|
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:24 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote: Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Well then, you should know that 5 WPM isn't that difficult to learn... And I TOO have a 20 WPM Extra. I have NO problem with the FCC keeping the 5 WPM code element. I've seen some situations in my life time where code was able to be used aside from radio. Not a bad idea to keep it in tact at LEAST at 5 WPM. JMS |
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org: 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. You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it all the time. 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. |
"Landshark" . wrote in
.com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble |
snip
Call me anything that you want but don't call me late for dinner or a juicy pile-up on 20m. snip That's what my grandad always said (without the bit about 20m)! |
Michael Black wrote:
Mike Coslo ) writes: C wrote: 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. Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out random groups or even makes up QSO's. - Mike KB3EIA - With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing as receiving. Big time! I can send at twice the speed I can recieve at. One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard. You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done. But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program. That would be interesting to have running in the background while typing int the newsgroups. 8^) I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code practice". In the old days, that would mean going to a code practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions. You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important, and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling to get it all, it might all come easier. My bigget problem was missing a letter, and getting hung up on it. By then 3 or 4 more letters would go by, and then the real frustration would set in. It ended up that I needed to just relax and let the mistakes roll by. Then the mistakes went away. - mike KB3EIA - |
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.... You are correct, sir. The exam administered by the various VEC's is called Farnsworth. If you look at Part 97, you will see that it specifies Morse. Farnsworth is mentioned nowhere in Part 97. Furthermore, the specification of Morse Code is defined nowhere in Part 97, nor in all of Title 47. We on RRAP have been down this road before. Basically, if you are a Pro-Code Test Agenda type, you agree to allow the VEC's to break the law, even encourage it because the examinee may eventually want to actually use Code at a higher speed. But if you can read, you see that Morse is specified, not Farnsworth. If you happen to know enough about all this to ask for the real Morse Exam at a test session, then the VE must accomodate you. But the aren't likely to mention it unless you do. If you've been studying the Morse training tapes, you are likely to fail the Farnsworth exam. Farnsworth is fairly well agreed to be the better METHOD to learning faster code. By the time one gets to about 20WPM, there is supposed to be no difference between Farnsworth and Morse, but with the various code tutor programs, anything is possible. Anyway, the VEC's are administering a code exam not specified in Part 97. Hopefully it will all be over with soon. Good luck, Brian |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"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.... snip 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 Dan, he probably finished failing the exam again and said to one of the VE's, "Sheesh, that code seemed awfully fast." Whereas the VE replied, "Sure, we're sending it at 13-18wpm with long spaces in between. It all evens out in the end. By the way, we are denying you access to HF." That's what happens to people who study Morse Code tapes at 5wpm then take the Farnsworth exam. If they don't have a high level understanding of all of this, then they are just as likely to get a hold of real Morse study material as opposed to Farnsworth study material. Brian |
Alun Palmer wrote in message ... "Landshark" . wrote in .com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble "beleive"? (I before E, except after C) remember..? |
"Landshark" . wrote in message y.com...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark shark, can you imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.?? |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: "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. Well, long ago I found out that the United States of America was signatory to the creation of the United Nations, thus making us and all the other signatories a part of that "treaty." I haven't bothered to look up the EXACT details of the "treaty" in which the USA "signed" onto the ITU and away from the CCITT. That happened several years ago. The point should be obvious that the USA is ALREADY involved with an existing treaty to be a part of the UN and also to be a part of the ITU. 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. Was some kind of Congressional "action" required to send US administration delegates to the World Radio Conference in June? Was there some kind of Congressional "action" required by the FCC International Bureau to do a number of changes and adjustments in international tariffs with the ITU-T? Or regarding communications satellite use uplink/downlink frequencies internationally? WHERE is there evidence of "ratification" actions taken by Congress or the states of the US on any of the above? I don't think that all the "ratification" exists except in the minds of a few amateurs who want to elevate amateur radio OVER & ABOVE all other radio services in importance. The US Congress DELEGATED AUTHORITY for civil radio regulation to the FCC and government communications regulation to the NTIA. 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. So, you are unable to explain the "ratification" process of our government insofar as morse code testing for radio amateur licensing. Maybe someone else (admitted to a legal bar, not a neighborhood one) can explain the "ratification" details? LHA |
