Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#221
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote: Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement? The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that? That means that there is no international requirement (in your words, "has been dropped"). I agree exactly: "Until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required ...." How do you show compliance with a non-existent requirement? Please demonstrate your proof. |
#222
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, GM wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:50:19 GMT, D. Stussy wrote: I disagree to as what it says. I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists. You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing you can do will stop that. 1) I am not a troll, nor have I ever posted from easynews.com. I don't even have an account at easynews.com. 2) I have asked a legitimate question. 47 CFR 97.301(e) bases the HF operating privileges for the novice and technician license classes on a requirement that now no longer exists, but the FCC hasn't removed the requirement for those licensees to comply with the external requirement. How are these licensees to show compliance with a[n international] requirement that no longer exists? If they can't demonstrate compliance, then they don't have the privilege. Is that beyond your comprehension? These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months including but not limited to-- D. Stussy This top one is NOT a handle but my name. So what if it's an "ampr.org" address. It's one of the few that actually WORKS because I know what I'm doing. None of the rest are mine nor under my control. Most I've never even seen before. 666 Anon Anon Anus On Line Aunt Bea Barabbas BARF Big Al Bob Badblood Bubba Bojangles Claude Dave Allan David DimmyDimwitt Dobbie Don Souter Doug Martin eaxxyz3 Ed Norton Enrique Sanchez Erasmo Hernandez Firebottle Floppy Disk Fwankie Goodfellows Rule Goodie Two Shoes Groan! Guffaw!!! Harley1200 Henry Herb Ho Ho Howie Itell On4zzabc Itell OnU I Zorg Joe Partlan King Creole Lloyd Lloyd Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm Llyod mmmm L Rod Hubbard Mark Mansfield Miami Bob Momma Moron nookie Nutcase Bobby Onxyzzy Pabst Smear Pappy Pat Carter Patrick C PCarter Petey Arnett Poo Bear Q ywhere QRM Billy QRP Queenie Randy Thomas Rasheed Ray Dude Reactance Richard W Rob Roger Roger Ron \"Stompin\" James Sadiq Akhbar Sammie Adams Sammy Davis Sr. Savant Scammer SLee Stagger Lee Stu Parker The Moron List _ Timmie TwoShoes Trash Radio Troll Virgil Voila! What A HOOT!!! Wrong Way Zippo zzabc |
#223
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in . org: 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. You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it all the time. Please define "optional requirement." If it's optional, it's not a requirement. If it's required, it's not an option. 47 CFR 97.301(e) is defined in terms of a requirement. That requirement, having been turned into an option, no longer exists - but the appropriate licenseholders, in order to execute the privilege, still must demonstrate compliance with the non-existent requirement. How do they do this? If they can't, then they don't have the privilege. I say that demonstrating compliance with a non-existent requirement is an impossible act. 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. |
#224
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote: 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. Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's so difficult to get "good help nowadays"...... 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.... Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered complies with "international requirements". If each government has a choice, then it's not an "international requirement." A requirement means that there is no choice. The replacement S25.5 means that each country has a choice to impose a NATIONAL REQUIREMENT on its licenseholders (something they could have done anyway). How does that become an international requirement when some member country to the agreement can opt out? S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has met the requirement? That's impossible. 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. The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement". That statement focuses on "requirement," forgetting about "international." "Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule change, so the situation remains as is. Yes, there has. Treaties and international agreements supersede national laws. Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how the FCC works. Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly on this matter..... Perhaps so, but you will find that interpretation of rules and regulations was one of my strongest points when I worked for them. Thinking can be taxing! :-) |
#225
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Dick Carroll; wrote:
... You're surely aware of the fact that an existing law/rule/regulation is effective during any period of time required to change or othewise update it to comply with prevailing changes which effect its meaning. Any scheme othewise would invite the very sort of chaos these people are planning. Does the FCC see it thusly? You can bet on it. 1) That does not give them an unlimited amount of time to act on the change. 2) That does not justify applicability of the dependent regulation beyond the time of the change of regulation it depends on. It becomes a regulation that cannot be relied upon as authority (after the date of the underlying change). 3) That implies that the regulation supersedes international agreements and treaties. Actually, treaties and international agreements supersede the laws of the countries party to the agreement or treaty. |
#226
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Hugo" wrote in : Alun Palmer wrote in message ... "Landshark" . wrote in .com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark Why are you blaming me for this? The original thread was crossposted. Blame the person who started it all. You should note that where I have noted an inapproprate group, I have killed the cross-posting in my responses. I don't always note that, nor do I really care. I'm not a mind reader of the originator of any thread, myself excluded. |
#227
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Phil Kane" wrote:
in it?" Toscanini replied: "let me see the old score". He looked at it and said: "there's nothing wrong with this one except that you need to add another cut -here- and make a change -there-". (With thanks to the late Meredeth Willson as told in his book "And There I Stood With My Piccolo") There's nothing wrong with the language of the USC or CFR if (1) one has a good command of American English and (2) one has a good command of law and (3) one understands what the statute/regulation was intended for in the first place. The same thing is true of the writings of any technical profession. I have always felt that an understanding of FCC regulations is as important to ham radio as an understanding of the technology being used by the ham. Isn't it ironic that here we have a thread asking why law isn't done in "plain English", while we also have other threads going where several people are twisting the meaning of a regulation into a pretzel that only a lawyer could appreciate. With apologies to Toscanini, "there's nothing wrong with this one except that you need to add another" comment about item 2 "and make a" further comment about item 3. Item (2) includes finding out what the courts have said the language means. Dictionary meanings, what the neighbor means, or what we read on Usenet are all wonderful, but useless if a court has already decided what it really means. Item (3) seems to be what everyone is missing in the threads about whether a now optional requirement exists, because the *question* is not whether, with the mind set of a twelve year old, one can distort the language to get what one wants, but simply a matter of what the regulation was *intended* to do. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#229
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: "Don't bother - they're here...." Straight from "Send in the Clowns". And as usual you're right on target. Yep, DICK is here. Bruce is here. Dan is here... All the usual suspects. |
#230
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it." Keith Case dismissed, with prejudice. He's just another idiot, and a code test didn't keep him or you out of ham radio, and is unnecessary (indeed ineffective) as a filter. Ah, yes. The "Code as a Filter" myth. I think that was #19 on the Aaron Jones Morse Myths list. bb "Code gets thru when everything else will." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Boatanchors | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy |