Why don't petition the FCC to ask them if techs can now
use the novice portion of 10 meters. When the official
R&O comes out stating that I can, I will be on as soon
as it's legal, not one minute sooner, unless I learn CW.

I'm going out to enjoy a Friday night. Hamfest on Sunday.
Troll your heart out, Keith from Newsguy, that removed
his email from his killerwatt-radio web site, put all kinds
of strange sh!t in his meta-tags, and just basically puts
the same BS on his web page as you see here. Save yourself
a trip, folks, don't click his link. His attitude matches
that of Stew's!!!

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

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 17:09:06 -0700, Keith 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.

You need to find out what a Petition for Declaratory Ruling means.
And how long it takes - IF they care to look at your request at all.

Sheesh... I'm back to teaching FCC Administrative law again. So much
for "retirement"....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

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 :-)

"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

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.


WRC has dropped the code requirement, the FCC has not as of yet, so
everything is still as before, nothing has changed. What a twit!!

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.

Sure they can. So can someone with no license at all. And as FCC will
view the matter, the only difference is that a Tech is a licensed ham
who is supposed to know better, and thus will have no excuse.

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.

Think so? Tell you what I think, I think you forgot to check your
facts again before opening your mouth to change which foot was in
there. The following is quoted from http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ :

"The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) of the Federal
Communications Commission is responsible for conducting the hearings
ordered by the Commission. The hearing function includes acting on
interlocutory requests filed in the proceedings such as petitions to
intervene, petitions to enlarge issues, and contested discovery
requests. An Administrative Law Judge, appointed under the APA,
presides at the hearing during which documents and sworn testimony are
received in evidence, and witnesses are cross-examined. At the
conclusion of the evidentiary phase of a proceeding, the Presiding
Administrative Law Judge writes and issues an Initial Decision which
may be appealed to the Commission."

You call that an informal process?

Be advised that there are people currently behind bars because they
tangled with the FCC. The way you're going, you're going to be one of
them before the code test goes away. I suggest that you either find
out what you're talking about first, or stick to other newsgroups
where the participants don't know any better.

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.

Make that "they will definitely 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

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it *is* a violation of the
rules, unless you have Element 1 credit. Have you ever bothered to
read the rules?

and no one can verify if you have passed a horse and
buggy CW test any god damn way.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this assertion is also
incorrect. Now go back to 11 meters where you belong, troll.

DE John, KC2HMZ

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.