Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#181
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:16:05 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: See?! I knew the argument would get very interesting! I wonder if it will ever get debated in a court of law...man that would be good! Nah...this will be short-circuited by the FCC changing the Rules long before it could ever be brought to trial, and any competent regulatory attorney in or out of the government service knows just how to thusly delay such things. But until the FCC acts to remove such a reference, that doesn't mean that it's not operative in the meantime. How does one comply with a requirement that doesn't exist? |
#182
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
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. But if it's an OPTION for each country, it's NOT an international REQUIREMENT. Words have definitions. These terms are self-evident. How does one show compliance with a REQUIREMENT that does not exist? |
#183
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in .net: On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote: OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing each part carefully. OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency table: (e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class This is self-explanatory. and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the international requirements". Agreed Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1. Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration. That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely by the revision of S25.5. So far, so good Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That's not what 301(e) says, though, is it? The problem I have in your analysis is that 301(e) itself is one of the rules concerning element 1. It mentions Element 1 per se nowhere, but there is no other rule tying Technician HF privileges to Element 1. This last statement of yours is indisputable re the General and Extra, in that Element 1 is still required to obtain those licences. However, there is nowhere in Part 97 any statement that a Technician needs Element 1 for anything, instead there is only the wording in 97.301(e). The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they -are- changed. Agreed Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license but have never passed the code test. Does that answer your question? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Not really. The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements". If there is no international requirement to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they operate on those frequencies. Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance with the international requirements"? I've taken exactly the opposite approach: IF there is no international requirement (it's now OPTIONAL), then how can one show compliance with a requirement that itself no longer exists? My answer is that one CANNOT be in compliance with a non-existant requirement, and thus HF privileges defined in ..301(e) have been STRIPPED effective July 5, 2003 from those who previously held them, not granted to those who didn't have them. Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so in respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other rule. If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating that the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular purpose. Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES. To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in accordance with international requirements" is a necessary condition in the sentence. If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF frequencies*, and if not, then they will have to wait. This is really what I am seeking comment on, although all other observations are welcome. What novice HF bands? Novice licenseholders are likewise affected despite the fact that their licenses DO include element 1 credit, because that credit has no bearing on the ability to use those bands. If element 1 were an important fact, then 47 CFR 97.301(e) would have been written that way instead of making reference to the "international requirement" [that no longer exists.] *(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty) Ratification won't make a difference here. Rejection of the treaty might! |
#184
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in : "Keith" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble. The FCC rules are based on that international requirement. Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency requirements a tech can operate on HF. Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code. And before July, there was no specific "code speed" international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm even though the ITU had no speed minimum. Cheers, Bill K2UNK The rule includes the words "has received credit", which gives the FCC control over what speed they will give credit for. Receive credit for what? A requirement that no longer exists? How does one demonstrate compliance with a non-existent requirement? |
#185
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. Which means that NO ONE can be compliant with meeting the now non-existent regulation, and therefore, no technician or novice licensee has any operating privilege below 30MHz. |
#186
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:23 -0400, "Bill Sohl" wrote: Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse c= ode. Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself. Exactly and 97.301(e) depends on the international proficiency requireme= nts laid out in s25.5. Now that there are no longer any proficiency requireme= nts in s25.5 then 97.301(e) is affected. 25.5 Any person seeking a license to operate the apparatus of an amateur station shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to rece= ive correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals. The administrations concer= ned may, however, waive this requirement in the case of stations making use exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz. New Text of Article 25.5 (effective July 05, 2003) 25.5 =A73 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seek= ing a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to se= nd and receive texts in Morse code signals. s97.301(e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements. The US government has no standards for a technician to know morse code. = To receive a certificate yes, but the only reason a tech could not transmit = on HF was because of 97.301(e). Now that no code technicians have no requiremen= t in international law to know code they should be allowed to transmit on thei= r allocated frequency. That doesn't mean they can hop on 20 meters, it mean= s they can operate voice/data/cw 28.1-28.5 or even CW on 80, 40 and 15 meters. Wrong. What it means is that there is a requirement in the FCC regulation = that NO LICENSEE CAN MEET. The international change does not mean that no-code technicians can use tho= se HF frequency ranges. It does mean that coded-technicians and novices can N= O LONGER use them - because none of them can show compliance with a requireme= nt that no longer exists. The reason that 97.301(e) was written that way is because the government expected s25.5 to be just deleted and techs could then operate HF. The AR= RL with their fancy footwork is trying to stop the removal of morse code as = a requirement for a HF license. It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000 changes. But don't worry it looks like BPL is going to destroy the bands anyway a= nd you morse code nuts can keep your death grip on those keyers. The ARRL has do= ne nothing but help put ham radio in it's grave. |
#187
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane" wrote: Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF. I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says. I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set down in 97.301(e). I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have no such privilege. It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules. What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and day. |
#188
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the writer above is totally wrong. The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if they upgrade to general or extra. Not totally correct. The FCC doesn't have information on techs who passed element 1 after April 15, 2000. However, what does having passed element 1 for technicians have to do with the ..301(e) privileges? I see no such requirement. |
#189
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Spamhater wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote: It does not mean that the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has changed yet. Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code proficiency is GONE. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws. You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's standards to the letter. The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either. Note: If anyone has a CHOICE, then it's not a REQUIREMENT. A requirement, by definition, means that there is no choice.... |
#190
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark -- Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls. http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|