GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
Legally, Part 97 does not state that you must be a general class or
technician etc. to transmit on certain bands.

See Section 97.301. Then see below:



0 2 4 6 8 10
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
TROLL-O-METER

No 73 for you,
Jeff KH6O


--

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:15:36 +0000, Jeffrey Herman wrote:

0 2 4 6 8 10
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
TROLL-O-METER

No 73 for you,
Jeff KH6O

Shouldn't that show S9 +60db?

;-)

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

"Nate Bargmann" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:15:36 +0000, Jeffrey Herman wrote:

0 2 4 6 8 10
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
TROLL-O-METER

No 73 for you,
Jeff KH6O

Shouldn't that show S9 +60db?

more like 60 pounds gud buddy!

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
I
am kind of excited that there will be a crop of amateurs, new to HF, that
will need a good deal of Elmering. Lots of exciting stuff to learn and
pass on.

And rule number one is what you stated above - keep within the privileges.

Mike, forgive me for being blunt but you are in fantasy land.

Forgive me for being blunt, but there are are different fantasylands
for different people. Your's is just a bitter one. Good for you, and
enjoy it! 8^)



It didn't happen when we reduced from 13 wpm to 5 wpm. What makes you think
that reducing from 5 wpm to 0 will have any effect?

What is "it" that didn't work?



I too have said I was waiting for the long promised injection of scientific
RF talent and youth into the service but I was merely being cynical because
it was a false promise 10 years ago and its non-fulfillment in coming years
will prove that the premise was false; it was merely used as a talking point
to support no-code and the FCC bought off on it.

The Technician license was and is a dead end. Lots of people talked
their only mildly interested spouses and friends into it. It was a mistake.

Notice that you speak of Talent and youth. I don't particularly
careabout either - note I spoke of inexperienced people, not
Techno-wizzes or youth. Techno-wizzes already know it all, and the days
of youth involvement in Amateur radio as well as many other hobbies is
pretty much over. Youth are being largely segregated from the rest of
the population, presumably to "protect" them.




Of course, and as is the case for so many political matters, truth is not
really that important and there is no accountability for these false
promises except by pests like me who will use every opportunity to remind us
of them.

Sigh... Sometimes I am amazed at the stances taken by some pro-code
people. And this is coming from a pro-code Ham.

At least you can be thankful for the many years that Morse code testing
has ensured that Hams of old were upstanding, technically savvy and
morally upright. ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

What is "it" that didn't work?

The "it"? I will quote from your own post:

I
am kind of excited that there will be a crop of amateurs, new to HF,
that will need a good deal of Elmering. Lots of exciting stuff to learn
and pass on.

I an saying that without code, nothing will change. So, what are you so
excited about in this aftermath of "no code"?

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
...

As I have pointed out before, Einstein, Tesla, Hawkins, etc. never
bothered getting a ham ticket ... I doubt morse was the major cause (ya
don't think it was on account of the caliber of the individuals
inhabiting the bands, do 'ya? NAAAA!)

However, there is a possibility NOW that amateur radio will change and
the dead wood will be replaced by progressively minded individuals ...

JS

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

" However, actual statute law trumps bureaucracy. The Federal Register
merely
records laws that have already been enacted. The Constitution was in
effect prior to the existence of a FR and nowhere is the FR mentioned in
today's constitution.

True, but is there some other piece of Statute Law that states that
legislation cannot come into force until it has been promulgated in the
Federal Register?

Jeff

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. com...

" However, actual statute law trumps bureaucracy. The Federal Register
merely
records laws that have already been enacted. The Constitution was in
effect prior to the existence of a FR and nowhere is the FR mentioned in
today's constitution.

True, but is there some other piece of Statute Law that states that
legislation cannot come into force until it has been promulgated in the
Federal Register?

Yes, and as it was pointed out to me, it can (and probably is usually true)
that the effectivity can be conditional on the FR publication if this is
stated in the body of the law, as it was. I continue to be amazed at our
system of laws; legislators make laws without knowing when they will
actually become effective. The actual effectivity dates are delegated to
non-elected bureaucrats who publish a paper. I cannot imagine that some laws
whose effectivity dates can mean the accumulation (or loss) of wealth for
each day publication is delayed or speeded up could have not a corruptive
effect on these nameless people.

A war could be declared but not be put into effect until 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
legislators make laws without knowing when they will
actually become effective.

Heck, legislators often make ineffective laws.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

GO AHEAD, you can transmit voice SSB NOW!
 

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...


However, there is a possibility NOW that amateur radio will change and the
dead wood will be replaced by progressively minded individuals ...

You seem to be assuming that all progressive individuals were blocked from
amateur radio due to the code requirement. That is simply not true. There
are many progressive individuals who passed or could have passed the Morse
test. Also, amateur radio is not zero-sum: A new non morse ham does not
replace an old morse ham; he/she simply adds to the existing base of all
hams in the service. True, your claim is supported by the fact that natural
attrition will generally result in young hams replacing old hams; however,
future hams, young and old, who are not tested for Morse, might very well
have wanted to pass, and indeed passed the Morse test, had it been required;
therefore, non-progressives who could have passed the test, and who would
would have wanted to pass the test are not prevented from entering the
service. Also, the small subset of individuals who 1) could not pass the
test and 2) are progessive is only a small percentage of all hams, both
progressive and non-progressive, who either have or do not have the ability
to pass a Morse test. There are many hams on this group whom I would call
progressive but all of whom have passed the Morse test; they may not have
favored it but they themselves passed it.

So, tell me how is there a "possibility" that amateur radio will change
significantly when the impact of no code testing is obviously so small?