On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:23 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse c=
ode.

Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself.

Exactly and 97.301(e) depends on the international proficiency requireme=
nts
laid out in s25.5. Now that there are no longer any proficiency requireme=
nts in
s25.5 then 97.301(e) is affected.


25.5 Any person seeking a license to operate the apparatus of an amateur
station shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to rece=
ive
correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals. The administrations concer=
ned
may, however, waive this requirement in the case of stations making use
exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz.

New Text of Article 25.5 (effective July 05, 2003)

25.5 =A73 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seek=
ing a
licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to se=
nd and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

s97.301(e)

For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician
Class and who has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy in accordance with the international
requirements.

The US government has no standards for a technician to know morse code. =
To
receive a certificate yes, but the only reason a tech could not transmit =
on HF
was because of 97.301(e). Now that no code technicians have no requiremen=
t in
international law to know code they should be allowed to transmit on thei=
r
allocated frequency. That doesn't mean they can hop on 20 meters, it mean=
s they
can operate voice/data/cw 28.1-28.5 or even CW on 80, 40 and 15 meters.

Wrong. What it means is that there is a requirement in the FCC regulation =
that
NO LICENSEE CAN MEET.

The international change does not mean that no-code technicians can use tho=
se
HF frequency ranges. It does mean that coded-technicians and novices can N=
O
LONGER use them - because none of them can show compliance with a requireme=
nt
that no longer exists.

The reason that 97.301(e) was written that way is because the government
expected s25.5 to be just deleted and techs could then operate HF. The AR=
RL
with their fancy footwork is trying to stop the removal of morse code as =
a
requirement for a HF license.

It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC
regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000
changes.

But don't worry it looks like BPL is going to destroy the bands anyway a=
nd you
morse code nuts can keep your death grip on those keyers. The ARRL has do=
ne
nothing but help put ham radio in it's grave.