"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

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/

"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/