Werner Von Braun had a proposal for putting an American satellite in low earth orbit by as early as 1955. He was going to use very improved versions of the V2 to construct a 4 stage booster that would put a very lightweight satellite into a short lived low orbit.

Apparently, Eisenhower nixed the idea saying that he did not want to deal with the international implications of an American orbital vehicle. There is also some information that suggests he thought it was more of a technical trick than and actual step ahead. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if Von Braun was able to pursue this.

It was a good insight concerning Sputnik. Whether or not it had any impact on the incentive licensing proposals of 1963 is certainly debatable although my research into the genesis of the proposals has not revealed an outstanding link. It is possible that, as implied, the US would do whatever it took to catch up with the perceived Soviet technology gap. This could have led to discussions at the FCC concerning perceived declining technical expertise of the existing amateur radio operator pool.

It should be pointed out that the initial request for contact between the FCC and ARRL concerning restructuring came from the FCC itself in 1957 or 58 and reportedly the ARRL at first ignored them. When the FCC followed up a year or two later the ARRL immediately signed on. Wayne Green of 73 magazine has always maintained that there were conversations between the FCC and the ARRL concerning incentive licensing and that the ARRL told the FCC to go ahead and make a proposal, and they would back it. Say what you want about Wayne Green but he has been consistent with this from 1963 even up to the present.

It can be argued that IF there was a technology gap it was small. The US was concentrating on weapons of war development and building the finest cold war arsenal. Although latter day critics have denounced this effort, it did lead to some of the best military hardware ever produced to that point. The B52 bomber was part of this effort with design work started around 1949 and final production ending in 1962. They still fly today.

It needs to be noted that one of the main purposes of the Amateur Service was to provide a trained pool of qualified operators in time of national emergency and it could certainly be argued that since the Soviets had one satellite in space, the time was coming when they would have more with perhaps some being able to carry weapons of mass destruction. There was probably a real fear of an impending national emergency. Of course the term "trained operator" at that time meant CW ops, and also implied the technical skills needed to build and keep a station on the air.

One of the stated reasons for the ARRL making and supporting incentive
licensing proposals was in fact the perceived decline in the number of
amateurs who actually used CW on a regular basis. Other reasons included the increase in poor operating habits, declining courtesy on the bands, and lack of ongoing technical development among amateurs as a whole. This last reason actually boiled down to the noticeable decline in amateurs who did not homebrew much gear.

As I stated in many previous postings on the subject, the 50 Years Of ARRL book indicated that the 50s was the era of the greatest technological advances by amateurs. Three years later they implied that the situation had reversed and painful medicine was needed to put things right.

I first became licensed as a Novice in 1964 at age 13 and although I was an ARRL member this issue was completely over my head at the time as any changes would not affect me for a long time. 1964-1968 is an eternity in the life of a 13 year old. As I got older and upgraded the license I started to see some of the implications of what might happen. In the end I ended up taking the Advanced test in 1969 primarily to retain some VHF privileges I was going to lose if phase 2 of the incentive licensing proposal was implemented.

Yes there were two phases of this. The first one, which took away many privileges from the General, Advanced, and Novice went into effect in 1968. Phase 2 was going to be more onerous for the General and Technician class operators. It is interesting to note that phase 2 was never implemented. It is my opinion that the ARRL realized that they had created a Frankenstein's monster and convinced the FCC not to go ahead with it. I guess you could say that losing some VHF privileges was incentive enough for me to upgrade but I never felt good about it.

Many never upgraded and were packed into band slices packed with QRM. Some nights it was almost impossible to operate. Many just gave up. Hamfests of the period 1969 through about 1973 were packed with gear as hams who had given up sold it off. The 70s are often refered to as the golden age of hamfests, maybe for this reason. Used equipment markets became flooded. As this happened, activity levels dropped, AM ops switched to SSB and QRM levels on HF became manageable.

I have an extensive collection of QST from the mid 30s to the present, 73 from the first issue to about 1987 and CQ from 1949 to the early 90s. Incentive licensing has become a fascinating subject for me and I believe a lot of the directions amateur radio took or did not take came as a direct result of it. This library has enabled me to read every article, editorial, and letter to the editor that was published about incentive licensing from its first discussions to its post mortems in the mid 70s when almost all of the American radio manufactures were either out of business or struggling. As you may have guessed I have my own theory as to why this happened:

1. The ARRL in its history never liked phone operation. (ARRL meaning the QST editor, technical writers, the Board and some staff) In the late 30s they had a short lived section in QST called "With The Phonies", the implication being obvious. In the 40s they changed it to "Phone Band
Phunies" The ARRL was mostly a CW oriented organization with a nod given to RTTY every now and then. This made some sense though when you remember the stated purpose of the Amateur Radio Service..... A pool of trained operators... which meant CW.

2. In the late 40s the ARRL began to push SSB as a much more efficient
means of communication than AM phone. They were right and the SSB articles and primers written for QST during the period were magnificent and most likely the best technical writing ever produced for QST. The problem was that Amateurs were not changing over at a fast enough rate, it was thought to be too complicated, too expensive, difficult to build and debug, and finally, difficult to receive correctly on the receivers of the day,

3. In 1952 a new system of licensing went into effect establishing the
Novice and Technician licenses but more importantly in the scheme of things, granting full amateur privileges to General Class license holders.
Overnight the Generals invaded the hollowed ground of the Advanced and Extra class.

At the time, in terms of privileges the Advanced class (or class A) was at the top of the heap. The Extra did not have any additional privileges. Since I was not there at the time (only 1 year old) I can only relate to what I read about what was taking place during this time period.

It seems that some, or more than some in the Advanced (Class A) and Extra classes were outraged at the FCC and the ARRL for allowing this to happen. Of course it could be argued that opening all the bands up to Generals, establishing the Novice and Technician license eventually led to the period of great amateur technological achievement that the ARRL was later talking about.

4. By the end of the 50s AM was still the major player on the phone bands. During this time period there were calls for the FCC to outlaw the use of AM below 30 megacycles. All of the pushing of SSB by the ARRL was having limited effect.

It is my opinion that incentive licensing, as pushed by the ARRL was a means to right the perceived wrongs of 1952 and force the use of SSB. The latter being accomplished by forcing Generals into very crowded band segments where the only alternatives were to either give up AM and switch to SSB in order to have a fighting chance at a Friday night QSO or upgrade and use the relatively QRM free bands of the Advanced and Extra classes.

Incidental data that was gathered during the time period prior to the incentive licensing proposals in the early 60s suggested that Advanced and Extra class operators who used phone (many were CW only) were migrating to SSB in much larger percentages than General Class operators. It was perceived that this was because the higher classes were more technically oriented than the General class.

The thinking seemed to be that all that was needed was an upgrade of the General's technical skills and he would suddenly see the value of SSB and convert to it. If he did not, then he would be confined to the QRM purgatory of very limited phone bands segments until he finally saw the light.

My opinion is that it was not a technical skill situation as much as it was an economic one. Older Advanced and Extra class operators most likely had more dollars to spend as individuals than the demographically younger General class hams.

The irony was that technical advances and manufacturing efficiencies
collaborated to bring to the market very good and very affordable SSB gear. There was not much affordable and utilitarian gear available prior to about 1962 with Collins, and Johnson leading the way with rather high priced SSB equipment.

The advent of the SBE-33, The Swan and Heath single banders and later the Swan 350 and Heath 100 series all band units, and the National and Hallicrafters units eased the way in. There were also low priced two and three band radios from WRL and Galaxy And the high quality lower priced alternative to Collins, Drake.... brought the SSB mode into the realm of most amateurs by 1970 when there was a good amount of used SSB gear around.

