On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall determine
whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station
shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code
signals."

I concur. However, this section identifies an OPTION, not a requirement.

The administration has determined that the persons seeking a
license
must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test.

Not so fast. Where does it say that in respect of the Novice frequencies?

For novices, element 1 credit is a prerequisite per section 97.501. However,
for technicians, I agree that it is not.

3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with.

Who said there was? Maybe D Stussy, but his line of argument is truly
wierd

Maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't mean that my position is
incorrect.

47 CFR 97.301(e) indicates that the LICENSEE is to establish compliance with an
international requirement that has been revoked (and replaced with an option).

One cannot comply with a requirement that does not exist. Such is impossible.
This means that one of the requisite conditions is FAILED, and NO PRIVILEGE is
conveyed.

Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.

No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra

It certainly has NOT. It's a requirement per 47 CFR 97.501 for those license
classes.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm wrote:
You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the
Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated.

I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO
specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice
class licence.

Rules: You have obviously NOT been reading very carefully: 47 CFR 97.301(e).

As far as your potential conclusion that no-code technicians have HF privileges
now, that is clearly erroneous.

Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat
Shack ones suck for that too. There used to be publication of VHF
rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around
here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they
are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you
would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that
was important enough to rebroadcast.........



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
(snippage)

I still recommend W1AW over any of the "canned" aids. Two downsides of
course are that W1AW does not send Farnsworth and one needs a
half-decent HF rcvr.

http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked


You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it
all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important,
and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling
to get it all, it might all come easier.

w3rv






Michael VE2BVW

I would actually have to agree with Kim on this one. I have many times
asked (tactfully and politely) certain questions of blind hams as to their
experiences as hams dealing with the loss of sight as it relates to the
hobby. They were definitely helpful and supportive in "educating" me to
their circumstances. A definite thank you at the end of the questions with
an explanation that I was trying to understand what it is like to be in
their shoes definitely helped.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...


Keith, why don't you solicit the opinions of some deaf hams? There is a
group called HandiHams that you could ask--if they would respond. You
could
also get on eHam.net, and qrz.com and pose the question in the forums.
The
question, I suppose, would be: Do you, as a deaf ham, agree that the
government should require that you pass a minimum CW requirement for
amateur
radio privileges at that level?

My guess is most deaf hams are not going to mind a bit. Note that I said
*most.* I am sure there are some out there that may object.

Kim W5TIT


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

A completely different issue I had and/or have is not the speed as much as
the audio pitch of the code being sent. It's hard as hell to get a VE team
to adjust the pitch/tone sound at all if they even bother to send with a
key. Hell, a couple of them are only using premade CD's, which are played a
fixed rate and since most VE's are not frivolous (at all), they usually only
have a "basic" cd player, and would not have equipment capable of code at a
lower tone but keeping the same speed.

I say this because my hearing loss makes me hear "normally" sent code at its
"proper" pitch rate as one long solid tone, as if you placed a finger on a
straight key and never lifted up at all while sending. In other words, if
there was a 2 minute QSO in morse code being sent at its "normal" pitch, it
sounds like a 2 minute long T to me. If I lower the frequency of the tone
of the amount of at least 200-250hz less, to where it starts becoming a more
rich, bass(y) sounding tone, then I can distinguish the difference between a
dit and a dah.

On a lighter note, I think my ex-wife had a voice in the same range as being
sent at most VE sessions...... she said I never listened to her!


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
All I ask for is to know what speed I need to be studying as it all
sounds different to me at each speed....


Don't email. TELEPHONE them. Ask them what is the character speed and
what
is the overall word speed. They can have the character speed at 13 (or
faster), but the spacing must be adjusted to end up at 5wpm overall. It
is
not proper test procedure to have the test at an actual 13wpm when it is
supposed to be 5wpm.

Talk to the VE team leader that you will eventually be testing under so
that
you do get the correct character speed for the test that you will be
planning to take.

Finally try to find someone who is knowledgeable in correct training
methods
to "Elmer" you if at all possible.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 31 Jul 2003 02:21:06 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical
waivers were the result of ADA.

How soon we forget...

I didn't forget. NCVEC obviously did.

maybe we ought to replace the Element 1 Morse
test with an Element 1 amateur radio history test...

Off the top of my head.....

In days of yore when George I reigned in Washington, some amateur
in Pennsylvania could not pass the 13 wpm test as hard as he tried.
So one day whilst in QSO with JY1, he mentioned that what ham radio
in the USA really needed more than anything else was a mechanism for
him to get an upgraded license without passing the higher speed code
test because he had (alleged) medical problems that (allegedly)
precluded him from dealing with Morse code above 5 wpm.

So when next in QSO with George I, JY1 said (in essence) "Georgie,
if you want to quarter your troops in my country - JY1 being King
Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon - do my dear friend a
favor and let him get an upgraded ham license with no higher-speed
code test".

So George I summoned the Chairman of the FCC ("Mad Man Mark" Fowler
or Al "Who the heck is he" Sykes - forget which) to his oval chamber,
clapped his hands like the Pasha does in the movies, and said "do it".

"So it was written, so it was done."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

Was there an NPRM? Lawsuits based on ADA? Lots of discussion, comments and
counterproposals?

The world wonders

tnx, Phil

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm
for
one solid minute out of five. Oh well.

Dan/W4NTI

And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow...

You know Brian I don't give a rats ass if you believe me or not. Ask
ANYBODY that took it in the 70s and earlier.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan, sob stories can be true or false, really doesn't matter. But if
the exam is unnecessary, why tell your sob story?

Do you want sympathy?

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:40:42 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

PS: "Law" usually refers to STATUTE, not agency regulation. The
procedures for the creation of each are quite different.

In communications law practice, FCC regulations are considered "law"
for com,pliance and enforcement purposes. "Communications law"
includes treaties, statutes, regulations, and case precedcents.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

wrote in message
...

Which group is he in? I know it's not rec.radio.cb, and I know his
drivel has no purpose here. Leg humper.

--
GO# 40

I am not sure cross post to all of them so you can be more of a hypocrite...
assclown

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Dick Carroll; wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote:
What I have said is that the second condition is now IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET as it
is currently stated, and thus Technicians and Novices LOST THEIR HF PRIVILEGES.

I believe you'll find plenty of legal precedent that says in such a case existing regulation prevails until such time
as it can be rewritten to eliminate any ambiguity. There's a practical reason for this of course. Otherwise chaos would
reigh.

There is no ambiguity here. There was direct dependence on a regulation
external to that of the FCC's. Unless you're implying that the FCC's
regulation itself was ambiguous or improper (for referring to an outside body
of law, treaty, international agreement, etc.; something outside of its
control), I don't see a problem.

It certainly does NOT work that way with 26 CFR and 31 CFR regulations so I
have no expectation that 47 CFR regulations would. In those contexts, changes
to the law (i.e. statute) immediately void regulations when those changes
become effective (usually defined as "For years beginning on or after date").