"Keith" wrote:

Dwight, There is no way for anyone to know if
a tech license has passed a morse code test
and all techs have voice privileges for 28.3-
28.5 MHz. What is the FCC going to do run
around and check every tech license holder?
Besides would you rather give up ten meters
to truckers and CBers?


I would not do what you're seeking even if there was absolutely no chance
at all for the FCC to catch me. When I joined the Amateur Radio community, I
made a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations associated with it.
That commitment is not based on the FCC's enforcement ability, but my own
sense of what is good for this community. I personally benefit from a
community that has an equal commitment to abide by the rules and
regulations. I therefore would not do anything to upset that situation.

I suspect you will eventually find that most other Technician license
holders have a similar commitment to abide by the rules and regulation.

By the way, your statement that "all techs have voice privileges for
28.3-28.5 MHz" is simply not true - only a Technician Plus license holder (a
Tech who has also passed the 5wpm code test) is allowed to operate on those
frequencies.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Keith" wrote:

Dwight, There is no way for anyone to know if
a tech license has passed a morse code test
and all techs have voice privileges for 28.3-
28.5 MHz. What is the FCC going to do run
around and check every tech license holder?
Besides would you rather give up ten meters to truckers and CBers?


I would not do what you're seeking even if there was absolutely no
chance
at all for the FCC to catch me. When I joined the Amateur Radio
community, I made a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations
associated with it. That commitment is not based on the FCC's
enforcement ability, but my own sense of what is good for this
community. I personally benefit from a community that has an equal
commitment to abide by the rules and regulations. I therefore would not
do anything to upset that situation.

I suspect you will eventually find that most other Technician license
holders have a similar commitment to abide by the rules and regulation.

By the way, your statement that "all techs have voice privileges for
28.3-28.5 MHz" is simply not true - only a Technician Plus license
holder (a Tech who has also passed the 5wpm code test) is allowed to
operate on those frequencies.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



s97.301(e) reads:

For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician
Class and who has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy in accordance with the international
requirements.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5) now read:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician
Class and who has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy in accordance with the international
requirements.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5) now read:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

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.


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

Keith,
What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule'
you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has
been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until
the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US,
nothing has changed.
It doesn't matter if the 'no-code' rule WILL be
changed. Until it IS changed, there is NO change.
The ITU can't change US law, only the US government
can do that. It's okay to be happy about the proposed
code change, but don't be stupid...
'Doc

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:47:07 -0500, 'Doc wrote:

Keith,
What you don't seem to realize is that the 'rule'
you quoted is NOT law in this country. Until it has
been adopted, it's only a recomendation. So until
the new ITU recomendations are accepted by the US,
nothing has changed.

The 25.5 is automatically accepted by the US Government. The treaty has
already been previously ratified. The change is administrative and it is not a
new treaty.



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

Keith,
And until it is formally accepted, it's still only
a recommendation, not law. Even with a treaty, a foreign
country still doesn't make law in this country. That's
a fact...
'Doc

Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 16:37:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician
Class and who has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy in accordance with the international
requirements.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5) now read:

Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a licence
to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

There is no international requirement for proficiency in telegraphy, so
arguably any Tech could operate on all the frequencies listed in the
table. Be prepared to argue it in court, though!

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.


This is silly. Each country has it's own laws, and you are obliged
to follow them.

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

That means that each country no longer has to conform to that treaty
agreement.

They can, if they so choose, to eliminate their law that requires
code proficiency for amateurs operating in the HF bands.

But they are not obligated to do so.

Until a country changes it's law about this, everyone is obligated
to follow those laws.

Just because the treaty agreement is gone does not mean that there
is any more legality for someone who hasn't taken a code test to operate
at HF. Two months ago, someone could have done it, and if caught they
would face a certain process. If they do it today, and are caught,
they face the same certain process. Nothing has changed on that
account.

Michael VE2BVW

On 25 Jul 2003 20:01:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

Read the regulation. The regulation indicates that according to international
morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Well the international
regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access.
97.301(e)
I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS".

BTW, what do you care about US regs if you live in Canada?


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

Keith ) writes:
On 25 Jul 2003 20:01:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:

What has changed is that the treaty agreement whereby all countries
issuing amateur radio licenses are obliged to have a code test of some
sort for operating below 30MHz (or, was it a higher frequency?) is now
gone.

Read the regulation. The regulation indicates that according to international
morse code requirements the CW requirement is required. Well the international
regulations do not require a morse code proficiency for HF access.
97.301(e)
I guess it all boils down to what "IS IS".

BTW, what do you care about US regs if you live in Canada?


By your interpretation, every ham in the world can start operating
on HF, no matter what their license restricts them to, merely because
the international agreement on this matter has been rescinded. Your false
interpretation would therefore apply to all countries. Besides, you
posted in newsgroups that are read by people in many countries, so
why shouldn't I comment.

The international agreement does not set the rules. While except for
Japan with their low power license I can't think of any country that
did not respect the treaty agreement, there wasn't much to keep countries
from not honoring the treaty, other than on a diplomatic level. If
someone operated on HF without passing a code test, they weren't
prosecuted by an international body, they were pursued by their
own country's enforcement body, which also set the rules that
the person was violating. Each country had to put in place rules that
reflect the agreement.

Those rules are still in effect, until they are changed.

"We had to put these rules in place because we honor the international
treaty."

That's a big difference from "You have to know morse code or else the
international boogy man will come down and toss you in jail".

The first is about implementing rules that honor an international agreement.
The second is some international law that you must respect directly.

Find some other section of your rules, and you're bound to find something
that tells you you can't operate HF with certain classes of licenses.
That's the rule that is in control. It's absolute, and not dependent
on some international treaty.

When I was a kid, there was no license here in Canada that let someone
operate without taking a code test. Some likely argued that the code
test was there because of the international agreement, but the rules
were quite clear, you couldn't operate unless you took a test, and part
of that test was a code test. Back in 1978, there was a code-free
license here, but only useable at 220MHz and up, and had a lot of
digital questions. The rules were clear; if you got that license
you could only operate on those VHF frequencies. Back in 1990, there was
restructuring, and there was a license which did not require a code test;
but it was also clear in setting out where you could operate.

For that matter, the US Technician license originally was VHF and UHF
only, yet there was a code test. Your FCC decided it was a necessary
requirement, even if the treaty did not require it in that case. It
was only in more recent decades, when 10meters was added, that the treaty
required a code test. Take away the code test, and the FCC limited
such licenses to VHF and above.

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

Michael VE2BVW

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.



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