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.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess
element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards
set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF.

I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says.

I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF
privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show
compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a
non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege.

The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the
s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was
changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set
down in 97.301(e).

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to meet the
international requirement. Show me how they can do this if the international
requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate
compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one
of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have
no such privilege.

It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on
HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules.

What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and
day.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the
writer above is totally wrong.

The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if
they upgrade to general or extra.

Not totally correct. The FCC doesn't have information on techs who passed
element 1 after April 15, 2000.

However, what does having passed element 1 for technicians have to do with the
..301(e) privileges? I see no such requirement.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Spamhater wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:

It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons
that
want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a
microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International
requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code
proficiency is GONE.

--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your
term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws.
You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one
sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the
administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are
yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's
standards to the letter.
The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT
mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it
either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either.

Note: If anyone has a CHOICE, then it's not a REQUIREMENT. A requirement, by
definition, means that there is no choice....

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark


--
Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls.

http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote:
Not really. The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". If there is no international requirement to
have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any
frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they
operate on those frequencies.

There may no longer be an international requirement for Morse code
proficiency, but there still is an FCC requirement for Morse code
proficiency, and until the FCC drops that requirement, NOTHING HAS
CHANGED concerning U.S. Amateur Radio.

And this "FCC morse code proficiency" requirement is stated in 47 CFR 97.301(e)
where?

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote:
Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen
to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period.

If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not
seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

You did fine up to here. I fully agree.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

If a government can choose NOT to require something, then it is not an
international requirement but an option. The FCC regulation is dependent on an
international requirement that no longer exists, so how can anyone show
compliance with it?

They can't. What this was was a way for the FCC to get rid of the "technician"
HF privileges and make the novice license so useless that the latter will
either upgrade or die. They dont' have to worry about the "tech plus" class
anymore - there isn't one! 47 CFR 97.21(e) [or whatever it is] that designates
renewals of technician plus licensees as technician demonstrates the FCC's real
intent on this issue.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

I disagree to as what it says.

I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement
that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:

Phil,

So how's retirement going

What "retirement"?

I have less "sitting around" time now than when I was working full
time. I work out at the gym three times a week which I never could
when I had a "real job" (tm). Ditto for hamming.

Pro bono legal and engineering consulting is more fun than I thought
it would be.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:24 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:

Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW.

Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from
the US
government to prove it.

--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

Well then, you should know that 5 WPM isn't that difficult to learn... And I
TOO have a 20 WPM Extra. I have NO problem with the FCC keeping the 5 WPM
code element.

I've seen some situations in my life time where code was able to be used
aside from radio. Not a bad idea to keep it in tact at LEAST at 5 WPM.

JMS