FCC to Drop Morse Code Requirement from General Licenses

thehstrybean

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2004
5,727
1
0
Text

End of an Era: FCC to Drop Morse Testing for All Amateur License Classes

NEWINGTON, CT, Dec 15, 2006 -- In an historic move, the FCC has acted to drop the Morse code requirement for all Amateur Radio license classes. The Commission today adopted, but hasn't yet released, the long-awaited Report and Order (R&O) in WT Docket 05-235, the "Morse code" proceeding. Also today, the FCC adopted an Order on Reconsideration in WT Docket 04-140 -- the "omnibus" proceeding -- modifying the Amateur Radio rules in response to an ARRL request to accommodate automatically controlled narrowband digital stations on 80 meters in the wake of rule changes that became effective today at 12:01 AM Eastern Time. The Commission said it will designate the 3585 to 3600 kHz frequency segment for such operations, although the segment will remain available for CW, RTTY and data as it has been. In a break from what's been the usual practice in Amateur Radio proceedings, the FCC only issued a public notice at or about the close of business today and not the actual Report & Order, so some details -- including the effective dates of the two orders -- remain uncertain. Currently, Amateur Radio applicants for General and higher class licenses have to pass a 5 WPM Morse code test to operate on HF. Today's R&O will eliminate that requirement all around.

"This change eliminates an unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current Amateur Radio operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in the benefits of Amateur Radio," the FCC said. The ARRL had asked the FCC to retain the 5 WPM for Amateur Extra class applicants only. The FCC proposed earlier to drop the requirement across the board, however, and it held to that decision in today's R&O.

Perhaps more important, the FCC's action in WT Docket 05-235 appears to put all Technician licensees on an equal footing: Once the R&O goes into effect, holders of Technician class licenses will have equivalent HF privileges, whether or not they've passed the 5 WPM Element 1 Morse examination. The FCC said the R&O in the Morse code docket would eliminate a disparity in the operating privileges for the Technician and Technician Plus class licensees -- something the ARRL also has asked the Commission to correct following the release of its July 2005 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in WT Docket 05-235.

"With today's elimination of the Morse code exam requirements, the FCC concluded that the disparity between the operating privileges of Technician class licensees and Technician Plus class licensees should not be retained," the FCC said in its public notice. "Therefore, the FCC, in today's action, afforded Technician and Technician Plus licensees identical operating privileges."

Technician licensees without Element 1 credit (ie, Tech Plus licensees) currently have operating privileges on all amateur frequencies above 30 MHz. Tech Pluses or Technicians with Element 1 credit have limited HF privileges on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meters. Under the Part 97 rules the Commission proposed last year in its NPRM in WT Docket 05-235, current Technicians lacking Morse credit after the new rules went into effect would have had to upgrade to General to earn any HF privileges.

The wholesale elimination of a Morse code requirement for all license classes ends a longstanding national and international regulatory tradition in the requirements to gain access to Amateur Radio frequencies below 30 MHz. The first no-code license in the US was the Technician ticket, instituted in 1991. The question of whether or not to drop the Morse requirement altogether has been the subject of often-heated debate over the past several years, but the handwriting has been on the wall -- especially since the FCC instituted an across-the-board 5 WPM Morse requirement effective April 15, 2000, in the most-recent major Amateur Radio licensing restructuring (WT Docket 98-143).

The FCC said today's R&O in WT Docket 05-235 comports with revisions to the international Radio Regulations resulting from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03). At that gathering, delegates agreed to authorize each country to determine whether or not to require that applicants demonstrate Morse code proficiency in order to qualify for an Amateur Radio license with privileges on frequencies below 30 MHz.

The list of countries dropping the Morse requirement has been growing steadily since WRC-03. A number of countries, including Canada, the UK and several European nations, now no longer require applicants for an Amateur Radio license to pass a Morse code test to gain HF operating privileges. Following WRC-03, the FCC received several petitions for rule making asking it to eliminate the Morse requirement in the US.

Typically, the effective date of an FCC Order is 30 days after it appears in the Federal Register. If that's the case, the Morse requirement and the revised 80-meter segment for automatically controlled digital stations would likely not go into effect until late January or early February 2007. That's not clear from the public notice, however. The FCC can order its decision effective upon release.

The ARRL will provide any additional information on these important Part 97 rule revisions as it becomes available.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
it was only a matter of time. I figured they'd do this ever since they started with the Tech class
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
It's a shame. Tapping out morse code has been a plot device in endless sci fi, spy and prison thrillers.

Now when a pilot pulses his engines short-short-short long-long-long short-short-short no one will know what it means. We're doomed!
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
Originally posted by: notfred
Awesome, now I can argue about politics and Art Bell with a bunch of retired guys.

..I've run into him on 75 meters and 10 meters. He's very active on ham radio. His call is W6OBB.

 

slackwarelinux

Senior member
Sep 22, 2004
540
0
0
As a person with a General License, I think this is a good idea. Those who learned code just to get the license (like me), will just forget it right after the test anyways.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
Originally posted by: slackwarelinux
As a person with a General License, I think this is a good idea. Those who learned code just to get the license (like me), will just forget it right after the test anyways.


..people that grew up with it or take the time to be good at it really enjoy it and have a blast playing with different keys. It's still wildly popular among hard core DX'ers and contesters. Many a thousand CW QSL's take place during contests and DX openings.

...-.-
 

jadinolf

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
20,952
3
81
I got my first ticket in 1968 and worked my way thru the ranks studying like crazy. Now they will give them away.

sigh

W6OHI
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
So, how easy will it be to get an amateur license? I didn't even know about the morse code requirement in the first place (not that I'd have found it that difficult.)
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Question: for Christmas next year, I'm doing one of those synchronized light shows with a small FM transmitter. With an FCC license, would I be able to use a higher powered transmitter, say... one that would broadcast for 4 miles? (Because then, if I purchased the equipment, I wouldn't bother with Sirius or something like that... work is 4 miles away - I could listen to my own music on my own commercial free radio station. :) )
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: jadinolf
I got my first ticket in 1968 and worked my way thru the ranks studying like crazy. Now they will give them away.

sigh

W6OHI

yep. I read the book from radio shack and took the test 4 hours later. not that hard without the morse code req.
 

AmphibSailor

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2002
1,399
5
81
...

yep. I read the book from radio shack and took the test 4 hours later. not that hard without the morse code req.


Which other tests did you take / pass? There is a tiered license structure in place. Previously, the no code license was only for an entry level license...

Don't knock W6OHI's efforts working "thru the ranks," unless you've also gone thru the ranks. He's an Advanced class licensee. What are you?

If I read your post wrong, I apologize. But like W6OHI, I worked myself thru the ranks, also.

Novice, Tech, General, Advanced and then Extra (for the last few years).

 

cardiac

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,082
14
81
Glad I got my Extra before they start putting them in cereal boxes.....

Amphibsailor, did you think the Advanced test was the hardest? Sure seemed that way to me.....

Bob - K9YH
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Question: for Christmas next year, I'm doing one of those synchronized light shows with a small FM transmitter. With an FCC license, would I be able to use a higher powered transmitter, say... one that would broadcast for 4 miles? (Because then, if I purchased the equipment, I wouldn't bother with Sirius or something like that... work is 4 miles away - I could listen to my own music on my own commercial free radio station. :) )

So, how easy will it be to get an amateur license? I didn't even know about the morse code requirement in the first place (not that I'd have found it that difficult.)

Not as an amateur radio station... pretty much against the rules to transmit music.

I got mine when I was 9, 100% right on the test questions. If you know basic electronics and read up on radio protocall, it's easy as pie.

Oh, and KB8ZEU, tech. class - expired now...

