Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:09:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency
he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig
would be one method, but does anyone here know?


But does the government require the blind to take a test to prove they can
read the frequency read out in order to obtain a license?

No, but they are expected to be able to keep their transmissions within
the correct frequency ranges just like everyone else. One of my very
best friends was a blind ham. I taught Novice classes with him for
several years. He had devices to aid in tuning up his equipment and
knowing what frequency he was on. He use Drake equipment and which tuned
a certain number of KHz per dial revolution. He had marker oscillators
for different frequencies and once he found a marker for a certain
frequency he could count dial revolutions and know what frequency he was
on and he was pretty accurate at setting the frequency. Later he
obtained a rig with an audio frequency readout.
So anyway, what does the question have to do with the Morse code
requirement?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:29:55 GMT, "D. Stussy" wrote:

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.

Stop confusing the people with a death grip on their morse code key with the
facts.

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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:

It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that
want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a
microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International
requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code
proficiency is GONE.

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

Dick Carroll; wrote:


Well JJ, there you have it! He holds an Extra class license, almost surely of the
Lite category, and thus is a prime example of the New Age
codehating hams. If I had a case on the table I now rest it.

This guy makes me think you have a valid point Dick.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:29:23 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

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.

And 97.301(e) is dependent on a international requirement for morse code
proficiency. There is no longer a international requirement for proficiency to
send and receive morse code.
The s25.5 regulation says that it is left up to the administration. . The FCC
rules do not require a morse code proficiency unless the international
proficiency is required. So the FCC has already written the rules.
Now the ARRL thought their stupid trick to leave it to the administration
would help keep more Americans from enjoy the ham radio hobby, but they screwed
up in my opinion.




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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:13:14 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:

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.

That was only for the test, it has nothing to do with 97.301(e)

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

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess
element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards
set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF. The reason 97.301(e) was written that way
is because the FCC expected the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was
changed. The fact that it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not
meeting the requirements set down in 97.301(e).
It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on
HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules.




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

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

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


The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if
they upgrade to general or extra.



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

Len Over 21 wrote:

Whine, whine, whine...spiteful statements from someone who insists that
all must do as he did because he is so magnificent.

Not all must or can do what Steve did. The test standards are not now
the same. You, on the other hand, can continue to do what you've been
doing toward obtaining an amateur radio license--zip, nada, zilch,
nuttin'.

I'm sure you'll get that "Extra right out of the box" as soon as you
figure out how to open the box.

Dave K8MN

Keith wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 14:22:09 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


If you're going to go that route, then all of the questions in the written
tests about voice modes have to go as well, because there's no way deaf people
are going to use SSB, either.


I'd love to see someone with a hearing disability receive weak signal CW on 80
meters in the middle of July. Requiring a deaf person to pass a code test to
get a ham license is like making a blind person pass a drivers test before
riding the bus, you never know when driver will pass out and the blind will
have to take the wheel of the bus.

You're correct, I won't work that 80 meter CW as well as those with
good hearing. So What? Given enough volume in a headset, I'm a darn good
contest op on SSB, better than a lot of people who have "perfect"
hearing. So we've nulled that one out.

NO, requiring a deaf person to learn CW is NOT like teaching a blind
person to drive. Whereas the deaf can still navigate around with
whatever aids they can come up with, (sometimes as simple as cranking
up the volume on the headset or putting that finger against the speaker
cone) the legally blind won't be able to drive without some technology
that doesn't exist yet.

So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can
and cannot do.

- Mike KB3EIA -