On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:30:08 -0700, Keith
wrote:

Read the regulation.

I have. Did you?

The regulation indicates that according to international
morse code requirements the CW requirement is required.

Absolute nonsense. You don't know *anything* about the regulations
that govern the amateur radio service in the U.S., do you?

Here, in its entirity, is the portion of Part 97 that specifies
qualifications for an FCC-issued ham radio license:

SUBPART F-QUALIFYING EXAMINATION SYSTEMS
§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.

Here, in its entirity, is the portion of Part 97 that sets the
standards for the various elements mentioned in the above subpart:

§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.
(b) A written examination must be such as to prove that the
examinee possesses the operational and technical
qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an
amateur service licensee. Each written examination must be
comprised of a question set as follows:
(1) Element 2: 35 questions concerning the privileges of a
Technician Class operator license. The minimum passing score
is 26 questions answered correctly.
(2) Element 3: 35 questions concerning the privileges of a
General Class operator license. The minimum passing score is
26 questions answered correctly.
(3) Element 4: 50 questions concerning the privileges of an
Amateur Extra Class operator license. The minimum passing
score is 37 questions answered correctly.
§97.505 Element credit.
(a) The administering VEs must give credit as specified
below to an examinee holding any of the following license
grants or license documents:
(1) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for
renewal) FCC-granted Advanced Class operator license grant:
Elements 1, 2, and 3.
(2) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for
renewal) FCC-granted General Class operator license grant:
Elements 1, 2, and 3.
(3) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for
renewal) FCC-granted Technician Plus Class operator
(including a Technician Class operator license granted
before February 14, 1991) license grant: Elements 1 and 2.
(4) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for
renewal) FCC-granted Technician Class operator license
grant: Element 2.
(5) An unexpired (or expired) FCC-granted Novice Class
operator license grant: Element 1.
(6) A CSCE: Each element the CSCE indicates the examinee
passed within the previous 365 days.
(7) An unexpired (or expired less than 5 years) FCC-issued
commercial radiotelegraph operator license or permit:
Element 1.
(8) An expired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license
document granted before March 21, 1987: Element 3.
(9) An expired or unexpired FCC-issued Technician Class
operator license document granted before February 14, 1991:
Element 1.
(b) No examination credit, except as herein provided, shall
be allowed on the basis of holding or having held any other
license grant or document.
§97.507 Preparing an examination.
(a) Each telegraphy message and each written question set
administered to an examinee must be prepared by a VE holding
an Amateur Extra Class operator license. A telegraphy
message or written question set may also be prepared for the
following elements by a VE holding an operator license of
the class indicated:
(1) Element 3: Advanced Class operator.
(2) Elements 1 and 2: Advanced, General, or Technician
(including Technician Plus) Class operators.
(b) Each question set administered to an examinee must
utilize questions taken from the applicable question pool.
(c) Each telegraphy message and each written question set
administered to an examinee for an amateur operator license
must be prepared, or obtained from a supplier, by the
administering VEs according to instructions from the
coordinating VEC.
(d) A telegraphy examination must consist of a message sent
in the international Morse code at no less than the
prescribed speed for a minimum of 5 minutes. The message
must contain each required telegraphy character at least
once. No message known to the examinee may be administered
in a telegraphy examination. Each 5 letters of the alphabet
must be counted as 1 word. Each numeral, punctuation mark
and prosign must be counted as 2 letters of the alphabet.
§97.509 Administering VE requirements.
(a) Each examination for an amateur operator license must be
administered by a team of at least 3 VEs at an examination
session coordinated by a VEC. Before the session, the
administering VEs or the VE session manager must ensure that
a public announcement is made giving the location and time
of the session. The number of examinees at the session may
be limited.
(b) Each administering VE must:
(1) Be accredited by the coordinating VEC;
(2) Be at least 18 years of age;
(3) Be a person who holds an amateur operator license of the
class specified below:
(i) Amateur Extra, Advanced or General Class in order to
administer a Technician Class operator license examination;
(ii) Amateur Extra or Advanced Class in order to administer
a General Class operator license examination;
(iii) Amateur Extra Class in order to administer an Amateur
Extra Class operator license examination.
(4) Not be a person whose grant of an amateur station
license or amateur operator license has ever been revoked or
suspended.
(c) Each administering VE must be present and observing the
examinee throughout the entire examination. The
administering VEs are responsible for the proper conduct and
necessary supervision of each examination. The administering
VEs must immediately terminate the examination upon failure
of the examinee to comply with their instructions.
(d) No VE may administer an examination to his or her
spouse, children, grandchildren, stepchildren, parents,
grandparents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, stepbrothers,
stepsisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and in-laws.
(e) No VE may administer or certify any examination by
fraudulent means or for monetary or other consideration
including reimbursement in any amount in excess of that
permitted. Violation of this provision may result in the
revocation of the grant of the VE's amateur station license
and the suspension of the grant of the VE's amateur operator
license.
(f) No examination that has been compromised shall be
administered to any examinee. Neither the same telegraphy
message nor the same question set may be re-administered to
the same examinee.
(g) Passing a telegraphy receiving examination is adequate
proof of an examinee's ability to both send and receive
telegraphy. The administering VEs, however, may also include
a sending segment in a telegraphy examination.
(h) Upon completion of each examination element, the
administering VEs must immediately grade the examinee's
answers. The administering VEs are responsible for
determining the correctness of the examinee's answers.
(i) When the examinee is credited for all examination
elements required for the operator license sought, 3 VEs
must certify that the examinee is qualified for the license
grant and that the VEs have complied with these
administering VE requirements. The certifying VEs are
jointly and individually accountable for the proper
administration of each examination element reported. The
certifying VEs may delegate to other qualified VEs their
authority, but not their accountability, to administer
individual elements of an examination.
(j) When the examinee does not score a passing grade on an
examination element, the administering VEs must return the
application document to the examinee and inform the examinee
of the grade.
(k) The administering VEs must accommodate an examinee whose
physical disabilities require a special examination
procedure. The administering VEs may require a physician's
certification indicating the nature of the disability before
determining which, if any, special procedures must be used.
(l) The administering VEs must issue a CSCE to an examinee
who scores a passing grade on an examination element.
(m) Within 10 days of the administration of a successful
examination for an amateur operator license, the
administering VEs must submit the application document to
the coordinating VEC.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about the international
requirements.

