|
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Keith" wrote in message ... On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I wouldn't bank on it. Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with disabilities. According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not discriminate against disabled people . Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay. A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with disabilities. Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat on the sideline whining about the code. Right on Dee. I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then most everyone can. - Mike KB3EIA - An early acquaintance in ham radio could "read" CW in flashing lights. I've heard stories of others who have felt vibrations to "read" CW. At one point, I was thinking about trying the vibrating method, like holding my fingers on a speaker cone. But as a challenge, I decided to go for the aural method. Wasn't easy, but I did it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Keith wrote in message ...
On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I wouldn't bank on it. Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with disabilities. According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not discriminate against disabled people . Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay. Hey Keith may be you can help me. I have been diagnosed as a dyslexic and have ADD. My disability prevents me from concentrating for more than a few minutes so I can't take any code test or written test let alone study for them.There must be some legal loophole or political angle you can figure because there are millions of general public with disabilities like me who want open access to the ham bands but the government discriminates against us.Just because I have a disability why should I be denied my right to operate ham? Maybe a protest or something would help.Thanks for your help Keith keep up the good work. |
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/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:50:46 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote:
A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with disabilities. Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat on the sideline whining about the code. Explain to me why a deaf person should now need to know morse code? When the silly horse and buggy test was rammed down their throats by the US government they could use lights. Now how is a deaf person supposed to use morse code sitting in their home listening to the radio? With modern digital communications like PSK31, Pactor and RTTY a deaf person can enjoy ham radio. And as always they can use a computer to decode morse code as they have in the past. But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure discrimination because the deaf have no way of decoding morse by ear. The morse code test for deaf people is pure discrimination and now that s25.5 no longer requires a proficiency to know and send morse code the FCC better move fast to remove this discrimination. -- 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. |
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 |
"Keith" wrote in message ... But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure discrimination Yeah go get em Keith. Now go attack all those Navy swabs that learned Morse by lantern. Go for it boy. Dan/W4NTI |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
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 ... I disagree - they don't even have that anymore. Techs who have the element 1 credit in hand CANNOT operate on HF, because 47 CFR 97.301(e) has TWO requirements, the second one being compliance with an international regulation that now no longer exists. Since there is no way to be in compliance with the rescinded regulation, the second condition can NOT be met, and therefore, no "technician plus" licensee (or equivalent) and no novice licensee has any HF privileges. By the stated condition, the privilege was rescinded on July 5, 2003, when the international regulation effectively disappeared. Note that .301(e) is NOT written like the rest of .301, which defines operating privilege based solely on license class, which is in turn based solely on element credit (in .501). Had the regulation been written in such a way that it indicated licensees who hold element 1 credit may operate (see list below), then I would agree that nothing had changed. It's NOT written that way. Don't let the writers in this thread talk you into ILLEGAL operation. |
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." |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
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. 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. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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 In a word, YES ... they should have their licenses revoked. HOWEVER, the REST of us don't need the grief that large-scale flaunting of the rules would bring down on ALL of ham radio ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: 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 ... I disagree - they don't even have that anymore. Techs who have the element 1 credit in hand CANNOT operate on HF, because 47 CFR 97.301(e) has TWO requirements, the second one being compliance with an international regulation that now no longer exists. Since there is no way to be in compliance with the rescinded regulation, the second condition can NOT be met, and therefore, no "technician plus" licensee (or equivalent) and no novice licensee has any HF privileges. By the stated condition, the privilege was rescinded on July 5, 2003, when the international regulation effectively disappeared. That's ridiculous ... the NEW ITU Radio Regs simply give administrations the CHOICE as to whether or not to have a Morse test as a requirement for licenses that convey privs below 30 MHz ... they do NOT preclude any administration from having it either way ... it's their choice. The regulation was not "rescinded" on July 5, 2003, it was simply MODIFIED. Thus, there is no issue of "compliance with international requirements". Current US FCC Part 97 rules are in compliance with the ITU Radio Regs. 73, Carl - wk3c |
On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing each part carefully. OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency table: (e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class This is self-explanatory. and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the international requirements". Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1. Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration. That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely by the revision of S25.5. Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they -are- changed. Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license but have never passed the code test. Does that answer your question? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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 In a word, YES ... they should have their licenses revoked. HOWEVER, the REST of us don't need the grief that large-scale flaunting of the rules would bring down on ALL of ham radio ... 73, Carl - wk3c Well, that's true... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble. The FCC rules are based on that international requirement. Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency requirements a tech can operate on HF. Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code. And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble. The FCC rules are based on that international requirement. Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency requirements a tech can operate on HF. Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code. Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net: On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing each part carefully. OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency table: (e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class This is self-explanatory. and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the international requirements". Agreed Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1. Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration. That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely by the revision of S25.5. So far, so good Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That's not what 301(e) says, though, is it? The problem I have in your analysis is that 301(e) itself is one of the rules concerning element 1. It mentions Element 1 per se nowhere, but there is no other rule tying Technician HF privileges to Element 1. This last statement of yours is indisputable re the General and Extra, in that Element 1 is still required to obtain those licences. However, there is nowhere in Part 97 any statement that a Technician needs Element 1 for anything, instead there is only the wording in 97.301(e). The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they -are- changed. Agreed Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license but have never passed the code test. Does that answer your question? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Not really. The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements". If there is no international requirement to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they operate on those frequencies. Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance with the international requirements"? Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so in respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other rule. If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating that the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular purpose. To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in accordance with international requirements" is a necessary condition in the sentence. If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF frequencies*, and if not, then they will have to wait. This is really what I am seeking comment on, although all other observations are welcome. *(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty) |
"Rich" wrote in message om... "Elmer E Ing" wrote in message news:lpTUa.11803$ff.5170@fed1read01... SEE PART 97 §97.501 Qualifying for an amateur operator license. Each applicant must pass an examination for a new amateur operator license grant and for each change in operator class. Each applicant for the class of operator license grant specified below must pass, or otherwise receive examination credit for, the following examination elements: (a) Amateur Extra Class operator: Elements 1, 2, 3, and 4; (b) General Class operator: Elements 1, 2, and 3; (c) Technician Class operator: Element 2. §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. "Keith" wrote in message ... 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/ I know a bed ridden quad who dictated 20 wpm to his wife.He uses a straw cw keyer. There are many disabled who have passed CW exams. The only thing that these bozos are whining about is they are too damned lazy to learn the code. 5 WPM is the easiest thing in the world, like walking.... some just too lazy to work for anything worth having. Mommy and Daddy must have spoon fed them all their lives. I don't have my manual in front of me to do verbatim rules, but code tests for disabled can be done 1 letter at a time, sentence, etc. Stopped if need be to allow the person time to divulge the message or character sent. As long as it is sent with a "speed" setting to be as prescribed to work out at 5 WPM if sent all at once. In other words, speeding up or slowing down the speed of the character will give it a different sound and could make it hard to decipher at all if incorrectly sent. SO - you have a message consisting of the prescribed number of characters and sent as necessary to the handicapped party to allow them to decipher what is sent... THAT IS how a disabled can be tested..... You can use "lazy" all you want in any form of protest, it still comes out to LAZY. .._.. .- --.. -.-- MOST of the info I related on exam giving to Handicapped is covered in VE manuals, but should be found in FCC Rules as well. JMS. |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ
wrote: 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. Reading Phil's posting won't help. They know more than a lawyer does about the "law". While I find the premise they are presenting interesting, I feel concern that some poor schmuck might take them at their word and start transmitting illegally. Howard |
Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging others to violate the Rules, I see. Come on Phil, get real! Why should anybody listen to you? Its not like you are a lawyer or something... Oh yeah, you are, aren't you? Well, its not like you have any special knowledge regarding FCC regulations. Thats a whole different kind of law you know... Oh shoot, thats right..... you have a great deal of experience that way. Ahh, who cares, I'm still gonna believe a bunch of lay people over an expert any day. Sarcasm mode off now.... I find the point people made regarding the idea interesting, but it cracks me up that they will argue it to death even when they are shown that they are wrong. Howard |
Howard ) writes:
[stuff deleted] I find the point people made regarding the idea interesting, but it cracks me up that they will argue it to death even when they are shown that they are wrong. Howard But by their standards, they haven't been shown they are wrong. They are discounting what others are saying because they think what they see is right. Look at all the conspiracy theories. Someone latches onto some idea, because they want to believe it or because someone made a good case for it. Then they proceed to create the world based on that concept. Anyone who tries to disprove it is obviously just deluded and likely part of the conspiracy. This isn't the same thing as someone who misunderstands something and when corrected then understands it. This thread is about someone who wants to be able to operate on HF without having to pass a code test. That's all that matters. The details are secondary to that. Michael VE2BVW |
Keith wrote: Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. Show us where the FCC has eliminated the requirement for a Morse code test. Dumber than a bag of rocks GEEEEESSSSSHHH. |
Spamhater wrote: There are many disabled who have passed CW exams. The only thing that these bozos are whining about is they are too damned lazy to learn the code. 5 WPM is the easiest thing in the world, like walking.... some just too lazy to work for anything worth having. Mommy and Daddy must have spoon fed them all their lives. I have in the past taught several disable persons in Novice classes. One had CP and could not even write fast enough to copy 5 wpm on paper. He simply copied in his head and wrote it down when the test was finished. All these handicapped folks worked very hard to achieve this goal and never complained once about having to do so. On the other hand, I had other non-handicapped who whined through the entire course about having to learn the code. I said, "look, it is a requirement to get the license, if you don't want to learn the code then you don't want the license, so make up your mind." I only had one who gave up. |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:29:55 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:
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. Stop confusing the people with a death grip on their morse code key with the facts. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:
It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Dick Carroll; wrote: Well JJ, there you have it! He holds an Extra class license, almost surely of the Lite category, and thus is a prime example of the New Age codehating hams. If I had a case on the table I now rest it. This guy makes me think you have a valid point Dick. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:29:23 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
That's ridiculous ... the NEW ITU Radio Regs simply give administrations the CHOICE as to whether or not to have a Morse test as a requirement for licenses that convey privs below 30 MHz ... they do NOT preclude any administration from having it either way ... it's their choice. The regulation was not "rescinded" on July 5, 2003, it was simply MODIFIED. And 97.301(e) is dependent on a international requirement for morse code proficiency. There is no longer a international requirement for proficiency to send and receive morse code. The s25.5 regulation says that it is left up to the administration. . The FCC rules do not require a morse code proficiency unless the international proficiency is required. So the FCC has already written the rules. Now the ARRL thought their stupid trick to leave it to the administration would help keep more Americans from enjoy the ham radio hobby, but they screwed up in my opinion. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:13:14 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. That was only for the test, it has nothing to do with 97.301(e) -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF. The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set down in 97.301(e). It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if they upgrade to general or extra. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. HAR! You'll just toss out every expert opinion until you get one you like. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws. You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's standards to the letter. The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either. Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. It is not any harder than learning to drive a car or program a computer. IF it is worth it to you to use 10 meters or any other band, then get your act together and make it a mission to actually LEARN something. "I" am NOT one of the biased ARRL people, I don't and won't belong to the ARRL. So my opinion is based purely on KNOWING that is doesn't take a hell of a lot of work to LEARN - CW @ 5 WPM. If the handicapped can do it, ANYONE CAN. If you can't, then you're not handicapped, you're plain brain dead and lazy. JMS |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:09:44 -0700, Keith wrote:
Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with disabilities. According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not discriminate against disabled people . Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay. You must really enjoy playing wannabe lawyer --- and missing the target. The issue of code and the ADA was hashed out by the FCC several years ago. Nothing changed. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane A real lawyer |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:02:04 -0700, Keith wrote:
The morse code test for deaf people is pure discrimination and now that s25.5 no longer requires a proficiency to know and send morse code the FCC better move fast to remove this discrimination. How stupid can one be - s25.5 now lets each Administration decide whether a code test is required. So far the US Administration (FCC) hasn't said that a code test is not required. "better move fast" -- hey, dummy, push the FCC and you will see how slow "big government" will move. I can guarantee that.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com