RadioBanter - View Single Post - Ham Radio In The Post-Code Testing Era

July 21st 03, 11:33 PM

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ilgate.org,
"Hans
Kohb" writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Because until about 1960, most of the "small boys" (destroyers,
submarines, frigates, and fleet tugs) still used Morse for passing
traffic ashore. With the advent of Orestes (covered Baudot) in these
hulls, about 1963, the widespread training of Navy Morse code operators
ceased. After that point, each ship had a complement of 2 or 3 Morse
capable operators "just in case" until the late 70's when even that
modest capability was no longer maintained. We're talking about a
quarter century ago!

Sure - so FCC was behind that curve.

I fail to see the connection of the FCC and the US Navy insofar as
modes of communications "influence" in military radio. That is
solely your inference/opinion and not bolstered by any factual data.

Note also W4NTI's military service and use of Morse skill in same.

Totally irrelevant. Dan, W4NTI, served in the USAF and was TDY
in Thailand to an Army unit doing ELINT work, interceptions. That
is NOT communications, just military intelligence tasks.

While there is cooperation between military branches on methods
and hardware for same, the USN is not "influenced" on needed
choices of communications by what either the USA or USAF use.

Hans Brakob has a lot of experience in USN communications. I
have some experience in US Army communications. We have both
serviced in the military. You have not served in the US military and
have no prior claim to doing any sort of military communications.

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s?

Because ARRL had the ear of FCC minions like Johnny Johnston, et. al.

Yet it was FCC, not ARRL, that wanted more code testing. If FCC had simply
adopted ARRL's 1963 proposal, 13 wpm and an Advanced would have gotten hams
all privileges.

FCC came up with 16 wpm from a source other than ARRL. The League and others
eventually got FCC to drop that idea.

All this "insider information" on cause-effect is a lot of uncorroborated
opinions based on very little. 1963 was FORTY YEARS AGO and
you have not yet had any personal experience with amateur radio at
age 8.

In that same era others at FCC were pushing a "dual ladder" licensing
structure with 4 or five levels of progressively more technical no-code or
minimal-code "VHF/UHF Communicator" licensees.

You might want to recheck the dates and details on that, Hans.

You seem to be confusing civilian-military radio regulation
conditions around WW One with that of post-WW Two. Try to
understand their differences.