"Hugo" wrote in
: Alun Palmer wrote in message ... "Landshark" . wrote in .com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble "beleive"? (I before E, except after C) remember..? I have no spell checker here, but at least I don't confuse things by using the wrong word |
Not being a medical expert...but...it sounds to me like a happening when one
is trying to bust through a certain word per minute barrier. Where you must learn to copy BEHIND. Try this. Listen at a rate of sending that you ARE NOT COMFORTABLE with. In this case TEN or 13 WPM. ONLY RIGHT DOWN a character that you copy. Forget about ALL the others. Keep doing this. Do not drop down to the 5 wpm at all. Forget that is the goal. As time goes on you will start getting more and more of the characters. This technique forces the brain to copy BEHIND. This should allow you that split second of time needed. It works for getting the speed up. Like I said, it may be what will help you. Just a thought. Dan/W4NTI "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. 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 |
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo ) writes: C wrote: 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. Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out random groups or even makes up QSO's. - Mike KB3EIA - With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing as receiving. One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard. You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done. But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program. At the very least, with people spending so much time at their computers, I'd suggest running a CW practice program, sending random letters, while you do something else at your computer. Set the volume relatively low, and don't even bother trying to copy it; just use it to get used to the sounds. I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code practice". In the old days, that would mean going to a code practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions. You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important, and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling to get it all, it might all come easier. Michael VE2BVW I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot dash.....di dah. Dan/W4NTI |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:44:17 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:
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? Carefully..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:46:25 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:
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. I get the same flak from folks who say "why should the disabled be allowed to park at a meter without paying and without a time limit" (per state law). I would gladly trade my Disabled Parking Permit to get my full mobility and eyesight back.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:00:26 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:
"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. ;) The famous story about Arturo Toscanini, at the time the conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra: Most professional orchestras make certain changes and cuts in traditional (i.e. "warhorse") compositions and thusly use scores which have lots of hand-written "modifications" for that purpose. The tale is told of a member of the orchestra who went to The Maestro and said "Mister Toscanini, my score for Beethoven's Eighth Symphony is so marked up I can't read it. I have purchased a brand new score - can you show me EXACTLY what changes and cuts you want in it?" Toscanini replied: "let me see the old score". He looked at it and said: "there's nothing wrong with this one except that you need to add another cut -here- and make a change -there-". (With thanks to the late Meredeth Willson as told in his book "And There I Stood With My Piccolo") There's nothing wrong with the language of the USC or CFR if (1) one has a good command of American English and (2) one has a good command of law and (3) one understands what the statute/regulation was intended for in the first place. The same thing is true of the writings of any technical profession. I have always felt that an understanding of FCC regulations is as important to ham radio as an understanding of the technology being used by the ham. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote:
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. Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's so difficult to get "good help nowadays"...... 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.... Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered complies with "international requirements". S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has met the requirement? That's impossible. 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. The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement". "Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule change, so the situation remains as is. Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how the FCC works. Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly on this matter..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ... "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.... snip 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 Dan, he probably finished failing the exam again and said to one of the VE's, "Sheesh, that code seemed awfully fast." Whereas the VE replied, "Sure, we're sending it at 13-18wpm with long spaces in between. It all evens out in the end. By the way, we are denying you access to HF." That's what happens to people who study Morse Code tapes at 5wpm then take the Farnsworth exam. If they don't have a high level understanding of all of this, then they are just as likely to get a hold of real Morse study material as opposed to Farnsworth study material. If they don't pay any more attention than you, that is likely. And a part of the learning process that you have always missed. DICK, I pay attention to what the FCC has published in Part 97. It tends to be the guide book of amateur radio. Your petty little jabs, half-baked thoughts and incomplete sentences don't rule the ARS. They merely distract and annoy. |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , "D. Stussy" writes: 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.) Gawd I dunno where they come from . . The modification of S25.5 has allowed the national GOVERNMENTS to take options, it does NOT empower the CITIZENS of the various countries to take any options. The U.S. government has NOT yet stated what options it will take therefore the rules we have been living under have NOT changed one bit and will NOT change until THE U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SEZ SO. Exactly: Each country has the OPTION. That means that it is NOT AN INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT (but may continue to be a national one). However, 47 CFR 97.301(e) is written in terms of an international requirement that now no longer exists. It doesn't matter whether or not the U.S. Government chooses to take or ignore the option. The operating privilege in .301(e) isn't based on the national choice - it's based on the existence of an international requirement which no longer exists. 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. Amazing. Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the 21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . . If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously, you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the acceptability of the proof.... |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote: 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 compliance was met when it was required by international regulation (and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules. GEEEEESSSSHHHH!! Wrong with respect to the General, Advanced, and Extra license classes. Their ability to operate on HF is dictated SOLELY by license class, and for these classes, 47 CFR 97.501 indicates the credits (including element 1). These classes have NO REFERENCE to any international requirement as necessary to be met. You need to re-read the operating frequency privilege rules in 47 CFR 97.301. |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote: 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? The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that? That means that there is no international requirement (in your words, "has been dropped"). I agree exactly: "Until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required ...." How do you show compliance with a non-existent requirement? Please demonstrate your proof. |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, GM wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:50:19 GMT, D. Stussy wrote: 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. You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing you can do will stop that. 1) I am not a troll, nor have I ever posted from easynews.com. I don't even have an account at easynews.com. 2) I have asked a legitimate question. 47 CFR 97.301(e) bases the HF operating privileges for the novice and technician license classes on a requirement that now no longer exists, but the FCC hasn't removed the requirement for those licensees to comply with the external requirement. How are these licensees to show compliance with a[n international] requirement that no longer exists? If they can't demonstrate compliance, then they don't have the privilege. Is that beyond your comprehension? These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months including but not limited to-- D. Stussy This top one is NOT a handle but my name. So what if it's an "ampr.org" address. It's one of the few that actually WORKS because I know what I'm doing. None of the rest are mine nor under my control. Most I've never even seen before. 666 Anon Anon Anus On Line Aunt Bea Barabbas BARF Big Al Bob Badblood Bubba Bojangles Claude Dave Allan David DimmyDimwitt Dobbie Don Souter Doug Martin eaxxyz3 Ed Norton Enrique Sanchez Erasmo Hernandez Firebottle Floppy Disk Fwankie Goodfellows Rule Goodie Two Shoes Groan! Guffaw!!! Harley1200 Henry Herb Ho Ho Howie Itell On4zzabc Itell OnU I Zorg Joe Partlan King Creole Lloyd Lloyd Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm Llyod mmmm L Rod Hubbard Mark Mansfield Miami Bob Momma Moron nookie Nutcase Bobby Onxyzzy Pabst Smear Pappy Pat Carter Patrick C PCarter Petey Arnett Poo Bear Q ywhere QRM Billy QRP Queenie Randy Thomas Rasheed Ray Dude Reactance Richard W Rob Roger Roger Ron \"Stompin\" James Sadiq Akhbar Sammie Adams Sammy Davis Sr. Savant Scammer SLee Stagger Lee Stu Parker The Moron List _ Timmie TwoShoes Trash Radio Troll Virgil Voila! What A HOOT!!! Wrong Way Zippo zzabc |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in . org: 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. You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it all the time. Please define "optional requirement." If it's optional, it's not a requirement. If it's required, it's not an option. 47 CFR 97.301(e) is defined in terms of a requirement. That requirement, having been turned into an option, no longer exists - but the appropriate licenseholders, in order to execute the privilege, still must demonstrate compliance with the non-existent requirement. How do they do this? If they can't, then they don't have the privilege. I say that demonstrating compliance with a non-existent requirement is an impossible act. 