In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:

You ever need somebody to explain the difference between Advance Approach
Medium and Medium Advance Approach, I'll return the favor....

Doesn't that depend on whether it's under GCOR or NORAC?

A little. But the basic concepts are unchanged.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...
Its not a hobby. Its a SERVICE.

Therin lies the problem.....all you newguys have no idea of what ur
talking
about.

Dan/W4NTI


Amateur Radio is "defined" by the FCC as a service. For many people, ham
radio is a hobby and nothing more. For many others, it is a hobby and a
service and they get involved with those areas of ham radio that are a
service to others. There is no requirement from the FCC that people must
conduct a service in the hobby of amateur radio.

CB is a service also. "Service" is simply a definition; moreover, a
justification for the availability of frequencies to us "commoners." It
distinguishes commercial use vs. hobby/personal use.

Kim W5TIT


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

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Kim" wrote ...

And it begins...

Let them vent, Kim. If it were the other way around, you would feel the
same way. I knew this was coming for a long time, so I've made peace with
it. The truth be told, it's not going to change the way I operate a bit.

Well said, Arnie. I agree 100%.

As a bit of an aside, the two "Morse" operators at field day were still the
most popular -- we gave the club the most points and had the most on-lookers
(some things will never change) :-))

Conditions this year on FD weren't so hot. I have read many reports of FD
operations where the "Morse" QSOs outnumbered the 'phone QSOs, even though
there were more rigs dedicated to voice. Digital modes were a far, far distant
third.

Over the past few years, the total number of FD "Morse" QSOs has been growing
faster than the voice QSO totals. Wouldn't it be ironic if this was the year
"Morse" became No. 1 on FD?

73 de Jim, N2EY

FISTS #4360

WWHD

v/r

Arnie -
KT4ST
FISTS 2940

In article , "D. Stussy"
writes:

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
. com...
Alun Palmer wrote in message
...
Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is he-

http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but we
are still under FCC regulation...let's give them a day or two to see
how they are going to handle this.
Steve, K4YZ

No one said otherwise.

Actually, didn't the FCC say back in 2000 that the ONLY reason they kept a
code element in the requirements was the International Treaty requirement,
which has now disappeared?

That's how I read it.

Look at the thread title, Bill. "CW Requirement Abolished" - not "Treaty No
Longer Requires Code Test" or "S25.5 Revised" or anything like that. The
casual observer would think the code test is gone. Not yet,

Clearly the issue of code testing now becomes
a country by country decision.

Only once the new treaty is accepted by the various countries.

Simple: Congress ratifies it and the next day, the FCC creates the "no code
extra."

Naw, simpler than that. FCC just says "Element 1 waived for all applicants" or
"All applicants get credit for Element 1" or some such. One sentence and done.

You put a date in The Pool yet?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
.com...
Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..
Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is he-

http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but
we
are still under FCC regulation...let's give them a day or two to
see how they are going to handle this.
Steve, K4YZ

No one said otherwise.

Look at the thread title, Bill. "CW Requirement Abolished" - not
"Treaty No Longer Requires Code Test" or "S25.5 Revised" or anything
like that. The casual observer would think the code test is gone. Not
yet,

Clearly the issue of code testing now becomes a country by country
decision.

Only once the new treaty is accepted by the various countries.

73 de Jim, N2EY




OK. I could have worded it better. What I meant was the international
requirement to have code tests is gone. Actually, though, in several EU
countries the test will go within the next few weeks. The FCC will take a
little longer, though.

On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?

In the short term, that's what I personally expect we will see. In the
long term, however, I think we will eventually have only two license
classes instead of the current three (one for VHF/UHF only privileges,
and one for full HF privileges in addition to that).

1. FCC remains under a congressional mandate to simplify regulations.
The easiest system for FCC to administer would be exactly what I have
outlined - either you have HF privileges or you don't.

2. Reading between the lines on the FCC's R&O WRT the last
restructuring of amateur license classes leads me to believe that the
commission would have preferred to do this in the first place but its
hands were tied by the international requirement that WRC just
removed. Absent that requirement now, FCC will be free to do what I
think it would have preferred to do four years ago.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

(Brian) wrote in
om:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...
"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is he-

http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

Here's the rewrite of 25.5 and 25.6


The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003.

You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 a

25.5 §3 1) 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.


25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the
most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544.
----------
They say the effective date is July 5, 2003.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I wonder if we can shut down this newsgroup now? Brian


We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?

Brian wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. ..

Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is he-

http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

Here's the rewrite of 25.5 and 25.6


The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003.

You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 a

25.5 §3 1) 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.


25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the
most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544.
----------
They say the effective date is July 5, 2003.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I wonder if we can shut down this newsgroup now? Brian

Heh, Heh! Good question, Brian! I'm sure we can find something to fight
about though..... 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, I am a no-code tech and am actually not looking forward to the end of the
CW requirement. I am studying code now and will continue to do so. I take my
upgrade test in Sept. and can't wait to get my code ticket.

G. Doughty
KI4BBL
remove nojunk to email