I never really got into it, anyway; all you can do is talk to people. Come on, now; I don't talk to people very much in real life, so why would I go talk to random people on the radio? I guess it was kinda neat to talk to some guy hundreds of miles away over a repeater chain, though...
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
Text

FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Logs & Letters..

serious business. Yes it's a hobby but you are culpable and will be held responsible.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
FORFEITURE ORDER


Adopted: November 30, 2005 Released: December 2, 2005



By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION


1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) to Jack Gerritsen ("Gerritsen"), for willful and repeated violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act").[1] On December 2, 2004, the Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") in the amount of $21,000 to Gerritsen after determining that Gerritsen apparently willfully, repeatedly, and maliciously interfered with the radio communications of authorized users in the Amateur Radio Service. In this Order, we consider Gerritsen's various arguments concerning his authority to operate, his ability to cause interference, and his inability to pay the forfeiture.

II. BACKGROUND


2. On November 14, 2001, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB") set aside, on its own motion, amateur radio station license KG6IRO, which was granted to Gerritsen on November 7, 2001.[2] Gerritsen was notified that the action was taken because of complaints about the operation of Gerritsen's station and because of questions regarding his qualification to be a licensee in light of his 1999 arrest and 2000 conviction for radio interference to police communications.[3] Gerritsen was warned that "you have no authority to operate radio transmitting equipment, and such operation would be a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, subjecting you to monetary penalties and imprisonment."[4] On January 30, 2002, WTB notified Gerritsen that his amateur application had been dismissed.[5] Therefore, Gerritsen does not hold a valid amateur license and has no authority to operate.

3. Beginning in July 28, 2003, the Commission's Los Angeles Office began receiving complaints of deliberate interference to radio communications over local Amateur, Business and Public Safety radio repeater systems.[6] The complaints alleged that the person making the transmissions identified himself as "KG6IRO." The Los Angeles Office conducted an investigation which identified Gerritsen as the source of the on-going unlicensed operation. Based upon this evidence, a Notice of Apparent Liability for $10,000 was issued to Gerritsen on June 15, 2004, for willful and repeated unlicensed operation of a radio station in the Amateur Radio Service in violation of Section 301 of the Act ("Section 301 NAL").[7]

4. On June 15, 2004, agents from the Los Angeles Office observed a signal on 146.405 MHz monopolizing the authorized 147.435/146.405 MHz repeater. Using mobile direction finding techniques, the agents located the source of the signal to Gerritsen's residence at 6217 ½ Palm Avenue in Bell, California. For almost an hour, Gerritsen maintained a steady transmission on the input frequency of 146.405 MHz which kept all other operators from using the repeater.

5. On June 24, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received a complaint from an amateur operator which recounted a broadcast made that day, on the repeater's output frequency, 147.435 MHz, by a man identifying himself as Jack Gerritsen, announcing a "hostile takeover" of the frequency. On July 16, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received a complaint alleging that Gerritsen was interfering with fire watch communications on the authorized 147.105/146.505 MHz repeater. In response, Los Angeles agents went to Gerritsen's residence to investigate the complaint. Gerritsen admitted operating on the 147.105/146.505 MHz repeater to the agents. The agents warned Gerritsen that he did not have authority to transmit on any amateur band and told him to vacate all amateur frequencies.

6. On July 24, 2004, using mobile direction finding techniques, an agent from the Los Angeles Office positively identified radio transmissions emanating from Gerritsen's residence as the source of radio signals being transmitted on another authorized amateur repeater, the 145.240/144.640 repeater. These communications consisted of a 20 minute prerecorded message by Gerritsen threatening to "jam" any operator that would "jam" him along with a recording of the tone used by the phone company to indicate a phone is off the hook. Throughout the recording, Gerritsen identified himself by the call sign "KG6IRO." During Gerritsen's transmissions, no other amateur operator was able to use the 145.240/144.640 repeater. On July 26, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received a complaint from yet another amateur operator stating that Gerritsen had played a recording for 48 minutes without interruption over the authorized "Keller Peak" repeater on 146.985/146.385 MHz.

7. On September 13, 2004, the Los Angeles Office received a complaint from an Amateur Relay Radio League ("ARRL") Official Observer, alleging that Gerritsen deliberately and maliciously interfered with the Young Hams Net using the authorized Catalina Island Amateur Repeater Association ("CARA") repeater on 147.090/147.690 MHz on September 8, 2004.[8] The complaint alleged that the prerecorded messages transmitted by Gerritsen were so intense and vile they were reported to have reduced one of the younger participants to tears.

8. On September 15, 2004, using mobile direction finding techniques, an agent from the Los Angeles Office positively identified radio transmissions emanating from Gerritsen's residence as the source of radio signals monopolizing the input frequency of 147.690 MHz for the CARA repeater on 147.090/147.690 MHz. The agent heard Gerritsen transmit prerecorded messages, and also sounds, static, and tones, as the members of the Young Hams Net attempted to communicate. During Gerritsen's transmissions, which lasted for almost ten minutes, no other amateur operator was able to use the repeater.

9. On December 2, 2004, the Commission's Los Angeles Office issued a NAL in the amount of $21,000 to Gerritsen.[9] In the NAL issued by the Los Angeles Office, the Office found that Gerritsen apparently willfully, repeatedly, and maliciously caused interference to authorized users in the Amateur Radio Service on June 15, 2004, July 24, 2004 and September 15, 2004.[10] Gerritsen filed a response to the NAL on December 17, 2004 ("Response"). In his Response, Gerritsen "denies those activities alleged against [him] that if true would be illegal." Gerritsen argues that his amateur license has not been suspended, terminated, revoked, modified or set aside; that no record of his license set aside exists; that he did not engage in interference; that the actual motive behind the NAL is to silence his messages in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and that he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL.[11]

III. DISCUSSION

10. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,[12] Section 1.80 of the Rules,[13] and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.[14] In examining Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.[15]

11. Section 333 of the Act states that no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with, or cause interference to, any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government. The legislative history for Section 333 identifies willful and malicious interference as "intentional jamming, deliberate transmission on top of the transmissions of authorized users already using specific frequencies in order to obstruct their communications, repeated interruptions, and the use and transmission of whistles, tapes, records, or other types of noisemaking devices to interfere with the communications or radio signals of other stations."[16] One hallmark of willful and malicious interference in the amateur radio service is the refusal by an operator to allow any other operator to talk.[17] This can occur when an operator increases power so as to "capture" a repeater, to the exclusion of any other operators.[18] It can also occur when an operator transmits on an amateur frequency slightly different than another amateur frequency but at equal strength. This results in an audible tone, or whistle, with a frequency equal to the difference in the frequencies of the two competing signals. This tone is often referred to as "heterodyne" interference.[19]

12. We first address Gerritsen's argument that his amateur license was not set aside and that no record of the set aside exists. In fact, Gerritsen received an official notice from the Commission informing him that his license was set aside and that his application was returned to pending status.[20] He also received an official notice from the Commission when his pending application was dismissed.[21] The Commission received notice that Gerritsen received each piece of correspondence.[22] Consequently, we find this argument to be without merit.[23]

13. Next we address Gerritsen's arguments concerning the three instances of interference that he caused on June 15, 2004, July 24, 2004 and September 15, 2004. On June 15, 2004, Los Angeles agents, using direction finding techniques, located the source of a signal on 146.405 MHz, monopolizing the 146.405 MHz input frequency to the 146.435/146.405 repeater, to Gerritsen's residence. While Gerritsen argues that his location is too distant and too insignificant in power to prevent other operators from using the repeater, he acknowledges that he "may have keyed [his] transmitter continuously in a 'duplex' mode of operation that allows [him] to hear 'feed back' when [his] signal goes thru (sic) the repeater, so [he] can then pick up the microphone and utter a few words before being jammed by another operator . . . ." In other words, Gerritsen acknowledges his efforts to monopolize the 146.435/146.405 repeater.

14. On July 24, 2004, Los Angeles agents, using direction finding techniques, located the source of a signal on the 145.240/144.640 repeater to Gerritsen's residence. Because Gerritsen effectively captured the 145.240/144.640 repeater during that time, and because of his intentional jamming, no authorized amateur operator was able to use the repeater. Gerritsen makes no statement, and offers no evidence, to refute this allegation.[24]

15. On September 15, 2004, using mobile direction finding techniques, an agent from the Los Angeles Office determined that radio transmissions emanating from Gerritsen's residence captured the CARA repeater and transmitted on top of the Young Hams Net that was attempting to use the repeater at that time. In addition, Gerritsen apparently caused interference to occur, using the CARA repeater, and prohibited any communications to occur on the repeater at that time. Gerritsen argues that even if such interference took place, it is not evidence that other amateurs were unable to use the repeater because his signal was not the strongest signal reaching the CARA antenna. However, in describing the CARA repeater, Gerritsen also states that "the fact that my signal overrides or covers a signal out of a repeater, should be no cause for your NAL, as my signal often is a response to the fact that a repeater is turned on and becomes available for use . . . ." Gerritsen also states that he has increased by tenfold the power of the transmitter that he uses so that other operators can no longer override his signal.

16. In each of the three instances cited in the NAL, Los Angeles agents used direction finding equipment to locate the source of the interfering signal to Gerritsen's residence. In each instance, a Los Angeles agent monitored the signal being transmitted and heard the interference caused by Gerritsen. Gerritsen produced no evidence to refute the agents' findings.[25] He also described in detail his ability to cause the interference on the days cited in the NAL. Consequently, we find Gerritsen's arguments that he did not cause the interference described on the three days cited in the NAL to be without merit.[26]

17. We now consider Gerritsen's claim that the content of his communications and transmissions are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[27] The content of Gerritsen's transmissions are not at issue here, and, therefore, the forfeiture does not impair Gerritsen's First Amendment rights. As described above, willful and malicious interference includes intentional jamming, deliberate transmission on top of the transmissions of authorized users already using specific frequencies in order to obstruct their communications, repeated interruptions, and the use and transmission of whistles, tapes, records, or other types of noisemaking devices. Gerritsen's acts of transmitting obstructed the communications of licensed amateur operators by capturing the repeaters and monopolizing them, and by overriding and transmitting on top of the transmissions of the licensed operators. Gerritsen's actions violated Section 333 because his transmissions, regardless of their content, caused interference to licensed amateur operators.[28] Therefore, we find this argument to be without merit as well.

18. Finally, we address Gerritsen's claim that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. Specifically, Gerritsen states that he did not file any tax returns for the most recent three year period because his income was insufficient to require a tax return. We note that in the NAL, the Los Angeles Office instructed Gerritsen, if he sought cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, to supply:

(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted.[29]

Gerritsen submitted no documentation that reflects his current financial status. Therefore, he has provided us with no basis to support cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay.[30]

19. We have examined Gerritsen's Response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that Gerritsen willfully and repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Act. Considering the entire record and the factors listed above, we find that neither reduction or cancellation of the proposed $21,000 forfeiture is warranted

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES


20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Jack Gerritsen IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 333 of the Act.[31]

21. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.[32] Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment bycheck or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box358340,Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent toMellon Bank/LB358340,500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number043000261, receiving bankMellon Bank, and account number911- 6106. Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -- Financial Operations, Room 1A625, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.[33]

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Jack Gerritsen at his address of record.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Rebecca L. Dorch
Regional Director, Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I never really got into it, anyway; all you can do is talk to people. Come on, now; I don't talk to people very much in real life, so why would I go talk to random people on the radio? I guess it was kinda neat to talk to some guy hundreds of miles away over a repeater chain, though...

The irony of posting that on an internet forum...