|
"Keith" wrote in message
... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if they upgrade to general or extra. That's why you need to be responsible, for a change it seems, and keep you CSCE and old Tech+ license, if there is one. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "C" wrote in message ... My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... The test is given at 5 words per minute. They use a faster character speed but make the letters further apart. It is actually easier this way because the brain has more time to react to the character before it has to go on to the next one. Why not tell it like it is.... Those giving the test do not want to make it easy for anyone who has a learning disability or not. I have never been able to memorize anything easily when in school, and was accused of being from lazy to stupid. My father told me that I was ignorant because I was partly colorblind. I do not want sympathy, just after studying for almost a year to pass the 5 word per minute test for what it is suppose to be not what someone who is more proficient with the code wants it to be..... If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website but I don't happen to have it anymore. Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the letter slows you down so that you can't keep up. Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied. The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule. The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed. If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE What you just described, about memorizing the code, happened to me. I started to try to learn the code at 12 years old. My mom bought me a record...yeah thats right A RECORD..hi. And I thought I was hot stuff...but when I actually tried to receive CW off the air, at a very slow rate. Listened in the Novice bands. I found I didn't know a thing. A local ham told me I had memorized the record. And that is exactly what happened. He then gave me the ARRL license manual with the proper method and helped when he could. I eventually RE-LEARNED Morse and got it right. I passed the Novice and in 3 months passed the 13WPM General in front of the FCC. I am not solid at 40 or so. So Dee's advice is right on target. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...... Maybe he's a Dick. |
|
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: 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. Kim: Don't look now, but it would seem to me that all of the above have quite a LOT do do with people. However, then again, as I've always suspected, you're probably writing from another planet. There's way more people who are middle ground. It's a sure thing that you're not occupying the high ground! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
I asked why it seemed so fast. I was told by the VE that he gives all
code test at least 13 words per minute if not faster..... I have sent out a couple of e-mails requesting imformation of how tests are given ie, speed and if fonsworth method was used. I do not wnat to know the test iteslf as that would defeat the purpose of the testing session. I have yet to receive an answer from any VE... All I ask for is to know what speed I need to be studying as it all sounds different to me at each speed.... Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the recomended way to conduct a test? If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a different test place with different folks instead. Dan/W4NTI |
**** ghetto Your mama |
"Keith" wrote in message
... 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. You would not be able to use that as an argument *with the governmental body with which you would have to argue your point.* The government requires all kinds of assinine things from people all the time. I don't think you'd get anywhere with the statement above. Like I said why doesn't the government require blind people to pass a driving test if they ride the bus? Blind people riding a bus are at the mercy of someone else as driver. A deaf person operating amateur radio is driving themselves. Apples to oranges. If you're going to try to effect change, you need a whole lot more than whines, and using the handicapped to get your way, Keith. It's as simple as that. You never know when the driver will pass out and they will have to take the wheel. Who says they have to? I'm sure most of my blind friends would say that they are pretty much consigned to the fact that if something happens to endager them while under the "care" of another driver, they are ready for the outcome. Would you like for me to ask them? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Keith" wrote in message
... 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/ Keith, why don't you solicit the opinions of some deaf hams? There is a group called HandiHams that you could ask--if they would respond. You could also get on eHam.net, and qrz.com and pose the question in the forums. The question, I suppose, would be: Do you, as a deaf ham, agree that the government should require that you pass a minimum CW requirement for amateur radio privileges at that level? My guess is most deaf hams are not going to mind a bit. Note that I said *most.* I am sure there are some out there that may object. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig would be one method, but does anyone here know? - Mike KB3EIA - I have many blind friends/hams, and the way they do it is with radios that have speech boards on them. Okay. Thanks, Kim. I thought it might be something like that. - Mike KB3EIA - |
No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. C. In article m, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website but I don't happen to have it anymore. Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the letter slows you down so that you can't keep up. Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied. The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule. The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed. If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
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. It helps if a person types in all caps too! ;^) 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?" Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig would be one method, but does anyone here know? There are many aids for the hearing disabled as well as sight disabled out there. Few know about them because there isn't a mass market for them. There were at least two "speaking meters" on the market, one of which was used by a ham heard on a 20m net some years ago. In that case he put the microphone in front of the meter's transducer to indicate the carrier frequency (which resulted in an on-air argument amongst the net as to which one of them was "most accurate" in frequency, sighted or sightless...heh heh). There are "talking wrist watches" on the market now, at least three models that I've seen...heard one used by a patient at a nursing home who also had a bedside radio with some "talking" features built into its controls. The "TDD" is quite a common appliance for hearing disabled to use as a telephone. A perusal of telephone book listings will show the "TDD" (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) numbers at stores so equipped...and some urban services which have operator translators with a TDD and conventional telephone to "interpret" for deaf folks. I know a lady who did about two years at that task as a volunteer. A diligent search will turn up a surprising number of devices and appliances