Kim W5TIT wrote:
"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.

At one point, I was thinking about trying the vibrating method, like
holding my fingers on a speaker cone. But as a challenge, I decided to
go for the aural method. Wasn't easy, but I did it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

Hey Keith may be you can help me. I have been diagnosed as a dyslexic
and have ADD. My disability prevents me from concentrating for more
than a few minutes so I can't take any code test or written test let
alone study for them.There must be some legal loophole or political
angle you can figure because there are millions of general public with
disabilities like me who want open access to the ham bands but the
government discriminates against us.Just because I have a disability
why should I be denied my right to operate ham? Maybe a protest or
something would help.Thanks for your help Keith keep up the good work.

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.

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.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 07:03:01 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:

It is very apparent you have yet to crack open a copy of Part 95

I have read part 95 and I don't recall ever seeing anything about a morse code
test.


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:50:46 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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.

Explain to me why a deaf person should now need to know morse code? When the
silly horse and buggy test was rammed down their throats by the US government
they could use lights. Now how is a deaf person supposed to use morse code
sitting in their home listening to the radio? With modern digital
communications like PSK31, Pactor and RTTY a deaf person can enjoy ham radio.
And as always they can use a computer to decode morse code as they have in the
past. But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure
discrimination because the deaf have no way of decoding morse by ear.
The morse code test for deaf people is pure discrimination and now that s25.5
no longer requires a proficiency to know and send morse code the FCC better
move fast to remove this discrimination.


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

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.

D. Stussy wrote:


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.

Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the
law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose
themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:50:25 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" wrote:


§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.


That is the test, the portion of the regs we are talking about is 97.301(e).
That portion of the regs is dependent on a international requirement for morse
code proficiency to operate on HF. The international requirement for morse code
proficiency has been eliminated.

But the requirement has not been eliminated in the U.S. and the change
in the international treaty is not a mandate that the requirement for a
code test must be dropped. The FCC can keep the requirement indefinitely
if they desire. Until they do drop it, nothing in the licensing
structure has changed.

"Keith" wrote in message
...

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.

All the removal of the international requirement in the ITU Radio
Regulations
does is to allow each administration to determine on its own whether or not
to keep a Morse test.

Most will eliminate it ...

The US has NOT done so yet, so what is suggested above would be ILLEGAL,
put your license in jeopardy, and give all of ham radio a black eye.

And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the
writer above is totally wrong.


--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org