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!!

There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules
 

On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

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)

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.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

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.


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

Keith,
What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule'
you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has
been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until
the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US,
nothing has changed.
It doesn't matter if the 'no-code' rule WILL be
changed. Until it IS changed, there is NO change.
The ITU can't change US law, only the US government
can do that. It's okay to be happy about the proposed
code change, but don't be stupid...
'Doc

Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

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)

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.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

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.


This is silly. Each country has it's own laws, and you are obliged
to follow them.

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

That means that each country no longer has to conform to that treaty
agreement.

They can, if they so choose, to eliminate their law that requires
code proficiency for amateurs operating in the HF bands.

But they are not obligated to do so.

Until a country changes it's law about this, everyone is obligated
to follow those laws.

Just because the treaty agreement is gone does not mean that there
is any more legality for someone who hasn't taken a code test to operate
at HF. Two months ago, someone could have done it, and if caught they
would face a certain process. If they do it today, and are caught,
they face the same certain process. Nothing has changed on that
account.

Michael VE2BVW

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:47:07 -0500, 'Doc wrote:

Keith,
What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule'
you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has
been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until
the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US,
nothing has changed.

The 25.5 is automatically accepted by the US Government. The treaty has
already been previously ratified. The change is administrative and it is not a
new treaty.



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

On 25 Jul 2003 20:01:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

Read the regulation. The regulation indicates that according to international
morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Well the international
regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access.
97.301(e)
I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS".

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


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

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

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)

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.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

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.


This is silly. Each country has it's own laws, and you are obliged
to follow them.

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

That means that each country no longer has to conform to that treaty
agreement.

They can, if they so choose, to eliminate their law that requires
code proficiency for amateurs operating in the HF bands.

But they are not obligated to do so.

Until a country changes it's law about this, everyone is obligated
to follow those laws.

Just because the treaty agreement is gone does not mean that there
is any more legality for someone who hasn't taken a code test to operate
at HF. Two months ago, someone could have done it, and if caught they
would face a certain process. If they do it today, and are caught,
they face the same certain process. Nothing has changed on that
account.

Michael VE2BVW


If the FCC decided to drop CW requirement totally they could still say the
TECHNICIAN is a VHF ONLY LICENSE. Or the could say its a VHF and 28.3-28.5
voice ONLY LICENSE.

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.

Dan/W4NTI

I'd hate to be your underwear when the Uncle
asks you for proof of Element 1.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

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)

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.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

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.

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. Keep in mind that the international
treaty did not abolish the requirement altogether but simply let each
country set its own requirements of any where from no-code to whatever the
country wished. Our FCC rules have not yet changed so a codeless tech
operating HF is in violation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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.

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

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.





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

This could be a legal loop hole.


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

Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 20:01:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

Read the regulation. The regulation indicates that according to international
morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Well the international
regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access.
97.301(e)
I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS".

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


By your interpretation, every ham in the world can start operating
on HF, no matter what their license restricts them to, merely because
the international agreement on this matter has been rescinded. Your false
interpretation would therefore apply to all countries. Besides, you
posted in newsgroups that are read by people in many countries, so
why shouldn't I comment.

The international agreement does not set the rules. While except for
Japan with their low power license I can't think of any country that
did not respect the treaty agreement, there wasn't much to keep countries
from not honoring the treaty, other than on a diplomatic level. If
someone operated on HF without passing a code test, they weren't
prosecuted by an international body, they were pursued by their
own country's enforcement body, which also set the rules that
the person was violating. Each country had to put in place rules that
reflect the agreement.

Those rules are still in effect, until they are changed.

"We had to put these rules in place because we honor the international
treaty."

That's a big difference from "You have to know morse code or else the
international boogy man will come down and toss you in jail".

The first is about implementing rules that honor an international agreement.
The second is some international law that you must respect directly.

Find some other section of your rules, and you're bound to find something
that tells you you can't operate HF with certain classes of licenses.
That's the rule that is in control. It's absolute, and not dependent
on some international treaty.

When I was a kid, there was no license here in Canada that let someone
operate without taking a code test. Some likely argued that the code
test was there because of the international agreement, but the rules
were quite clear, you couldn't operate unless you took a test, and part
of that test was a code test. Back in 1978, there was a code-free
license here, but only useable at 220MHz and up, and had a lot of
digital questions. The rules were clear; if you got that license
you could only operate on those VHF frequencies. Back in 1990, there was
restructuring, and there was a license which did not require a code test;
but it was also clear in setting out where you could operate.

