On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II. Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

The only others who need Morse qualification at present are military
intelligence intercept operators and their civilian counterparts in
the FCC and certain other spook agencies - and those service techs
who want to be able to read and understand what their clients' Morse
IDers are saying when they go haywire.

We hams may be the "keeper of the flame" because we want to do it,
but there is no need to require it.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.

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

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.

OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.

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

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, the FCC probably had some misguided ham employee pushing Morse.

Brian

"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!


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.
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. ARRL didn't think these
guys would be "real hams" and used their "inside guys" at FCC to squash
such progressive thinking.

73, de Hans, K0HB


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From
the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes,
the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave
all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm.
When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so
hopped
up on code testing back then?

Intense lobbying by the ARRL?

Nope. ARRL's proposal was to go back to the pre-1953 system where it took an
Advanced or Extra for full privileges. Also reopen the Advanced to new
licenses.

Well whoopee for you. You constantly repeat What Was Done. If it
doesn't favor your position, the FCC is the evil weenie. If it does
favor your position then it is the Glory of the World...

1965 is THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO,

So what? You talk about much older things that are much less relevant.

Radio for communications is "irrelevant?" You're weird, Rev. Jim.

THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO you were about 10 years old. At the
same time I'd already worked three years in military HF and micro-
wave communications with my Honorable Discharge received five
years in the past. You work a lot of communications at age 10?

Of course you did!


No Internet then and
Washington, DC, was a far place to get to and communicate by paper.

Not at all. An envelope and a stamp.

...and the courage to write.

You spend a lot of your allowance on paper, envelopes and stamps, did
you?

Hams in the USA rarely wrote to the FCC for anything...

Wrong. The incentive licensing proposals brought in over 6000 comments back
then, even though there were only about 250,000 US hams.

Oh? Did you frequent the FCC Reading Room in DC a lot? Did you read
all "6000" comments? Frankly, I don't think you did squat about any
comments way back when.


Did you have a point to make?

Yes. Why haven't you made any points yet, despite the hours and
hours of newsgrouping?

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From
the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes,
the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave
all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm.
When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so
hopped
up on code testing back then?

Intense lobbying by the ARRL?

Nope. ARRL's proposal was to go back to the pre-1953 system where it took an
Advanced or Extra for full privileges. Also reopen the Advanced to new
licenses.

Well whoopee for you.

You asked a question, I answered it. Do you have a problem with the
facts?

You constantly repeat What Was Done.

So? You constantly repeat What Len Did.

If it
doesn't favor your position, the FCC is the evil weenie. If it does
favor your position then it is the Glory of the World...

If someone doesn't agree with your position, they are an "evil weenie"
and treated to your insult. If someone agrees with you they can do no
wrong and are "the Glory of the World..."

Heaven forbid someone prove you to be in error about anything.

1965 is THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO,

So what? You talk about much older things that are much less relevant.

Radio for communications is "irrelevant?"

Your personal experience of fifty plus years ago is irrelevant to
amateur radio policy, but you repeat it anyway.

THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO you were about 10 years old. At the
same time I'd already worked three years in military HF and micro-
wave communications with my Honorable Discharge received five
years in the past.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

No Internet then and
Washington, DC, was a far place to get to and communicate by paper.

Not at all. An envelope and a stamp.

...and the courage to write.

"courage"?

You spend a lot of your allowance on paper, envelopes and stamps, did
you?

Nope. Did you?

Hams in the USA rarely wrote to the FCC for anything...

Wrong. The incentive licensing proposals brought in over 6000 comments back
then, even though there were only about 250,000 US hams.

Oh?

Yep.

Did you frequent the FCC Reading Room in DC a lot?

No - did you?

Did you read all "6000" comments?

No - did you?

Frankly, I don't think you did squat about any
comments way back when.

I don't claim to.

Did you comment "way back then"?

Do you have any disproof of my facts as stated?

Didn't think so.

Tell us more about the ham-astronauts and their callsigns, Len.

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.

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dee D. Flint wrote:

Tried anchovies but they go in the do not repeat category. However bacon,
sausage, pepperoni, etc are all nice.

Feeling brave, Dee? Pizza with ham and pineapple. Sounds disgusting,
tastes great!

I tried that combo once. Sounds disgusting, tastes disgusting. YMMV

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Feeling brave, Dee? Pizza with ham and pineapple. Sounds disgusting,
tastes great!

I tried that combo once. Sounds disgusting, tastes disgusting. YMMV

Jim:

Actually, an Hawaiian Pizza is best when the "ham" is actually Canadian
Bacon, and the pineapple is fresh, not canned. They have to be scattered
over the pizza BEFORE baking, not after. The ham (bacon) has to be
crisp, and the pineapple well caramelized. A properly prepared Hawaiian
Pizza is, as Martha would say, a very good thing!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry:

OMG! Another thing we agree on...... damn, this is getting scary! My mouth
is watering and my finger getting ready to dial the pizza place after
reading this post!



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
Jim:

Actually, an Hawaiian Pizza is best when the "ham" is actually Canadian
Bacon, and the pineapple is fresh, not canned. They have to be scattered
over the pizza BEFORE baking, not after. The ham (bacon) has to be
crisp, and the pineapple well caramelized. A properly prepared Hawaiian
Pizza is, as Martha would say, a very good thing!

73 de Larry, K3LT