|
Because there are so many from the dot cb group over here. Thought I would
just save someone the trip. Dan/W4NTI "Landshark" . wrote in message . com... "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 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." |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
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. 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. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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 In a word, YES ... they should have their licenses revoked. HOWEVER, the REST of us don't need the grief that large-scale flaunting of the rules would bring down on ALL of ham radio ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:40:04 -0400, "Spamhater"
wrote: 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....... You're both on crack. Part 95 is the CB regs. The regs for ham radio are in part 97. DE John, KC2HMZ |
On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing each part carefully. OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency table: (e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class This is self-explanatory. and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the international requirements". Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1. Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration. That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely by the revision of S25.5. Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they -are- changed. Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license but have never passed the code test. Does that answer your question? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
... On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:40:04 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote: 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....... You're both on crack. Part 95 is the CB regs. The regs for ham radio are in part 97. DE John, KC2HMZ "both on crack" ROFLMAO!!!! Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "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 In a word, YES ... they should have their licenses revoked. HOWEVER, the REST of us don't need the grief that large-scale flaunting of the rules would bring down on ALL of ham radio ... 73, Carl - wk3c Well, that's true... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble. The FCC rules are based on that international requirement. Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency requirements a tech can operate on HF. Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code. And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble. The FCC rules are based on that international requirement. Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency requirements a tech can operate on HF. Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code. Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:57:14 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
. the FCC has records of who has code credit and who doesn't, so no-code Techs should NOT, repeat NOT, try to use HF. You are ignorant. The FCC has no idea if a tech has passed a morse code proficiency test and has a CSCE in their hand. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:10:39 -0400, Spamhater wrote:
Seems to me, the other Keith is too lazy to read the rules and regulations and instead wants a hand out. He needs to REALLY sit down and read the rules and regulations or have them read to him and get a grasp on the fact that you can't just do as you damned well please. Or listen to accurate interpretations by a local communications attorney who is willing to teach him without charge (ahem). He does the same thing on local scanner nets, too. Ready for this one...... he is an EXTRA Class licensee. I'm not going to "out" him further - at this stage. Why is he jumping up and down like a monkey on a string? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net: On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing each part carefully. OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency table: (e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class This is self-explanatory. and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the international requirements". Agreed Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1. Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration. That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely by the revision of S25.5. So far, so good Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That's not what 301(e) says, though, is it? The problem I have in your analysis is that 301(e) itself is one of the rules concerning element 1. It mentions Element 1 per se nowhere, but there is no other rule tying Technician HF privileges to Element 1. This last statement of yours is indisputable re the General and Extra, in that Element 1 is still required to obtain those licences. However, there is nowhere in Part 97 any statement that a Technician needs Element 1 for anything, instead there is only the wording in 97.301(e). The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they -are- changed. Agreed Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license but have never passed the code test. Does that answer your question? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Not really. The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements". If there is no international requirement to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they operate on those frequencies. Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance with the international requirements"? Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so in respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other rule. If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating that the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular purpose. To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in accordance with international requirements" is a necessary condition in the sentence. If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF frequencies*, and if not, then they will have to wait. This is really what I am seeking comment on, although all other observations are welcome. *(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty) |
"Rich" wrote in message om... "Elmer E Ing" wrote in message news:lpTUa.11803$ff.5170@fed1read01... SEE PART 97 §97.501 Qualifying for an amateur operator license. Each applicant must pass an examination for a new amateur operator license grant and for each change in operator class. Each applicant for the class of operator license grant specified below must pass, or otherwise receive examination credit for, the following examination elements: (a) Amateur Extra Class operator: Elements 1, 2, 3, and 4; (b) General Class operator: Elements 1, 2, and 3; (c) Technician Class operator: Element 2. §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. "Keith" wrote in message ... 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/ I know a bed ridden quad who dictated 20 wpm to his wife.He uses a straw cw keyer. There are many disabled who have passed CW exams. The only thing that these bozos are whining about is they are too damned lazy to learn the code. 5 WPM is the easiest thing in the world, like walking.... some just too lazy to work for anything worth having. Mommy and Daddy must have spoon fed them all their lives. I don't have my manual in front of me to do verbatim rules, but code tests for disabled can be done 1 letter at a time, sentence, etc. Stopped if need be to allow the person time to divulge the message or character sent. As long as it is sent with a "speed" setting to be as prescribed to work out at 5 WPM if sent all at once. In other words, speeding up or slowing down the speed of the character will give it a different sound and could make it hard to decipher at all if incorrectly sent. SO - you have a message consisting of the prescribed number of characters and sent as necessary to the handicapped party to allow them to decipher what is sent... THAT IS how a disabled can be tested..... You can use "lazy" all you want in any form of protest, it still comes out to LAZY. .._.. .- --.. -.-- MOST of the info I related on exam giving to Handicapped is covered in VE manuals, but should be found in FCC Rules as well. JMS. |
