On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith
wrote:

That is what I'm talking about. There is no longer a international requirement
for morse code so tech's can pick up the microphone and talk on 10 meters.

Sure they can. So can someone with no license at all. And as FCC will
view the matter, the only difference is that a Tech is a licensed ham
who is supposed to know better, and thus will have no excuse.

Here in America the FCC has to issue a warning notice, then a violation notice
and the person cited can then simply demand a hearing before a administrative
law judge. The ALJ is a pretty informal process and you just need to cite the
rules and they are not very strict when it comes to matters like these.

Think so? Tell you what I think, I think you forgot to check your
facts again before opening your mouth to change which foot was in
there. The following is quoted from http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ :

"The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) of the Federal
Communications Commission is responsible for conducting the hearings
ordered by the Commission. The hearing function includes acting on
interlocutory requests filed in the proceedings such as petitions to
intervene, petitions to enlarge issues, and contested discovery
requests. An Administrative Law Judge, appointed under the APA,
presides at the hearing during which documents and sworn testimony are
received in evidence, and witnesses are cross-examined. At the
conclusion of the evidentiary phase of a proceeding, the Presiding
Administrative Law Judge writes and issues an Initial Decision which
may be appealed to the Commission."

You call that an informal process?

Be advised that there are people currently behind bars because they
tangled with the FCC. The way you're going, you're going to be one of
them before the code test goes away. I suggest that you either find
out what you're talking about first, or stick to other newsgroups
where the participants don't know any better.

If you have a tech license and you operate outside your allowed bands like pop
up in the twenty meter band and keep it up they might come after you.

Make that "they will definitely come after you."

But if
you meet the international requirements and stay in the HF TECH bands it is not
a violation of the rules

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it *is* a violation of the
rules, unless you have Element 1 credit. Have you ever bothered to
read the rules?

and no one can verify if you have passed a horse and
buggy CW test any god damn way.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this assertion is also
incorrect. Now go back to 11 meters where you belong, troll.

DE John, KC2HMZ

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote:

That is what I'm talking about. There is no longer a international
requirement for morse code so tech's can pick up the microphone and
talk on 10 meters. Here in America the FCC has to issue a warning
notice, then a violation notice and the person cited can then simply
demand a hearing before a administrative law judge. The ALJ is a
pretty informal process and you just need to cite the rules and they
are not very strict when it comes to matters like these. If you have a
tech license and you operate outside your allowed bands like pop up in
the twenty meter band and keep it up they might come after you. But if
you meet the international requirements and stay in the HF TECH bands
it is not a violation of the rules and no one can verify if you have
passed a horse and buggy CW test any god damn way.

Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging
others to violate the Rules, I see.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
A real lawyer who does FCC rule
interpretation for a living, and
does it successfully.

"Keith" wrote in message
...

That is what I'm talking about. There is no longer a international
requirement
for morse code so tech's can pick up the microphone and talk on 10 meters.
Here in America the FCC has to issue a warning notice, then a violation
notice
and the person cited can then simply demand a hearing before a
administrative
law judge. The ALJ is a pretty informal process and you just need to cite
the
rules and they are not very strict when it comes to matters like these.
If you have a tech license and you operate outside your allowed bands
like pop
up in the twenty meter band and keep it up they might come after you. But
if
you meet the international requirements and stay in the HF TECH bands it
is not
a violation of the rules and no one can verify if you have passed a horse
and
buggy CW test any god damn way.

All the removal of the international requirement in the ITU Radio
Regulations
does is to allow each administration to determine on its own whether or not
to keep a Morse test.

Most will eliminate it ...

The US has NOT done so yet, so what is suggested above would be ILLEGAL,
put your license in jeopardy, and give all of ham radio a black eye.

And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the
writer above is totally wrong.


--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

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.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law of
this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing FCC
rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing regulations,
not some possible future change in them.

Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep or
end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no change
in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

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.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules
changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law
of this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing
FCC rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing
regulations, not some possible future change in them.

That's the point -those existing regulations incorporate by reference an
international requirement that no longer exists


Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not
eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep
or end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no
change in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

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.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules
changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law
of this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing
FCC rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing
regulations, not some possible future change in them.

Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not
eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep
or end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no
change in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


To be fair though, I am playing devil's advocate to some extent. I don't
want to get Techs in trouble. What I'm saying is that there is now at
least an arguable interpretation of the _existing_ regulations that would
allow no-code Techs on the Novice bands now.

The key words in FCC s.97.301(e) are "Technician Class and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". The current wording of ITU s25.5 (supra) does
not _require_ anyone to pass a code test unless the administration says
so, ergo it is _not_ a _requirement_ , international or otherwise.

The FCC rule does not stop after "has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy". If it did it would be unambiguous. If we give any weight to
the next part of the sentence "in accordance with the international
requirements", we are forced to take into account the fact that the
international regulations do not require "proficiency in telegraphy' any
longer, as of July 5th inst. If this means anything, it ought to mean that
since there is no longer an international requirement for proficiency in
telegraphy, then the rule should be interpreted to apply simply to
"Technician Class" operators without further qualification.

OTOH, relying on this argument is risky!

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

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.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules
changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law of
this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing FCC
rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing regulations,
not some possible future change in them.

Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not
eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep or
end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no change
in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



EXACTLY!!!

JMS

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:08 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Technician Plus license holder

The FCC does not issue technician plus license any more so I guess no one can
operate on 10 meters that has passed the tech license test?

Hey Dwight have you ever driven 56 in 55 mph zone?


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

"Keith" wrote:

The FCC does not issue technician plus license any
more so I guess no one can operate on 10 meters
that has passed the tech license test?


True, the FCC no longer issues that license. However, those with an
existing Tech Plus license before the change still retain that license and
operating privileges. Today, Technician license holders who have also passed
the code test get the same HF operating privileges as those earlier Tech
Plus license holders.


Hey Dwight have you ever driven 56 in 55 mph zone?


Yes, I have driven faster than the speed limit when I felt, rightly or
wrongly, I could do so safely. The decision to do so was based on my
personal assessment the possible impact of my actions. But this goes back to
what I said earlier. Again, I do not just base my decision to abide by the
rules and regulations governing Amateur Radio solely on FCC enforcement
abilities. Instead, I base that decision on my own sense of what is good for
the Amateur Radio community - the impact of my actions. I personally benefit
from a community with a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations.
Therefore, it is in my own best interests not to do anything to upset that
situation. As a result, I also abide by the the rules and regulations.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Keith wrote in message ...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:08 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Technician Plus license holder

The FCC does not issue technician plus license any more so I guess no one can
operate on 10 meters that has passed the tech license test?

Hey Dwight have you ever driven 56 in 55 mph zone?

Haven't we all?

But the State does not have the authority to impose "Notice of
Apparent Liability" in the sum of $8000 per day per violation either,
now does it?

73

Steve, K4YZ