JJ wrote:


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.


I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

What are you babbling about dickieboy? Maybe his misconceptions are
clear to idiots like you (why does that suprised anyone?), but the fact
remains, until the FCC goes through the procedures necessary to
eliminate the code requirement for the amateur radio service, it is
still required and everything is just as it has been. Just because the
WAC no longer requires the code, does not automatically drop it from the
FCC requirements. Try reading more carefully and you might learn
something, like how to find the 10 meter band.
Lets see a newbie go for the General license and see if he can get one
without taking a code test. You are as dense as this keith bird. You
both must be really good on cb.

"Spamhater" wrote in message ...

HEY KEITH,

IF YOU'RE NOT ILLITERATE, TRY READING PART 95 SOMETIME.... YOU WILL SEE HOW
STUPID YOU SOUND. THE NEWEST VERSION! ALL AMATEURS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
COPY OF CURRENT LAWS AVAILABLE... BUT SINCE YOU"VE OBVIOUSLY NOT READ THEM
TO KNOW THE LAWS, YOU WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THIS ONE EITHER! NOW, IS THIS BIG
ENOUGH FOR YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?????? DUHHHHH.......

JMS

If only Part 95 dealt with the amateur radio service...

Does this give ANY of you No Coder types something to think about??? Please
read it over and maybe, just perhaps something will sink in. This is the
way it is....end of discussion.

From the ARRL letter, Vol 22. No 29


Dan/W4NTI

==WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE MORSE REQUIREMENT POST-WRC-03?

World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03) made optional the
requirement to prove the ability to send and receive Morse code to operate
below 30 MHz. While Morse exam elements remain on the books in the US,
Canada and elsewhere, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have apparently
become the first countries to delete their Morse requirements for HF
operation. In the US, however, the FCC is unlikely to act on its own
motion to simply make the Morse testing requirement go away.

"There isn't an exception in the Administrative Procedures Act that I am
aware of that would permit the Commission to issue an administrative fiat
changing the license structure or exam-requirement rules," said an FCC
staffer who's closely involved with Amateur Service rules. Other countries
can do this because they have different laws and procedures, the FCC staff
member observed, adding that even if it could be done here, "that still
leaves unanswered the fundamental question: What do you want the new rules
to be?"

In its December 1999 Report and Order restructuring Amateur Radio
licensing, the FCC stopped short of revising the rules to sunset the Morse
requirement automatically if WRC-03 deleted Morse proficiency from the
international Radio Regulations. The FCC also acknowledged "a clear
dichotomy of viewpoints" on the Morse code issue within the amateur
community.

The ARRL's policy for several years has been that Morse should be retained
as a testing element in the US. At its July 18-19 meeting in Connecticut,
however, the Board said it would solicit and review input from members on
the Morse testing requirement and other possible revisions to Part 97
arising from WRC-03.

The first move on the Morse code question in the US is for someone to file
a Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking a rule change. No Code
International (NCI) http://www.nocode.org/ has spearheaded the battle to
eliminate the Morse requirement and would be a likely organization to file
such a petition. NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson, WK3C, said late
last week that NCI was still studying the matter and had not yet made a
final decision on a plan of action. An ARRL member, Stevenson says he
hopes personally that the League would join NCI in actively encouraging
the FCC to eliminate the Morse exam element as soon as possible.

Hopes for a quick resolution to the Morse question could be wishful
thinking, however. Once a petition to drop the Morse exam element is
filed, the FCC will put it on "public notice" by assigning an RM number
and soliciting comments. If more than one such petition is filed, the FCC
is obliged to invite comments on each. When that process is completed, the
FCC may determine that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is in
order. The Commission at that point could incorporate all Morse-related
rule making petitions into a single proceeding. The NPRM would get a
docket number, and the comment process would begin anew.

Further complicating and extending the process, the FCC most likely would
incorporate other pending Amateur Radio-related issues into the same NPRM.
At the end of the comment and reply comment periods, the FCC would issue a
Report and Order (R&O) that includes its decision on the Morse code
requirement and any other issues incorporated into the proceeding. The
whole process could take a couple of years, perhaps longer.

Ratification of the WRC-03 Final Acts by the US Senate does not appear to
be necessary before the FCC can act or begin the rule making process.
Following World Administrative Conference 1979 (WARC-79) which resulted in
three new HF amateur bands, the FCC acted in 1982, prior to Senate
ratification of the conference's Final Acts, not only to initiate the rule
making process but to give amateurs limited access to 30 meters.

Radio Amateurs of Canada has advised hams in that country that the Morse
qualification requirement remains in effect for operation below 30 MHz,
"pending a review by Industry Canada of the impact of the WRC-2003
regulatory changes on the Canadian radio regulations, policies and
procedures."

JJ wrote in message ...
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.

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...
Does this give ANY of you No Coder types something to think about??? Please
read it over and maybe, just perhaps something will sink in. This is the
way it is....end of discussion.

From the ARRL letter, Vol 22. No 29


Dan/W4NTI

==WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE MORSE REQUIREMENT POST-WRC-03?

World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03) made optional the
requirement to prove the ability to send and receive Morse code to operate
below 30 MHz. While Morse exam elements remain on the books in the US,
Canada and elsewhere, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have apparently
become the first countries to delete their Morse requirements for HF
operation. In the US, however, the FCC is unlikely to act on its own
motion to simply make the Morse testing requirement go away.

"There isn't an exception in the Administrative Procedures Act that I am
aware of that would permit the Commission to issue an administrative fiat
changing the license structure or exam-requirement rules," said an FCC
staffer who's closely involved with Amateur Service rules. Other countries
can do this because they have different laws and procedures, the FCC staff
member observed, adding that even if it could be done here, "that still
leaves unanswered the fundamental question: What do you want the new rules
to be?"

In its December 1999 Report and Order restructuring Amateur Radio
licensing, the FCC stopped short of revising the rules to sunset the Morse
requirement automatically if WRC-03 deleted Morse proficiency from the
international Radio Regulations. The FCC also acknowledged "a clear
dichotomy of viewpoints" on the Morse code issue within the amateur
community.

The ARRL's policy for several years has been that Morse should be retained
as a testing element in the US. At its July 18-19 meeting in Connecticut,
however, the Board said it would solicit and review input from members on
the Morse testing requirement and other possible revisions to Part 97
arising from WRC-03.

The first move on the Morse code question in the US is for someone to file
a Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking a rule change. No Code
International (NCI) http://www.nocode.org/ has spearheaded the battle to
eliminate the Morse requirement and would be a likely organization to file
such a petition. NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson, WK3C, said late
last week that NCI was still studying the matter and had not yet made a
final decision on a plan of action. An ARRL member, Stevenson says he
hopes personally that the League would join NCI in actively encouraging
the FCC to eliminate the Morse exam element as soon as possible.

Hopes for a quick resolution to the Morse question could be wishful
thinking, however. Once a petition to drop the Morse exam element is
filed, the FCC will put it on "public notice" by assigning an RM number
and soliciting comments. If more than one such petition is filed, the FCC
is obliged to invite comments on each. When that process is completed, the
FCC may determine that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is in
order. The Commission at that point could incorporate all Morse-related
rule making petitions into a single proceeding. The NPRM would get a
docket number, and the comment process would begin anew.

Further complicating and extending the process, the FCC most likely would
incorporate other pending Amateur Radio-related issues into the same NPRM.
At the end of the comment and reply comment periods, the FCC would issue a
Report and Order (R&O) that includes its decision on the Morse code
requirement and any other issues incorporated into the proceeding. The
whole process could take a couple of years, perhaps longer.

Ratification of the WRC-03 Final Acts by the US Senate does not appear to
be necessary before the FCC can act or begin the rule making process.
Following World Administrative Conference 1979 (WARC-79) which resulted in
three new HF amateur bands, the FCC acted in 1982, prior to Senate
ratification of the conference's Final Acts, not only to initiate the rule
making process but to give amateurs limited access to 30 meters.

Radio Amateurs of Canada has advised hams in that country that the Morse
qualification requirement remains in effect for operation below 30 MHz,
"pending a review by Industry Canada of the impact of the WRC-2003
regulatory changes on the Canadian radio regulations, policies and
procedures."

Why Thanks Dan, why did you cross post this?
What does this have to do with CB Radio?


Landshark


--
Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls.

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

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:09:06 -0700, Keith wrote:

Why don't petition the FCC to ask them if techs can now
use the novice portion of 10 meters.

I don't need to petition the FCC. I need a legal opinion from it. Of course,
time will tell where this goes.

You need to find out what a Petition for Declaratory Ruling means.
And how long it takes - IF they care to look at your request at all.

Sheesh... I'm back to teaching FCC Administrative law again. So much
for "retirement"....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

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

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
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.

Since I was "double quoted" in this, I'm not certain if that last comment was
directed back to me or just for Keith.

However, note that I recognize that there may be an unintended result of the
recent international event - and that is certainly a "new thought" for this
group. It also demonstrates that no body of law should refer to definitions
made in another body of law that one has no control over and expect things to
be the same if the referred-to law is changed when the referring law isn't.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote:
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.

I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

But note HOW the privilege is defined. In this case, it's NOT defined as
simply holding "element 1 credit" like it's pre-2000 predecessor was. Other
license classes' privileges are based on license class, which is in turn based
on element credit. However, for the HF operation of Technician and Novice
licenses, the current regulation doesn't refer to element credit but instead
refers to the international requirement - which was just repealed (and replaced
with a statement that each country may decide for itself - but that makes it a
"national requirement" and choice, not an international one).

If the section privileges were based on "holding element 1 credit," then I
would agree that nothing has changed. However, that is clearly erroneous.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

I don't dispute that. However, the authority for HF operations of Technician
and Novice licenseholders isn't based on simply holding element credit like it
is for the other license classes.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Richard Cranium wrote:
JJ wrote in message ...
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.

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

There's a fourth step he

4. Since there is no international requirement any more, no one can meet that
[now nonexistent] requirement.

Therefore, under this logical application of the regulation and the events
effective July 5, 2003, there is no operating authority for any Novice or
Technician (Plus or with an element 1 CSCE) for any frequency below 30MHz,
since said authority contains a requirement that cannot be met (because there
is no such requirement anymore, having been repealed).