Alun Palmer wrote:
JJ wrote in :



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.





You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

And you understand just about as much as dickboy does. Until the FCC
changes it, nothing has changed, code is still required.

D. Stussy wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:

Alun Palmer wrote:

JJ wrote in :

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.


You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

And you understand just about as much as dickboy does. Until the FCC
changes it, nothing has changed, code is still required.


That requirement, by itself, is NOT enough.

See other replies, and the sub-thread titled "Alternate interpretation."

Alternate interpret all you want, until the FCC changes the rules,
nothing has changed. The FCC makes the final interpretation and they
have NOT changed the rules regarding a code test.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:

It is very apparent you have yet to crack open a copy of Part 95

I have read part 95 and I don't recall ever seeing anything about a morse code
test.


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

JJ wrote in :



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.




You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

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


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the
only "international requirements" recognized by this country are those
in the treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the
recent changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments
above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the
only treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently
ratified).


Fair comment

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the
changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty
change does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up
to each member state to decide for themselves.


True, although it still may be possible to interpret 97.301(e) in such a
way that the no-code Techs have the Novice bands before the FCC changes
any rules. Albeit it is risky for Techs to do that without a declaratory
ruling from the FCC saying that this is the correct interpretation of the
rule.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

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


Thanks for a quote of Kim's message, Dee.

Sorry, Kim, I'm still having problems reading your messages (the same
problem as before). I don't know if it's my server, your server, some
software setting, or something else entirely. I haven't blocked your
messages.


Oh, ROFLMAO...that was going to be my next advice was to take me off your
filter...LOL


I checked to make sure of that. They're still showing up in the
newsgroup message list. However, whenever I select one to read, I get an
error message saying the message is no longer on the server.


Puzzling. I just don't understand. I've tried both outlets for the
newsgroup, also!


Occasionally one will slip through that I can read, but 99 percent of
your
messages result in the same error. Again, this doesn't happen to messages
from anyone else. In fact, your messages are the only times I've seen this
error message at all.

If this isn't happening to anyone else here (and nobody else has said
anything), I can only assume the problem is with my server. So, it looks
like the problem will remain until I switch servers (something I'm
planning
to do soon anyway). When it stops, I'll let you know.

Of course, if you reply to this, I'll probably never see the reply. So,
if
you have something to say in reply, send it by email instead.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Oh, guess I better send an email, too!

Kim W5TIT


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

D. Stussy wrote:


The FCC, as a government agency, is bound by international treaty and law, and
here, the international law HAS CHANGED, so any regulation that refers to it
CAN (and in this case, HAS) been affected.

It's not "element 1 credit" by itself that determines a Technician class
licensee's operating privilege on HF. If it were, then I would agree that
nothing has changed - but that's simply not the situation here.

Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the
law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose
themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:50:25 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" wrote:


§97.503 Element standards.
(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee
has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear
texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed,
using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question
mark, slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK.
Element 1: 5 words per minute.


That is the test, the portion of the regs we are talking about is 97.301(e).
That portion of the regs is dependent on a international requirement for morse
code proficiency to operate on HF. The international requirement for morse code
proficiency has been eliminated.

But the requirement has not been eliminated in the U.S. and the change
in the international treaty is not a mandate that the requirement for a
code test must be dropped. The FCC can keep the requirement indefinitely
if they desire. Until they do drop it, nothing in the licensing
structure has changed.

"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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
FCC rules have NOT changed (yet) ... Techs are STILL not allowed
HF privs unless they have passed, and have documented credit for,
the 5 wpm Morse test ...

Don't let the writers in this thread talk you into ILLEGAL operation.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c


I understand your caution, Carl. But, somehow, if one is willing to ignore
existing R&R, or maybe doesn't even understand them, in an area where they
would "experiment," don't they kind of deserve whatever trouble they would
have coming their way?

Kim W5TIT


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