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 are really crazy along with your pals at the ARRRRRRLLLL. This hang on to
morse code forever crap is the reason that ham radio is going to die. You know
the BPL increase is going to pass and you can kiss HF goodbye. Instead of
having several million hams there are a paltry 700,000 in the US and less then
half of them are active.
Ham radio operators have created and signed their own death warrant. I'm sure
corporate America is drawing up plans on what to do with the 6 meter, 2 meter
and 220 bands as we debate the demise of morse code.


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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 -


Mike, there's just not as many of those types of individuals you are
describing as "they" to make a change at all. Just as there are not enough
of the Larry Rolls and Dick Carrolls to make CW as miserable as some (the
"they" you describe) think it is.

You may wish to blame the de-emphasis on CW on people. But, it's a
combination of losing traditional values, a decrease in the use of CW in
major communication venues, and the fact that the FCC is a governmental
organization that responds to national and world trends. It's much more
about anything BUT people than many realize, IMHO.

There's way more people who are middle ground.

Kim W5TIT


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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.


Absolutely. To come to the conclusion that deaf people cannot learn and use
CW is rather narrow-minded in my opnion. I bet there's a way that ANYONE
could learn CW.

I believe the waiver has been removed from the licensing structure for
amateur radio, hasn't it? As well it should be. And, here's why: there are
deaf people who have passed a CW test and use CW. As soon as that happened,
it set a standard that deaf people can, indeed, learn CW--*if* they so
desire.

Remember that a handicap should never be considered as an excuse.


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.


First of all, I don't understand the transition from using lights to a deaf
person not being able to use CW. They *could* use lights--and I've seen it
done. They could also do as Jim describes above. They could also have the
volume up so loud on a speaker that it would vibrate the speaker box itself.
There's all kinds of ways and I bet an innovative deaf person will find
them. Necessity is the mother of invention.

For goodness sake! By your example, Keith, blind people should not be
licensed because, "how in the world would they know what frequency they are
on?"


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.


I've never understood a medical waiver. The only thing I've seen it do is
get people licensed for General and above, who have no business being
so--and who also, somehow, don't have a hearing deficiency of any type.


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.


Balderdash!!!! To expect that a deaf person cannot learn CW is
discrimination. You are insensitive to believe that discrimination means
inability.


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

Kim W5TIT


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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"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.


Oh, ROFLMAO...that was going to be my next advice was to take me off your
filter...LOL


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.


Puzzling. I just don't understand. I've tried both outlets for the
newsgroup, also!


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/


Oh, guess I better send an email, too!

Kim W5TIT


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

D. Stussy wrote:


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.

Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the
law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose
themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:50:25 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" wrote:


§97.503 Element standards.
(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee
has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear
texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed,
using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question
mark, slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK.
Element 1: 5 words per minute.


That is the test, the portion of the regs we are talking about is 97.301(e).
That portion of the regs is dependent on a international requirement for morse
code proficiency to operate on HF. The international requirement for morse code
proficiency has been eliminated.

But the requirement has not been eliminated in the U.S. and the change
in the international treaty is not a mandate that the requirement for a
code test must be dropped. The FCC can keep the requirement indefinitely
if they desire. Until they do drop it, nothing in the licensing
structure has changed.

"Keith" wrote in message
...

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.

All the removal of the international requirement in the ITU Radio
Regulations
does is to allow each administration to determine on its own whether or not
to keep a Morse test.

Most will eliminate it ...

The US has NOT done so yet, so what is suggested above would be ILLEGAL,
put your license in jeopardy, and give all of ham radio a black eye.

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


--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

"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

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...

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 are really crazy along with your pals at the ARRRRRRLLLL. This hang

on to

morse code forever crap is the reason that ham radio is going to die.



And you're arguments backed by idiocy are the reason those of us who
logically argue against a CW test get the flak that we do. To say the
things you say of the deaf, or any other handicapped you might *think* you
are taking up for, is narrow minded and pretty damned discriminatory of you.

But these people are there, Kim. And there seems to be quite a few of
'em. Just some of the folk we can look forward to soon.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"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.

What's all this "treaty ratification" thing?!?

I thought that the US Congress ALREADY ratified membership with
the United Nations and the UN organizations long ago. The ITU is a
UN organization.

Does the US Congress "have to ratify" each and every change in any
ITU that effects US civil communications laws? I don't see any such
"ratification" process for any number of decisions done by the FCC
in regards to FCC International Bureau decisions. Please explain.

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).

Code testing is the "only" treaty the US "recognizes?"

FCC does considerable International communications decision-
making without any fuss and furor about "treaty ratification."

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.

Our states decide whether or not to test for amateur morse code?!?

Will this "ratification" be done in a General Election or a special
Election like ratifying an amendment to our Constitution?

Is there some kind of separate "treaty" concerning morse code that
is NOT done with the ITU?

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).

Please explain this new "ratification" process.

I was sure the USA had already joined the International
Telecommunications Union and agreed to abide by THAT treaty.

LHA