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
The FCC could, however, make rules changes which are based on the new treaty because the OLD treaty is gone, done, defunct, over...even if the US never ratified the new treaty. No nation is now bound by the old treaty at all. I asked Phil about something similar a few weeks ago, and he seemed to think it was not possible. After further research, I tend to agree with him. It does look like the changes to that treaty will have to be ratified first. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:30:49 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: Ready for this one...... he is an EXTRA Class licensee. I'm not going to "out" him further - at this stage. Why is he jumping up and down like a monkey on a string? Think of me as forward thinking person that is sick of the ARRL and ham radio operators that have done nothing but destroy the hobby by crying about keeping morse code to keep people out of the hobby. Don't worry Phil, BPL is going to destroy ham radio and it deserves to be done away with. If there were millions of ham radio operators then maybe it could be worth saving. Why should a few thousand morse code fanatics keep millions of consumers from enjoying broadband Internet access? America needs BPL to create competition and access to the Internet. A bunch old men with a death grip on their morse code keys need to get the hell out of the way. Thankfully a group of single minded men did everything to keep people out of the hobby and they can enjoy the S9 BPL signals that will drown out the bands. Corporate America thanks the ARRL for the help to create a new investment opportunity. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith wrote: Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. Show us where the FCC has eliminated the requirement for a Morse code test. Dumber than a bag of rocks GEEEEESSSSSHHH. |
Spamhater wrote: There are many disabled who have passed CW exams. The only thing that these bozos are whining about is they are too damned lazy to learn the code. 5 WPM is the easiest thing in the world, like walking.... some just too lazy to work for anything worth having. Mommy and Daddy must have spoon fed them all their lives. I have in the past taught several disable persons in Novice classes. One had CP and could not even write fast enough to copy 5 wpm on paper. He simply copied in his head and wrote it down when the test was finished. All these handicapped folks worked very hard to achieve this goal and never complained once about having to do so. On the other hand, I had other non-handicapped who whined through the entire course about having to learn the code. I said, "look, it is a requirement to get the license, if you don't want to learn the code then you don't want the license, so make up your mind." I only had one who gave up. |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:29:55 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:
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. Stop confusing the people with a death grip on their morse code key with the facts. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:
It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Dick Carroll; wrote: Well JJ, there you have it! He holds an Extra class license, almost surely of the Lite category, and thus is a prime example of the New Age codehating hams. If I had a case on the table I now rest it. This guy makes me think you have a valid point Dick. |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:13:14 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. That was only for the test, it has nothing to do with 97.301(e) -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
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. 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). 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. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if they upgrade to general or extra. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. HAR! You'll just toss out every expert opinion until you get one you like. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:40:04 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote: 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....... You're both on crack. Part 95 is the CB regs. The regs for ham radio are in part 97. DE John, KC2HMZ NOPE, I'm not on Crack, but you're right... Being I was in a "CB" room, got tunnel vision - so thought instinctlively of Part 95.. It is part 97 for Ham. So, "I" stand corrected... My error. JMS |
|
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws. You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's standards to the letter. The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either. Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW. It is not any harder than learning to drive a car or program a computer. IF it is worth it to you to use 10 meters or any other band, then get your act together and make it a mission to actually LEARN something. "I" am NOT one of the biased ARRL people, I don't and won't belong to the ARRL. So my opinion is based purely on KNOWING that is doesn't take a hell of a lot of work to LEARN - CW @ 5 WPM. If the handicapped can do it, ANYONE CAN. If you can't, then you're not handicapped, you're plain brain dead and lazy. JMS |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:09:44 -0700, Keith wrote:
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. You must really enjoy playing wannabe lawyer --- and missing the target. The issue of code and the ADA was hashed out by the FCC several years ago. Nothing changed. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane A real lawyer |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, Spamhater wrote:
Don't open your mouth without facts which you have yet to provide any of in support of your lawlessness aim to sidestep a part you're apparently too damned lazy to do. He's an EXTRA class licensee...... The Twilight Zone..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
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!! |
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? |
