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