On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote:
Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:
Actually, this could be read in another way:

There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

But note HOW the privilege is defined. In this case, it's NOT defined as
simply holding "element 1 credit" like it's pre-2000 predecessor was. Other
license classes' privileges are based on license class, which is in turn based
on element credit. However, for the HF operation of Technician and Novice
licenses, the current regulation doesn't refer to element credit but instead
refers to the international requirement - which was just repealed (and replaced
with a statement that each country may decide for itself - but that makes it a
"national requirement" and choice, not an international one).

If the section privileges were based on "holding element 1 credit," then I
would agree that nothing has changed. However, that is clearly erroneous.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

I don't dispute that. However, the authority for HF operations of Technician
and Novice licenseholders isn't based on simply holding element credit like it
is for the other license classes.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Richard Cranium wrote:
JJ wrote in message ...
Alun Palmer wrote:
Not quite. The rule is the same, but the 'international requirements' it
refers to have changed. How you interpret that is another thing, but the
FCC chose to write a rule that incorporates by reference the rules that
were changed in the WRC.

Here's an idea for an analogy. Anyone here ever write any code of the
computer kind? Say you write something that makes a call to another
object/subroutine, etc. The ITU have re-written the subroutine, and the
FCC code includes a GOSUB that calls it (revealing my BASIC roots here).

You obviously don't understand the FCC rules any better than Keith.
Until the FCC eliminates the code test requirement, everything remains
the same for U.S. hams.

What are you babbling about, JJ? He made it quite clear (except for
morons):
1. The FCC Rules & Regs make reference to the code requirement as
spelled out by the WRC.
2. The WRC no longer requires any code.
3. Ergo, the FCC Rules & Regs no longer require code.

What's so difficult to understand? (Other than English, that is.)

There's a fourth step he

4. Since there is no international requirement any more, no one can meet that
[now nonexistent] requirement.

Therefore, under this logical application of the regulation and the events
effective July 5, 2003, there is no operating authority for any Novice or
Technician (Plus or with an element 1 CSCE) for any frequency below 30MHz,
since said authority contains a requirement that cannot be met (because there
is no such requirement anymore, having been repealed).

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

Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the
argument
you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting
to
see presented and debated in a court of law...

Personally I *encourage* all those who think that they now have HF
privileges to hop on and start using what they think they have..

Let enough people know, and we (or you yourselves, since you're so sure)
can make recordings of your activity, then ship 'em off to Riley and get
his interpretation of the matter!

Have the courage of your convictions folks?

- Mike KB3EIA -


heh heh. I doubt it, Mike--but they'd be the ones to test the whole debate,
eh?

Kim W5TIT


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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.

A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat on
the sideline whining about the code.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actual it is discrimination, but that beside the point. The FCC should not
deleted
47 CFR 97.503(a) because of ADA - it should deleted it because it: (1) is
unnecessary,
(2) is bad public policy, (3) it servse no legitimate government purpose,
and (4) is not
in conformity with 5 USC 706(2)(A). At WRC 2003, no nation member spoke
in favor retaining ITU rule S25.5.

Whinning? I think you mean winning. We are sat the winning side of the
debate
to end Morse code exams.

Dee, it not necessary to insult people, just tell Keith that the WRC 2003
delete
the international requirement; and the FCC, in due course will delete
the domestic requirement.

Larry Klose, KC8EPO

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

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the

argument

you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting

to

see presented and debated in a court of law...

Personally I *encourage* all those who think that they now have HF
privileges to hop on and start using what they think they have..

Let enough people know, and we (or you yourselves, since you're so sure)
can make recordings of your activity, then ship 'em off to Riley and get
his interpretation of the matter!

Have the courage of your convictions folks?

- Mike KB3EIA -



heh heh. I doubt it, Mike--but they'd be the ones to test the whole debate,
eh?

I wish they would test the system so much! There is so much more to
"rules" han just a verbatim translation. There is intent, and spirit.
Since there is always someone who likes to put a spin on the rules, ther
has to be constant interpretation of the same.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat
on
the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -


An early acquaintance in ham radio could "read" CW in flashing lights. I've
heard stories of others who have felt vibrations to "read" CW.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat
on
the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -


My ex had 70% hearing loss in both ears and a constant ringing of the ears.
He too passed his 5wpm. Although he did have it so loud when he practiced
that I either had to leave the room or make him wear headphones. Of course
there were other testing methods for those who were totally deaf.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
...


On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:



A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with

disabilities.

According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with

disabilities.

Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat

on

the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -



An early acquaintance in ham radio could "read" CW in flashing lights. I've
heard stories of others who have felt vibrations to "read" CW.

At one point, I was thinking about trying the vibrating method, like
holding my fingers on a speaker cone. But as a challenge, I decided to
go for the aural method. Wasn't easy, but I did it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

From the ARRL letter, Vol 22. No 29


Dan/W4NTI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you tell em dan.............lelnad and frankenstein.......our resident
no code cb plussers might disagree with ya though............

Keith wrote in message ...
On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.

Hey Keith may be you can help me. I have been diagnosed as a dyslexic
and have ADD. My disability prevents me from concentrating for more
than a few minutes so I can't take any code test or written test let
alone study for them.There must be some legal loophole or political
angle you can figure because there are millions of general public with
disabilities like me who want open access to the ham bands but the
government discriminates against us.Just because I have a disability
why should I be denied my right to operate ham? Maybe a protest or
something would help.Thanks for your help Keith keep up the good work.