Well the international
regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access.
97.301(e)

97.301(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.
snip (Snipped material lists authorized frequencies for operators
with these license classes)

Once again, current international requirements leave it up to each
country's government to determine the requirements for that country's
ham licenses. Which brings us back to:


§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.

I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS".

Yes, it does. And the above "is" what the current regulations "is"
whether you like it or not. Deal with it - or be prepared to explain
your illegal operation to Riley Hollingsworth.

BTW, what do you care about US regs if you live in Canada?

The HF bands propagate worldwide - which means if clueless trolls like
you get on HF, he would have to listen to your pitiful attempts to act
like someone who knows what they're talking about.

I've been in favor of dropping the code test since the mid-1970's. You
are beginning to make me change my mind.

DE John, KC2HMZ

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:19:28 -0700, Keith
wrote:

You are not on track and are unable to follow a discussion.

You are apparently unable to read and understand the applicable
regulations, at both the US and international level, even though I and
others in this NG have gone out of our way to post the material in
this newsgroup (thus saving you the trouble of finding it yourself on
the Internet) AND explaining it to you (thus saving you the trouble of
turning off your CB set long enough to figure it out).

I am talking about a technician class licensee having tech class HF
privileges without the code test.

For the hundredth time: they don't.

I'm not talking about making them to general.

Perhaps the confusion is because you insist on referring to picking up
your microphone and talking on the HF Tech bands (plural) when there
is only on HF Tech band (singular) in which Techs are allowed to
operate phone (that being a part of ten meters). You don't get to
bands (plural) until you have a General or above.

Don't worry this is going to be reviewed legally very soon.

To paraphrase your own comment in another post: SNARF! HA, HA!

It will be reviewed *administratively* - there is a big difference.
Congress empowered FCC to formulate and enforce regulations governing
the use of the radio frequency spectrum. The courts have repeatedly
ruled that FCC's authority is constitutional. The decision of whether
or not to drop the code test will be purely an administrative decision
on the part of the Federal Communications Commission.

DE John, KC2HMZ

Keith wrote in
:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:40:56 -0500, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:

In anycase I highly doubt the FCC will give the Technician ticket an
equivilant to a General UNLESS the Tech was issued prior to 1986 when
the WRITTEN was the same for Tech and General.

Get over it Keith.

You are not on track and are unable to follow a discussion. I am
talking about
a technician class licensee having tech class HF privileges without the
code test. I'm not talking about making them to general.

Don't worry this is going to be reviewed legally very soon.


To get it reviewed legally you have to get caught. Good luck. I mean that
sincerely.

Keith wrote in
:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:57:38 -0400, Scott Unit 69
wrote:

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

I don't need to petition the FCC. I need a legal opinion from it. Of
course,
time will tell where this goes.
Discussing and protesting rules is not ignoring them.

A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote:

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.

Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging
others to violate the Rules, I see.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
A real lawyer who does FCC rule
interpretation for a living, and
does it successfully.

"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote:

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.

Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging
others to violate the Rules, I see.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
A real lawyer who does FCC rule
interpretation for a living, and
does it successfully.




OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

Alun Palmer wrote:



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

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

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

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


Actually, this could be read in another way:


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

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

- actually, if you consider the effort expended on debating this entire
issue and the expense of an initial consultation with a bottomfeeder,
one may come out ahead simply by getting an MFJ-418, learning the 5WPM,
and passing the CW test - and getting a certificate or upgrading to
a general ticket...

- the truth is that the multiple choice exams are so easy, one can
simply drill for a day or so before the exam and pass easily - all
without any real learning of the principles and operating procedures...

- quite frankly, i'm not surprised there are problems with a number
of operators on the amateur bands - and i find it interesting that
courtesy has to be taught and tested on the FCC exams, when common
sense would dictate and infer good manners anyway... (something
lacking nowadays on Usenet, which i've been using since 1986)...

- is being able to copy CW at 5WPM an indication of skill or evidence
that one is a better radio operator? in some ways, you have to admit
that yes, this is the case... there is a difference between being
able to copy CW and not copy CW (manually of course, as one can also
use a computer)...

- on the other hand, is it necessary to know CW in order to use voice
on HF? of course not...

- i'm a relatively new ham, and am learning CW now... i find the
effort to be a challenge and at the same time, very rewarding... the
ability to learn a new skill, even if considered no longer
necessary by a U.N. agreement, does not diminish the intangible
benefits of mental discipline... (perhaps CW may help me stave off
sliding into early onset of adult Alzheimers)...

:-)

- of course, i also build my own bamboo fly rods and have built two
boats by hand - abilities that some fly fishermen and boaters may
consider superfluous as well...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:44:03 -0700,
Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:

Actually, this could be read in another way:

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


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

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:56:50 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
While not a violation of the international treaty, it would be a
violation
of the current FCC rules. They are quite clear that Techs (at this
time)
must have passed a code test to use HF.

NO! This is what the rules say:

s97.301(e) reads:
For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician
Class and who has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
(followed by frequency table)

Now we have the new regs from WRC that are NOW in effect. They require
no morse
code test except set down by the administration so a tech licensee
should be in
compliance with the requirement set down in 97.301(e) There is no
requirement
for morse code test except for the requirement by the international
morse code
requirements.

Actually, this could be read in another way:

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

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


The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5) now read:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a
licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send
and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

The ARRL tried to pull a fast one, but the way the FCC rules are
written it
appears that it doesn't hold water with current regulations as set down
by the
FCC.

Don't worry I'm going to get real legal advice on this.

1. FCC requires compliance with international morse code regulation.

What regulation? ;-)

2. The international morse code regulation is changed to something
completely
different and no longer has any morse code proficiency requirement
except what
the administration of that country requires.

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

3. The FCC, the administration of the USA, only requires the tech
licensee to
comply with the morse code proficiency requirements required by
international
requirements.

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

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

This could be a legal loop hole.

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


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

Kim W5TIT


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