|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, Spamhater wrote:
Don't open your mouth without facts which you have yet to provide any of in support of your lawlessness aim to sidestep a part you're apparently too damned lazy to do. He's an EXTRA class licensee...... The Twilight Zone..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
D. Stussy wrote: I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. The compliance was met when it was required by international regulation (and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules. GEEEEESSSSHHHH!! |
D. Stussy wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote: Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement? The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:53:45 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: 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. Phil from now on I will refer to you as Prince Jr. Listen Prince Jr., I can discuss anything regarding US law and express my opinions. Just because you are ARRL lawyer trying to force morse code down the throats of the disabled and helped destroy Amateur radio by keeping it a elite club doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion. I have never said I was a lawyer or even a wannabe lawyer, good god I bet you are proud of your pals that are going after ten year old children trading muppet songs on the Internet. The reason disability recognition didn't change was because there was a international agreement that stopped the disabled who could not receive code from being exempt. Now that the international regulation has been changed to delete mandatory morse code proficiency the disabled should be provided a exemption promptly. (That is my opinion, is that OK Prince Jr?) Is it ok if I express my opinion Prince Jr? Or are you like the morons sending me carbon copies of complaints they are sending to Hollingsworth AKA "Prince" for daring to tell the FCC and the ARRL they are bone heads that have destroyed Amateur radio for selfish reasons. I mean I'm not the only person that thinks this about the ARRL, FCC and the morse code lunatics that have kept the ranks of ham radio so small it is ripe for the pickings by the commercial entities. The utilities will destroy HF with BPL and the rest of 50 Mhz and up bands that are worth billions of dollars will be sliced up in short order. All this time I was praying the ARRL and FCC would come around and I was a sucker to be a ARRL member for all those years. Then when it is time to dump the code the crazed bunch of "morse code or death" bunch sneak one in the back door. Now the cocksuckers want to drag out the death of morse code requirements for years. Who the hell was the ARRL board and staff saving the bands for? It certainly isn't for the average American citizen to become a ham radio operator. If you listen to ten meters it appears the truck drivers are now taking it over, so thank the ARRL and FCC for that. Thanks for sharing Prince Jr. I hope it was OK for this ham radio operator of twenty years to express his opinion. Should I include a legal disclaimer on all my post from now on? I hope you will not report me to the Oregon Bar Association. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:24 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:
Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith ) writes:
I mean I'm not the only person that thinks this about the ARRL, FCC and the morse code lunatics that have kept the ranks of ham radio so small it is ripe for the pickings by the commercial entities. The utilities will destroy HF with BPL and the rest of 50 Mhz and up bands that are worth billions of dollars will be sliced up in short order. When was the last time you heard about amateur radio in your local newspaper or on your local tv stations? When your local ham clubs have an event, be it club meetings, Field Day, hamfest or something else that the public might like to know about, do they bother to get listed in the local events columns, and try to get mention on TV and radio, and even post to your local newsgroups? Or to put it another way, how did you find out about amateur radio? When I was a kid, I learned about it when there was an article in a publication intended for children. When I discovered hobby electronic magazines, amateur radio was still a part of those magazines, though it was right on the cusp of their disappearing. But when I could try for a license, I had to dig around to find a local ham club, going to the ARRL because I didn't know of any local clubs, and had no way of finding them. One of the failures of amateur radio is that it doesn't do a particularly good job of outreach. Notice there is a big difference between trying to sell something to fill seats, and trying to share something because it's important to you and you want others to know about it. Over the 31 years since I've been licensed, my impression is that amateur radio has increasingly disappeared from public view. Yes, there is the argument that ham radio has less and less relevance, but that just means people need to work harder at conveying thei importance of the hobby to themselves. Meanwhile, the licensing requirements have become less and less. About fifty years ago, you might say the halfway point of amateur radio, your FCC introduced the then-novel novice license, to make the entry requirements simpler. A simple test, a 5wpm code test, limited operating priviliges, and only valid for a year. Over the years, that was modified for less restrictive rules, and more priviliges. The US Technician license came out at the same time, and originally was only good for 220MHz and above. That too was modified tremendously over the years. Then the code was dropped for the technician class. Here in Canada, we had a no-code license a quarter century ago. But virtually nobody used it. Then in 1990, we got restructuring, and there was an entry level license that did not require a code test. So over fifty years, half of the time that amateur radio has been around, it has become increasingly simpler for people to join the hobby in North America. Yet, instead of doing a better job of outreach, the focus is always on making the license requirements simpler. Keep it up, and there will be absolutely no entry requirement. You think we need numbers to justify the bands, so you want to lessen entry requirements. But that may be a false path. Maybe we justify the ham bands because it is something more than a place to yak it up. Maybe the kids that use to come to ham radio aren't even hearing about the hobby in the first place. Maybe if they knew, it could be as appealing as it was to me when I was ten. Maybe like me, the code and theory tests are not impediments to joining the hobby, but a sense of accomplishment when they are passed. I was twelve, and went from 0 to 12wpm in four months, and I know I was always disappointed that I took the test (well, I had to go back a second month to pass the code test) in the last week of grade 6, because I was unable to boast to the kids at school. Maybe the need or lack of a code test isn't an issue to many people, because they haven't heard of amateur radio in the first place. Methinks you don't have a clue about the history of amateur radio. It didn't start when some regulatory body decided there should be a place for people to talk to their heart's delite. There were radio hobbyists almost as soon as Marconi spanned the Atlantic in 1901, when there were no rules and there wasn't even any use for radio. Those hobbyists played with this new thing, and in part helped to propel the field along. I'm not sure you could separate amateur from professional in those days. It was only once there started to be uses for radio that any rules were put in place. And amateur radio became a service in those early days by virtue of staking out a claim right from the start. Dilute the entry requirements too much, and what do you have to justify the bands, other than large numbers? But shift it back to where the test is not just an obstacle to overcome, and you may again make the hobby something that society in general benefits from. Michael VE2BVW |
Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 |
|
"C" wrote in message ... My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... Why not tell it like it is.... Those giving the test do not want to make it easy for anyone who has a learning disability or not. I have never been able to memorize anything easily when in school, and was accused of being from lazy to stupid. My father told me that I was ignorant because I was partly colorblind. I do not want sympathy, just after studying for almost a year to pass the 5 word per minute test for what it is suppose to be not what someone who is more proficient with the code wants it to be..... If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. In article , "Spamhater" wrote: "Keith" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2003 15:22:47 -0700, (Rich) wrote: I know a bed ridden quad who dictated 20 wpm to his wife.He uses a straw cw keyer. Can he hear? That is what we are talking about. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ There are cases where flashing lights are used for such a thing OR vibrating surfaces..... so being deaf is no excuse either. There ARE provisions. The main thing is, that IF the person is that handicapped, it is up to THEM or their family to provide any testing accessories to suit their needs, to allow the VEs to send the text. The VEs are not required to provide specialized equipment to cater to the handicaps needs. Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the recomended way to conduct a test? If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a different test place with different folks instead. Dan/W4NTI |
On 28 Jul 2003 20:12:07 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:
Over the 31 years since I've been licensed, my impression is that amateur radio has increasingly disappeared from public view. I agree with you 100%. The reason in my opinion is that the ARRL kept the morse code requirement for HF access and that kept a lot of my teenage friends out of ham radio way back in 1982 and through the present day. Today kids now have instant voice communications via the Internet and cell phones and can even send pictures and text messages with their phones. Now that the Internet is here and advanced digital cellphone is in every middle class kids pocket technology has passed by ham radio. Hams are the now the old technology brushed aside by technology advances. The ARRL just couldn't let code die and now it is too late. IMHO. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "C" wrote in message ... My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... The test is given at 5 words per minute. They use a faster character speed but make the letters further apart. It is actually easier this way because the brain has more time to react to the character before it has to go on to the next one. Why not tell it like it is.... Those giving the test do not want to make it easy for anyone who has a learning disability or not. I have never been able to memorize anything easily when in school, and was accused of being from lazy to stupid. My father told me that I was ignorant because I was partly colorblind. I do not want sympathy, just after studying for almost a year to pass the 5 word per minute test for what it is suppose to be not what someone who is more proficient with the code wants it to be..... If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website but I don't happen to have it anymore. Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the letter slows you down so that you can't keep up. Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied. The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule. The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed. If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE What you just described, about memorizing the code, happened to me. I started to try to learn the code at 12 years old. My mom bought me a record...yeah thats right A RECORD..hi. And I thought I was hot stuff...but when I actually tried to receive CW off the air, at a very slow rate. Listened in the Novice bands. I found I didn't know a thing. A local ham told me I had memorized the record. And that is exactly what happened. He then gave me the ARRL license manual with the proper method and helped when he could. I eventually RE-LEARNED Morse and got it right. I passed the Novice and in 3 months passed the 13WPM General in front of the FCC. I am not solid at 40 or so. So Dee's advice is right on target. Dan/W4NTI |
I asked why it seemed so fast. I was told by the VE that he gives all
code test at least 13 words per minute if not faster..... I have sent out a couple of e-mails requesting imformation of how tests are given ie, speed and if fonsworth method was used. I do not wnat to know the test iteslf as that would defeat the purpose of the testing session. I have yet to receive an answer from any VE... All I ask for is to know what speed I need to be studying as it all sounds different to me at each speed.... Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the recomended way to conduct a test? If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a different test place with different folks instead. Dan/W4NTI |
No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. C. In article m, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website but I don't happen to have it anymore. Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the letter slows you down so that you can't keep up. Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied. The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule. The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed. If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
: Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from rule 97.301(e)). Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which in turn includes the words "in accordance with international requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5. So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this, but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated. It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact that condition does not have to be met. |
"C" wrote in message ... No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. C. None of us could react fast enough at first. You are not alone. When you are copying and miss a letter, just skip it and catch the next one. If you let your mind focus on what you missed, you will then miss several others that come after. DON'T TRY TO GET THE MISSED LETTER AT THAT TIME. Just write an underscore and go on so that you don't miss following letters. This takes a little practice by the way as we all want to be perfect so we sit there and try to figure it out while falling further behind. If you get a lot of blanks at first, that's OK. Just keep working on it. When you take the test, you are allowed time to go back over your paper and fill in what you think the missing material might be. Here is an example (using an underscore for characters that you miss on the copy). What you originally copied: NAM_ IS JO_N. Now if you look back over your copy, fill in what you believe the missing letters should be. In this case, the text sent was most likely: NAME IS JOHN. Then on the test questions, you will probably be asked the name and there you have it right there on your paper. When I took my extra code test (20wpm), I had a lot of underscores on my paper but despite that I was able to successfully answer the country question (it was Switzerland) even though I only had about half the letters copied on my sheet. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
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. If it's OPTIONAL (on a country-by-country basis, but that doesn't matter; any basis will do), then it's NOT A REQUIREMENT. One cannot comply with a requirement that doesn't exist - and that's the problem. Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. But that's not the requirement. 47 CFR 97.301(e) made DIRECT REFERENCE to the international requirement, not to "element 1 credit." Certainly, there's no need to cite "element 1 credit" for the novice license! If it had cited "element 1 credit" as the second requirement for technican licenseholders (novice licenseholders already have it by definition in .501), then I would agree that nothing had changed. But that's not how the FCC wrote ..301(e) and you know it! ;-) 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. I don't believe that's the correct question. It's not a matter of no-code technicians now having HF privileges. It's a question of "coded techs" and Novices having their HF privileges STRIPPED on account of one of the two requirements now being untenable. |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Bill Sohl wrote:
"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. ....And that means that it is an OPTION, not a requirement. A requirement cannot be bypassed like an option can. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:16:05 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: 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! Nah...this will be short-circuited by the FCC changing the Rules long before it could ever be brought to trial, and any competent regulatory attorney in or out of the government service knows just how to thusly delay such things. But until the FCC acts to remove such a reference, that doesn't mean that it's not operative in the meantime. How does one comply with a requirement that doesn't exist? |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, 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. But if it's an OPTION for each country, it's NOT an international REQUIREMENT. Words have definitions. These terms are self-evident. How does one show compliance with a REQUIREMENT that does not exist? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"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"? I've taken exactly the opposite approach: IF there is no international requirement (it's now OPTIONAL), then how can one show compliance with a requirement that itself no longer exists? My answer is that one CANNOT be in compliance with a non-existant requirement, and thus HF privileges defined in ..301(e) have been STRIPPED effective July 5, 2003 from those who previously held them, not granted to those who didn't have them. 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. Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES. 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. What novice HF bands? Novice licenseholders are likewise affected despite the fact that their licenses DO include element 1 credit, because that credit has no bearing on the ability to use those bands. If element 1 were an important fact, then 47 CFR 97.301(e) would have been written that way instead of making reference to the "international requirement" [that no longer exists.] *(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty) Ratification won't make a difference here. Rejection of the treaty might! |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in : "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 The rule includes the words "has received credit", which gives the FCC control over what speed they will give credit for. Receive credit for what? A requirement that no longer exists? How does one demonstrate compliance with a non-existent requirement? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, 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. Which means that NO ONE can be compliant with meeting the now non-existent regulation, and therefore, no technician or novice licensee has any operating privilege below 30MHz. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:23 -0400, "Bill Sohl" wrote: Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse c= ode. Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself. Exactly and 97.301(e) depends on the international proficiency requireme= nts laid out in s25.5. Now that there are no longer any proficiency requireme= nts in s25.5 then 97.301(e) is affected. 25.5 Any person seeking a license to operate the apparatus of an amateur station shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to rece= ive correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals. The administrations concer= ned may, however, waive this requirement in the case of stations making use exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz. New Text of Article 25.5 (effective July 05, 2003) 25.5 =A73 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seek= ing a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to se= nd and receive texts in Morse code signals. s97.301(e) 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. The US government has no standards for a technician to know morse code. = To receive a certificate yes, but the only reason a tech could not transmit = on HF was because of 97.301(e). Now that no code technicians have no requiremen= t in international law to know code they should be allowed to transmit on thei= r allocated frequency. That doesn't mean they can hop on 20 meters, it mean= s they can operate voice/data/cw 28.1-28.5 or even CW on 80, 40 and 15 meters. Wrong. What it means is that there is a requirement in the FCC regulation = that NO LICENSEE CAN MEET. The international change does not mean that no-code technicians can use tho= se HF frequency ranges. It does mean that coded-technicians and novices can N= O LONGER use them - because none of them can show compliance with a requireme= nt that no longer exists. The reason that 97.301(e) was written that way is because the government expected s25.5 to be just deleted and techs could then operate HF. The AR= RL with their fancy footwork is trying to stop the removal of morse code as = a requirement for a HF license. It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000 changes. But don't worry it looks like BPL is going to destroy the bands anyway a= nd you morse code nuts can keep your death grip on those keyers. The ARRL has do= ne nothing but help put ham radio in it's grave. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
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. I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says. I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. 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). I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have no such privilege. 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. What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and day. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
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. Not totally correct. The FCC doesn't have information on techs who passed element 1 after April 15, 2000. However, what does having passed element 1 for technicians have to do with the ..301(e) privileges? I see no such requirement. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Spamhater wrote:
"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. Note: If anyone has a CHOICE, then it's not a REQUIREMENT. A requirement, by definition, means that there is no choice.... |
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark -- Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls. http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote: 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. There may no longer be an international requirement for Morse code proficiency, but there still is an FCC requirement for Morse code proficiency, and until the FCC drops that requirement, NOTHING HAS CHANGED concerning U.S. Amateur Radio. And this "FCC morse code proficiency" requirement is stated in 47 CFR 97.301(e) where? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote:
Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement? |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in : Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from rule 97.301(e)). Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which in turn includes the words "in accordance with international requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5. You did fine up to here. I fully agree. So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this, but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated. If a government can choose NOT to require something, then it is not an international requirement but an option. The FCC regulation is dependent on an international requirement that no longer exists, so how can anyone show compliance with it? They can't. What this was was a way for the FCC to get rid of the "technician" HF privileges and make the novice license so useless that the latter will either upgrade or die. They dont' have to worry about the "tech plus" class anymore - there isn't one! 47 CFR 97.21(e) [or whatever it is] that designates renewals of technician plus licensees as technician demonstrates the FCC's real intent on this issue. It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact that condition does not have to be met. I disagree to as what it says. I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists. |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:24 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote: Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Well then, you should know that 5 WPM isn't that difficult to learn... And I TOO have a 20 WPM Extra. I have NO problem with the FCC keeping the 5 WPM code element. I've seen some situations in my life time where code was able to be used aside from radio. Not a bad idea to keep it in tact at LEAST at 5 WPM. JMS |
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote: 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. I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says. I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. 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). I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have no such privilege. You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it all the time. 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. What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and day. |
"Landshark" . wrote in
.com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble |
snip
Call me anything that you want but don't call me late for dinner or a juicy pile-up on 20m. snip That's what my grandad always said (without the bit about 20m)! |
Michael Black wrote:
Mike Coslo ) writes: C wrote: No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out random groups or even makes up QSO's. - Mike KB3EIA - With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing as receiving. Big time! I can send at twice the speed I can recieve at. One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard. You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done. But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program. That would be interesting to have running in the background while typing int the newsgroups. 8^) I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code practice". In the old days, that would mean going to a code practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions. You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important, and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling to get it all, it might all come easier. My bigget problem was missing a letter, and getting hung up on it. By then 3 or 4 more letters would go by, and then the real frustration would set in. It ended up that I needed to just relax and let the mistakes roll by. Then the mistakes went away. - mike KB3EIA - |
C wrote in message .. .
My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... You are correct, sir. The exam administered by the various VEC's is called Farnsworth. If you look at Part 97, you will see that it specifies Morse. Farnsworth is mentioned nowhere in Part 97. Furthermore, the specification of Morse Code is defined nowhere in Part 97, nor in all of Title 47. We on RRAP have been down this road before. Basically, if you are a Pro-Code Test Agenda type, you agree to allow the VEC's to break the law, even encourage it because the examinee may eventually want to actually use Code at a higher speed. But if you can read, you see that Morse is specified, not Farnsworth. If you happen to know enough about all this to ask for the real Morse Exam at a test session, then the VE must accomodate you. But the aren't likely to mention it unless you do. If you've been studying the Morse training tapes, you are likely to fail the Farnsworth exam. Farnsworth is fairly well agreed to be the better METHOD to learning faster code. By the time one gets to about 20WPM, there is supposed to be no difference between Farnsworth and Morse, but with the various code tutor programs, anything is possible. Anyway, the VEC's are administering a code exam not specified in Part 97. Hopefully it will all be over with soon. Good luck, Brian |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"C" wrote in message ... My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... snip Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the recomended way to conduct a test? If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a different test place with different folks instead. Dan/W4NTI Dan, he probably finished failing the exam again and said to one of the VE's, "Sheesh, that code seemed awfully fast." Whereas the VE replied, "Sure, we're sending it at 13-18wpm with long spaces in between. It all evens out in the end. By the way, we are denying you access to HF." That's what happens to people who study Morse Code tapes at 5wpm then take the Farnsworth exam. If they don't have a high level understanding of all of this, then they are just as likely to get a hold of real Morse study material as opposed to Farnsworth study material. Brian |
Alun Palmer wrote in message ... "Landshark" . wrote in .com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble "beleive"? (I before E, except after C) remember..? |
"Landshark" . wrote in message y.com...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark shark, can you imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.?? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com