You are ignorant. The FCC has no idea if a tech has passed a morse code
proficiency test and has a CSCE in their hand.

--
The Radio Page H

Carl thinks the FCC is going to listen to every QSO on HF. And then set there
and check there Data base, to see if they have been CW tested get real.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:10:39 -0400, Spamhater wrote:

Seems to me, the other Keith is too lazy to read the rules and regulations
and instead wants a hand out. He needs to REALLY sit down and read the rules
and regulations or have them read to him and get a grasp on the fact that
you can't just do as you damned well please.

Or listen to accurate interpretations by a local communications
attorney who is willing to teach him without charge (ahem).

He does the same thing on local scanner nets, too.

Ready for this one...... he is an EXTRA Class licensee. I'm not
going to "out" him further - at this stage.

Why is he jumping up and down like a monkey on a string?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Absolutely. To come to the conclusion that deaf
people cannot learn and use CW is rather narrow-
minded in my opnion. I bet there's a way that
ANYONE could learn CW.

I believe the waiver has been removed from the
licensing structure for amateur radio, hasn't
it? As well it should be. And, here's why:
there are deaf people who have passed a CW test
and use CW. As soon as that happened, it set a
standard that deaf people can, indeed, learn
CW--*if* they so desire.

Remember that a handicap should never be
considered as an excuse.


Hey, one of your messages I can actually read, Kim.

Anyway, I think the point he is trying to make is that the ADA requires
reasonable accommodation of a person's handicap, not efforts to pass that
burden on to the handicapped person. Where possible, the handicapped person
should not be required to make an unusual effort to fit into this society.

When it comes to code, how that applies is not clear. Clearly, telling the
handicapped person (disabled person) to learn code by feeling a speaker cone
is an unusual effort. However, the ADA also doesn't require others to modify
activities to the point that the activity no longer makes sense, or to where
the handicapped person actually has an advantage over others.

[Note: the above is only my interpretation of how the ADA reads]

The FCC seems to have taken the latter position on this issue. Not
requiring code for the handicapped person would give an unfair advantage
over others. That interpretation allowed them to drop the waivers for those
with disabilities.

Of course, whether that is a correct position is probably up to the courts
to decide. Most court rulings have tended to side with the disabled, and I
suspect they would in this situation also.

However, with the possible end to code testing soon, perhaps the entire
issue is moot.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency
table:

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class

This is self-explanatory.

and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in
accordance with the international requirements.

The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the
international requirements".

Agreed


Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration
was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a
license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done
by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1.

Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to
determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration.

That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each
Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether
to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for
each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code
testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely
by the revision of S25.5.


So far, so good

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.


That's not what 301(e) says, though, is it?

The problem I have in your analysis is that 301(e) itself is one of the
rules concerning element 1. It mentions Element 1 per se nowhere, but
there is no other rule tying Technician HF privileges to Element 1.

This last statement of yours is indisputable re the General and Extra, in
that Element 1 is still required to obtain those licences. However, there
is nowhere in Part 97 any statement that a Technician needs Element 1 for
anything, instead there is only the wording in 97.301(e).

The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a
separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they
-are- changed.

Agreed

Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of
giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license
but have never passed the code test.

Does that answer your question?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

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




Not really. The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". If there is no international requirement to
have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any
frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they
operate on those frequencies.

Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in
accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance
with the international requirements"?

Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine
whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so in
respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other rule.
If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by
international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating that
the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular purpose.

To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in accordance
with international requirements" is a necessary condition in the sentence.
If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF frequencies*, and if not,
then they will have to wait. This is really what I am seeking comment on,
although all other observations are welcome.

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

"Rich" wrote in message
om...
"Elmer E Ing" wrote in message
news:lpTUa.11803$ff.5170@fed1read01...
SEE PART 97
§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.


§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.



"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, "Spamhater"
wrote:

It is very apparent you have yet to crack open a copy of Part 95

I have read part 95 and I don't recall ever seeing anything about a
morse
code
test.


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

I know a bed ridden quad who dictated 20 wpm to his wife.He uses a straw
cw keyer.

There are many disabled who have passed CW exams. The only thing that these
bozos are whining about is they are too damned lazy to learn the code. 5 WPM
is the easiest thing in the world, like walking.... some just too lazy to
work for anything worth having. Mommy and Daddy must have spoon fed them all
their lives.

I don't have my manual in front of me to do verbatim rules, but code tests
for disabled can be done 1 letter at a time, sentence, etc. Stopped if need
be to allow the person time to divulge the message or character sent. As
long as it is sent with a "speed" setting to be as prescribed to work out at
5 WPM if sent all at once. In other words, speeding up or slowing down the
speed of the character will give it a different sound and could make it hard
to decipher at all if incorrectly sent. SO - you have a message consisting
of the prescribed number of characters and sent as necessary to the
handicapped party to allow them to decipher what is sent... THAT IS how a
disabled can be tested..... You can use "lazy" all you want in any form of
protest, it still comes out to LAZY.
.._.. .- --.. -.-- MOST of the info I related on exam giving to
Handicapped is covered in VE manuals, but should be found in FCC Rules as
well.

JMS.

"Len Over 21" wrote:

What's all this "treaty ratification" thing?!?

I thought that the US Congress ALREADY ratified
membership with the United Nations and the UN
organizations long ago. The ITU is a UN
organization.


All international treaties have to ratified by Congress, Len. While we are
a member of the United Nations and the ITU, we are not automatically subject
to all treaties offered by either of these organizations. Indeed, we are not
even subject to significant changes to treaties we have already ratified -
unless a mechanism for changes was included in the ratified treaty, any
changes to that treaty have to be ratified.


Code testing is the "only" treaty the US "recognizes?"


The currently ratified treaty is the only treaty this country recognizes.
That treaty has a code testing requirement.


Our states decide whether or not to test for amateur
morse code?!?


I'm not referring to the individual states within the United States. A
"state" in this context is "a country or nation with its own sovereign
independent government."


Please explain this new "ratification" process.


Read the Constitution of the United State of America.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

The FCC could, however, make rules changes
which are based on the new treaty because
the OLD treaty is gone, done, defunct,
over...even if the US never ratified the
new treaty. No nation is now bound by the
old treaty at all.


I asked Phil about something similar a few weeks ago, and he seemed to
think it was not possible. After further research, I tend to agree with him.
It does look like the changes to that treaty will have to be ratified first.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:30:49 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Ready for this one...... he is an EXTRA Class licensee. I'm not
going to "out" him further - at this stage.

Why is he jumping up and down like a monkey on a string?


Think of me as forward thinking person that is sick of the ARRL and ham radio
operators that have done nothing but destroy the hobby by crying about keeping
morse code to keep people out of the hobby.
Don't worry Phil, BPL is going to destroy ham radio and it deserves to be done
away with. If there were millions of ham radio operators then maybe it could be
worth saving. Why should a few thousand morse code fanatics keep millions of
consumers from enjoying broadband Internet access? America needs BPL to create
competition and access to the Internet. A bunch old men with a death grip on
their morse code keys need to get the hell out of the way.
Thankfully a group of single minded men did everything to keep people out of
the hobby and they can enjoy the S9 BPL signals that will drown out the bands.
Corporate America thanks the ARRL for the help to create a new investment
opportunity.


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

Keith wrote:



Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that
want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a
microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International
requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code
proficiency is GONE.

Show us where the FCC has eliminated the requirement for a Morse code
test. Dumber than a bag of rocks GEEEEESSSSSHHH.

Spamhater wrote:


There are many disabled who have passed CW exams. The only thing that these
bozos are whining about is they are too damned lazy to learn the code. 5 WPM
is the easiest thing in the world, like walking.... some just too lazy to
work for anything worth having. Mommy and Daddy must have spoon fed them all
their lives.

I have in the past taught several disable persons in Novice classes. One
had CP and could not even write fast enough to copy 5 wpm on paper. He
simply copied in his head and wrote it down when the test was finished.
All these handicapped folks worked very hard to achieve this goal and
never complained once about having to do so. On the other hand, I had
other non-handicapped who whined through the entire course about having
to learn the code. I said, "look, it is a requirement to get the
license, if you don't want to learn the code then you don't want the
license, so make up your mind." I only had one who gave up.