Alun Palmer wrote:



Not quite. The rule is the same, but the 'international requirements' it
refers to have changed. How you interpret that is another thing, but the
FCC chose to write a rule that incorporates by reference the rules that
were changed in the WRC.

Here's an idea for an analogy. Anyone here ever write any code of the
computer kind? Say you write something that makes a call to another
object/subroutine, etc. The ITU have re-written the subroutine, and the
FCC code includes a GOSUB that calls it (revealing my BASIC roots here).

You obviously don't understand the FCC rules any better than Keith.
Until the FCC eliminates the code test requirement, everything remains
the same for U.S. hams.

Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:


Actually, this could be read in another way:


There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Keith" wrote:

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?


I would not do what you're seeking even if there was absolutely no
chance
at all for the FCC to catch me. When I joined the Amateur Radio
community,
I
made a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations associated with
it.
That commitment is not based on the FCC's enforcement ability, but my
own
sense of what is good for this community. I personally benefit from a
community that has an equal commitment to abide by the rules and
regulations. I therefore would not do anything to upset that situation.

I suspect you will eventually find that most other Technician license
holders have a similar commitment to abide by the rules and regulation.

By the way, your statement that "all techs have voice privileges for
28.3-28.5 MHz" is simply not true - only a Technician Plus license
holder
(a
Tech who has also passed the 5wpm code test) is allowed to operate on
those
frequencies.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


And, as I understand it, only until they "renew" or change their callsign,
correct? In other words, when I renew my license, or if I change my
callsign, I would only be licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT

Your license will say Technician but you will retain your Tecnician Plus
privileges forever (or until you upgrade to General) assuming that you keep
your license current. Since the FCC database will no longer show the
difference, keep a copy of your old Technician Plus license and/or your
Technician Plus CSCE to be able to prove that you have those priviliges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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?


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

Hey Keith, do actually know the FCC rules? They did stop issuing the novice
and tech plus licenses, but the requiremenmts are still there. Now if a tech
passes element one thet are still a tech but witt the same HF priviledges as
a novice. They have to keep there CSCE as proof. The treaty stated that it
no longer requires code, but would leave it up to the individual countries
to set the rules, and UNTIL the fcc says CW is no longer needed, then the
same rules apply as before the WRC treaty change.

73 de Keith

"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

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
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!


Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the argument
you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting to
see presented and debated in a court of law...

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
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.

Actually, this could be read in another way:

Since there is no international requirement that one can be in accordance
with,
then the regulation is no longer operative at all and that means that
novice
licensees and technician licensees with code credit have NO privileges
below 30
MHz at all! :-(

International agreement has killed the "coded technician" license and has
made
it indistinguishable (in operating privilege) from the "no-code
technician"
license. ;-)


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.

What 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.

Then is it still an "international morse code regulation?"

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.

Of which there is no such thing, so there is no longer a "technician"
license
that has any privilege below 30MHz.

4. The international requirements have no requirement to know morse
code.

This could be a legal loop hole.

But not the one you think! 2x :-)


See?! I knew the argument would get very interesting! I wonder if it will
ever get debated in a court of law...man that would be good!

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Keith" wrote:

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?


I would not do what you're seeking even if there was absolutely no
chance
at all for the FCC to catch me. When I joined the Amateur Radio
community,
I
made a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations associated
with
it.
That commitment is not based on the FCC's enforcement ability, but my
own
sense of what is good for this community. I personally benefit from a
community that has an equal commitment to abide by the rules and
regulations. I therefore would not do anything to upset that
situation.

I suspect you will eventually find that most other Technician
license
holders have a similar commitment to abide by the rules and
regulation.

By the way, your statement that "all techs have voice privileges for
28.3-28.5 MHz" is simply not true - only a Technician Plus license
holder
(a
Tech who has also passed the 5wpm code test) is allowed to operate on
those
frequencies.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


And, as I understand it, only until they "renew" or change their
callsign,
correct? In other words, when I renew my license, or if I change my
callsign, I would only be licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT

Your license will say Technician but you will retain your Tecnician Plus
privileges forever (or until you upgrade to General) assuming that you
keep
your license current. Since the FCC database will no longer show the
difference, keep a copy of your old Technician Plus license and/or your
Technician Plus CSCE to be able to prove that you have those priviliges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


AH...OK. Well, that's good news to the folks who surely would have wished
to keep the little bit of HF that they've got.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the argument
you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting to
see presented and debated in a court of law...

Personally I *encourage* all those who think that they now have HF
privileges to hop on and start using what they think they have..

Let enough people know, and we (or you yourselves, since you're so sure)
can make recordings of your activity, then ship 'em off to Riley and get
his interpretation of the matter!

Have the courage of your convictions folks?

- Mike KB3EIA -