In the end the only things that incentive licensing accomplished were
generating ill will among the amateur community, very crowded sub bands that served to impinge on traffic net operation, having a number of amateurs drop out of the service, a slow down in equipment purchases for a time period long enough to hurt the major American manufacturers, a sizable decline in the average page count of most major ham magazines, especially CQ from about 1971 - 1975.

The largest negative impact of incentive licensing was probably the caste system that was set up in the Amateur Radio service. This most likely led to the slowdown in the growth rate in Amateur Radio in the 70s which in turn led to Novice enhancement, the creation of the no code Technician license which in 1997 was cited by the ARRL as the reason to change the licensing system once again which in turn led to the 5-WPM Extra, and now will lead to the no code General. If this is not irony...............

73
George
K3UD

W3MIV
04-13-2004, 04:31 PM
Excellent post; conjectural, but with enough "ring" to be plausible. One question occurs: you state quite clearly that the initial urge for incentive licensing came from the FCC and that the ARRL ignored it at the time. Later, you state (here I paraphrase, not to goad but because I did not want to repeat a vast quote) that "the ARRL realized it created a Frankenstein." How so? If the ARRL were acting at the behest of the Commission, how did it then become a "Frankenstein" stitiched together by ARRL?
BTW, I was not thirteen at the time. I do not ask this in a pointed fashion, but seek to understand your reasoning.
It seems to me the ARRL has much to answer for over the years, but far more baggage has been carried forward than they deserve. It is as though we were still condemning the Church because Julius II was selling indulgences and using the funds for war and art.

K3UD
04-13-2004, 05:12 PM
I never really understood why the ARRL initially ignored the FCC request in 1958 to propose a change in licensing requirements. It could be that the ARRL actually saw the positives that were coming from the restructuring in 1951, especially in the areas of increasing licensees and increasing membership, growth in QST and increasing advertising revenue. All of this would have been perfectly legitimate reasons for the ARRL to ingore the request. Why upset the apple cart?

I never fully understood why the FCC, just 7 years after restructuring wanted to change it. Based on what I have read in the old magazines, I realized that there was still a lot of angst over what happened in 1951 as mentioned in my post. Perhaps the FCC was still getting static over what they did in 1951 by those Class A and Extra's who felt that they gave away the store. Also it is certainly possible that the FCC was, in fact, looking to upgrade the ARS in technical ability because of the mentioned technology gap which was very much in the news of the time period.

When the FCC again asked the ARRL a few years later to make a proposal, the ARRL suggested that the some of the privileges given to Generals in the 1952 restructure be taken away. I think they wanted to make 40 and 20 meter phone the exclusive privileges on the Class A and Extra. The thought process might have been....OK here is our proposal to the FCC, lets see what they do with it....thinking that the proposal was too draconian for the FCC to take seriously.

Of course it could have been that in passage of time since the first FCC request, there were new people at the ARRL in administrative positions and on the board who still held a grudge over what happened in 1952.

It was sometime after the ARRL proposal was sent to the FCC that the ARRL really began to get behind some form of incentive licensng with the first editorial on the subject coming out in QST I think in 1963. There is still debate over who pushed this. In the end the ARRL, for whatever reasons, did, but it seems that the FCC started it a few years earlier. Perhaps the ARRL had no choice in the matter.

What evolved was indeed draconian, to the glee of some but to the misery of many. The ARRL could have stood on some principle and petioned the FCC to reconsider based on all the positive things that they cited in the book, "50 Years of ARRL". However, they did not do this and in the end helped to craft the Frankenstien monster we ended up with. Everything involving licensing and privileges that has happened in the ARS since incentive licensing has been part of slow, sporadic attempts at undoing the damage the monster caused.

Some hams tend to beat up on the ARRL as it is a large target and has more power ascribed to it than it really has. Incentive licensing is the only thing I ever really differed with the ARRL on, so much so that I dropped my membership from about 1968 through 1975. Much the same reaction we are seeing today from some hams over the present ARRL restructuring proposals.

I am not sure if we will ever learn why the FCC in the first place and finally the ARRL in the second, wanted this.


73
George
K3UD

W3MIV
04-13-2004, 05:31 PM
Thank you for what is a fine and interesting analysis. The fly in both the FCC's and ARRL's ointments is politics, and we will never really know the full stories from either side. Then or now. Many of the behind-the-scenes negotiations that often preceed and take place during these processes are done in strictest confidence, and neither party (then or now) can reveal some of the more important and illuminating exchanges that result in the final rulings.
I know about pique and stomping away from ARRL—indeed, more than just ARRL—in a fit, only to return later. As I said in an earlier post elsewhere in these musty threads, using the words of Learned Hand, "It is better that wisdom come late than never at all."
When all is said and done, ARRL is all we have. Like it or not, it is better to work within to try to direct the behemoth than to challenge it from the outside, least of all from in front.
Wish more folks would post stuff like yours, George. Don't hurry off.

04-13-2004, 05:55 PM
And let us not forget that Prose Walker W4BW was the FCC Official who was INSTRUMENTAL in the support after the introduction of (dis)Incetive Licensing into the FCC hopper!

To which we raise our keys and mics and say "THANKS, FOR NUTTIN', Prose!"

73
K3FT

W3MIV
04-13-2004, 06:02 PM
But, ya gotta admit, there's been a lot of stuff written in his name.

K3UD
04-13-2004, 06:05 PM
Prose Walker almost killed a lot of FM repeaters with regulations aimed at forcing professional engineering coverage and antenna evaluations to be done before one could be put on the air. The saving grace was that he allowed the use of a dipole without all the required measurements which was known to have specific pattern and gain characteristics. I think the Prose wanted all hams to have an elictrical engeering degree http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

I do not know if Prose Walker had a hand in the initial FCC request in 58 to change the licensing requirements though.


73
George
K3UD

04-13-2004, 06:19 PM
I don't believe he had a hand in the original items, but he WAS (as was pointed out) QUITE instrumental in the (almost) destruction of the great forward movement in the repeater technology and advancement of that part of ham radio.

He nearly drove a stake through its heart.. but thankfully... as most things happen.. the Goliath of Government moved a lot more slowly than the repeater folks did and by the time they were able to toss the hand grenade into the fish pond, the repeater technology and innovation had become so entrenched that even Prose's hand grenade couldn't do permanent harm.

But he WAS also a supporter of (dis)Incentive Licensing and wanted what it was supposed to be doing to occur.

K3FT

K9STH
04-13-2004, 06:26 PM
One thing in the FCC's favor and against the ARRL is that in late 1967 the FCC proposed rescinding all of the reduction in privileges except for a 10 KHz wide Extra Class only CW portion at the low end of 80, 40, 20, and 15 meters. This was NOT publicized by the ARRL. In fact, the ARRL used all of their influence with the FCC (at that time they did have a pretty good working relationship with the FCC) to keep this rescinding from happening.

This fact was eventually reported in QST in the VERY small print that used to be in the back of the magazine that very few people ever read. In this small print the ARRL took credit for the fact that the FCC did not rescind the first portion of incentive licensing. Fortunately the FCC did rescind the second reduction in privileges.

Frankly, I was not aware of the FCC's offer to rescind the first reduction in privilege until about a year ago when I was looking through some old issues of QST that I have. I just "happened" to look in the small print and found a paragraph about incentive licensing and the fact that the ARRL took credit for the fact that the FCC did not rescind the privilege reductions.

Now the ARRL has turned 180 degrees and is pressing for greatly expanded privileges for what has become their "new" member pool, namely the Technician Class licensee. Unfortunately, nothing is being done to rectify the injustice that was done effective 22 November 1967 to those who previously held full privileges, namely those amateur radio operators who held Conditional, General, and Advanced Class licenses.

Between 1951 and 1967 there were no new Advanced Class licenses issued. Those who held them were just "renamed" Class "A" license holders. Those who had previously held Class "C" licenses were called "Conditional" and those who previously held Class "B" licenses were called "General". With the advent of incentive licensing the Conditional Class was dropped (and a fair number of these persons called into the FCC field offices to retake their tests!) and those people were called Generals. The Advanced Class was then issued to new applicants when they passed a new theory test.

With the exception of the WARC bands (which everyone General Class and higher got full privilege to operate) the General and Advanced Class licensees have received almost no additional bandwidth privileges (yes, the subbands have been moved around but only the modes changed in total). However, the Novice and especially the Technician Class have received additional HF privileges. Now, the ARRL wants to give the existing Technician Class along with new Technician Class licensees greatly expanded privileges without granting anything to the General Class.

The Advanced Class (who have actually taken harder theory examinations and code examinations than are presently required for Extra Class) will gain 175 KHz of spectrum on HF (100 KHz of CW and 75 KHz of phone). But, the General Class may not receive anything! To me, this situation is definitely not "fair" to existing General Class licensees and is another "slap in the face" of those who still remain from the pre-incentive licensing era!

There have been numerous petitions presented to the FCC to return full privileges to those who had them prior to 22 November 1967. However, the ARRL has refused to back these. The FCC's "excuse" for years was that it would be "unfair" to those who had upgraded to Extra to return full privileges to those who lost them. However, in my mind, it was much more "unfair" to the over 100,000 amateurs who lost privileges than it would be "unfair" to the less than 10,000 Extra Class (many of whom had upgraded before incentive licensing) to restore these privileges!

Anyway, to my mind incentive licensing as it was implemented (with the express approval of the majority of the ARRL headquarters staff at the time) did much more harm to amateur radio than anything before or since!

Glen, K9STH

K9STH
04-13-2004, 06:35 PM
In regards to the late A. Prose Walker: In 1958 he was working for Collins Radio Company at the old "main" plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

By the early 1970s, after Prose was working for the FCC, many of his old Collins "buddies" had been transferred to the "new" corporate headquarters here in Richardson, Texas. Prose was invited to speak at the Richardson Wireless Klub (K5RWK - the call came before the name of the organization) by some of his old friends from Cedar Rapids. He sat in my "shack" for several hours after the meeting along with the executive committee from the RWK and a number of his old friends (my shack is in a 2-car attached garage so there was plenty of room) discussing, among other things, incentive licensing.

Prose was a firm believer that amateur radio operators should be more "professional" than any of the commercial operators. Even though all of his old friends disagreed with his position, Prose would not detour one iota from this belief.

As far as I know, he never changed his mind about the "professionalism" of amateur radio operators before his death a couple of years ago (he was living in Florida at the time).

Glen, K9STH

W3MIV
04-13-2004, 07:24 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 13 2004,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now the ARRL has turned 180 degrees and is pressing for greatly expanded privileges for what has become their &quot;new&quot; member pool, namely the Technician Class licensee. #Unfortunately, nothing is being done to rectify the injustice that was done effective 22 November 1967 to those who previously held full privileges, namely those amateur radio operators who held Conditional, General, and Advanced Class licenses.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You cannot turn back the clock to right wrongs long past, however noble and fair.
Things like this BPL issue have a lot of political muscle behind them. The power magnates want it because they think it might be a money-maker for them—all of the economic arguments notwithstanding—and the White House is facing a tough campaign. Money speaks louder than any other voice on stage at the moment.
Like it or not, the ARRL is all we have. If we don't all stand together and present a united front, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, we shall surely all fall one by one, unpitied sacrifices in a contemptible struggle.
Times are changing and RM-10867 is the best compromise that I think could be gotten through the BOD in Newington. It is not as important in any particular detail as unity among amateurs.

04-13-2004, 10:10 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 13 2004,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing in the FCC's favor and against the ARRL is that in late 1967 the FCC proposed rescinding all of the reduction in privileges except for a 10 KHz wide Extra Class only CW portion at the low end of 80, 40, 20, and 15 meters. #This was NOT publicized by the ARRL. #In fact, the ARRL used all of their influence with the FCC (at that time they did have a pretty good working relationship with the FCC) to keep this rescinding from happening.

This fact was eventually reported in QST in the VERY small print that used to be in the back of the magazine that very few people ever read. #In this small print the ARRL took credit for the fact that the FCC did not rescind the first portion of incentive licensing. #Fortunately the FCC did rescind the second reduction in privileges.

Frankly, I was not aware of the FCC's offer to rescind the first reduction in privilege until about a year ago when I was looking through some old issues of QST that I have. #I just &quot;happened&quot; to look in the small print and found a paragraph about incentive licensing and the fact that the ARRL took credit for the fact that the FCC did not rescind the privilege reductions.

Now the ARRL has turned 180 degrees and is pressing for greatly expanded privileges for what has become their &quot;new&quot; member pool, namely the Technician Class licensee. #Unfortunately, nothing is being done to rectify the injustice that was done effective 22 November 1967 to those who previously held full privileges, namely those amateur radio operators who held Conditional, General, and Advanced Class licenses.

Between 1951 and 1967 there were no new Advanced Class licenses issued. #Those who held them were just &quot;renamed&quot; Class &quot;A&quot; license holders. #Those who had previously held Class &quot;C&quot; licenses were called &quot;Conditional&quot; and those who previously held Class &quot;B&quot; licenses were called &quot;General&quot;. #With the advent of incentive licensing the Conditional Class was dropped (and a fair number of these persons called into the FCC field offices to retake their tests!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and those people were called Generals. #The Advanced Class was then issued to new applicants when they passed a new theory test.

With the exception of the WARC bands (which everyone General Class and higher got full privilege to operate) the General and Advanced Class licensees have received almost no additional bandwidth privileges (yes, the subbands have been moved around but only the modes changed in total). #However, the Novice and especially the Technician Class have received additional HF privileges. #Now, the ARRL wants to give the existing Technician Class along with new Technician Class licensees greatly expanded privileges without granting anything to the General Class.

The Advanced Class (who have actually taken harder theory examinations and code examinations than are presently required for Extra Class) will gain 175 KHz of spectrum on HF (100 KHz of CW and 75 KHz of phone). #But, the General Class may not receive anything! #To me, this situation is definitely not &quot;fair&quot; to existing General Class licensees and is another &quot;slap in the face&quot; of those who still remain from the pre-incentive licensing era!

There have been numerous petitions presented to the FCC to return full privileges to those who had them prior to 22 November 1967. #However, the ARRL has refused to back these. #The FCC's &quot;excuse&quot; for years was that it would be &quot;unfair&quot; to those who had upgraded to Extra to return full privileges to those who lost them. #However, in my mind, it was much more &quot;unfair&quot; to the over 100,000 amateurs who lost privileges than it would be &quot;unfair&quot; to the less than 10,000 Extra Class (many of whom had upgraded before incentive licensing) to restore these privileges!

Anyway, to my mind incentive licensing as it was implemented (with the express approval of the majority of the ARRL headquarters staff at the time) did much more harm to amateur radio than anything before or since!

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, having taken the Advanced and Extra tests a year or so apart in 1990 and 1991, I remember the Advanced test as being significantly tougher than the Extra was. Though in neither case did I have to draw a schematic for a Colpitts circuit, as in my General test in 1959.

04-14-2004, 02:21 PM
Hon Moderator Glen posted &quot;..Prose was a firm believer that amateur radio operators should be more &quot;professional&quot; than any of the commercial operators. Even though all of his old friends disagreed with his position, Prose would not detour one iota from this belief.

As far as I know, he never changed his mind about the &quot;professionalism&quot; of amateur radio operators before his death a couple of years ago (he was living in Florida at the time).&quot;

And I reply... Yep, God save us from officials who want to 'make ham radio operators into what they are NOT - and that is 'commerical operators without the commerical licenses!'

FOOEY! That's NOT what Part 97.1 says and NEVER what ham radio was designed to be. Tis the very nature of the diversity of what we do in the technical and operational realm that makes us the valueable resource we are.

Prose was a man who wanted hams to be 'Professional Businessmen' and had ZERO interest (as Glen points out) in hams 'doing what hams do best' - which is fiddle, experiment, communicate and assist.'

It was a GLORIOUS DAY when Prose left the FCC. Many of us (symbolically) raised a glass high and saluted the day he left as one that signaled (at least) the opennig of a chance to remove the thorn from ham radio's side and repair a bunch of the tears Prose helped rip in the fabric of ham radio.

He stifled repeater growth and innovation. He helped promote and execute the (dis)INcentive Licensing and tried to 'remake ham radio' in another image.

Glad he's gone.. I got into ham radio in 1967, licensed in 1968, so I saw the changes that occured and the damage that transpired.


K3FT

K3UD
04-14-2004, 03:38 PM
K3FT,

You and I were both there when all this happened. I almost think that you had to live through it to understand the depth of the effects IL and A. Prose have had on the ARS to this day. Last evening I started to pull out the old QST, 73, and CQ magazines of the period just make sure that my imagination was not in hyperdrive mode. If anything, It was more troubling than has been related here.

On the other hand I wonder how the typical Class A licensee felt when the 1951 restructure became reality on the bands. There were some letters published in QST concerning give aways, technical incompetance, and dumbing down at the time, but they seemed to have dropped off quickly, possibly because the changes worked out far better than the FCC and the ARRL had envisioned.

Anyone here who was there when the 1951 restructure happened? It would be interesting to hear your take on it.

73
George
K3UD

WA5KRP
04-14-2004, 05:25 PM
Along with the turmoil it created within the amateur community, IL put a lot of established amateur radio manufacturers out of business. It was a shame to see Hammarlund and Hallicrafters close their doors and Johnson, Drake, and (Rockwell)Collins drop their amateur lines.

K3UD, thanks for your insight. It doesn't fix anything, but it helps explain an awful lot. And makes it very clear that privileges should not be tampered with lightly.

But at this point in time, when considering what will have the strongest impact on amateur radio's future, I would have to say my more immediate concern is BPL. IL snipped a few KC's here and there and all hell broke loose. In stark and frightening contrast, BPL has the potential to take out most of our HF/VHF spectrum if wide scale deployment is successful.

So far, it seems all we hear are that amateurs in areas of BPL deployment are dealing with noise levels that make communications darn near impossible. I'm still waiting to hear what amateur operators' impact has been on BPL.


73

WA5KRP
Texas

W3MIV
04-14-2004, 08:25 PM
One of the most worrying problems, in my view, is the reaction that BPL customers are going to have when the local ham next door knocks the Debbie Does Dallas lifts off his router. It ain't gonna be pretty.
ARRL has a list (now somewhere on the ARRL website) of several items that each of us should urge on the FCC. One of them was to require that BPL providers make it clear to prospective customers that, as a secondary service, BPL is subject to accepting whatever interference hams may cause, and not the other way round.
It's gonna get uglier before it gets better—if it does get better.

WA5KRP
04-14-2004, 09:45 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 14 2004,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's gonna get uglier before it gets better—if it does get better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That may be frighteningly accurate. Nonetheless, it should not distract our eye from the ball.

BPL is an ALTERNATIVE to broadband services that already exist. Current broadband providers have been provacatively quiet so far.

BPL has many potential shortcomings but only a learning curve developed between providers and subscribers will bring them to light.

The amateur radio service needs to stand its grounds. Other HF users will start to weigh in as their channels receive interference and we will not appear to be the only bad guy.

Ultimately, if Japan, a technologically advanced country with as much political infrastructure as the US can find BPL unacceptible, it's not a reach to figure the same thing will happen here.

For now, we need to stay informed and meet BPL head on. WE CAN'T BLINK.


73


WA5KRP
Texas

W3MIV
04-15-2004, 11:17 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa5krp @ April 14 2004,14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 14 2004,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's gonna get uglier before it gets better—if it does get better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That may be frighteningly accurate. #Nonetheless, it should not distract our eye from the ball. #

BPL is an ALTERNATIVE to broadband services that already exist. #Current broadband providers have been provacatively quiet so far.

BPL has many potential shortcomings but only a learning curve developed between providers and subscribers will bring them to light. #

The amateur radio service needs to stand its grounds. #Other HF users will start to weigh in as their channels receive interference and we will not appear to be the only bad guy.

Ultimately, if Japan, a technologically advanced country with as much political infrastructure as the US can find BPL unacceptible, it's not a reach to figure the same thing will happen here.

For now, we need to stay informed and meet BPL head on. #WE CAN'T BLINK.


73


WA5KRP
Texas[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree with you in every particular. BPL was shut down in Austria after testing revealed far too many problems to solve than blessings to deliver.
The worry is, there is a LOT of money riding on this in some quarters, and a LOT of political capital is being invested in it.
I do not fear market forces, but I do fear government regulators who have little care or understanding about market forces.

K3UD
04-15-2004, 01:37 PM
This is a re-post of something I wrote earlier but here are some possibilities of what might happen when BPL widely deployed.

This is a point I have posted about in the past.

While there might be a warning label concerning possible interference issues stuck on the modem or in the BPL service contract signed by the consumer, most people who sign up for the service will either ignore it or not understand it.

Ever have a problem with a neighbor who is hearing you on the baby monitor or cordless phone? What happens if you tell them that they HAVE to put up with the interference because the FCC says so? If this happens with BPL, and people in your neighborhood end up with poor connections, system shutdowns, messed up downloads and other inpediments to their surfing pleasure, the first thing they are going to do is call the service provider.

Will the service provider then tell them that, well.....yes... this can happen and it is all because of that ham radio operator who lives on Elm street and there is really not anything we can do about it? Or, will the respond by saying ..... Hey if you read your service agreement you should know that you have to accept interference from licensed services using the same frequencies that we use?

This becomes a dangerous area in several respects.

1. The service provider absolves itself of all responsibility and as a result loses subscribers and runs into financial problems. The company then runs to the FCC or congress with a story about how they never expected interference to their service and by God... what are you going to do to help us protect the investment of our stockholders. (Large potential for disaster here)

2. #The service provider tells the customer that the ham is really at fault and for the customer to work it out with him. Dynamite waiting to go off.

3. #The customer and the service provider petition a local court for relief in an attempt to get the interference problem under local control.

Talk about the potential for warfare.

73
George
K3UD

W3MIV
04-15-2004, 01:48 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3UD @ April 15 2004,06:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a re-post of something I wrote earlier but here are some possibilities of what might happen when BPL widely deployed.....Talk about the potential for warfare.

73
George
K3UD[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I shortened the quote, not to be rude, but to reduce the space.
I agree with you on every point, and that is precisely why I am trying to get people re-focused on this issue (and the RFID potential for similar problems) instead of all the foolish anger and frustration now being wasted on know-code/no-code, incentive licensing and all the other things that are either dead and gone or beyond worry in comparison.
ARRL is 150,000 amateurs out of more than 700,000 theorteticals. Even if every single amateur suddenly sits up and awakens to the potential for trouble and joins ARRL to fight these things in a unified manner, it is still going to be an uphill battle against very influential folks with lots of money to throw into the fray.
It is astonishing to me the way some hams think.