|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... N2EY wrote: In article , Keith writes: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:50:46 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: 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. Explain to me why a deaf person should now need to know morse code? Deaf people have used Morse Code in ham radio. When the silly horse and buggy test was rammed down their throats by the US government they could use lights. Now how is a deaf person supposed to use morse code sitting in their home listening to the radio? Simple. They rest fingers on a speaker cone and feel the vibrations. It's benn done many times by deaf people. Just like many deaf people dance by feeling the rhythm the music through their feet. Also, many deaf people have some limited hearing. It is not unusual for them to be able to hear single tones but not undersatand speech. With modern digital communications like PSK31, Pactor and RTTY a deaf person can enjoy ham radio. Hams have been using Baudot RTTY for almost 60 years.... And as always they can use a computer to decode morse code as they have in the past. But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure discrimination because the deaf have no way of decoding morse by ear. Yet the various advocacy groups for handicapped people have never protested the amateur radio test regulations. Indeed, the group "Handi-Hams" was AGAINST the medical waiver rule change back in 1990, as I recall. The morse code test for deaf people is pure discrimination and now that s25.5 no longer requires a proficiency to know and send morse code the FCC better move fast to remove this discrimination. 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. Take out the questions on PSK-31, RTTY, etc., because blind people won't use those modes. Get rid of the Extra and General class written tests entirely because there are people who can't pass them, but who can pass the Tech written. And since FCC says the Tech test is adequate for all authorized modes, bands and power on amateur VHF/UHF, why is any more written testing needed for HF beyond a few band-edge questions? Don't you get it Jim? This is EXACTLY where they are headed. NTI is undergoing birth! The no-discrimination angle is cute but flawed, but hey, they are flush with their recent success, so the sky is the limit now. And besides, they might get people to buy the argument. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, there's just not as many of those types of individuals you are describing as "they" to make a change at all. Just as there are not enough of the Larry Rolls and Dick Carrolls to make CW as miserable as some (the "they" you describe) think it is. You may wish to blame the de-emphasis on CW on people. But, it's a combination of losing traditional values, a decrease in the use of CW in major communication venues, and the fact that the FCC is a governmental organization that responds to national and world trends. It's much more about anything BUT people than many realize, IMHO. There's way more people who are middle ground. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Keith writes: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:50:46 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: 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. Explain to me why a deaf person should now need to know morse code? Deaf people have used Morse Code in ham radio. 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. When the silly horse and buggy test was rammed down their throats by the US government they could use lights. Now how is a deaf person supposed to use morse code sitting in their home listening to the radio? Simple. They rest fingers on a speaker cone and feel the vibrations. It's benn done many times by deaf people. Just like many deaf people dance by feeling the rhythm the music through their feet. First of all, I don't understand the transition from using lights to a deaf person not being able to use CW. They *could* use lights--and I've seen it done. They could also do as Jim describes above. They could also have the volume up so loud on a speaker that it would vibrate the speaker box itself. There's all kinds of ways and I bet an innovative deaf person will find them. Necessity is the mother of invention. For goodness sake! By your example, Keith, blind people should not be licensed because, "how in the world would they know what frequency they are on?" Also, many deaf people have some limited hearing. It is not unusual for them to be able to hear single tones but not undersatand speech. With modern digital communications like PSK31, Pactor and RTTY a deaf person can enjoy ham radio. Hams have been using Baudot RTTY for almost 60 years.... And as always they can use a computer to decode morse code as they have in the past. But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure discrimination because the deaf have no way of decoding morse by ear. Yet the various advocacy groups for handicapped people have never protested the amateur radio test regulations. Indeed, the group "Handi-Hams" was AGAINST the medical waiver rule change back in 1990, as I recall. I've never understood a medical waiver. The only thing I've seen it do is get people licensed for General and above, who have no business being so--and who also, somehow, don't have a hearing deficiency of any type. The morse code test for deaf people is pure discrimination and now that s25.5 no longer requires a proficiency to know and send morse code the FCC better move fast to remove this discrimination. Balderdash!!!! To expect that a deaf person cannot learn CW is discrimination. You are insensitive to believe that discrimination means inability. 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. Take out the questions on PSK-31, RTTY, etc., because blind people won't use those modes. Get rid of the Extra and General class written tests entirely because there are people who can't pass them, but who can pass the Tech written. And since FCC says the Tech test is adequate for all authorized modes, bands and power on amateur VHF/UHF, why is any more written testing needed for HF beyond a few band-edge questions? 73 de Jim, N2EY Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote: And, as I understand it, only until they "renew" or change their callsign, correct? In other words, when I renew my license, or if I change my callsign, I would only be licensed as a Technician, I think. Kim W5TIT Thanks for a quote of Kim's message, Dee. Sorry, Kim, I'm still having problems reading your messages (the same problem as before). I don't know if it's my server, your server, some software setting, or something else entirely. I haven't blocked your messages. Oh, ROFLMAO...that was going to be my next advice was to take me off your filter...LOL I checked to make sure of that. They're still showing up in the newsgroup message list. However, whenever I select one to read, I get an error message saying the message is no longer on the server. Puzzling. I just don't understand. I've tried both outlets for the newsgroup, also! Occasionally one will slip through that I can read, but 99 percent of your messages result in the same error. Again, this doesn't happen to messages from anyone else. In fact, your messages are the only times I've seen this error message at all. If this isn't happening to anyone else here (and nobody else has said anything), I can only assume the problem is with my server. So, it looks like the problem will remain until I switch servers (something I'm planning to do soon anyway). When it stops, I'll let you know. Of course, if you reply to this, I'll probably never see the reply. So, if you have something to say in reply, send it by email instead. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Oh, guess I better send an email, too! Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
D. Stussy wrote: 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. Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. |
Keith wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:50:25 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" wrote: §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. That is the test, the portion of the regs we are talking about is 97.301(e). That portion of the regs is dependent on a international requirement for morse code proficiency to operate on HF. The international requirement for morse code proficiency has been eliminated. But the requirement has not been eliminated in the U.S. and the change in the international treaty is not a mandate that the requirement for a code test must be dropped. The FCC can keep the requirement indefinitely if they desire. Until they do drop it, nothing in the licensing structure has changed. |
"Keith" wrote in message ... 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. All the removal of the international requirement in the ITU Radio Regulations does is to allow each administration to determine on its own whether or not to keep a Morse test. Most will eliminate it ... The US has NOT done so yet, so what is suggested above would be ILLEGAL, put your license in jeopardy, and give all of ham radio a black eye. And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. -- Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c Grid Square FN20fm http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c ------------------------------------------------------ NCI-1052 Executive Director, No Code International Fellow, The Radio Club of America Senior Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Standards Association Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee Member, QCWA (31424) Member, ARRL Member, TAPR Member, The SETI League ------------------------------------------------------ Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century. Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio. http://www.nocode.org |
"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 --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
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 - |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: "Alun Palmer" wrote: That's the point -those existing regulations incorporate by reference an international requirement that no longer exists I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the only "international requirements" recognized by this country are those in the treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the recent changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges. 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. Does the US Congress "have to ratify" each and every change in any ITU that effects US civil communications laws? I don't see any such "ratification" process for any number of decisions done by the FCC in regards to FCC International Bureau decisions. Please explain. To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments above), the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the only treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently ratified). Code testing is the "only" treaty the US "recognizes?" FCC does considerable International communications decision- making without any fuss and furor about "treaty ratification." Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the changes), at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty change does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up to each member state to decide for themselves. Our states decide whether or not to test for amateur morse code?!? Will this "ratification" be done in a General Election or a special Election like ratifying an amendment to our Constitution? Is there some kind of separate "treaty" concerning morse code that is NOT done with the ITU? The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other words, don't hold your breath). Please explain this new "ratification" process. I was sure the USA had already joined the International Telecommunications Union and agreed to abide by THAT treaty. LHA |
"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 |
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". 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. Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. 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. 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 |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
... 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 "both on crack" ROFLMAO!!!! Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
... --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to Typical....don't confuse me with the facts...I know it all...right Twit? Dan/W4NTI You're just angry, Dan. You let me get to you... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "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 Well, that's true... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Keith" wrote in message ... 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. And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Keith" wrote in message ... 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. Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Typical....don't confuse me with the facts...I know it all...right Twit?
Dan/W4NTI **** |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:24:27 -0500, "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. No, if a deaf person wants to learn morse code they can. It is wrong for the government to require them to pass a morse code test because in reality they have little or no use for it. Like I said why doesn't the government require blind people to pass a driving test if they ride the bus? You never know when the driver will pass out and they will have to take the wheel. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:57:14 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
. the FCC has records of who has code credit and who doesn't, so no-code Techs should NOT, repeat NOT, try to use HF. 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 Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com