FCC releases Report and Order [Archive]

ab8ro

12-19-2006, 06:03 PM

Some choice quotes.

Quote[/b] ]
As noted in the record, the claim “that code requirements help
eliminate “bad apples” from the radio hobby has not proven correct in the past and is not a viable
argument for the present, or future.”57

Quote[/b] ]
We are not persuaded that the Amateur Extra Class being the highest license
class is a sufficient reason alone to retain a requirement that we conclude is otherwise inappropriate and unnecessary

kg4kww

12-19-2006, 06:05 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

w5alt

12-19-2006, 06:07 PM

Yep, it looks like they have released the R&O and right on the 19th, too. Now we can see when it will be published, probably in the next week or so, unless government things slow down for the holidays.

I notice they didn't make any mention at all of what would be done for reciprocal licenses with countries still requiring proof of CW proficiency.

73,
Walt, W5ALT

W3MIV

12-19-2006, 06:09 PM

I anticipate that it will be around the middle of January by the time it makes it into the Federal Register, which puts the Opening Day right at the middle of February.

It could be earlier, but I think the holidays may put a crimp in the pipe.

N2RJ

12-19-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 19 2006,13:07)]I notice they didn't make any mention at all of what would be done for reciprocal licenses with countries still requiring proof of CW proficiency.
What I've also noticed is that they grant extra class privileges to CEPT license holders operating under CEPT agreement.

So does this mean that someone holding say a foundation license in the UK can come over here and operate with the same privileges as an extra?

I also notice that most of the commenters either haven't put their callsigns or don't have a callsign. That speaks volumes.

wd0ct

12-19-2006, 06:11 PM

Suckups wishing to prove code proficiency have 30 days to take the test.

30 days to prove you are worthy to OFs. Better get with the program!

Or you can relax, chill out, enjoy life, upgrade when you feel like it, and not give a damn what OFs think.

edit: well a few more than 30 days...

K7JEM

12-19-2006, 06:16 PM

"We are not persuaded that the Amateur Extra Class being the highest license
class is a sufficient reason alone to retain a requirement that we conclude is otherwise inappropriate and
unnecessary.61 We also note that our action here does not preclude Amateur Extra Class licensees, or for
that matter, other amateur service licensees from pursuing and/or continuing to pursue Morse code
proficiency should they so desire."

"Consistent with our decision herein to eliminate the Morse
code requirement, we are eliminating this disparity by amending Section 97.301(e) to afford Technician
and Technician Plus licensees identical operating privileges.72 Thereby, licensees in both classes of
license will have voice and telegraphy privileges identical to Novice Class licensees in four HF amateur
service bands. In eliminating this disparity between Technician and Technician Plus licenses, we are
simplifying the amateur service licensing structure and promoting regulatory parity."

"To conform our rules to reflect that CEPT has reduced the number of amateur classes
from two to one, we will amend Section 97.30198 to authorize Amateur Extra Class privileges to all
individuals who have been issued a CEPT radio-amateur license by their country of citizenship, and who
satisfy other requirements in the Commission’s rules.99 The “good cause” exception to the notice and
comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act applies to our amendment of Section 97.301.100
The United States is a signatory to the CEPT agreement and we thus must give effect to CEPT’s
establishing a single license class. Given that obligation, it is unnecessary -- and also would be
unproductive -- to provide notice and receive comment in advance of taking this action."

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 97 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as
specified in Appendix A, effective [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]."

KA4DPO

12-19-2006, 06:19 PM

Or just prove to yourself that you have the ability to tackle a challenge.

With the final challenge removed it will be interesting to see the caliber of people that will be comming into the hobby now. Since it doesn't take any native intelligence to pass the written exam, I don't hold out much hope for the future.

CT, Your statement says a lot about you, think about it...

ab8ro

12-19-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 18 2006,12:07)]Yep, it looks like they have released the R&O and right on the 19th, too. Now we can see when it will be published, probably in the next week or so, unless government things slow down for the holidays.

I notice they didn't make any mention at all of what would be done for reciprocal licenses with countries still requiring proof of CW proficiency.

73,
Walt, W5ALT
I guess that turned out, as I expected, not to be a regulatory reason to maintain code testing.

wd0ct

12-19-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Dec. 19 2006,11:19)]Or just prove to yourself that you have the ability to tackle a challenge.

With the final challenge removed it will be interesting to see the caliber of people that will be comming into the hobby now. Since it doesn't take any native intelligence to pass the written exam, I don't hold out much hope for the future.

CT, Your statement says a lot about you, think about it...
dpo,

What does my post say about me? I'm thinking about it but I see nothing important about me in my post.

Oh, maybe you mean my ambivalence as to whether anyone needs to take a code test to be a ham ?

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you or I think about it now, does it.

ab8ro

12-19-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Dec. 18 2006,12:19)]With the final challenge removed it will be interesting to see the caliber of people that will be comming into the hobby now. #Since it doesn't take any native intelligence to pass the written exam, I don't hold out much hope for the future.
Perhaps you didn't read this part

Quote[/b] ]
As noted in the record, the claim “that code requirements help
eliminate “bad apples” from the radio hobby has not proven correct in the past and is not a viable
argument for the present, or future.”57

I take this to mean that the FCC is not convinced that the caliber of current and past hams is all that and a bag of chips.

Quote[/b] ]
CT, Your statement says a lot about you, think about it...

It sure does, it says he's either a bit more perceptive, or a bit more honest than the majority of those who fail to identify the suckups for exactly what they are.

N8CPA

12-19-2006, 07:40 PM

As big as this news is, I think it's curious that the League has not yet updated the front page, to include it. The latest enforcement letters were posted with with today's date, though.

ab8ro

12-19-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ Dec. 18 2006,13:40)]As big as this news is, I think it's curious that the League has not yet updated the front page, to include it. #The latest enforcement letters were posted with with today's date, though.
Which indicates, as has been suggested elsewhere, that they were aware of the dates ahead of time.

k9kxq

12-20-2006, 12:16 AM

Question? I'm wondering if when you renew your license will the code endorsement still be added as opposed to the hams that do not have code...

kxq

KA4DPO

12-20-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Dec. 19 2006,11:26)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Dec. 19 2006,11:19)]Or just prove to yourself that you have the ability to tackle a challenge.

With the final challenge removed it will be interesting to see the caliber of people that will be comming into the hobby now. #Since it doesn't take any native intelligence to pass the written exam, I don't hold out much hope for the future.

CT, Your statement says a lot about you, think about it...
dpo,

What does my post say about me? I'm thinking about it but I see nothing important about me in my post.

Oh, maybe you mean my ambivalence as to whether anyone needs to take a code test to be a ham ?

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you or I think about it now, does it.
Actually it was your sarcastic remark about OF's, whatever those are.

8ro, let's do lunch..

KC9ECI

12-20-2006, 01:00 AM

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 19 2006,13:10)]Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 19 2006,13:07)]I notice they didn't make any mention at all of what would be done for reciprocal licenses with countries still requiring proof of CW proficiency.
What I've also noticed is that they grant extra class privileges to CEPT license holders operating under CEPT agreement.

So does this mean that someone holding say a foundation license in the UK can come over here and operate with the same privileges as an extra?

I also notice that most of the commenters either haven't put their callsigns or don't have a callsign. #That speaks volumes.
I didn't put my callsign, what does that mean?

AE6IP

12-20-2006, 01:04 AM

I'm gonna guess Friday.

There's no reason the R&O can't be in Friday's Federal Register.

You can check every day until it's there if you want:

Latest Issue (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html) table of contents.

KC9ECI

12-20-2006, 01:12 AM

The ARRL is predicting January, but they've been wrong before.

Quote[/b] ]Today's R&O spells out the specific Part 97 changes going into place once the new rules go on the books and indicates that the effective date will be 30 days after the document appears in the Federal Register. Publication likely will occur in January, with the new rules going into effect in February.

ai4ep

12-20-2006, 03:37 AM

:rock: What ?!!

The ARRL has been wrong...before ?

...Now THAT is news !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K0HWY

12-20-2006, 03:46 AM

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 19 2006,22:37)]:rock: # #What ?!!

The ARRL has been wrong...before ?

#...Now THAT is news !! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
That HAD to have been a misprint or taken out of context. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

ai4ep

12-20-2006, 04:00 AM

humor attempt

I guess even the ARRL makes mistakes.

I make mistakes and try to apologize or make right whatever the situation...I am human.

I didnt mean to hurt any ones feelings, so I DO offer an apology if one is needed.

But --- some of you ARE on edge the past few days...please go easy on the rest of us.

IF I need to be nicer, I can work on that part, too. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

K0HWY

12-20-2006, 04:04 AM

Not me; I'm going to be the crotchety old fart I'm expected to be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif As Colonel Klink once said, "Who needs the price of kindness when a little hatred never cost anyone a thing."

Btw, I know how some of these people are. IT WAS A JOKE FOLKS. OK? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

wb4old

12-20-2006, 04:12 AM

What is the date for the written test to be dropped? Not a close guess but exact.
Having to pass any test will keep people from enjoying radio so like code it is keeping people from being (Hams?) do away with it. Before you say it will not happen look at the past 15 years.

KM5FL

12-20-2006, 04:14 AM

Quote[/b] (K0HWY @ Dec. 19 2006,22:46)]Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 19 2006,22:37)]:rock: # #What ?!!

The ARRL has been wrong...before ?

#...Now THAT is news !! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
That HAD to have been a misprint or taken out of context. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
There's a third possibility...

Clue: Happens, on average, every 2.4 hours... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KM5FL

K0HWY

12-20-2006, 04:18 AM

It'll happen but it's anybody's guess as to when. We must maintain the precious minimum international standard so I expect that about a year after the powers that be conclude testing is no longer needed for amateur licensing, you'll see the FCC comply. After all, being above the minimum in the 21st Century is simply not acceptable.

wb4old

12-20-2006, 04:33 AM

Support no TEST " A Dim mind is a terrible
waste" not being a (Ham?)

KM5FL

12-20-2006, 05:10 AM

Quote[/b] (wb4old @ Dec. 19 2006,23:35)]Support no TEST " A #Dim mind is a terrible
waste" not being a (Ham?)
One more time for the folks in the back row!!!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KM5FL

K7JEM

12-20-2006, 05:12 AM

I think the dim minds have revealed themselves here.

It really surprises me that so many people think that the written test can be easily eliminated. There is still an international treaty requiring it, and even if that was changed, it would take a rulemaking proceeding to make this happen. That would entail an NPRM and all of the associated input and debate that has been going on for over three years now.

If you guys don't have enough going upstairs to realize this, then I think the code must make people dense beyond belief, since that has been the mantra of the "coders" since this thing was finalized a couple of days ago.

Your side loses all credibility with anyone that has a brain. Any valid argument you make will ring hollow, since all we have heard is "when will the written be dropped" and "here come the CBers".

Please, think about your statements for your own sakes, it makes you look foolish.

Joe

AE6IP

12-20-2006, 05:42 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 19 2006,21:12)]There is still an international treaty requiring it, and even if that was changed, it would take a rulemaking proceeding to make this happen.
Actually, the changes to the RR that were made at the last WRC were sufficient to allow enough leeway for the FCC to pretty much eliminate the tests.

I think I'll ressurect the petition I wrote back in '03 to simplify the regs as soon as this R&O goes into effect.

K0HWY

12-20-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 20 2006,00:12)]I think the dim minds have revealed themselves here.

It really surprises me that so many people think that the written test can be easily eliminated. There is still an international treaty requiring it, and even if that was changed, it would take a rulemaking proceeding to make this happen. That would entail an NPRM and all of the associated input and debate that has been going on for over three years now.

If you guys don't have enough going upstairs...
If we're really dim minded, it would seem we are in good company. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

A change of international treaty, an NPRM, input and debate... I have to admit, such a scenario is pretty far fetched, but it has been known to happen.

K7JEM

12-20-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote[/b] (K0HWY @ Dec. 19 2006,23:11)]A change of international treaty, an NPRM, input and debate... I have to admit, such a scenario is pretty far fetched, but it has been known to happen.
The point is that it will not happen without due process. There is not someone walking around the FCC that one day will say "I think I'll just go ahead and dump those ham tests".

Someone will have to petition. The FCC will have to accept the petition as valid (they don't have to). Then they have to open it up to comments, and possibly a time frame for other competing petitions to be filed. Then they have to review the petitions, and set a time frame for public comment. Then they have to review the comments and decide what, if anything, they want to do about the petitions and comments. Then thy have to issue an NPRM, and again go through the comment process, review, etc. THEN they can issue an R&O that might go through if it isn't reconsidered. There might have been steps I left out.

In any case, it won't be a surprise announcement. It just blows me away that some here have posted of the FCC's "surprise" announcement.

Fellows, they told us back in the summer of 05 that they were going to do this, and they did it (almost) exactly like they proposed. There should be no shock or surprise.

If the comments had been different, or more of them, then they might have made a change. But they had already determined that the code test had lost it's regulatory purpose for being, and no-one was able to supply any new evidence as to why the code test should be required.

Today, the FCC gives no indication that the written tests are in any kind of jeopardy. They gave that indication about the code test over 16 years ago.

So, I wouldn't worry about the written test being eliminated. And as far as the questions, those are done by fellow hams, the FCC is not involved. We can increase the pool numbers, or increase the difficulty of the tests without the intervention of the FCC.

Joe

wb4old

12-20-2006, 06:46 AM

The further you go down a bell curve the wider ( more people ) involved. The code requirment was international treaty, and an fcc requirement gone as it should be.Any knowledge is bad those that knowthe knowledge are elitest.
but now the next rung down of course will want their dumb down too, why not there are more of them.
cant happen.. it will.

PE1RDW

12-20-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Dec. 19 2006,20:10)]Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 19 2006,13:07)]I notice they didn't make any mention at all of what would be done for reciprocal licenses with countries still requiring proof of CW proficiency.
What I've also noticed is that they grant extra class privileges to CEPT license holders operating under CEPT agreement.

So does this mean that someone holding say a foundation license in the UK can come over here and operate with the same privileges as an extra?

I also notice that most of the commenters either haven't put their callsigns or don't have a callsign. #That speaks volumes.
Let's see if I can bring you up to speed on the current CEPT situation.
after WRC03 there has been only one CEPT class, if a country still wanted to give different operation privilages to visiters based on morse they could and most countries actualy put "morse included"on the CEPT licence of the old CEPT 1 licences.

Recently the CEPT countries introduced CEPT Novice, this one is not yet adopted by all countries and unlike the old CEPT 2 licence gives the holders privilages that are the same as the local novice licences and must meet a minimum technical standard.

Because the UK and Belgium Foundation licence is less technical and more practical they do not qualify for CEPT Novice so they will have to apply for a visitors licence and can't use the CEPT rules.

To recap, full CEPT get Extra, novice CEPT is not yet adopted by the FCC so for now they need a visitors licence in the USA and probably get Tech privilages, Foundation is not a CEPT licence and always need a visitors licence most likely giving Tech privilages.

kg4kww

12-21-2006, 12:08 AM

Lets put this code / no code thing to rest it's over, live with it.

Accept the fact we are all GOOD BUDDIES now!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I read the R&O and this is good.

Now, plz excuse me I have a client waiting for me who's glad the code was dropped but, whishes it could have been sooner than later. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Merry Christmas to all

ky5u

12-21-2006, 05:18 AM

Notice how much smarter he looks! It's amazing what an FCC ruling can do...

ac3p

12-21-2006, 02:23 PM

It took 5 days for the Omnibus Report and Order to make it to the Federal Register. It was release October 10 and in the register October 15, if that can be a guide.

K7JEM

12-21-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote[/b] (ac3p @ Dec. 21 2006,07:23)]It took 5 days for the Omnibus Report and Order to make it to the Federal Register. It was release October 10 and in the register October 15, if that can be a guide.
Then why did it not become rule until December 15?

Isn't that 60 days?

I think it was published on Nov 15, and became rule on Dec 15. It was released on Oct 10.

Do the math.

Joe

ai4ep

12-21-2006, 02:56 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Do the math ??

MAn, some folks still think 1+1=3 .

so go figure. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

kg4kww

12-21-2006, 07:34 PM