"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Whoa there Bill! Are you saying that as of this moment, we are not part
of the treaty?
- Mike KB3EIA -=

You could say that to a certain degree. The old treaty is dead
as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The USA process
of ratification is a unique post WRC approval process for
the USA only. The rest of the world isn't
waiting for USA approval.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before
congress has ratified the new treaty (no point
approaching congress, though, as that part will
be a rubber stamp excercise);


Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?



Do you mean that the ITU treaty allows the retention of a code test if
the FCC decides
to? It says as much that it is now an option.

There is quite likely many new things in the new treaty that the USA
really wants and
the code thing for hams is likely at the very bottom of the list of
priorities. Most members
of congress are not likely to even know what ham radio is, much less
care about the
code requirement for hams......

We're not banning code. Some new hams will likely start playing it and
find it
easy to pick up, and become good at it. As long as there is interesting
DX to
be had on CW, hams will keep using it. "CW gets thru when nothing else
does,
and only needs the simplest of equipment".

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:51:24 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?

Nope.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

That was reaffirmed in their response to the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petiton for
Reconsideration, too. I recall that the FCC said they thought code testing
"serves no regulatory purpose" other than meeting the treaty requirement.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

The USA has to ratify the revised treaty first. Ink up the rubber stamps...

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ...

Why not? They said the test is there for Reason X. Reason X no longer exists.
Bye-bye code test.

Of course there will be petitions all over the place just to make sure.

the status quo is 5 wpm for General and Extra.

Hard to see what all the fuss is about, really.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the FCC
proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at this
point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them.

The real problem is that FCC can't do anything about it until the treaty is
ratified anyway.

(and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

OK, fine. Then let's ALL not send any letters, emails, proposals or petitions
to the FCC about code testing from now on. We'll just wait until FCC initiates
something and asks for comments. Deal?

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

So we should all just be quiet, huh?

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments).

OK, fine. I promise not to bother FCC about the subject of code testing if
everyone else promises not to bother FCC about the subject of code testing.

Does everyone agree?

In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

The thing to "blitz" the FCC about is Broadband over Power Line. They've only
got about 1800 comments - and we have over 685,000 hams.

Did anyone besides me comment to the FCC about it?

Or should I have kept quiet, so as not to annoy FCC? The way the NOI was
written, it seemed like BPL was the latest new golden technology. Sure seemed
like FCC liked it a lot.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Don't know about the emails, but you can send a letter to the commisioner or
others in the FCC. I am sure a mailing address would be listed somewhere on
their website, as well as maybe even the email addy's you mentioned.

Also, write a letter or email to you senators and congresspersons, as well
as other ones not necessarily in your district. You would be pleasantly
surprised as to what has been achieved by others over the years as far as
concerns and interests, and this without a "big-brotherish, mafioso-like"
organization taking your money and not showing where it goes but saying they
are there to support you.


I currently write (or bug) my governmental representatives on somewhat of a
regular basis. Hell, they may actually learn something as well. (both
amateur radio related and other concerns as well.)



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs
would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?


FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes. It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

Sometimes the US does the right thing even though the rest of the
world makes another choice. Lemmings march into the sea. Are they
right?

/ rant off

73, Wes, kc8spr
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite. Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.
The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify

Not gonna happen. It's an agenda item for The Congress. Too many other radio
services involved.

or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Which, to my knowledge, has never happened before.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite. Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, some lawyers somewhere will argue it.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.

Which simply means they have a different ratification process than the USA.
They choose their delegates and empower the delegates to ratify at the
convention, rather than afterwards.

The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Exactly. And until that process is carried out, the USA will abide by the old
treaty.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

Allow me to rephrase:

.....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in force
in the USA. That's my point.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part
will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the
non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify

Not gonna happen. It's an agenda item for The Congress. Too many other
radio
services involved.

or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Which, to my knowledge, has never happened before.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would
argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite.
Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, some lawyers somewhere will argue
it.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means
nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.

Which simply means they have a different ratification process than the
USA.
They choose their delegates and empower the delegates to ratify at the
convention, rather than afterwards.

The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Exactly. And until that process is carried out, the USA will abide by the
old
treaty.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty
is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

Allow me to rephrase:

....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in
force
in the USA. That's my point.

Fair enough...internally only.
And, as you note above, USA ratification is just a matter of time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK