In article , JJ
writes:

Mike Coslo wrote:

JJ wrote:

William wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...

Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean
that the act didn't take place.

Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."

They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth
method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used?

Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks!

- Mike KB3EIA -

A lot of people like to argue a point even if they are wrong.

Such as yourself.

The subject of "spacing" in telegraphy tests was long and drawn
out in the past postings on this newsgrope.

Part 97 did not, and still does not, describe International Morse
Code directly, nor does it define the equivalent word rate for same.
The only reference to International Morse Code is a CCITT
document found at the International Telecommunications Union,
itself having been replaced by an ITU document number some
years ago. I have that document. So does Brian Burke. No one
else in here has admitted having that document.

The "CCITT" (a French acronym translating to "International
Communications Consultative Committee') was formed many
years ago and was concerned primarily with wired commercial
communications systems. Cooperative regulatory actions in that
field are handled now by the ITU-T, the "-T" referring to Tele-
communications. Cooperative regulatory actions in radio are
handled by the ITU-R, the "-R" referring to radiocommunications.
The ITU is a United Nations body, has no separate "police"
functions, and all agreements are based on "good faith" of
diplomacy among all member nations.

In the CCITT document - a very long one, only part of which is
concerned with telegraphy - the character set coding of International
Morse Code is described in relative terms such as ratio of length of
dot to dash to character space to word space. It does NOT include
any definition of "word" in telegraphy nor does it define specifically
any word rate per unit time.

The "Farnsworth" method is, effectively, a two-rate system with
characters transmitted at a higher rate than "word" rate so that
is a distortion of the ratio specifications of the CCITT document
cited by the FCC in Part 97.

A "word" in telegraphy is - by common convention - taken to
be 5 characters plus a space interval. That is NOT defined
specifically in the regulations of any Part within Title 47, C.F.R.
A telegraphy "word" of 5 characters plus space dates back well
before radio existed and was common convention in commercial
wired telegraphy communications. The "word" definitions have
fallen out of regulatory text concerning telegraphy. The insistence
of "we've always done it that way" is extremely arguable in legal
situations and is not a per se definition for laws, rules, and
regulations.

Farnsworth spacing has been approved for U.S. amateur radio
telegraphy testing by the FCC in writing. That came some time
AFTER its practice had been done by some VE teams. It has
NOT been legally defined in detail by the FCC in regulations.

Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE. It required a specific document
(separate from published regulations) from the FCC to permit its
use years after it was begun by Volunteer Examiners.

The argument raged in here due to the overtly sensitive psyches
of certain licensed amateurs who stated they were "right" because
they were licensed, tested, etc., etc., yet none of them were
involved in setting regulations for any radio service and certainly had
no power to enforce any beyond whining and crying in this
newsgrope. The only "regular" who had actual, legal experience in
communications law stayed away from the main argument.

LHA / WMD