[CW] Ain't it awful?

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/14/02 3:48:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
k4kyv@hotmail.com writes:

> >From: N2EY@aol.com
>  
>  > >  The tragedy is that Incentive Licensing was a dismal failure in terms 
>  >of
>  >its
>  > >  intended purpose, to enhance the technical and operating expertise of 
>  >the
>  > >  amateur community.
>  >
>  >How so? Extras made up about 2% of the ARS in 1965. Today they are almost
>  >15%...?
>  
>  Naturally, by conveying actual operating privileges instead of being a 
mere 
>  piece of wallpaper to boost a ham's ego, the Extra Class ticket drew 
>  increased interest.  And this ticket does require study. 

Yup. The Advanced did the same thing, too, as an intermediate step between 
General and Extra.

>  What I am 
>  referring to is actual on-the-air technical competence and amateur 
interest 
>  in the technical aspects of radio. Once Incentive Licensing had gone into 
>  effect in 1968, the decline in interest in the technical aspects of 
amateur 
>  radio accelerated, if anything.  Look at the state of technical 
>  competence/interest in the amateur community as a whole today.
>  
>  It was about 1968-69 that hams began to abandon homebrewing en masse. I 
>  recall one of the Incentive Licensing rallying cries was that "hams are 
not 
>  building anymore".  But in the late 60's and early 70's, parts for 
building 
>  transmitters could be had at hamfests for almost nothing, and existing 
>  homebrew rigs were going to landfills in droves, to be replaced by 
(usually 
>  drastically inferior quality) "new" factory-built radios.  I acquired much 
>  of my present-day radio parts warehouse from hamfests of that era.  People 
>  used to laugh when they saw me lugging large plate transformers, oil caps, 
>  transmitting variables, etc. to the car. (With today's prices for these 
>  items, I'm having the last laugh!)
>  
>  The point is, immediately following Incentive Licensing, appliance 
operation 
>  became not only mainstream, but grew to include the vast majority of the 
ham 
>  community.  In a very few years, ham radio transformed from a 
>  technically-oriented radio service to what is now primarily a 
>  "communicators' hobby".  Compare magazines like CQ and even QST from the 
>  1953-68 era to 1970 and later, in terms of the number of technical 
articles 
>  and construction projects.  Even though the League has continued to 
>  encourage amateur experimentation, they have increasingly been willing to 
>  admit that experimenters and builders are becoming an ever smaller 
sub-group 
>  within the hobby. Except for increasing amateurs' skills at taking paper 
>  tests, what has Incentive Licensing done to reverse or even decelerate 
this 
>  trend?  From the very beginning it was a dismal failure in terms of its 
>  originally stated purpose.

The reasons many hams stopped building were many, and had little to do with 
license requirements. One reason was increasing prosperity and the increased
buying power of the amateur dollar. Another was the increasing complexity and
miniaturization of amateur gear in the late '50s and early '60s. 

And this trend started long before the 1968-70 era. 

The rise in popularity of SSB transceivers drove this trend. Most hams could 
build
separate receivers and transmitters in their basement workshops, and in most
cases they could be built incrementally, one feature at a time. The classic 
high
power AM-CW rig is a perfect example. A ham could start with a basic 
transmitter,
adding VFO, high power final, and modulator in stages as funds and experience 
were gained. Similar things were done on the receiving side. And money was 
saved at each step. 

But an SSB transceiver has to be designed and built all at once, and its 
complexity exceeds that of an advanced receiver. Most hams were and are 
intimidated by the concept of building one from scratch, let alone designing 
one. And the cost of all-new parts plus the time to build one became too 
daunting. Yet a manufactured or kit transceiver could easily cost less than 
the parts and tools to homebrew a transmitter and receiver of lesser 
complexity.

The SSB transmitter also had a negative effect on CW operation. Most of the 
early ones did not include such features as a sharp filter, defeatable AGC, 
independent control of T and R frequency, or QSK. Some did not offer CW 
operation at all (HW-12/22/32, SBE rigs, early Swans) But these rigs were 
near-ideal for SSB operation. They made it easier to get on 'phone than CW.

How many '60s hams could build a KWM-2 or TR-3 equivalent in their basement? 
How much would it cost the few who could? 

Kits were an intermediate step in this process that pushed it along even 
faster. Rigs like the SB-100 ($369 in the early '60s) and the HW-100 ($249 in 
the late 1960s) cost less than good receivers of less than a decade earlier. 
Perhaps the best example was the HW-16 Novice rig - a near-complete station 
for the Novice that cost $100 as a new kit and had everything the Novice 
needed. 

The demise of most American rig manufacturers by the "Japanese invasion" of 
the '70s finished the job. How many '70s hams could build a rig to compete 
with a TS-520?

The technical advances of the '70s were in the area of repeaters, satellites, 
SSTV and such, rather than the building of transmitters and receivers.
  
>  >What mistake did the League make? They knew that flatout opposition was a
>  >losing game.
>  
>  As I recall, the League initiated the idea with the famous editorial in a 
>  1963 issue of QST: "Isn't it time we returned to Incentive Licensing"?  

This editorial came about as a result of FCC prodding. It was FCC, not ARRL, 
that 
initiated the process. And this was in 1963 - 5 years before IL went into 
effect. It was not a new concern of the FCC's, whose actions in this area 
were often enigmatic.

>  As 
>  the debate heated up, League bashing by opposing amateurs became rampant. 
>  (Remember the Wayne Green editorials?) 

The Great Gadfly, you mean.

>   I vividly remember watching League 
>  officials catch hell at hamfests on several occasions.  But what the 
League 
>  advocated in 1963 was a simple return to the pre-1953 class A-B licence 
>  structure, on the theory that the liberalisation of General class 
privileges 
>  was an experiment that hadn't worked. Many of the strongest advocates of 
the  
>  1963 proposal undoubtedly would have been opposed to sub-dividing the 
bands.

Of course - but the FCC was not to be stopped in its mission. Subdividing the 
bands did not come from the ARRL.

Returning to the pre-1953 structure would have meant that Generals and 
Conditionals would have lost all HF/MF 'phone privs except 160 and 10 meters 
- and 160 was a chopped up mess back then and not covered by most rigs. FCC 
thought such a move would severely impact 'phone traffic and emergency 
communication. 

>  >The basic concept (of Incentive Licensing) is this: Hams who have full 
>  >privileges should have a
>  >significant
>  >amount of radio knowledge. But to require that level of knowledge from
>  >newcomers
>  >is not reasonable for most people. So the license system is set up so that
>  >there are
>  >licenses that require less knowledge but grant limited privileges.
>  
>  That concept was adopted in 1953 with the Novice and Technician licence 
>  classes.  

No, it wasn't. The situation is more complex.

Back before WW2, the FRC/FCC adopted the ABC system. B and C were 
essentially the same, except that C was by mail and B was at an FCC office.

All hams had to pass 13 wpm code and a fairly complex written test of 50
questions that included things like drawing block and schematic diagrams.
Before WW2 the questions were essay-type, but became multiple-choice
about 1940. 

Class B and C hams could operate on all amateur frequencies and run full
power. But they could only operate 'phone on 160, 11, 10 and VHF/UHF. 
The most-desirable 'phone bands (75 and 20) were reserved for Class A
hams, who had to pass an additional written exam and had to have a year's
experience as a Class B or C. Class A was not available by mail, and if a
Class C ham wanted a Class A, he/she had to retake the Class B/C tests
(code and theory) in front of an FCC examiner before being allowed to 
even try the Class A.

In 1951 the FCC restructured the whole thing into the 
Novice/Tech/General/Conditional/Advanced/Extra
system. Novice was meant to be a "learner's permit" temporary license for the 
beginner. Tech was for the techno folks to explore the ultrahighs. Classes B, 
C and A became General, Conditional and Advanced, respectively. The new Extra 
was meant to replace the Advanced, which would be closed to new hams at the 
end of 1952. The restrictions on HF phone would be unchanged. 

The Tech written was the same as General until 1987 - only the code speed was 
different. 

This caused a rush on the FCC offices to get an Advanced before the door 
closed at the end of '52 and one had to go for the much more difficult Extra 
to get most of HF phone. 

It is clear that both the ABC and 1951 systems were "incentive licensing" 
systems, holding out the carrot of HF 'phone for those who passed the higher 
level exams. 

But for some reason, at the very end of 1952 the FCC suddenly changed its 
mind and simply gave all privs to all hams except Novices and Techs. No 
public discussion or comment, and I've never seen any reasons given by FCC or 
ARRL as to why the sudden change of heart after years of developing the 1951 
system.

>It arguably worked well until the advent of Incentive Lincensing.