that are available for sight or hearing disables people. LHA |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can and cannot do. Sorry about that, Mike, but you have to consider the environment. The environment in here. All sorts of morsemen have been shouting and hollering about having to know, do, and test for morsemanship in amateurism for a long time. Roughly 91 years now. Morsemen keep telling everyone else what THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO for decades in order to be a "good" radio person. They MUST DO MORSE. [I turned up the volume so you could hear...] LHA |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Whine, whine, whine...spiteful statements from someone who insists that all must do as he did because he is so magnificent. Not all must or can do what Steve did. Which "Steve" are you talking about, colonel? The test standards are not now the same. NO KIDDING?!? Why do you state the obvious, colonel? You, on the other hand, can continue to do what you've been doing toward obtaining an amateur radio license--zip, nada, zilch, nuttin'. It was not a "requirement" anywhere that I GET an amateur radio license...anywhere but in your mind. All I want to do is see the morse code test eliminated. I'm sure you'll get that "Extra right out of the box" as soon as you figure out how to open the box. Couldn't do that. The FDA pulled all the boxes from the shelves. Inspectors found it contained tainted ham and the remains of a code key. They are tracing the key remnants now and suspect it may have your fingerprints on it. Wear gloves next time, Una. LHA |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: 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. Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each country shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse assessment" of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm. 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"? Nope. 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. Poor verbiage, that's all. 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. Except that's not what it means. 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) FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always treated it as a poor relation. What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C, K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question their motivation and qualification. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
: Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from rule 97.301(e)). Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which in turn includes the words "in accordance with international requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5. So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this, but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated. It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact that condition does not have to be met. |
"C" wrote in message ... No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. C. None of us could react fast enough at first. You are not alone. When you are copying and miss a letter, just skip it and catch the next one. If you let your mind focus on what you missed, you will then miss several others that come after. DON'T TRY TO GET THE MISSED LETTER AT THAT TIME. Just write an underscore and go on so that you don't miss following letters. This takes a little practice by the way as we all want to be perfect so we sit there and try to figure it out while falling further behind. If you get a lot of blanks at first, that's OK. Just keep working on it. When you take the test, you are allowed time to go back over your paper and fill in what you think the missing material might be. Here is an example (using an underscore for characters that you miss on the copy). What you originally copied: NAM_ IS JO_N. Now if you look back over your copy, fill in what you believe the missing letters should be. In this case, the text sent was most likely: NAME IS JOHN. Then on the test questions, you will probably be asked the name and there you have it right there on your paper. When I took my extra code test (20wpm), I had a lot of underscores on my paper but despite that I was able to successfully answer the country question (it was Switzerland) even though I only had about half the letters copied on my sheet. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
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. If it's OPTIONAL (on a country-by-country basis, but that doesn't matter; any basis will do), then it's NOT A REQUIREMENT. One cannot comply with a requirement that doesn't exist - and that's the problem. Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. But that's not the requirement. 47 CFR 97.301(e) made DIRECT REFERENCE to the international requirement, not to "element 1 credit." Certainly, there's no need to cite "element 1 credit" for the novice license! If it had cited "element 1 credit" as the second requirement for technican licenseholders (novice licenseholders already have it by definition in .501), then I would agree that nothing had changed. But that's not how the FCC wrote ..301(e) and you know it! ;-) 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. I don't believe that's the correct question. It's not a matter of no-code technicians now having HF privileges. It's a question of "coded techs" and Novices having their HF privileges STRIPPED on account of one of the two requirements now being untenable. |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Bill Sohl wrote:
"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. ....And that means that it is an OPTION, not a requirement. A requirement cannot be bypassed like an option can. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:16:05 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: See?! I knew the argument would get very interesting! I wonder if it will ever get debated in a court of law...man that would be good! Nah...this will be short-circuited by the FCC changing the Rules long before it could ever be brought to trial, and any competent regulatory attorney in or out of the government service knows just how to thusly delay such things. But until the FCC acts to remove such a reference, that doesn't mean that it's not operative in the meantime. How does one comply with a requirement that doesn't exist? |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
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. But if it's an OPTION for each country, it's NOT an international REQUIREMENT. Words have definitions. These terms are self-evident. How does one show compliance with a REQUIREMENT that does not exist? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"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"? I've taken exactly the opposite approach: IF there is no international requirement (it's now OPTIONAL), then how can one show compliance with a requirement that itself no longer exists? My answer is that one CANNOT be in compliance with a non-existant requirement, and thus HF privileges defined in ..301(e) have been STRIPPED effective July 5, 2003 from those who previously held them, not granted to those who didn't have them. 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. Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES. 