"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


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

"Keith" wrote in message
...
But for them to learn morse code through some silly light system is pure
discrimination

Yeah go get em Keith. Now go attack all those Navy swabs that learned Morse
by lantern. Go for it boy.

Dan/W4NTI

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
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 ...

I disagree - they don't even have that anymore. Techs who have the element 1
credit in hand CANNOT operate on HF, because 47 CFR 97.301(e) has TWO
requirements, the second one being compliance with an international regulation
that now no longer exists. Since there is no way to be in compliance with the
rescinded regulation, the second condition can NOT be met, and therefore, no
"technician plus" licensee (or equivalent) and no novice licensee has any HF
privileges. By the stated condition, the privilege was rescinded on July 5,
2003, when the international regulation effectively disappeared.

Note that .301(e) is NOT written like the rest of .301, which defines operating
privilege based solely on license class, which is in turn based solely on
element credit (in .501).

Had the regulation been written in such a way that it indicated licensees who
hold element 1 credit may operate (see list below), then I would agree that
nothing had changed. It's NOT written that way.

Don't let the writers in this thread talk you into ILLEGAL operation.

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

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
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 ...

I disagree - they don't even have that anymore. Techs who have the
element 1
credit in hand CANNOT operate on HF, because 47 CFR 97.301(e) has TWO
requirements, the second one being compliance with an international
regulation
that now no longer exists. Since there is no way to be in compliance with
the
rescinded regulation, the second condition can NOT be met, and therefore,
no
"technician plus" licensee (or equivalent) and no novice licensee has any
HF
privileges. By the stated condition, the privilege was rescinded on July
5,
2003, when the international regulation effectively disappeared.

That's ridiculous ... the NEW ITU Radio Regs simply give administrations
the CHOICE as to whether or not to have a Morse test as a requirement
for licenses that convey privs below 30 MHz ... they do NOT preclude
any administration from having it either way ... it's their choice.

The regulation was not "rescinded" on July 5, 2003, it was simply
MODIFIED.

Thus, there is no issue of "compliance with international requirements".
Current US FCC Part 97 rules are in compliance with the ITU Radio Regs.

73,
Carl - wk3c

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

"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