JJ wrote:


Keith wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:


Actually, this could be read in another way:



There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.


It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.


I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dickhead Craniumless blubbered again and said:

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

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

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

JJ wrote in message ...
Alun Palmer wrote:



Not quite. The rule is the same, but the 'international requirements' it
refers to have changed. How you interpret that is another thing, but the
FCC chose to write a rule that incorporates by reference the rules that
were changed in the WRC.

Here's an idea for an analogy. Anyone here ever write any code of the
computer kind? Say you write something that makes a call to another
object/subroutine, etc. The ITU have re-written the subroutine, and the
FCC code includes a GOSUB that calls it (revealing my BASIC roots here).

You obviously don't understand the FCC rules any better than Keith.
Until the FCC eliminates the code test requirement, everything remains
the same for U.S. hams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

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

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:
Actually, this could be read in another way:

There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

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

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

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote:
Keith wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:28:18 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:
Actually, this could be read in another way:

There you go, we need some new thinkers on this newsgroup.

It would help if we just had some thinkers, you included.

I've dealt with these types before. Take one part of a rule, and then
proceed to interpret the bejabbers out of it.

There is no rule that can be written that cannot be interpreted just
about any way a person wants to.

In other portions of the rules, there is adequate understanding that
for HF privileges, you must take a test, one of the elements consisting
of a Morse Code test.

In addition, we must note that the Morse code test has NOT been
eliminated. It is now up to the individual country to determine if they
want the test as a requirement.

But note HOW the privilege is defined. In this case, it's NOT defined as
simply holding "element 1 credit" like it's pre-2000 predecessor was. Other
license classes' privileges are based on license class, which is in turn based
on element credit. However, for the HF operation of Technician and Novice
licenses, the current regulation doesn't refer to element credit but instead
refers to the international requirement - which was just repealed (and replaced
with a statement that each country may decide for itself - but that makes it a
"national requirement" and choice, not an international one).

If the section privileges were based on "holding element 1 credit," then I
would agree that nothing has changed. However, that is clearly erroneous.

So, the US is still in compliance with the rule, in requiring a Morse
code test. If we eliminate the MOrse code test, we will still be in
compliance, having exercised that option as outlined in the rule.

I don't dispute that. However, the authority for HF operations of Technician
and Novice licenseholders isn't based on simply holding element credit like it
is for the other license classes.

If you don't believe me, just give it a try, and provide documentation
of your times and date. A recording would be nice too.

Do you folks have the courage of your convictions?

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Richard Cranium wrote:
JJ wrote in message ...
Alun Palmer wrote:
Not quite. The rule is the same, but the 'international requirements' it
refers to have changed. How you interpret that is another thing, but the
FCC chose to write a rule that incorporates by reference the rules that
were changed in the WRC.

Here's an idea for an analogy. Anyone here ever write any code of the
computer kind? Say you write something that makes a call to another
object/subroutine, etc. The ITU have re-written the subroutine, and the
FCC code includes a GOSUB that calls it (revealing my BASIC roots here).

You obviously don't understand the FCC rules any better than Keith.
Until the FCC eliminates the code test requirement, everything remains
the same for U.S. hams.

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

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

There's a fourth step he

4. Since there is no international requirement any more, no one can meet that
[now nonexistent] requirement.

Therefore, under this logical application of the regulation and the events
effective July 5, 2003, there is no operating authority for any Novice or
Technician (Plus or with an element 1 CSCE) for any frequency below 30MHz,
since said authority contains a requirement that cannot be met (because there
is no such requirement anymore, having been repealed).

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

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.

A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat on
the sideline whining about the code.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actual it is discrimination, but that beside the point. The FCC should not
deleted
47 CFR 97.503(a) because of ADA - it should deleted it because it: (1) is
unnecessary,
(2) is bad public policy, (3) it servse no legitimate government purpose,
and (4) is not
in conformity with 5 USC 706(2)(A). At WRC 2003, no nation member spoke
in favor retaining ITU rule S25.5.

Whinning? I think you mean winning. We are sat the winning side of the
debate
to end Morse code exams.

Dee, it not necessary to insult people, just tell Keith that the WRC 2003
delete
the international requirement; and the FCC, in due course will delete
the domestic requirement.

Larry Klose, KC8EPO

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat
on
the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -


An early acquaintance in ham radio could "read" CW in flashing lights. I've
heard stories of others who have felt vibrations to "read" CW.

Kim W5TIT


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

On 26 Jul 2003 04:25:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:


A better idea than just operating. They might even agree, although I
wouldn't bank on it.

Another problem that was pointed out to me are people with
disabilities.
According to the American with Disabilities Act the government can not
discriminate against disabled people .
Now that s25.5 is international law the government must now accommodate
disabled people and they must do it without reasonable delay.


A 5wpm code test does not discriminate against Americans with
disabilities.
Disabled people have passed while their unhandicapped brethren have sat
on
the sideline whining about the code.

Right on Dee.

I am d**m near deaf, and if a guy who reads lips can learn morse, then
most everyone can.

- Mike KB3EIA -


My ex had 70% hearing loss in both ears and a constant ringing of the ears.
He too passed his 5wpm. Although he did have it so loud when he practiced
that I either had to leave the room or make him wear headphones. Of course
there were other testing methods for those who were totally deaf.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE