"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, as I understand it, only until they
"renew" or change their callsign, correct?
In other words, when I renew my license, or
if I change my callsign, I would only be
licensed as a Technician, I think.

Kim W5TIT


Thanks for a quote of Kim's message, Dee.

Sorry, Kim, I'm still having problems reading your messages (the same
problem as before). I don't know if it's my server, your server, some
software setting, or something else entirely. I haven't blocked your
messages. I checked to make sure of that. They're still showing up in the
newsgroup message list. However, whenever I select one to read, I get an
error message saying the message is no longer on the server.

Occasionally one will slip through that I can read, but 99 percent of your
messages result in the same error. Again, this doesn't happen to messages
from anyone else. In fact, your messages are the only times I've seen this
error message at all.

If this isn't happening to anyone else here (and nobody else has said
anything), I can only assume the problem is with my server. So, it looks
like the problem will remain until I switch servers (something I'm planning
to do soon anyway). When it stops, I'll let you know.

Of course, if you reply to this, I'll probably never see the reply. So, if
you have something to say in reply, send it by email instead.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international
requirement that no longer exists


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the only
"international requirements" recognized by this country are those in the
treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the recent
changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the only
treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently ratified).

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty change
does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up to each
member state to decide for themselves.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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.

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international requirement that no longer
exists


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the
only "international requirements" recognized by this country are those
in the treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the
recent changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments
above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the
only treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently
ratified).


Fair comment

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the
changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty
change does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up
to each member state to decide for themselves.


True, although it still may be possible to interpret 97.301(e) in such a
way that the no-code Techs have the Novice bands before the FCC changes
any rules. Albeit it is risky for Techs to do that without a declaratory
ruling from the FCC saying that this is the correct interpretation of the
rule.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Keith
writes:

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?

Deaf people have used Morse Code in ham radio.

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?

Simple. They rest fingers on a speaker cone and feel the vibrations. It's benn
done many times by deaf people. Just like many deaf people dance by feeling the
rhythm the music through their feet.

Also, many deaf people have some limited hearing. It is not unusual for them to
be able to hear single tones but not undersatand speech.

With modern digital
communications like PSK31, Pactor and RTTY a deaf person can enjoy ham radio.

Hams have been using Baudot RTTY for almost 60 years....

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.

Yet the various advocacy groups for handicapped people have never protested the
amateur radio test regulations. Indeed, the group "Handi-Hams" was AGAINST the
medical waiver rule change back in 1990, as I recall.

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.

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. Take out the questions on PSK-31, RTTY, etc.,
because blind people won't use those modes. Get rid of the Extra and General
class written tests entirely because there are people who can't pass them, but
who can pass the Tech written. And since FCC says the Tech test is adequate for
all authorized modes, bands and power on amateur VHF/UHF, why is any more
written testing needed for HF beyond a few band-edge questions?


73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Keith
writes:


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?


Deaf people have used Morse Code in ham radio.


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?


Simple. They rest fingers on a speaker cone and feel the vibrations. It's benn
done many times by deaf people. Just like many deaf people dance by feeling the
rhythm the music through their feet.

Also, many deaf people have some limited hearing. It is not unusual for them to
be able to hear single tones but not undersatand speech.


With modern digital
communications like PSK31, Pactor and RTTY a deaf person can enjoy ham radio.


Hams have been using Baudot RTTY for almost 60 years....


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.


Yet the various advocacy groups for handicapped people have never protested the
amateur radio test regulations. Indeed, the group "Handi-Hams" was AGAINST the
medical waiver rule change back in 1990, as I recall.


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.


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. Take out the questions on PSK-31, RTTY, etc.,
because blind people won't use those modes. Get rid of the Extra and General
class written tests entirely because there are people who can't pass them, but
who can pass the Tech written. And since FCC says the Tech test is adequate for
all authorized modes, bands and power on amateur VHF/UHF, why is any more
written testing needed for HF beyond a few band-edge questions?


Don't you get it Jim? This is EXACTLY where they are headed. NTI is
undergoing birth! The no-discrimination angle is cute but flawed, but
hey, they are flush with their recent success, so the sky is the limit
now. And besides, they might get people to buy the argument.

- Mike KB3EIA -