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 Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote: 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. Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's so difficult to get "good help nowadays"...... 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.... Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered complies with "international requirements". If each government has a choice, then it's not an "international requirement." A requirement means that there is no choice. The replacement S25.5 means that each country has a choice to impose a NATIONAL REQUIREMENT on its licenseholders (something they could have done anyway). How does that become an international requirement when some member country to the agreement can opt out? S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has met the requirement? That's impossible. 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. The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement". That statement focuses on "requirement," forgetting about "international." "Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule change, so the situation remains as is. Yes, there has. Treaties and international agreements supersede national laws. Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how the FCC works. Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly on this matter..... Perhaps so, but you will find that interpretation of rules and regulations was one of my strongest points when I worked for them. Thinking can be taxing! :-) |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Dick Carroll; wrote:
... You're surely aware of the fact that an existing law/rule/regulation is effective during any period of time required to change or othewise update it to comply with prevailing changes which effect its meaning. Any scheme othewise would invite the very sort of chaos these people are planning. Does the FCC see it thusly? You can bet on it. 1) That does not give them an unlimited amount of time to act on the change. 2) That does not justify applicability of the dependent regulation beyond the time of the change of regulation it depends on. It becomes a regulation that cannot be relied upon as authority (after the date of the underlying change). 3) That implies that the regulation supersedes international agreements and treaties. Actually, treaties and international agreements supersede the laws of the countries party to the agreement or treaty. |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Hugo" wrote in : Alun Palmer wrote in message ... "Landshark" . wrote in .com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark Why are you blaming me for this? The original thread was crossposted. Blame the person who started it all. You should note that where I have noted an inapproprate group, I have killed the cross-posting in my responses. I don't always note that, nor do I really care. I'm not a mind reader of the originator of any thread, myself excluded. |
If I were a troll, then why aren't I hiding behind some name that isn't
resolvable to my true identity? We've heard your drivel before. No matter how many times you repeat it will not make it true. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, GM wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:12:30 GMT, D. Stussy wrote: Why are you blaming me for this? The original thread was crossposted. Blame the person who started it all. You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing you can do will stop that. These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months including but not limited to-- D. Stussy R274C Anon Anon Anus On Line Aunt Bea Barabbas BARF Big Al Bob Badblood Bubba Bojangles Claude Dave Allan David DimmyDimwitt Dobbie Don Souter Doug Martin eaxxyz3 Ed Norton Enrique Sanchez Erasmo Hernandez Firebottle Floppy Disk Fwankie Goodfellows Rule Goodie Two Shoes Groan! Guffaw!!! Harley1200 Henry Herb Ho Ho Howie Itell On4zzabc Itell OnU I Zorg Joe Partlan King Creole Lloyd Lloyd Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm Llyod mmmm L Rod Hubbard Mark Mansfield Miami Bob Momma Moron nookie Nutcase Bobby Onxyzzy Pabst Smear Pappy Pat Carter Patrick C PCarter Petey Arnett Poo Bear Q ywhere QRM Billy QRP Queenie Randy Thomas Rasheed Ray Dude Reactance Richard W Rob Roger Roger Ron \"Stompin\" James Sadiq Akhbar Sammie Adams Sammy Davis Sr. Savant Scammer SLee Stagger Lee Stu Parker The Moron List _ Timmie TwoShoes Trash Radio Troll Virgil Voila! What A HOOT!!! Wrong Way Zippo zzabc |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: "Don't bother - they're here...." Straight from "Send in the Clowns". And as usual you're right on target. Yep, DICK is here. Bruce is here. Dan is here... All the usual suspects. |
Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it." Keith Case dismissed, with prejudice. He's just another idiot, and a code test didn't keep him or you out of ham radio, and is unnecessary (indeed ineffective) as a filter. Ah, yes. The "Code as a Filter" myth. I think that was #19 on the Aaron Jones Morse Myths list. bb "Code gets thru when everything else will." |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
(snip) There's nothing wrong with the language of the USC or CFR if (1) one has a good command of American English and (2) one has a good command of law and (3) one understands what the statute/regulation was intended for in the first place. (snip) You forgot to add in (4) a lot of time. As in time to look through the various subsections to find related material. For example, when reading that certification is required, one has to hunt elsewhere to find details about that certification and even elsewhere to find how one can obtain it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
(Michael Black) wrote in message ...
Mike Coslo ) writes: C wrote: 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. Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out random groups or even makes up QSO's. - Mike KB3EIA - With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing as receiving. One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard. You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done. That would drive me batty! But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program. At the very least, with people spending so much time at their computers, I'd suggest running a CW practice program, sending random letters, while you do something else at your computer. Set the volume relatively low, and don't even bother trying to copy it; just use it to get used to the sounds. I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code practice". That's a bad idea, an hour straight is 'way too long for learning purposes. In the old days, that would mean going to a code practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions. When I studied for my earliest tests there were no consumer-level recording methods let alone computers. My only options for practicing Morse were having somebody hand-send it or copying it off the air. Which, as a practical matter, meant copying it with a rcvr or forget it. I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW code practice sessions. Today they transmit computer-generated code and back then I believe they used tape-generated code so it has always been quite precise. I'll concede that I'm only around 150 miles from the station so they boom here on 80M and QRM wasn't/isn't a problem. Might be more difficult from the west coasts but I don't know. I still recommend W1AW over any of the "canned" aids. Two downsides of course are that W1AW does not send Farnsworth and one needs a half-decent HF rcvr. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important, and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling to get it all, it might all come easier. w3rv Michael VE2BVW |
|
|
You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated. I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice class licence. -- Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345 UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting 6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427 email: (work) (home) |
Alun Palmer wrote: You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it certainly never mentions Element 1. What it does say is: "who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy _in_accordance_with_international_requirements_" You are taking what is an aside, and basing your whole argument on it. Won't work. This argument doesn't work on enough levels that it is surprising that anyone would use it. 1. My first remark about the very secondary nature of the "in accordance with....." 2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals." Do you agree that this is the reworded article 25.5? The administration has determined that the persons seeking a license must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test. Until it changes it's requirements, it will continue. 3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with. 4. Morse code testing is not abolished. Individual administrations now make that call- to test, or not to test. Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite simply *wrong*. It will be wrong until the FCC rules otherwise. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "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. At 5 wpm with Farnsworth spacing, you have around 1.5-2 seconds between characters. That should be plenty. Are you using Farnsworth spacing? Try this experiment: Have someone read a random sequence of standard phonetics ("Hotel, Sierra, Alfa, Yankee..." at a rate of about one word every two seconds while you write down the first letter of each word. If you can do that, it's a good bet you can learn to copy 5 wpm code. Are you block printing or writing cursive? I found block printing avoided a lot of problems because each letter stands alone. 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. Try this: Set the computer to send just two unrelated characters - say, R and Z. Practice copying those two until you get 95% or better copy. Then add just one more letter and practice until you can get 95% or better with those three. The trick is to not add any new ones until you know the old ones almost perfectly. 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. Good advice. But don;t be afraid to backtrack as above, to find what letters are giving you trouble. 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. That works fine unless the text sent was "NAME IS JOAN" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for one solid minute out of five. Oh well. Me too. And no time was allowed for going back - when the code stopped, they took the paper away. Plus, if the examiner could not read your writing, you flunked. Also you had to send 20 per to the examiner's satisfaction. But all that has been gone for over 20 years now. Ancient history. Yet many hams licensed since those days could easily meet that standard. Note that today's test can be passed by answering the questions OR finding one minute (25 characters) of solid copy. 73 es GL de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot dash.....di dah. Dan/W4NTI Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch! You cross posting fart. ;) -- GO# 40 I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron. Dan/W4NTI |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron. Dan/W4NTI Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole. -- GO# 40 OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime I damn well want. Dan/W4NTI |
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message om...
(Brian) wrote in message . com... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ... Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for one solid minute out of five. Oh well. Dan/W4NTI And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow... And you couldn't pass it in Miami even if the VE provided you with a limo both ways. w3rv I don't think VE's are permitted to provide limousine service to examinees anymore. Boy have the times changed for the better! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com