|
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st
" wrote:
Let the FCC know that they can no longer keep you from your right to use the ten meter band allocation if you are a technician licensee. (snip) You don't have to use your identity, (snip) (snip) I will be on the air and I hope 10,000 or more no code technicians will join me. (snip) And I suspect anyone who did this would find himself very much alone on those frequencies. Only an idiot would risk his license doing something like this. That and your provocative email address, should be enough to convince most you message is nothing more than a message trolling for suckers foolish enough to take it seriously. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:29:59 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:
" wrote: Let the FCC know that they can no longer keep you from your right to use the ten meter band allocation if you are a technician licensee. (snip) You don't have to use your identity, (snip) (snip) I will be on the air and I hope 10,000 or more no code technicians will join me. (snip) And I suspect anyone who did this would find himself very much alone on those frequencies. Only an idiot would risk his license doing something like this. That and your provocative email address, should be enough to convince most you message is nothing more than a message trolling for suckers foolish enough to take it seriously. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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? -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Keith" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:29:59 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: " wrote: Let the FCC know that they can no longer keep you from your right to use the ten meter band allocation if you are a technician licensee. (snip) You don't have to use your identity, (snip) (snip) I will be on the air and I hope 10,000 or more no code technicians will join me. (snip) And I suspect anyone who did this would find himself very much alone on those frequencies. Only an idiot would risk his license doing something like this. That and your provocative email address, should be enough to convince most you message is nothing more than a message trolling for suckers foolish enough to take it seriously. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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? -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ The above argument sucks... ANYONE who values their license "AGREES" to abide by the Rules and Regulations. YOUR argument that the FCC can't go checking all call signs and such is the same as this..... ALL Junior Operators of vehicles at - least here in PA, have to be off the street by a certain time of night and not much before day light can they get on the streets with a vehicle.. SO, will the cops stop EVERY car to see if they are a Junior Operator or NOT? NO, it is impractical.. But it STILL does NOT give you the authority to do as you damned well please. RULES AND LAWS are made to be adhered to.. YOU being a part of the lawless society are more a part of the problem than the solution. TO PROVOKE lawlessness IS a part of the problem. YOUR telling NO CODE techs to go on air without proper license - should the blind sheep follow, is as illegal as the CBers who are there as well. As I said, YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS. PLUS, 5 wpm code is as lame as you can get. Once you learn the code, taking the test at 5 wpm will seem boring. It will be easier than you think..... THOUSANDS have passed it - myself INCLUDED.. I detect LAZINESS AND LAWLESSNESS. When YOU SIGN A 610 form, now a 605 for an Amateur License, OR any other form for an FCC license or permit, YOU "AGREE" to uphold the rules and laws. READ IT........ A man is only as good as his word, and if you agree to something then fall back on it, you are not a man of good deed. PLAIN AND SIMPLE........ Hell, why not provoke people to break all the laws... Allow anyone of any age, ability or back ground to drink, drive, possess firearms, use radios, whatever... See how long it takes before there is utter chaos. CRAZY, SIMPLY CRAZY................... ONE MORE THING..... when a person ACCEPTS the "agreement" to honor the "PRIVILEGES" earned via that license, they as a rule do NOT or SHOULD NOT talk to those NOT properly licensed. The ONLY exception being for preservation of life. JMS |
"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/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote in
: "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/ 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: 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. There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though! |
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. WRC has dropped the code requirement, the FCC has not as of yet, so everything is still as before, nothing has changed. What a twit!! |
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/ |
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, 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: 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. There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though! 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. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith, What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule' you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US, nothing has changed. It doesn't matter if the 'no-code' rule WILL be changed. Until it IS changed, there is NO change. The ITU can't change US law, only the US government can do that. It's okay to be happy about the proposed code change, but don't be stupid... 'Doc |
Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, 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: 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. There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though! 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. This is silly. Each country has it's own laws, and you are obliged to follow them. What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now gone. That means that each country no longer has to conform to that treaty agreement. They can, if they so choose, to eliminate their law that requires code proficiency for amateurs operating in the HF bands. But they are not obligated to do so. Until a country changes it's law about this, everyone is obligated to follow those laws. Just because the treaty agreement is gone does not mean that there is any more legality for someone who hasn't taken a code test to operate at HF. Two months ago, someone could have done it, and if caught they would face a certain process. If they do it today, and are caught, they face the same certain process. Nothing has changed on that account. Michael VE2BVW |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:47:07 -0500, 'Doc wrote:
Keith, What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule' you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US, nothing has changed. The 25.5 is automatically accepted by the US Government. The treaty has already been previously ratified. The change is administrative and it is not a new treaty. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Michael Black" wrote in message ... Keith ) writes: On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, 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: 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. There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though! 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. This is silly. Each country has it's own laws, and you are obliged to follow them. What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now gone. That means that each country no longer has to conform to that treaty agreement. They can, if they so choose, to eliminate their law that requires code proficiency for amateurs operating in the HF bands. But they are not obligated to do so. Until a country changes it's law about this, everyone is obligated to follow those laws. Just because the treaty agreement is gone does not mean that there is any more legality for someone who hasn't taken a code test to operate at HF. Two months ago, someone could have done it, and if caught they would face a certain process. If they do it today, and are caught, they face the same certain process. Nothing has changed on that account. Michael VE2BVW If the FCC decided to drop CW requirement totally they could still say the TECHNICIAN is a VHF ONLY LICENSE. Or the could say its a VHF and 28.3-28.5 voice ONLY LICENSE. In anycase I highly doubt the FCC will give the Technician ticket an equivilant to a General UNLESS the Tech was issued prior to 1986 when the WRITTEN was the same for Tech and General. Get over it Keith. Dan/W4NTI |
I'd hate to be your underwear when the Uncle
asks you for proof of Element 1. |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:29:59 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: " wrote: Let the FCC know that they can no longer keep you from your right to use the ten meter band allocation if you are a technician licensee. (snip) You don't have to use your identity, (snip) (snip) I will be on the air and I hope 10,000 or more no code technicians will join me. (snip) And I suspect anyone who did this would find himself very much alone on those frequencies. Only an idiot would risk his license doing something like this. That and your provocative email address, should be enough to convince most you message is nothing more than a message trolling for suckers foolish enough to take it seriously. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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? -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Thats not the point Keith. Item one there is no "RIGHT" to the ten meter sub-band to a Technician licensee. It is a PRIVILIDGE. Turn your license over and read that part. Item two by doing such a thing only proves what us 'coders' have said over and over. Its all about a bunch of CB outlaws that are trying to destroy Amateur Radio by bringing the lawless tactics and attituded to the ARS. Come to think of it...Go ahead boneheads. Show the FCC we were right. Dan/W4NTI |
"Keith" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, 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: 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. There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though! 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. 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. Keep in mind that the international treaty did not abolish the requirement altogether but simply let each country set its own requirements of any where from no-code to whatever the country wished. Our FCC rules have not yet changed so a codeless tech operating HF is in violation. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:40:56 -0500, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote: In anycase I highly doubt the FCC will give the Technician ticket an equivilant to a General UNLESS the Tech was issued prior to 1986 when the WRITTEN was the same for Tech and General. Get over it Keith. You are not on track and are unable to follow a discussion. I am talking about a technician class licensee having tech class HF privileges without the code test. I'm not talking about making them to general. Don't worry this is going to be reviewed legally very soon. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