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:53:45 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: You must really enjoy playing wannabe lawyer --- and missing the target. The issue of code and the ADA was hashed out by the FCC several years ago. Nothing changed. Phil from now on I will refer to you as Prince Jr. Listen Prince Jr., I can discuss anything regarding US law and express my opinions. Just because you are ARRL lawyer trying to force morse code down the throats of the disabled and helped destroy Amateur radio by keeping it a elite club doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion. I have never said I was a lawyer or even a wannabe lawyer, good god I bet you are proud of your pals that are going after ten year old children trading muppet songs on the Internet. The reason disability recognition didn't change was because there was a international agreement that stopped the disabled who could not receive code from being exempt. Now that the international regulation has been changed to delete mandatory morse code proficiency the disabled should be provided a exemption promptly. (That is my opinion, is that OK Prince Jr?) Is it ok if I express my opinion Prince Jr? Or are you like the morons sending me carbon copies of complaints they are sending to Hollingsworth AKA "Prince" for daring to tell the FCC and the ARRL they are bone heads that have destroyed Amateur radio for selfish reasons. I mean I'm not the only person that thinks this about the ARRL, FCC and the morse code lunatics that have kept the ranks of ham radio so small it is ripe for the pickings by the commercial entities. The utilities will destroy HF with BPL and the rest of 50 Mhz and up bands that are worth billions of dollars will be sliced up in short order. All this time I was praying the ARRL and FCC would come around and I was a sucker to be a ARRL member for all those years. Then when it is time to dump the code the crazed bunch of "morse code or death" bunch sneak one in the back door. Now the cocksuckers want to drag out the death of morse code requirements for years. Who the hell was the ARRL board and staff saving the bands for? It certainly isn't for the average American citizen to become a ham radio operator. If you listen to ten meters it appears the truck drivers are now taking it over, so thank the ARRL and FCC for that. Thanks for sharing Prince Jr. I hope it was OK for this ham radio operator of twenty years to express his opinion. Should I include a legal disclaimer on all my post from now on? I hope you will not report me to the Oregon Bar Association. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
On 28 Jul 2003 16:39:37 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
He's just another refugee from the never-never land above 27 mhz who just can't wait a few more months to get his "due". Are lying or are you just displaying your ignorance? -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
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/ |
Keith ) writes:
I mean I'm not the only person that thinks this about the ARRL, FCC and the morse code lunatics that have kept the ranks of ham radio so small it is ripe for the pickings by the commercial entities. The utilities will destroy HF with BPL and the rest of 50 Mhz and up bands that are worth billions of dollars will be sliced up in short order. When was the last time you heard about amateur radio in your local newspaper or on your local tv stations? When your local ham clubs have an event, be it club meetings, Field Day, hamfest or something else that the public might like to know about, do they bother to get listed in the local events columns, and try to get mention on TV and radio, and even post to your local newsgroups? Or to put it another way, how did you find out about amateur radio? When I was a kid, I learned about it when there was an article in a publication intended for children. When I discovered hobby electronic magazines, amateur radio was still a part of those magazines, though it was right on the cusp of their disappearing. But when I could try for a license, I had to dig around to find a local ham club, going to the ARRL because I didn't know of any local clubs, and had no way of finding them. One of the failures of amateur radio is that it doesn't do a particularly good job of outreach. Notice there is a big difference between trying to sell something to fill seats, and trying to share something because it's important to you and you want others to know about it. Over the 31 years since I've been licensed, my impression is that amateur radio has increasingly disappeared from public view. Yes, there is the argument that ham radio has less and less relevance, but that just means people need to work harder at conveying thei importance of the hobby to themselves. Meanwhile, the licensing requirements have become less and less. About fifty years ago, you might say the halfway point of amateur radio, your FCC introduced the then-novel novice license, to make the entry requirements simpler. A simple test, a 5wpm code test, limited operating priviliges, and only valid for a year. Over the years, that was modified for less restrictive rules, and more priviliges. The US Technician license came out at the same time, and originally was only good for 220MHz and above. That too was modified tremendously over the years. Then the code was dropped for the technician class. Here in Canada, we had a no-code license a quarter century ago. But virtually nobody used it. Then in 1990, we got restructuring, and there was an entry level license that did not require a code test. So over fifty years, half of the time that amateur radio has been around, it has become increasingly simpler for people to join the hobby in North America. Yet, instead of doing a better job of outreach, the focus is always on making the license requirements simpler. Keep it up, and there will be absolutely no entry requirement. You think we need numbers to justify the bands, so you want to lessen entry requirements. But that may be a false path. Maybe we justify the ham bands because it is something more than a place to yak it up. Maybe the kids that use to come to ham radio aren't even hearing about the hobby in the first place. Maybe if they knew, it could be as appealing as it was to me when I was ten. Maybe like me, the code and theory tests are not impediments to joining the hobby, but a sense of accomplishment when they are passed. I was twelve, and went from 0 to 12wpm in four months, and I know I was always disappointed that I took the test (well, I had to go back a second month to pass the code test) in the last week of grade 6, because I was unable to boast to the kids at school. Maybe the need or lack of a code test isn't an issue to many people, because they haven't heard of amateur radio in the first place. Methinks you don't have a clue about the history of amateur radio. It didn't start when some regulatory body decided there should be a place for people to talk to their heart's delite. There were radio hobbyists almost as soon as Marconi spanned the Atlantic in 1901, when there were no rules and there wasn't even any use for radio. Those hobbyists played with this new thing, and in part helped to propel the field along. I'm not sure you could separate amateur from professional in those days. It was only once there started to be uses for radio that any rules were put in place. And amateur radio became a service in those early days by virtue of staking out a claim right from the start. Dilute the entry requirements too much, and what do you have to justify the bands, other than large numbers? But shift it back to where the test is not just an obstacle to overcome, and you may again make the hobby something that society in general benefits from. Michael VE2BVW |
Will somebody wake me up when this idiotic rant is over?
I just put the putz in my killfile. You may want to do so also. |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
He's just another refugee from the never-never land above 27 mhz who just can't wait a few more months to get his "due". DICK, how is it possible that you could know that? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com