All depends on what is meant by "worked well". Obviously the FCC did not 
think it worked well.  
>  
>  >The real history question is - what caused the FCC to decide, back in 
>'63,
>  >that there
>  >was a serious problem in US ham radio that had to be fixed by 
>complicating 

>  >the
>  >license structure and raising the license requirements? Why was FCC >so
>  >unhappy with ham radio back then?
>  
>  That's a good question.  I suspect the rapid growth in the amateur 
>  population that resulted from the success of the Novice program generated 
a 
>  sense of panic in some quarters.  I remember sharing a widespread feeling 
of 
>  uneasiness at the growth in popularity of "appliance operating" and 
decline 
>  in homebuilding.  

So the trend away from technical pursuits was already well in place before 
the IL
discussions even began. 

>  Newcomers in the late 50's and early 60's were largely 
>  teenagers and young adults; the widely reported "generation-gap" of that 
era 
>  may have swayed some opinion. 

Interesting point. There was also the continuing surprises by the Soviets in 
the early space program. Also, in those days it became increasingly common 
for new hams to have an intense Novice year of learning and setting up a 
station, then, once the General or Conditional was in hand, a manufactured 
setup was built and the Handbook tossed away or left forgotten on a shelf. 

> Indeed, the rate of growth of that period was 
>  unsustainable, but compare that growth to today's stagnation, which 
>  continues in spite of efforts including Novice Enhancement, No-Code 
>  Technicians and finally, the Restructuring of 15 April, 2000.

There's another 1963 editorial that points out some important facts. From the 
end of WW2 (~60,000 US hams) through the 1951 restructuring (~100,000 hams) 
to 1963 (~240,000 hams), US ham radio "just growed". Then all of a sudden the 
growth stopped dead at about a quarter million in 1963 and went almost 
nowhere for almost a decade. Oddly enough, once incentive licensing was in 
place, the growth started up again (~350,000 by 1979, half a million or so by 
1990, 683K today). 
>  
>  A widely overlooked change that occurred with Incentive Licensing was the 
>  elimination of the Conditional Class licence.  For a number of years, 
>  persons living a mere 75 miles or more from an FCC examination point could 
>  take a test by mail, before a single volunteer examiner, that granted 
>  privileges equivalent to the General class.  The "beyond 75 mile radius" 
>  made persons living in the majority of the land mass of the continental 
>  United States eligible for the Conditional exam.  Needless to say, 
>  widespread fraud involved with the Conditional test may have influenced 
>  events that led to the perceived need for Inentive Licensing.  This was 
>  probably the only positive change, in terms of its intended purpose, to 
come 
>  out of the Incentive Licensing proceeding.

Before about 1953, the radius was 125 miles "air line", and the Class 
C/Conditional ham had to retest if he/she moved within range of an FCC 
quarterly exam point. Novices and Techs took their exams at FCC offices back 
then unless they met the distance requirement.

After about 1953, the radius dropped to 75 miles, Novices and Techs were all 
by mail, and the retest requirement was quietly dropped. Thus it was possible 
for a post 1953 ham to get full privileges without ever testing in front of 
an FCC examiner.

In 1963 the radius was expanded to 175 miles and the number of quarterly exam 
points increased. The places where one could qualify for a Conditional 
dropped sharply - and so did the number of new hams.

I do not personally know of any fraud in the testing of those days, but one 
heard all
sorts of stories. One "trick" I heard described was for hams close to an FCC 
office
to use the address of a relative who lived outside the 75 mile circle, as if 
they actually lived there. Then, once the Conditional was in hand, the ham 
would "move" to his actual address. 

Other reasons for the sudden growth stoppage in 1963:

- the popularity of 27 MHz CB (the number of cb permits exceeded the number 
of hams in that year)

- License fees (first $4, then $9 - a bit of money in those days of 25 cent 
gas and
  $5000 being a good middle-class income)

- the widespread adoption of SSB making most ham 'phone transmissions 
   unintelligible to most SWLs.

- societal and cultural changes ranging from Beatlemania to the space race to 
Vietnam diverting the attention and energy of the young people who were the 
primary source of newcomers in the '50s 

--

The long-term question is - if/when the FCC finally kills off all code 
testing, what should the US ham license requirements and structure be?
 
>  73,
>  
>  Don K4KYV (Amateur Extra since 1963)
>  
73 de Jim, N2EY (Novice in 1967, Tech and Advanced in 1968, Extra in 1970)