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. 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. 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. 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. 4. The international requirements have no requirement to know morse code. This could be a legal loop hole. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 20:01:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now gone. Read the regulation. The regulation indicates that according to international morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Well the international regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access. 97.301(e) I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS". BTW, what do you care about US regs if you live in Canada? By your interpretation, every ham in the world can start operating on HF, no matter what their license restricts them to, merely because the international agreement on this matter has been rescinded. Your false interpretation would therefore apply to all countries. Besides, you posted in newsgroups that are read by people in many countries, so why shouldn't I comment. The international agreement does not set the rules. While except for Japan with their low power license I can't think of any country that did not respect the treaty agreement, there wasn't much to keep countries from not honoring the treaty, other than on a diplomatic level. If someone operated on HF without passing a code test, they weren't prosecuted by an international body, they were pursued by their own country's enforcement body, which also set the rules that the person was violating. Each country had to put in place rules that reflect the agreement. Those rules are still in effect, until they are changed. "We had to put these rules in place because we honor the international treaty." That's a big difference from "You have to know morse code or else the international boogy man will come down and toss you in jail". The first is about implementing rules that honor an international agreement. The second is some international law that you must respect directly. Find some other section of your rules, and you're bound to find something that tells you you can't operate HF with certain classes of licenses. That's the rule that is in control. It's absolute, and not dependent on some international treaty. When I was a kid, there was no license here in Canada that let someone operate without taking a code test. Some likely argued that the code test was there because of the international agreement, but the rules were quite clear, you couldn't operate unless you took a test, and part of that test was a code test. Back in 1978, there was a code-free license here, but only useable at 220MHz and up, and had a lot of digital questions. The rules were clear; if you got that license you could only operate on those VHF frequencies. Back in 1990, there was restructuring, and there was a license which did not require a code test; but it was also clear in setting out where you could operate. For that matter, the US Technician license originally was VHF and UHF only, yet there was a code test. Your FCC decided it was a necessary requirement, even if the treaty did not require it in that case. It was only in more recent decades, when 10meters was added, that the treaty required a code test. Take away the code test, and the FCC limited such licenses to VHF and above. No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble. Michael VE2BVW |
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. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Why don't petition the FCC to ask them if techs can now
use the novice portion of 10 meters. When the official R&O comes out stating that I can, I will be on as soon as it's legal, not one minute sooner, unless I learn CW. I'm going out to enjoy a Friday night. Hamfest on Sunday. Troll your heart out, Keith from Newsguy, that removed his email from his killerwatt-radio web site, put all kinds of strange sh!t in his meta-tags, and just basically puts the same BS on his web page as you see here. Save yourself a trip, folks, don't click his link. His attitude matches that of Stew's!!! |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:57:38 -0400, Scott Unit 69
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. Discussing and protesting rules is not ignoring them. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
"Keith" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:29:59 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote: " wrote: Let the FCC know that they can no longer keep you from your right to use the ten meter band allocation if you are a technician licensee. (snip) You don't have to use your identity, (snip) (snip) I will be on the air and I hope 10,000 or more no code technicians will join me. (snip) And I suspect anyone who did this would find himself very much alone on those frequencies. Only an idiot would risk his license doing something like this. That and your provocative email address, should be enough to convince most you message is nothing more than a message trolling for suckers foolish enough to take it seriously. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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? -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Whoa!!! Per the FCC website: "Technician The privileges of a Technician Class operator license include operating stations while transmitting on channels in any of 17 frequency bands above 50 MHz with up to 1,500 watts of power. To pass the Technician Class examination, at least 26 questions from a 35 question written examination must be answered correctly. A Technician Class licensee who also has passed a 5 words-per-minute (wpm) telegraphy examination receives privileges in four long distance shortwave bands in the HF range (3-30 MHz) (Refer to Section 97.301)." So, Techs don't have phone privileges from 28.3-28.5. Not only that, they don't have voice priveleges *anywhere* below 50 MHz. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"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 --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Keith, And until it is formally accepted, it's still only a recommendation, not law. Even with a treaty, a foreign country still doesn't make law in this country. That's a fact... 'Doc |
Keith, Nope. No matter how much you want it to be as you say, it isn't. What ain't, ain't... 'Doc |
Keith, You're right, it will be reviewed soon. But until that happens, nothing has changed. Giving bad advice isn't going to change the fact... 'Doc |
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 :-) |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:48:08 -0700, 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. First of all, all Techs do not have the voice privileges you mentioned. Only Techs with Element 1 credit have those privileges. As for your assertion that there is no way for anyone to know the difference - Sure there is. Those who passed the test have: 1. A license (even if it's expired) in his/her name showing a class that had the code test as a requirement, OR 2. A Certificate of Successful Completion of Examination (CSCE) for Element 1, OR 3. Both. Consider this: hams do not live, or operate, in a vaccuum. Other people who live near you know who you are. Chances are that they also know whether you're a no-code Tech or one who has passed a code test. If not, they can always ask you, and ask to see proof of having Element 1 credit. Now, there may be no legal requirement for you to show it to them, BUT you see, anyone with code credit will be proud of that fact and happily show proof of having it...so if you refuse, all anyone has to do is advise FCC that you were heard on HF and refused to provide proof of having qualified for HF privileges when asked to do so. At that point, FCC sends you a letter asking to see proof of your having passed a code test. Refuse to prove to FCC that you have operating authority to operate where you were operating, and you leave yourself wide open to FCC enforcement action up to including the revocation of your license, a hefty fine, confiscation of your equipment...get the idea? Ham radio is not like CB where nobody cares whether you follow the rules or not. The amateur radio service is self-policing. When other hams hear you operating beyond the authority granted to you by your license, they WILL blow you in to FCC, period. What is the FCC going to do run around and check every tech license holder? No running around necessary. You get a letter in the mail. You either respond to the letter or face the consequences. Besides would you rather give up ten meters to truckers and CBers? The 10m band is in no danger of being reallocated to CB. Beyond that, there is no difference as far as I'm concerned between unlicensed pirates operating on a ham band and hams operating beyond the authority of their licenses. Both are operating where they have no authority to operate. Full stop, end of story. DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith
wrote: 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. Sure they can. So can someone with no license at all. And as FCC will view the matter, the only difference is that a Tech is a licensed ham who is supposed to know better, and thus will have no excuse. 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. Think so? Tell you what I think, I think you forgot to check your facts again before opening your mouth to change which foot was in there. The following is quoted from http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/ : "The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) of the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for conducting the hearings ordered by the Commission. The hearing function includes acting on interlocutory requests filed in the proceedings such as petitions to intervene, petitions to enlarge issues, and contested discovery requests. An Administrative Law Judge, appointed under the APA, presides at the hearing during which documents and sworn testimony are received in evidence, and witnesses are cross-examined. At the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of a proceeding, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge writes and issues an Initial Decision which may be appealed to the Commission." You call that an informal process? Be advised that there are people currently behind bars because they tangled with the FCC. The way you're going, you're going to be one of them before the code test goes away. I suggest that you either find out what you're talking about first, or stick to other newsgroups where the participants don't know any better. 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. Make that "they will definitely 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 As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, it *is* a violation of the rules, unless you have Element 1 credit. Have you ever bothered to read the rules? and no one can verify if you have passed a horse and buggy CW test any god damn way. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this assertion is also incorrect. Now go back to 11 meters where you belong, troll. DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:30:08 -0700, Keith
wrote: Read the regulation. I have. Did you? The regulation indicates that according to international morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Absolute nonsense. You don't know *anything* about the regulations that govern the amateur radio service in the U.S., do you? Here, in its entirity, is the portion of Part 97 that specifies qualifications for an FCC-issued ham radio license: SUBPART F-QUALIFYING EXAMINATION SYSTEMS §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. Here, in its entirity, is the portion of Part 97 that sets the standards for the various elements mentioned in the above subpart: §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. (b) A written examination must be such as to prove that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an amateur service licensee. Each written examination must be comprised of a question set as follows: (1) Element 2: 35 questions concerning the privileges of a Technician Class operator license. The minimum passing score is 26 questions answered correctly. (2) Element 3: 35 questions concerning the privileges of a General Class operator license. The minimum passing score is 26 questions answered correctly. (3) Element 4: 50 questions concerning the privileges of an Amateur Extra Class operator license. The minimum passing score is 37 questions answered correctly. §97.505 Element credit. (a) The administering VEs must give credit as specified below to an examinee holding any of the following license grants or license documents: (1) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal) FCC-granted Advanced Class operator license grant: Elements 1, 2, and 3. (2) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal) FCC-granted General Class operator license grant: Elements 1, 2, and 3. (3) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal) FCC-granted Technician Plus Class operator (including a Technician Class operator license granted before February 14, 1991) license grant: Elements 1 and 2. (4) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal) FCC-granted Technician Class operator license grant: Element 2. (5) An unexpired (or expired) FCC-granted Novice Class operator license grant: Element 1. (6) A CSCE: Each element the CSCE indicates the examinee passed within the previous 365 days. (7) An unexpired (or expired less than 5 years) FCC-issued commercial radiotelegraph operator license or permit: Element 1. (8) An expired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license document granted before March 21, 1987: Element 3. (9) An expired or unexpired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license document granted before February 14, 1991: Element 1. (b) No examination credit, except as herein provided, shall be allowed on the basis of holding or having held any other license grant or document. §97.507 Preparing an examination. (a) Each telegraphy message and each written question set administered to an examinee must be prepared by a VE holding an Amateur Extra Class operator license. A telegraphy message or written question set may also be prepared for the following elements by a VE holding an operator license of the class indicated: (1) Element 3: Advanced Class operator. (2) Elements 1 and 2: Advanced, General, or Technician (including Technician Plus) Class operators. (b) Each question set administered to an examinee must utilize questions taken from the applicable question pool. (c) Each telegraphy message and each written question set administered to an examinee for an amateur operator license must be prepared, or obtained from a supplier, by the administering VEs according to instructions from the coordinating VEC. (d) A telegraphy examination must consist of a message sent in the international Morse code at no less than the prescribed speed for a minimum of 5 minutes. The message must contain each required telegraphy character at least once. No message known to the examinee may be administered in a telegraphy examination. Each 5 letters of the alphabet must be counted as 1 word. Each numeral, punctuation mark and prosign must be counted as 2 letters of the alphabet. §97.509 Administering VE requirements. (a) Each examination for an amateur operator license must be administered by a team of at least 3 VEs at an examination session coordinated by a VEC. Before the session, the administering VEs or the VE session manager must ensure that a public announcement is made giving the location and time of the session. The number of examinees at the session may be limited. (b) Each administering VE must: (1) Be accredited by the coordinating VEC; (2) Be at least 18 years of age; (3) Be a person who holds an amateur operator license of the class specified below: (i) Amateur Extra, Advanced or General Class in order to administer a Technician Class operator license examination; (ii) Amateur Extra or Advanced Class in order to administer a General Class operator license examination; (iii) Amateur Extra Class in order to administer an Amateur Extra Class operator license examination. (4) Not be a person whose grant of an amateur station license or amateur operator license has ever been revoked or suspended. (c) Each administering VE must be present and observing the examinee throughout the entire examination. The administering VEs are responsible for the proper conduct and necessary supervision of each examination. The administering VEs must immediately terminate the examination upon failure of the examinee to comply with their instructions. (d) No VE may administer an examination to his or her spouse, children, grandchildren, stepchildren, parents, grandparents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, stepbrothers, stepsisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and in-laws. (e) No VE may administer or certify any examination by fraudulent means or for monetary or other consideration including reimbursement in any amount in excess of that permitted. Violation of this provision may result in the revocation of the grant of the VE's amateur station license and the suspension of the grant of the VE's amateur operator license. (f) No examination that has been compromised shall be administered to any examinee. Neither the same telegraphy message nor the same question set may be re-administered to the same examinee. (g) Passing a telegraphy receiving examination is adequate proof of an examinee's ability to both send and receive telegraphy. The administering VEs, however, may also include a sending segment in a telegraphy examination. (h) Upon completion of each examination element, the administering VEs must immediately grade the examinee's answers. The administering VEs are responsible for determining the correctness of the examinee's answers. (i) When the examinee is credited for all examination elements required for the operator license sought, 3 VEs must certify that the examinee is qualified for the license grant and that the VEs have complied with these administering VE requirements. The certifying VEs are jointly and individually accountable for the proper administration of each examination element reported. The certifying VEs may delegate to other qualified VEs their authority, but not their accountability, to administer individual elements of an examination. (j) When the examinee does not score a passing grade on an examination element, the administering VEs must return the application document to the examinee and inform the examinee of the grade. (k) The administering VEs must accommodate an examinee whose physical disabilities require a special examination procedure. The administering VEs may require a physician's certification indicating the nature of the disability before determining which, if any, special procedures must be used. (l) The administering VEs must issue a CSCE to an examinee who scores a passing grade on an examination element. (m) Within 10 days of the administration of a successful examination for an amateur operator license, the administering VEs must submit the application document to the coordinating VEC. Nowhere in there does it say anything about the international requirements. Well the international regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access. 97.301(e) 97.301(e) 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. snip (Snipped material lists authorized frequencies for operators with these license classes) Once again, current international requirements leave it up to each country's government to determine the requirements for that country's ham licenses. Which brings us back to: §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. I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS". Yes, it does. And the above "is" what the current regulations "is" whether you like it or not. Deal with it - or be prepared to explain your illegal operation to Riley Hollingsworth. BTW, what do you care about US regs if you live in Canada? The HF bands propagate worldwide - which means if clueless trolls like you get on HF, he would have to listen to your pitiful attempts to act like someone who knows what they're talking about. I've been in favor of dropping the code test since the mid-1970's. You are beginning to make me change my mind. DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:19:28 -0700, Keith
wrote: You are not on track and are unable to follow a discussion. You are apparently unable to read and understand the applicable regulations, at both the US and international level, even though I and others in this NG have gone out of our way to post the material in this newsgroup (thus saving you the trouble of finding it yourself on the Internet) AND explaining it to you (thus saving you the trouble of turning off your CB set long enough to figure it out). I am talking about a technician class licensee having tech class HF privileges without the code test. For the hundredth time: they don't. I'm not talking about making them to general. Perhaps the confusion is because you insist on referring to picking up your microphone and talking on the HF Tech bands (plural) when there is only on HF Tech band (singular) in which Techs are allowed to operate phone (that being a part of ten meters). You don't get to bands (plural) until you have a General or above. Don't worry this is going to be reviewed legally very soon. To paraphrase your own comment in another post: SNARF! HA, HA! It will be reviewed *administratively* - there is a big difference. Congress empowered FCC to formulate and enforce regulations governing the use of the radio frequency spectrum. The courts have repeatedly ruled that FCC's authority is constitutional. The decision of whether or not to drop the code test will be purely an administrative decision on the part of the Federal Communications Commission. DE John, KC2HMZ |
"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/ |
"Keith" wrote:
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? True, the FCC no longer issues that license. However, those with an existing Tech Plus license before the change still retain that license and operating privileges. Today, Technician license holders who have also passed the code test get the same HF operating privileges as those earlier Tech Plus license holders. Hey Dwight have you ever driven 56 in 55 mph zone? Yes, I have driven faster than the speed limit when I felt, rightly or wrongly, I could do so safely. The decision to do so was based on my personal assessment the possible impact of my actions. But this goes back to what I said earlier. Again, I do not just base my decision to abide by the rules and regulations governing Amateur Radio solely on FCC enforcement abilities. Instead, I base that decision on my own sense of what is good for the Amateur Radio community - the impact of my actions. I personally benefit from a community with a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations. Therefore, it is in my own best interests not to do anything to upset that situation. As a result, I also abide by the the rules and regulations. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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. That's the point -those existing regulations incorporate by reference an international requirement that no longer exists 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/ |
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! |
Keith wrote in
: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:40:56 -0500, "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: In anycase I highly doubt the FCC will give the Technician ticket an equivilant to a General UNLESS the Tech was issued prior to 1986 when the WRITTEN was the same for Tech and General. Get over it Keith. You are not on track and are unable to follow a discussion. I am talking about a technician class licensee having tech class HF privileges without the code test. I'm not talking about making them to general. Don't worry this is going to be reviewed legally very soon. To get it reviewed legally you have to get caught. Good luck. I mean that sincerely. |
Keith wrote in
: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:57:38 -0400, Scott Unit 69 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. Discussing and protesting rules is not ignoring them. A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I wouldn't bank on it. |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote:
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. Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging others to violate the Rules, I see. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane A real lawyer who does FCC rule interpretation for a living, and does it successfully. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote: 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. Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging others to violate the Rules, I see. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane A real lawyer who does FCC rule interpretation for a living, and does it successfully. OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing each part carefully. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com