"Keith" wrote in message
...
But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure
discrimination

Yeah go get em Keith. Now go attack all those Navy swabs that learned Morse
by lantern. Go for it boy.

Dan/W4NTI

Because there are so many from the dot cb group over here. Thought I would
just save someone the trip.

Dan/W4NTI

"Landshark" . wrote in message
. com...

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...
Does this give ANY of you No Coder types something to think about???
Please
read it over and maybe, just perhaps something will sink in. This is
the
way it is....end of discussion.

From the ARRL letter, Vol 22. No 29


Dan/W4NTI

==WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE MORSE REQUIREMENT POST-WRC-03?

World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03) made optional the
requirement to prove the ability to send and receive Morse code to
operate
below 30 MHz. While Morse exam elements remain on the books in the US,
Canada and elsewhere, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have apparently
become the first countries to delete their Morse requirements for HF
operation. In the US, however, the FCC is unlikely to act on its own
motion to simply make the Morse testing requirement go away.

"There isn't an exception in the Administrative Procedures Act that I am
aware of that would permit the Commission to issue an administrative
fiat
changing the license structure or exam-requirement rules," said an FCC
staffer who's closely involved with Amateur Service rules. Other
countries
can do this because they have different laws and procedures, the FCC
staff
member observed, adding that even if it could be done here, "that still
leaves unanswered the fundamental question: What do you want the new
rules
to be?"

In its December 1999 Report and Order restructuring Amateur Radio
licensing, the FCC stopped short of revising the rules to sunset the
Morse
requirement automatically if WRC-03 deleted Morse proficiency from the
international Radio Regulations. The FCC also acknowledged "a clear
dichotomy of viewpoints" on the Morse code issue within the amateur
community.

The ARRL's policy for several years has been that Morse should be
retained
as a testing element in the US. At its July 18-19 meeting in
Connecticut,
however, the Board said it would solicit and review input from members
on
the Morse testing requirement and other possible revisions to Part 97
arising from WRC-03.

The first move on the Morse code question in the US is for someone to
file
a Petition for Rule Making with the FCC seeking a rule change. No Code
International (NCI) http://www.nocode.org/ has spearheaded the battle
to
eliminate the Morse requirement and would be a likely organization to
file
such a petition. NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson, WK3C, said late
last week that NCI was still studying the matter and had not yet made a
final decision on a plan of action. An ARRL member, Stevenson says he
hopes personally that the League would join NCI in actively encouraging
the FCC to eliminate the Morse exam element as soon as possible.

Hopes for a quick resolution to the Morse question could be wishful
thinking, however. Once a petition to drop the Morse exam element is
filed, the FCC will put it on "public notice" by assigning an RM number
and soliciting comments. If more than one such petition is filed, the
FCC
is obliged to invite comments on each. When that process is completed,
the
FCC may determine that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is in
order. The Commission at that point could incorporate all Morse-related
rule making petitions into a single proceeding. The NPRM would get a
docket number, and the comment process would begin anew.

Further complicating and extending the process, the FCC most likely
would
incorporate other pending Amateur Radio-related issues into the same
NPRM.
At the end of the comment and reply comment periods, the FCC would issue
a
Report and Order (R&O) that includes its decision on the Morse code
requirement and any other issues incorporated into the proceeding. The
whole process could take a couple of years, perhaps longer.

Ratification of the WRC-03 Final Acts by the US Senate does not appear
to
be necessary before the FCC can act or begin the rule making process.
Following World Administrative Conference 1979 (WARC-79) which resulted
in
three new HF amateur bands, the FCC acted in 1982, prior to Senate
ratification of the conference's Final Acts, not only to initiate the
rule
making process but to give amateurs limited access to 30 meters.

Radio Amateurs of Canada has advised hams in that country that the Morse
qualification requirement remains in effect for operation below 30 MHz,
"pending a review by Industry Canada of the impact of the WRC-2003
regulatory changes on the Canadian radio regulations, policies and
procedures."

Why Thanks Dan, why did you cross post this?
What does this have to do with CB Radio?


Landshark


--
Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls.

http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
FCC rules have NOT changed (yet) ... Techs are STILL not allowed
HF privs unless they have passed, and have documented credit for,
the 5 wpm Morse test ...

I disagree - they don't even have that anymore. Techs who have the element 1
credit in hand CANNOT operate on HF, because 47 CFR 97.301(e) has TWO
requirements, the second one being compliance with an international regulation
that now no longer exists. Since there is no way to be in compliance with the
rescinded regulation, the second condition can NOT be met, and therefore, no
"technician plus" licensee (or equivalent) and no novice licensee has any HF
privileges. By the stated condition, the privilege was rescinded on July 5,
2003, when the international regulation effectively disappeared.

Note that .301(e) is NOT written like the rest of .301, which defines operating
privilege based solely on license class, which is in turn based solely on
element credit (in .501).

Had the regulation been written in such a way that it indicated licensees who
hold element 1 credit may operate (see list below), then I would agree that
nothing had changed. It's NOT written that way.

Don't let the writers in this thread talk you into ILLEGAL operation.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote:
JJ wrote in :
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.


You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

And you understand just about as much as dickboy does. Until the FCC
changes it, nothing has changed, code is still required.

That requirement, by itself, is NOT enough.

See other replies, and the sub-thread titled "Alternate interpretation."

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 27 Jul 2003 14:22:09 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


If you're going to go that route, then all of the questions in the

written

tests about voice modes have to go as well, because there's no way deaf

people

are going to use SSB, either.

I'd love to see someone with a hearing disability receive weak signal CW

on 80

meters in the middle of July. Requiring a deaf person to pass a code
test

to

get a ham license is like making a blind person pass a drivers test
before
riding the bus, you never know when driver will pass out and the blind

will

have to take the wheel of the bus.
You are really crazy along with your pals at the ARRRRRRLLLL. This hang

on to

morse code forever crap is the reason that ham radio is going to die.



And you're arguments backed by idiocy are the reason those of us who
logically argue against a CW test get the flak that we do. To say the
things you say of the deaf, or any other handicapped you might *think*
you
are taking up for, is narrow minded and pretty damned discriminatory of
you.

But these people are there, Kim. And there seems to be quite a few of
'em. Just some of the folk we can look forward to soon.


- Mike KB3EIA -


They are there, Mike, yes. But there's not so many of them that it's a
distraction. Just like I don't get distracted by people such as...well, you
know...

Kim W5TIT


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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:

Alun Palmer wrote:

JJ wrote in :

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.


You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

And you understand just about as much as dickboy does. Until the FCC
changes it, nothing has changed, code is still required.


That requirement, by itself, is NOT enough.

See other replies, and the sub-thread titled "Alternate interpretation."

Alternate interpret all you want, until the FCC changes the rules,
nothing has changed. The FCC makes the final interpretation and they
have NOT changed the rules regarding a code test.

The FCC, as a government agency, is bound by international treaty and law, and
here, the international law HAS CHANGED, so any regulation that refers to it
CAN (and in this case, HAS) been affected.

It's not "element 1 credit" by itself that determines a Technician class
licensee's operating privilege on HF. If it were, then I would agree that
nothing has changed - but that's simply not the situation here.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
FCC rules have NOT changed (yet) ... Techs are STILL not allowed
HF privs unless they have passed, and have documented credit for,
the 5 wpm Morse test ...

Don't let the writers in this thread talk you into ILLEGAL operation.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c


I understand your caution, Carl. But, somehow, if one is willing to
ignore
existing R&R, or maybe doesn't even understand them, in an area where they
would "experiment," don't they kind of deserve whatever trouble they would
have coming their way?

Kim W5TIT

In a word, YES ... they should have their licenses revoked.

HOWEVER, the REST of us don't need the grief that large-scale flaunting
of the rules would bring down on ALL of ham radio ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
FCC rules have NOT changed (yet) ... Techs are STILL not allowed
HF privs unless they have passed, and have documented credit for,
the 5 wpm Morse test ...

I disagree - they don't even have that anymore. Techs who have the
element 1
credit in hand CANNOT operate on HF, because 47 CFR 97.301(e) has TWO
requirements, the second one being compliance with an international
regulation
that now no longer exists. Since there is no way to be in compliance with
the
rescinded regulation, the second condition can NOT be met, and therefore,
no
"technician plus" licensee (or equivalent) and no novice licensee has any
HF
privileges. By the stated condition, the privilege was rescinded on July
5,
2003, when the international regulation effectively disappeared.

That's ridiculous ... the NEW ITU Radio Regs simply give administrations
the CHOICE as to whether or not to have a Morse test as a requirement
for licenses that convey privs below 30 MHz ... they do NOT preclude
any administration from having it either way ... it's their choice.

The regulation was not "rescinded" on July 5, 2003, it was simply
MODIFIED.

Thus, there is no issue of "compliance with international requirements".
Current US FCC Part 97 rules are in compliance with the ITU Radio Regs.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 27 Jul 2003 14:22:09 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


If you're going to go that route, then all of the questions in the

written

tests about voice modes have to go as well, because there's no way
deaf

people

are going to use SSB, either.

I'd love to see someone with a hearing disability receive weak signal
CW

on 80

meters in the middle of July. Requiring a deaf person to pass a code
test

to

get a ham license is like making a blind person pass a drivers test
before
riding the bus, you never know when driver will pass out and the blind

will

have to take the wheel of the bus.
You are really crazy along with your pals at the ARRRRRRLLLL. This
hang

on to

morse code forever crap is the reason that ham radio is going to die.



And you're arguments backed by idiocy are the reason those of us who
logically argue against a CW test get the flak that we do. To say the
things you say of the deaf, or any other handicapped you might *think*
you
are taking up for, is narrow minded and pretty damned discriminatory
of
you.

But these people are there, Kim. And there seems to be quite a few of
'em. Just some of the folk we can look forward to soon.


- Mike KB3EIA -


They are there, Mike, yes. But there's not so many of them that it's a
distraction. Just like I don't get distracted by people such as...well,
you
know...

Kim W5TIT


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

Typical....don't confuse me with the facts...I know it all...right Twit?

Dan/W4NTI

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:40:04 -0400, "Spamhater"
wrote:


HEY KEITH,

IF YOU'RE NOT ILLITERATE, TRY READING PART 95 SOMETIME.... YOU WILL SEE HOW
STUPID YOU SOUND. THE NEWEST VERSION! ALL AMATEURS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
COPY OF CURRENT LAWS AVAILABLE... BUT SINCE YOU"VE OBVIOUSLY NOT READ THEM
TO KNOW THE LAWS, YOU WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THIS ONE EITHER! NOW, IS THIS BIG
ENOUGH FOR YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?????? DUHHHHH.......

You're both on crack. Part 95 is the CB regs. The regs for ham radio
are in part 97.

DE John, KC2HMZ