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. What novice HF bands? Novice licenseholders are likewise affected despite the fact that their licenses DO include element 1 credit, because that credit has no bearing on the ability to use those bands. If element 1 were an important fact, then 47 CFR 97.301(e) would have been written that way instead of making reference to the "international requirement" [that no longer exists.] *(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty) Ratification won't make a difference here. Rejection of the treaty might! |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in : "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 The rule includes the words "has received credit", which gives the FCC control over what speed they will give credit for. Receive credit for what? A requirement that no longer exists? How does one demonstrate compliance with a non-existent requirement? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. 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. Which means that NO ONE can be compliant with meeting the now non-existent regulation, and therefore, no technician or novice licensee has any operating privilege below 30MHz. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:23 -0400, "Bill Sohl" wrote: Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse c= ode. Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself. Exactly and 97.301(e) depends on the international proficiency requireme= nts laid out in s25.5. Now that there are no longer any proficiency requireme= nts in s25.5 then 97.301(e) is affected. 25.5 Any person seeking a license to operate the apparatus of an amateur station shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to rece= ive correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals. The administrations concer= ned may, however, waive this requirement in the case of stations making use exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz. New Text of Article 25.5 (effective July 05, 2003) 25.5 =A73 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seek= ing a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to se= nd and receive texts in Morse code signals. s97.301(e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The US government has no standards for a technician to know morse code. = To receive a certificate yes, but the only reason a tech could not transmit = on HF was because of 97.301(e). Now that no code technicians have no requiremen= t in international law to know code they should be allowed to transmit on thei= r allocated frequency. That doesn't mean they can hop on 20 meters, it mean= s they can operate voice/data/cw 28.1-28.5 or even CW on 80, 40 and 15 meters. Wrong. What it means is that there is a requirement in the FCC regulation = that NO LICENSEE CAN MEET. The international change does not mean that no-code technicians can use tho= se HF frequency ranges. It does mean that coded-technicians and novices can N= O LONGER use them - because none of them can show compliance with a requireme= nt that no longer exists. The reason that 97.301(e) was written that way is because the government expected s25.5 to be just deleted and techs could then operate HF. The AR= RL with their fancy footwork is trying to stop the removal of morse code as = a requirement for a HF license. It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000 changes. But don't worry it looks like BPL is going to destroy the bands anyway a= nd you morse code nuts can keep your death grip on those keyers. The ARRL has do= ne nothing but help put ham radio in it's grave. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane" wrote: Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF. I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says. I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set down in 97.301(e). I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have no such privilege. It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules. What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and day. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if they upgrade to general or extra. Not totally correct. The FCC doesn't have information on techs who passed element 1 after April 15, 2000. However, what does having passed element 1 for technicians have to do with the ..301(e) privileges? I see no such requirement. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Spamhater wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. 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. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws. You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's standards to the letter. The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either. Note: If anyone has a CHOICE, then it's not a REQUIREMENT. A requirement, by definition, means that there is no choice.... |
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark -- Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls. http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote: 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. There may no longer be an international requirement for Morse code proficiency, but there still is an FCC requirement for Morse code proficiency, and until the FCC drops that requirement, NOTHING HAS CHANGED concerning U.S. Amateur Radio. And this "FCC morse code proficiency" requirement is stated in 47 CFR 97.301(e) where? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote:
Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement? |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun Palmer writes: 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. Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each country shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse assessment" of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm. I say that you're both wrong. If there is no international requirement, then there is no way to demonstrate compliance with it. If you think I'm wrong, please identify acceptable proof of compliance. (Not needing any proof means that there is no requirement, and that's a contradiction of the FCC regulation itself.) What WRC-03 did is change the requirement into an option. Since it's not a requirement anymore, there's no measureability of compliance, so how can one be compliant? 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"? Nope. I go further: One may also assume that a Technician or Novice that does have proficiency has no right to operate there - because said proficiency is "measured" in terms of a now non-existent requirement. 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. Poor verbiage, that's all. Very poor. If the FCC wanted to do this in a way that didn't depend on an outside body of law, they could have chosen language to indicate dependence on "element 1 credit" and avoid the entire problem. 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. Except that's not what it means. 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) FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always treated it as a poor relation. I fully agree with that. Now that the international requirement has been killed (and replaced with an option), HF privileges for technicians (and novices) have also died. I interpret this as meaning that ANY type of technician is equal to the "no-code" technician (except those pre-87's who have the credit in hand for a general class license but haven't applied yet), and that novices only have the 222Mhz and 23cm bands for operating. What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C, K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question their motivation and qualification. You should see all the defective and less than perfect regulations in the tax code. That's my "home turf." |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in : Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from rule 97.301(e)). Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which in turn includes the words "in accordance with international requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5. You did fine up to here. I fully agree. So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this, but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated. If a government can choose NOT to require something, then it is not an international requirement but an option. The FCC regulation is dependent on an international requirement that no longer exists, so how can anyone show compliance with it? They can't. What this was was a way for the FCC to get rid of the "technician" HF privileges and make the novice license so useless that the latter will either upgrade or die. They dont' have to worry about the "tech plus" class anymore - there isn't one! 47 CFR 97.21(e) [or whatever it is] that designates renewals of technician plus licensees as technician demonstrates the FCC's real intent on this issue. It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact that condition does not have to be met. I disagree to as what it says. I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists. |
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:
Phil, So how's retirement going :) What "retirement"? I have less "sitting around" time now than when I was working full time. I work out at the gym three times a week which I never could when I had a "real job" (tm). Ditto for hamming. Pro bono legal and engineering consulting is more fun than I thought it would be. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Well, now see? I can understand that. BUT, I am not sure that someone *using* the handicapped as an excuse is something that we should all applaud--*if* that is what Keith is doing. Maybe he really *does* know someone he's taking up for. But, I haven't heard him mention anyone. Since I'm still having problems reading your messages, I'll end with these comments. Those who cheat when it comes to the ADA are causing problems for the truly disabled. The general stereotype is that everyone claiming a disability is faking it. My wife was recently hurt while working for the military and now has a disability (her body is 30 percent disabled). Even though her disability is very real, many people immediately assume she is faking it because the injuries are not outwardly visible (no wheelchair). As a result, my wife has to constantly deal with an impression she cheating some insurance company out of money using a fake disability. In reality, the military and VA decided she was disabled, and assigned the percentage of disability, based on their own x-rays, surgeries, and follow-up treatment. The VA is now sending her to college for vocational rehabilitation and she gets a small disability check each month ($510). Trust me when I say she would gladly give all that back in trade for no disability to live with for the rest of her life and no pain at night from each day's activities. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
That's called an "Administration" in ITU-speak. Phil, why can't lawyers like yourself use everyday, plain, English? Reading the Code of Federal Regulations or US Code (or whatever) is like reading something written in another language. I think it's a conspiracy to confuse everyone else in an effort to insure work for lawyers. ;) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
(snip) Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is there any mention of radio, morse code, the United Nations, nor the Federal Communications Commission. [that includes Amendments which were ratified by the states much later than the original Constitution acceptance-ratification. (snip) Len, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you as you try to twist what I've said. The Constitution gives Congress the power to ratify international treaties. That ratification process you want explained has be established for over two hundred years and can easily be researched yourself if you really want to know something about it. The United States is not, and has never been, automatically subject to any treaty change by either the UN or ITU. Any change in a treaty requires action by our government before it becomes the law of this land. When it comes to code testing, our government will have to take steps before any change takes place in this country. Until you offer something which disputes any of this, nothing further needs to be said. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "D. Stussy"
writes: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote: In article , Alun Palmer writes: 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. Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each country shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse assessment" of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm. I say that you're both wrong. Well, there you have it. If there is no international requirement, then there is no way to demonstrate compliance with it. That's an "if-then" statement. There IS an international requirement, though. If you think I'm wrong, please identify acceptable proof of compliance. (Not needing any proof means that there is no requirement, and that's a contradiction of the FCC regulation itself.) Not at all. S25.5 still exists, it's just been modified. It says now that each country shall decide. What WRC-03 did is change the requirement into an option. No. It simply allows each country to set its own requirements. Right now the USA sets the requirement at 5 wpm. Since it's not a requirement anymore, there's no measureability of compliance, so how can one be compliant? 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"? Nope. I go further: One may also assume that a Technician or Novice that does have proficiency has no right to operate there - because said proficiency is "measured" in terms of a now non-existent requirement. False circular logic. 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. Poor verbiage, that's all. Very poor. If the FCC wanted to do this in a way that didn't depend on an outside body of law, they could have chosen language to indicate dependence on "element 1 credit" and avoid the entire problem. Maybe. I think FCC wanted to avoid mentioning Element 1 so they wouldn't give the impression that you could get a new Novice or Tech Plus. 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. Except that's not what it means. 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) FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always treated it as a poor relation. I fully agree with that. Now that the international requirement has been killed (and replaced with an option), HF privileges for technicians (and novices) have also died. I interpret this as meaning that ANY type of technician is equal to the "no-code" technician (except those pre-87's who have the credit in hand for a general class license but haven't applied yet), and that novices only have the 222Mhz and 23cm bands for operating. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C, K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question their motivation and qualification. You should see all the defective and less than perfect regulations in the tax code. That's my "home turf." And these regs are K2ASP's "home turf". Do you think W3KC or K2UNK haven't been over that bit of Part 97 a few times? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com