Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 09:08 PM
Keith
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:47:07 -0500, 'Doc wrote:

Keith,
What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule'
you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has
been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until
the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US,
nothing has changed.


The 25.5 is automatically accepted by the US Government. The treaty has
already been previously ratified. The change is administrative and it is not a
new treaty.



--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/
  #13   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 10:40 PM
Dan/W4NTI
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, 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:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a

licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!


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.


This is silly. Each country has it's own laws, and you are obliged
to follow them.

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

That means that each country no longer has to conform to that treaty
agreement.

They can, if they so choose, to eliminate their law that requires
code proficiency for amateurs operating in the HF bands.

But they are not obligated to do so.

Until a country changes it's law about this, everyone is obligated
to follow those laws.

Just because the treaty agreement is gone does not mean that there
is any more legality for someone who hasn't taken a code test to operate
at HF. Two months ago, someone could have done it, and if caught they
would face a certain process. If they do it today, and are caught,
they face the same certain process. Nothing has changed on that
account.

Michael VE2BVW


If the FCC decided to drop CW requirement totally they could still say the
TECHNICIAN is a VHF ONLY LICENSE. Or the could say its a VHF and 28.3-28.5
voice ONLY LICENSE.

In anycase I highly doubt the FCC will give the Technician ticket an
equivilant to a General UNLESS the Tech was issued prior to 1986 when the
WRITTEN was the same for Tech and General.

Get over it Keith.

Dan/W4NTI


  #14   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 10:46 PM
Scott Unit 69
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd hate to be your underwear when the Uncle
asks you for proof of Element 1.
  #15   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 10:55 PM
Dan/W4NTI
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:29:59 -0400, Dwight Stewart

wrote:

" wrote:

Let the FCC know that they can no longer keep you
from your right to use the ten meter band allocation
if you are a technician licensee. (snip)

You don't have to use your identity, (snip)

(snip) I will be on the air and I hope 10,000 or
more no code technicians will join me. (snip)



And I suspect anyone who did this would find himself very much alone

on
those frequencies. Only an idiot would risk his license doing something

like
this. That and your provocative email address, should be enough to

convince
most you message is nothing more than a message trolling for suckers

foolish
enough to take it seriously.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Dwight, There is no way for anyone to know if a tech license has passed a
morse code test and all techs have voice privileges for 28.3-28.5 MHz.
What is the FCC going to do run around and check every tech license

holder?
Besides would you rather give up ten meters to truckers and CBers?


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


Thats not the point Keith.

Item one there is no "RIGHT" to the ten meter sub-band to a Technician
licensee. It is a PRIVILIDGE. Turn your license over and read that part.

Item two by doing such a thing only proves what us 'coders' have said over
and over. Its all about a bunch of CB outlaws that are trying to destroy
Amateur Radio by bringing the lawless tactics and attituded to the ARS.

Come to think of it...Go ahead boneheads. Show the FCC we were right.

Dan/W4NTI




  #16   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 10:56 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, 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:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a

licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!


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.


While not a violation of the international treaty, it would be a violation
of the current FCC rules. They are quite clear that Techs (at this time)
must have passed a code test to use HF. Keep in mind that the international
treaty did not abolish the requirement altogether but simply let each
country set its own requirements of any where from no-code to whatever the
country wished. Our FCC rules have not yet changed so a codeless tech
operating HF is in violation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #17   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 11:19 PM
Keith
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:40:56 -0500, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:

In anycase I highly doubt the FCC will give the Technician ticket an
equivilant to a General UNLESS the Tech was issued prior to 1986 when the
WRITTEN was the same for Tech and General.

Get over it Keith.


You are not on track and are unable to follow a discussion. I am talking about
a technician class licensee having tech class HF privileges without the code
test. I'm not talking about making them to general.

Don't worry this is going to be reviewed legally very soon.

--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/
  #18   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 11:41 PM
Keith
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:56:50 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote:

While not a violation of the international treaty, it would be a violation
of the current FCC rules. They are quite clear that Techs (at this time)
must have passed a code test to use HF.


NO! This is what the rules say:

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)


Now we have the new regs from WRC that are NOW in effect. They require no morse
code test except set down by the administration so a tech licensee should be in
compliance with the requirement set down in 97.301(e) There is no requirement
for morse code test except for the requirement by the international morse code
requirements.





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

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and
receive texts in Morse code signals.


The ARRL tried to pull a fast one, but the way the FCC rules are written it
appears that it doesn't hold water with current regulations as set down by the
FCC.

Don't worry I'm going to get real legal advice on this.

1. FCC requires compliance with international morse code regulation.
2. The international morse code regulation is changed to something completely
different and no longer has any morse code proficiency requirement except what
the administration of that country requires.
3. The FCC, the administration of the USA, only requires the tech licensee to
comply with the morse code proficiency requirements required by international
requirements.
4. The international requirements have no requirement to know morse code.

This could be a legal loop hole.


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/
  #19   Report Post  
Old July 25th 03, 11:56 PM
Michael Black
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 20:01:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.


Read the regulation. The regulation indicates that according to international
morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Well the international
regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access.
97.301(e)
I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS".

BTW, what do you care about US regs if you live in Canada?


By your interpretation, every ham in the world can start operating
on HF, no matter what their license restricts them to, merely because
the international agreement on this matter has been rescinded. Your false
interpretation would therefore apply to all countries. Besides, you
posted in newsgroups that are read by people in many countries, so
why shouldn't I comment.

The international agreement does not set the rules. While except for
Japan with their low power license I can't think of any country that
did not respect the treaty agreement, there wasn't much to keep countries
from not honoring the treaty, other than on a diplomatic level. If
someone operated on HF without passing a code test, they weren't
prosecuted by an international body, they were pursued by their
own country's enforcement body, which also set the rules that
the person was violating. Each country had to put in place rules that
reflect the agreement.

Those rules are still in effect, until they are changed.

"We had to put these rules in place because we honor the international
treaty."

That's a big difference from "You have to know morse code or else the
international boogy man will come down and toss you in jail".

The first is about implementing rules that honor an international agreement.
The second is some international law that you must respect directly.

Find some other section of your rules, and you're bound to find something
that tells you you can't operate HF with certain classes of licenses.
That's the rule that is in control. It's absolute, and not dependent
on some international treaty.

When I was a kid, there was no license here in Canada that let someone
operate without taking a code test. Some likely argued that the code
test was there because of the international agreement, but the rules
were quite clear, you couldn't operate unless you took a test, and part
of that test was a code test. Back in 1978, there was a code-free
license here, but only useable at 220MHz and up, and had a lot of
digital questions. The rules were clear; if you got that license
you could only operate on those VHF frequencies. Back in 1990, there was
restructuring, and there was a license which did not require a code test;
but it was also clear in setting out where you could operate.

For that matter, the US Technician license originally was VHF and UHF
only, yet there was a code test. Your FCC decided it was a necessary
requirement, even if the treaty did not require it in that case. It
was only in more recent decades, when 10meters was added, that the treaty
required a code test. Take away the code test, and the FCC limited
such licenses to VHF and above.

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

Michael VE2BVW


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) N2EY Policy 6 December 2nd 03 03:45 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM
Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st Bill Sohl CB 8 July 30th 03 12:04 AM
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st Merl Turkin Policy 0 July 25th 03 02:28 AM
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st Merl Turkin CB 0 July 25th 03 02:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017