Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#71
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#72
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#73
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#74
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#75
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#80
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|