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.

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.

Keith wrote in message ...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:08 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Technician Plus license holder

The FCC does not issue technician plus license any more so I guess no one can
operate on 10 meters that has passed the tech license test?

Hey Dwight have you ever driven 56 in 55 mph zone?

Haven't we all?

But the State does not have the authority to impose "Notice of
Apparent Liability" in the sum of $8000 per day per violation either,
now does it?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Keith" wrote:

Dwight, There is no way for anyone to know if
a tech license has passed a morse code test
and all techs have voice privileges for 28.3-
28.5 MHz. What is the FCC going to do run
around and check every tech license holder?
Besides would you rather give up ten meters
to truckers and CBers?


I would not do what you're seeking even if there was absolutely no
chance
at all for the FCC to catch me. When I joined the Amateur Radio
community,
I
made a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations associated with
it.
That commitment is not based on the FCC's enforcement ability, but my
own
sense of what is good for this community. I personally benefit from a
community that has an equal commitment to abide by the rules and
regulations. I therefore would not do anything to upset that situation.

I suspect you will eventually find that most other Technician license
holders have a similar commitment to abide by the rules and regulation.

By the way, your statement that "all techs have voice privileges for
28.3-28.5 MHz" is simply not true - only a Technician Plus license
holder
(a
Tech who has also passed the 5wpm code test) is allowed to operate on
those
frequencies.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


And, as I understand it, only until they "renew" or change their callsign,
correct? In other words, when I renew my license, or if I change my
callsign, I would only be licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT

Your license will say Technician but you will retain your Tecnician Plus
privileges forever (or until you upgrade to General) assuming that you keep
your license current. Since the FCC database will no longer show the
difference, keep a copy of your old Technician Plus license and/or your
Technician Plus CSCE to be able to prove that you have those priviliges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:08 -0400, Dwight Stewart
wrote:

Technician Plus license holder

The FCC does not issue technician plus license any more so I guess no one
can
operate on 10 meters that has passed the tech license test?

Hey Dwight have you ever driven 56 in 55 mph zone?


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

Hey Keith, do actually know the FCC rules? They did stop issuing the novice
and tech plus licenses, but the requiremenmts are still there. Now if a tech
passes element one thet are still a tech but witt the same HF priviledges as
a novice. They have to keep there CSCE as proof. The treaty stated that it
no longer requires code, but would leave it up to the individual countries
to set the rules, and UNTIL the fcc says CW is no longer needed, then the
same rules apply as before the WRC treaty change.

73 de Keith

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

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.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules
changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law of
this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing FCC
rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing regulations,
not some possible future change in them.

Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not
eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep or
end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no change
in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



EXACTLY!!!

JMS

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

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.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules
changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law
of this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing
FCC rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing
regulations, not some possible future change in them.

Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not
eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep
or end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no
change in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


To be fair though, I am playing devil's advocate to some extent. I don't
want to get Techs in trouble. What I'm saying is that there is now at
least an arguable interpretation of the _existing_ regulations that would
allow no-code Techs on the Novice bands now.

The key words in FCC s.97.301(e) are "Technician Class and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". The current wording of ITU s25.5 (supra) does
not _require_ anyone to pass a code test unless the administration says
so, ergo it is _not_ a _requirement_ , international or otherwise.

The FCC rule does not stop after "has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy". If it did it would be unambiguous. If we give any weight to
the next part of the sentence "in accordance with the international
requirements", we are forced to take into account the fact that the
international regulations do not require "proficiency in telegraphy' any
longer, as of July 5th inst. If this means anything, it ought to mean that
since there is no longer an international requirement for proficiency in
telegraphy, then the rule should be interpreted to apply simply to
"Technician Class" operators without further qualification.

OTOH, relying on this argument is risky!


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...

Kim W5TIT


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

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:56:50 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
While not a violation of the international treaty, it would be a
violation
of the current FCC rules. They are quite clear that Techs (at this
time)
must have passed a code test to use HF.

NO! This is what the rules say:

s97.301(e) reads:
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
(followed by frequency table)

Now we have the new regs from WRC that are NOW in effect. They require
no morse
code test except set down by the administration so a tech licensee
should be in
compliance with the requirement set down in 97.301(e) There is no
requirement
for morse code test except for the requirement by the international
morse code
requirements.

Actually, this could be read in another way:

Since there is no international requirement that one can be in accordance
with,
then the regulation is no longer operative at all and that means that
novice
licensees and technician licensees with code credit have NO privileges
below 30
MHz at all! :-(

International agreement has killed the "coded technician" license and has
made
it indistinguishable (in operating privilege) from the "no-code
technician"
license. ;-)


The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5) now read:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a
licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send
and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

The ARRL tried to pull a fast one, but the way the FCC rules are
written it
appears that it doesn't hold water with current regulations as set down
by the
FCC.

Don't worry I'm going to get real legal advice on this.

1. FCC requires compliance with international morse code regulation.

What regulation? ;-)

2. The international morse code regulation is changed to something
completely
different and no longer has any morse code proficiency requirement
except what
the administration of that country requires.

Then is it still an "international morse code regulation?"

3. The FCC, the administration of the USA, only requires the tech
licensee to
comply with the morse code proficiency requirements required by
international
requirements.

Of which there is no such thing, so there is no longer a "technician"
license
that has any privilege below 30MHz.

4. The international requirements have no requirement to know morse
code.

This could be a legal loop hole.

But not the one you think! 2x :-)


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!

Kim W5TIT


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

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Keith" wrote:

Dwight, There is no way for anyone to know if
a tech license has passed a morse code test
and all techs have voice privileges for 28.3-
28.5 MHz. What is the FCC going to do run
around and check every tech license holder?
Besides would you rather give up ten meters
to truckers and CBers?


I would not do what you're seeking even if there was absolutely no
chance
at all for the FCC to catch me. When I joined the Amateur Radio
community,
I
made a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations associated
with
it.
That commitment is not based on the FCC's enforcement ability, but my
own
sense of what is good for this community. I personally benefit from a
community that has an equal commitment to abide by the rules and
regulations. I therefore would not do anything to upset that
situation.

I suspect you will eventually find that most other Technician
license
holders have a similar commitment to abide by the rules and
regulation.

By the way, your statement that "all techs have voice privileges for
28.3-28.5 MHz" is simply not true - only a Technician Plus license
holder
(a
Tech who has also passed the 5wpm code test) is allowed to operate on
those
frequencies.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


And, as I understand it, only until they "renew" or change their
callsign,
correct? In other words, when I renew my license, or if I change my
callsign, I would only be licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT

Your license will say Technician but you will retain your Tecnician Plus
privileges forever (or until you upgrade to General) assuming that you
keep
your license current. Since the FCC database will no longer show the
difference, keep a copy of your old Technician Plus license and/or your
Technician Plus CSCE to be able to prove that you have those priviliges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


AH...OK. Well, that's good news to the folks who surely would have wished
to keep the little bit of HF that they've got.

Kim W5TIT


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

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 -

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.

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.

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?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:

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

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

What are you babbling about dickieboy? Maybe his misconceptions are
clear to idiots like you (why does that suprised anyone?), but the fact
remains, until the FCC goes through the procedures necessary to
eliminate the code requirement for the amateur radio service, it is
still required and everything is just as it has been. Just because the
WAC no longer requires the code, does not automatically drop it from the
FCC requirements. Try reading more carefully and you might learn
something, like how to find the 10 meter band.
Lets see a newbie go for the General license and see if he can get one
without taking a code test. You are as dense as this keith bird. You
both must be really good on cb.

"Spamhater" wrote in message ...

HEY KEITH,

IF YOU'RE NOT ILLITERATE, TRY READING PART 95 SOMETIME.... YOU WILL SEE HOW
STUPID YOU SOUND. THE NEWEST VERSION! ALL AMATEURS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
COPY OF CURRENT LAWS AVAILABLE... BUT SINCE YOU"VE OBVIOUSLY NOT READ THEM
TO KNOW THE LAWS, YOU WOULDN'T BE AWARE OF THIS ONE EITHER! NOW, IS THIS BIG
ENOUGH FOR YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?????? DUHHHHH.......

JMS

If only Part 95 dealt with the amateur radio service...

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."

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.)

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

From the ARRL letter, Vol 22. No 29


Dan/W4NTI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Thanks Dan, why did you cross post this?
What does this have to do with CB Radio?


Landshark


--
Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls.

http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:09:06 -0700, Keith wrote:

Why don't petition the FCC to ask them if techs can now
use the novice portion of 10 meters.

I don't need to petition the FCC. I need a legal opinion from it. Of course,
time will tell where this goes.

You need to find out what a Petition for Declaratory Ruling means.
And how long it takes - IF they care to look at your request at all.

Sheesh... I'm back to teaching FCC Administrative law again. So much
for "retirement"....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, 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.

Since I was "double quoted" in this, I'm not certain if that last comment was
directed back to me or just for Keith.

However, note that I recognize that there may be an unintended result of the
recent international event - and that is certainly a "new thought" for this
group. It also demonstrates that no body of law should refer to definitions
made in another body of law that one has no control over and expect things to
be the same if the referred-to law is changed when the referring law isn't.

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.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, as I understand it, only until they
"renew" or change their callsign, correct?
In other words, when I renew my license, or
if I change my callsign, I would only be
licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT


Thanks for a quote of Kim's message, Dee.

Sorry, Kim, I'm still having problems reading your messages (the same
problem as before). I don't know if it's my server, your server, some
software setting, or something else entirely. I haven't blocked your
messages. I checked to make sure of that. They're still showing up in the
newsgroup message list. However, whenever I select one to read, I get an
error message saying the message is no longer on the server.

Occasionally one will slip through that I can read, but 99 percent of your
messages result in the same error. Again, this doesn't happen to messages
from anyone else. In fact, your messages are the only times I've seen this
error message at all.

If this isn't happening to anyone else here (and nobody else has said
anything), I can only assume the problem is with my server. So, it looks
like the problem will remain until I switch servers (something I'm planning
to do soon anyway). When it stops, I'll let you know.

Of course, if you reply to this, I'll probably never see the reply. So, if
you have something to say in reply, send it by email instead.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international
requirement that no longer exists


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the only
"international requirements" recognized by this country are those in the
treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the recent
changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the only
treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently ratified).

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty change
does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up to each
member state to decide for themselves.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Alun Palmer wrote:
JJ wrote in :



Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:


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

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

What are you babbling about dickieboy? Maybe his misconceptions are
clear to idiots like you (why does that suprised anyone?), but the fact
remains, until the FCC goes through the procedures necessary to
eliminate the code requirement for the amateur radio service, it is
still required and everything is just as it has been. Just because the
WAC no longer requires the code, does not automatically drop it from the
FCC requirements. Try reading more carefully and you might learn
something, like how to find the 10 meter band.
Lets see a newbie go for the General license and see if he can get one
without taking a code test. You are as dense as this keith bird. You
both must be really good on cb.





You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

And you understand just about as much as dickboy does. Until the FCC
changes it, nothing has changed, code is still required.

D. Stussy wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:

Alun Palmer wrote:

JJ wrote in :

Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:


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

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

What are you babbling about dickieboy? Maybe his misconceptions are
clear to idiots like you (why does that suprised anyone?), but the fact
remains, until the FCC goes through the procedures necessary to
eliminate the code requirement for the amateur radio service, it is
still required and everything is just as it has been. Just because the
WAC no longer requires the code, does not automatically drop it from the
FCC requirements. Try reading more carefully and you might learn
something, like how to find the 10 meter band.
Lets see a newbie go for the General license and see if he can get one
without taking a code test. You are as dense as this keith bird. You
both must be really good on cb.


You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

And you understand just about as much as dickboy does. Until the FCC
changes it, nothing has changed, code is still required.


That requirement, by itself, is NOT enough.

See other replies, and the sub-thread titled "Alternate interpretation."

Alternate interpret all you want, until the FCC changes the rules,
nothing has changed. The FCC makes the final interpretation and they
have NOT changed the rules regarding a code test.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:

It is very apparent you have yet to crack open a copy of Part 95

I have read part 95 and I don't recall ever seeing anything about a morse code
test.


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

JJ wrote in :



Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:

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

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

What are you babbling about dickieboy? Maybe his misconceptions are
clear to idiots like you (why does that suprised anyone?), but the fact
remains, until the FCC goes through the procedures necessary to
eliminate the code requirement for the amateur radio service, it is
still required and everything is just as it has been. Just because the
WAC no longer requires the code, does not automatically drop it from the
FCC requirements. Try reading more carefully and you might learn
something, like how to find the 10 meter band.
Lets see a newbie go for the General license and see if he can get one
without taking a code test. You are as dense as this keith bird. You
both must be really good on cb.




You display a complete lack of understanding. Try actually reading
97.301(e) and then you might understand the discussion.

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international requirement that no longer
exists


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the
only "international requirements" recognized by this country are those
in the treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the
recent changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments
above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the
only treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently
ratified).


Fair comment

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the
changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty
change does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up
to each member state to decide for themselves.


True, although it still may be possible to interpret 97.301(e) in such a
way that the no-code Techs have the Novice bands before the FCC changes
any rules. Albeit it is risky for Techs to do that without a declaratory
ruling from the FCC saying that this is the correct interpretation of the
rule.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, as I understand it, only until they
"renew" or change their callsign, correct?
In other words, when I renew my license, or
if I change my callsign, I would only be
licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT


Thanks for a quote of Kim's message, Dee.

Sorry, Kim, I'm still having problems reading your messages (the same
problem as before). I don't know if it's my server, your server, some
software setting, or something else entirely. I haven't blocked your
messages.


Oh, ROFLMAO...that was going to be my next advice was to take me off your
filter...LOL


I checked to make sure of that. They're still showing up in the
newsgroup message list. However, whenever I select one to read, I get an
error message saying the message is no longer on the server.


Puzzling. I just don't understand. I've tried both outlets for the
newsgroup, also!


Occasionally one will slip through that I can read, but 99 percent of
your
messages result in the same error. Again, this doesn't happen to messages
from anyone else. In fact, your messages are the only times I've seen this
error message at all.

If this isn't happening to anyone else here (and nobody else has said
anything), I can only assume the problem is with my server. So, it looks
like the problem will remain until I switch servers (something I'm
planning
to do soon anyway). When it stops, I'll let you know.

Of course, if you reply to this, I'll probably never see the reply. So,
if
you have something to say in reply, send it by email instead.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Oh, guess I better send an email, too!

Kim W5TIT


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

D. Stussy wrote:


The FCC, as a government agency, is bound by international treaty and law, and
here, the international law HAS CHANGED, so any regulation that refers to it
CAN (and in this case, HAS) been affected.

It's not "element 1 credit" by itself that determines a Technician class
licensee's operating privilege on HF. If it were, then I would agree that
nothing has changed - but that's simply not the situation here.

Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the
law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose
themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:50:25 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" wrote:


§97.503 Element standards.
(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee
has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear
texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed,
using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question
mark, slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK.
Element 1: 5 words per minute.


That is the test, the portion of the regs we are talking about is 97.301(e).
That portion of the regs is dependent on a international requirement for morse
code proficiency to operate on HF. The international requirement for morse code
proficiency has been eliminated.

But the requirement has not been eliminated in the U.S. and the change
in the international treaty is not a mandate that the requirement for a
code test must be dropped. The FCC can keep the requirement indefinitely
if they desire. Until they do drop it, nothing in the licensing
structure has changed.

"Keith" wrote in message
...

That is what I'm talking about. There is no longer a international
requirement
for morse code so tech's can pick up the microphone and talk on 10 meters.
Here in America the FCC has to issue a warning notice, then a violation
notice
and the person cited can then simply demand a hearing before a
administrative
law judge. The ALJ is a pretty informal process and you just need to cite
the
rules and they are not very strict when it comes to matters like these.
If you have a tech license and you operate outside your allowed bands
like pop
up in the twenty meter band and keep it up they might come after you. But
if
you meet the international requirements and stay in the HF TECH bands it
is not
a violation of the rules and no one can verify if you have passed a horse
and
buggy CW test any god damn way.

All the removal of the international requirement in the ITU Radio
Regulations
does is to allow each administration to determine on its own whether or not
to keep a Morse test.

Most will eliminate it ...

The US has NOT done so yet, so what is suggested above would be ILLEGAL,
put your license in jeopardy, and give all of ham radio a black eye.

And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the
writer above is totally wrong.


--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
FCC rules have NOT changed (yet) ... Techs are STILL not allowed
HF privs unless they have passed, and have documented credit for,
the 5 wpm Morse test ...

Don't let the writers in this thread talk you into ILLEGAL operation.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c


I understand your caution, Carl. But, somehow, if one is willing to ignore
existing R&R, or maybe doesn't even understand them, in an area where they
would "experiment," don't they kind of deserve whatever trouble they would
have coming their way?

Kim W5TIT


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