Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#82
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#83
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#84
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#85
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#86
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#87
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#88
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#89
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#90
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|