For that matter, the US Technician license originally was VHF and UHF
only, yet there was a code test. Your FCC decided it was a necessary
requirement, even if the treaty did not require it in that case. It
was only in more recent decades, when 10meters was added, that the treaty
required a code test. Take away the code test, and the FCC limited
such licenses to VHF and above.

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

Michael VE2BVW

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.



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

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,
And until it is formally accepted, it's still only
a recommendation, not law. Even with a treaty, a foreign
country still doesn't make law in this country. That's
a fact...
'Doc

Keith,
Nope. No matter how much you want it to be as you
say, it isn't. What ain't, ain't...
'Doc

Keith,
You're right, it will be reviewed soon. But until that
happens, nothing has changed. Giving bad advice isn't going
to change the fact...
'Doc

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 :-)

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 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

JJ wrote:


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.


I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

What are you babbling about dickieboy? Maybe his misconceptions are
clear to idiots like you (why does that suprised anyone?), but the fact
remains, until the FCC goes through the procedures necessary to
eliminate the code requirement for the amateur radio service, it is
still required and everything is just as it has been. Just because the
WAC no longer requires the code, does not automatically drop it from the
FCC requirements. Try reading more carefully and you might learn
something, like how to find the 10 meter band.
Lets see a newbie go for the General license and see if he can get one
without taking a code test. You are as dense as this keith bird. You
both must be really good on cb.

JJ wrote in message ...
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.

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

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, JJ wrote:
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.

Since I was "double quoted" in this, I'm not certain if that last comment was
directed back to me or just for Keith.

However, note that I recognize that there may be an unintended result of the
recent international event - and that is certainly a "new thought" for this
group. It also demonstrates that no body of law should refer to definitions
made in another body of law that one has no control over and expect things to
be the same if the referred-to law is changed when the referring law isn't.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote:
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.

I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

But note HOW the privilege is defined. In this case, it's NOT defined as
simply holding "element 1 credit" like it's pre-2000 predecessor was. Other
license classes' privileges are based on license class, which is in turn based
on element credit. However, for the HF operation of Technician and Novice
licenses, the current regulation doesn't refer to element credit but instead
refers to the international requirement - which was just repealed (and replaced
with a statement that each country may decide for itself - but that makes it a
"national requirement" and choice, not an international one).

If the section privileges were based on "holding element 1 credit," then I
would agree that nothing has changed. However, that is clearly erroneous.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

I don't dispute that. However, the authority for HF operations of Technician
and Novice licenseholders isn't based on simply holding element credit like it
is for the other license classes.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Richard Cranium wrote:
JJ wrote in message ...
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.

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

There's a fourth step he

4. Since there is no international requirement any more, no one can meet that
[now nonexistent] requirement.

Therefore, under this logical application of the regulation and the events
effective July 5, 2003, there is no operating authority for any Novice or
Technician (Plus or with an element 1 CSCE) for any frequency below 30MHz,
since said authority contains a requirement that cannot be met (because there
is no such requirement anymore, having been repealed).

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

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

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.

A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat on
the sideline whining about the code.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actual it is discrimination, but that beside the point. The FCC should not
deleted
47 CFR 97.503(a) because of ADA - it should deleted it because it: (1) is
unnecessary,
(2) is bad public policy, (3) it servse no legitimate government purpose,
and (4) is not
in conformity with 5 USC 706(2)(A). At WRC 2003, no nation member spoke
in favor retaining ITU rule S25.5.

Whinning? I think you mean winning. We are sat the winning side of the
debate
to end Morse code exams.

Dee, it not necessary to insult people, just tell Keith that the WRC 2003
delete
the international requirement; and the FCC, in due course will delete
the domestic requirement.

Larry Klose, KC8EPO

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


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

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat
on
the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -


An early acquaintance in ham radio could "read" CW in flashing lights. I've
heard stories of others who have felt vibrations to "read" CW.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


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

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat
on
the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -


My ex had 70% hearing loss in both ears and a constant ringing of the ears.
He too passed his 5wpm. Although he did have it so loud when he practiced
that I either had to leave the room or make him wear headphones. Of course
there were other testing methods for those who were totally deaf.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE