In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:55:46 GMT

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...


Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE.

Actually, it did have a legal basis.

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:55:46 GMT

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...


Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE.

Actually, it did have a legal basis.

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of
other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there were
no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.


Just one caveat. They probably need to request it in advance of the test
date as the VE team will probably have to order a special tape. I doubt
that the teams keep this on hand.


Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.



Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier to
copy than using slow letters.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.





Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier to
copy than using slow letters.




Also you become able to do higher speeds sooner.

++++================++++==================+++++=== ==========++++
I'm having roast rabbit for Easter Dinner.... :-)

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:55:46 GMT

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...


Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE.

Actually, it did have a legal basis.

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of
other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there were
no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.


Just one caveat. They probably need to request it in advance of the test
date as the VE team will probably have to order a special tape. I doubt
that the teams keep this on hand.

Order a special tape???

Just whip out your trusty knee-key and send it.

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 7:40 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:55:46 GMT

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE.

Actually, it did have a legal basis.

The FCC was informed

By whom?

Does it matter?

The FCC has placed "ringers" in VE tests before and has never...not even
once...questioned the validity, quality or method of delivery of Element 1.

of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams.

"Standard practices?"

Wow!!! A wasted piece of correspondence if there were ever one!

"I hereby inform the FCC that I am using standard, good amateur
practices. Does the FCC agree or disagree? You have 72 hours to
respond. Without a dissenting opinion, this standard, good amateur
practice becomes law."

Hihi!

Why would the VEC's have to inform the FCC of standard, good amateur
practice???

Because they weren't standard?

Because they were at variance with the regulations?

How long after the fact of implementing these "standard practices" did
the VEC's notify the FCC?

Brain, you really are stretching for a "pont" to make, aren't you?

FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams.

Can you document that the FCC even received such a notification?

Can you document they ahven't?

Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Hmmm? Wonder what a person would call "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse
Code?

Indeed. Does it matter? The FCC itself ahs no argument with it.

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Really?

Really.

I understand Morse Code perfectly (to about 40WPM in contests...25WPM in
"routine" QSO's...I have no problem with it at all.

Those who study "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code may not know enough
to ask for "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code. They will be
unprepared for the significantly faster delivery of Farnsworth Code -
and they fail. They go home scratching their head wondering why they
choked on the exam.

Oh?

You have some "scientific" studies that valiate this asertion, Brain?

You've done a side-by-side comparison of different methodologies to
validate this?

Just FYI, the "non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code" is referred to as
Morse Code. You will find references to it in Part 97, but you will
find no reference to "Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code."

There is NO reference to spacing techniques in Part 97 for Morse Code.

There is no "technical specification" for Morse Code in any federal
regulation that I am aware of. Post one and I will acknowledge it publically.

Post it, show me a federal law that says THIS is the "Morse Code" that
MUST be used and I will send you a Savings Bond for $100.

Considering the number of times that Part 97 has been toyed with, you
would think that the FCC could make a mention of it. But they
haven't. So much for your "legal basis."

English jurisprudence has established that those things not specifically
prohibited or regulated by law are not illegal...Therefore ARE "legal".

All you repeat again and again is the "non-dissenting FCC opinion."
So what is the date of this correspondence?

Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?

Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it was
improper or illegal to use?

Have you not yet found any evidence to support YOUR assertion that
unlicensed radio services play a "major role" in "emergency comms"...?!?!

Inquiring minds WANT to know!

Steve, K4YZ

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

AFTER the fact.

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:55:46 GMT

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Essentially, the VE team practice of using Farnsworth spacing,
however convenient for all involved, DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL
BASIS FOR THAT PRACTICE.

Actually, it did have a legal basis.

The FCC was informed

By whom?

of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of other
standard practices of the VE teams.

"Standard practices?"

Wow!!! A wasted piece of correspondence if there were ever one!

"I hereby inform the FCC that I am using standard, good amateur
practices. Does the FCC agree or disagree? You have 72 hours to
respond. Without a dissenting opinion, this standard, good amateur
practice becomes law."

Hihi!

Why would the VEC's have to inform the FCC of standard, good amateur
practice???

Because they weren't standard?

Because they were at variance with the regulations?

How long after the fact of implementing these "standard practices" did
the VEC's notify the FCC?

FCC took no exceptions, and there were no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams.

Can you document that the FCC even received such a notification?

He will mention the appropriate ARRL news item or notice. :-)

ARRL is a Final Authority, oracle of all amateur radio.

[as of the end of 2003, ARRL membership had shrunk to 21.3%
of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs}

Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

But only AFTER the FCC approval.

There was NOT any specific definition of "word rate" either stated
or referenced in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., before, during, or after
that "approval" by the FCC. There still isn't.

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for their
test
need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Hmmm? Wonder what a person would call "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse
Code?

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use of
Farnsworth spacing.

Really?

Those who study "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code may not know enough
to ask for "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code. They will be
unprepared for the significantly faster delivery of Farnsworth Code -
and they fail. They go home scratching their head wondering why they
choked on the exam.

Just FYI, the "non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code" is referred to as
Morse Code. You will find references to it in Part 97, but you will
find no reference to "Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code."

The only reference to International Morse Code standards is given
in 97.3 (a) (27). That standard does not define "word rate."

Considering the number of times that Part 97 has been toyed with, you
would think that the FCC could make a mention of it. But they
haven't. So much for your "legal basis."

All you repeat again and again is the "non-dissenting FCC opinion."
So what is the date of this correspondence?

"Barracks lawyers" are found everywhere, even if they haven't
served or been in seven hostile actions. :-)

LHA / WMD

Phil Kane wrote:




I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Nowadays one can download a copy off the 'net. Of course one needs to
know what
"pecuniary" means, and such. Which means that you can't use a 2 meter
repeater to
dispatch taxi cabs, or if you're a real estate agent to auto-patch call
your office to
work a house sale. Nowadays with cell phones, I doubt anyone would consider
doing this. This rule is a good one; it keeps businesses from invading
our bands
and taking over (lawsuits over QRM, anyone?).

Ever enforcement action anyone who truly didn't know that they were
violating
some rule? I'm sure everyone who ever maliciously QRMed someone knew full
well that that is against the rules. Maybe once in a great while you
find someone
who say set up a reverse autopatch on their repeater to respond to incoming
calls from the phone company. Heard someone did that and thought it was
okay if
the machine just said "incoming call, press * to allow caller's voice to
be transmitted".
Seems that there was still the problem that an unlicensed caller could
do something
to make a ham transmitter key up even though they couldn't talk over it
yet.


Whether one complies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"William" wrote in message
om...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...

Those who study "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code may not know enough
to ask for "non-Farnsworth-spaced" Morse Code. They will be
unprepared for the significantly faster delivery of Farnsworth Code -
and they fail. They go home scratching their head wondering why they
choked on the exam.


All currently available study guides, commercial tapes and CDs and software
trainers, and almost all shareware/freeware software trainers specifically
tell the prospective student that the exams are given using the Farnsworth
spacing for the 5wpm test. There is NO excuse for not knowing this.
Training tapes and records using 5wpm letter speeds would have to be quite
old.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE