From: g4gvw <g4gvw@aol.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <CE129BE9D44E498E88CD1F4F0284200A@JimPC>
References: <DF04F1B426284824AAC4CCC935179578@AGB>
	 <00d101cc8385$36ca2c10$4001a8c0@lark>
	 <96322D70F9974098BE3BAD32EC55648F@AGB>
	 <CAA8k23TuRdafPnVmd0Y8YgoWRMzL5_8mjbbUizkuksSadWzjyA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1317850793.4144.27.camel@pat-compaq-evo>
	 <000d01cc83aa$41c1ca40$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
	 <1317857588.4715.4.camel@pat-compaq-evo>
	 <FA0DB2D0-3986-4D56-AD82-13763212A2EE@numeo.fr>
	 <1317862909.4715.50.camel@pat-compaq-evo>
	 <CE129BE9D44E498E88CD1F4F0284200A@JimPC>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:56:32 +0100
Message-ID: <1317995793.3560.48.camel@pat-compaq-evo>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none
Subject: Re: LF: Re: RSGB Convention MF side looks a bit thin ??
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
x-aol-global-disposition: G
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:473383392:93952408  
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1db4074e8f055064c3
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Hi Jim,

Point taken and I also have the licence change after WW2 noted. At
various times since then the administration and regulation has passed
through a number of government departments and agencies too.

The argument is still valid and and the more so because it has not
undergone strenuous review since that time. This despite the
technological and social changes wrought. It could be argued, for
instance, that in 1946 images of war were still fresh and the value of
having a 'reserve' of radio operators, technicians and engineers
remained a resource of strategic importance. Going back through the old
radio magazines you will easily find the recruiting adverts aimed at
radio amateurs to join the reserves of the armed forces.

Many technological changes since those times have rendered much of that
thinking into obsolescence.

Even though we might conclude by retaining the current status, the
debate is still worth having because we may be arriving at yet another
crossroads. There are major differences between the "science" and
"sport" aspects of the "hobby". Questions that might be asked could
include; Do those differences matter? If so, how do we address them? How
do we protect our use of spectrum? How best do we identify our serious
intentions to the regulators? Does what we do have real relevance? Do we
continue to be represented as before? Are present structures relevant -
not just for the present but what of the future?

As for perception, try explaining to the guys down the pub that the
"funny looking dish" on your mast enables you to communicate using
"microwaves" and "No it won't set the village on fire"! OK, that's a UK
problem. In the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe such a cooker is
called a Magnetron.

Interestin' eh ?

73 

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 19:49 +0100, James Moritz wrote:
> Dear Graham, Pat, LF Group,
> 
> Having in the past done a few presentations on LF at RSGB conventions, I 
> found that LF was definitely a sideshow compared to HF DXing matters, but 
> none the less, there was a worthwhile and quite enthusiastic attendance. 
> Having an LF station at the convention also gave non - HF DXers something to 
> do!
> 
> Amongst various old amateur radio publications, I have a copy of the January 
> 1946 RSGB Bulletin - predecessor to RadCom. At this time, UK licences were 
> just beginning to be re-issued after the war years, and apparently this was 
> when the change from "radio experimenter's licence" to "radio amateur's 
> licence" was made. The editorial is generally favourable about this official 
> change in status, bringing UK amateurs into alignment with other nations. 
> Apparently, before 1939, any UK amateur transmission was supposed to have 
> some sort of justification as an experiment, and UK stations had to call 
> "TEST" instead of "CQ". The editorial acknowledges that even in these early 
> days, a substantial proportion of amateurs were only really interested in 
> DXing, rather than any radio experimentation. So this argument has been 
> going on for some time...
> 
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU 
> 
> 

-- 
73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw
 qth nr felixstowe uk
(east coast, county of suffolk)