On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs
have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is.

Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF privileges
effective July 5, 2003.

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs
have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is.

Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF privileges
effective July 5, 2003.

False ... please stop preaching this nonsense.

Carl - wk3c

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
...
Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to
avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally
or
otherwise.

AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that
"wierd"
thing I
said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the
"sunset."

It is NOT a sunset clause ... NCI specifically asked for a sunset clause
so code testing would "automagically" go away when S25.5 was suppressed
or changed so that code testing was no longer required by the ITU Radio
Regs.

The FCC SPECIFICALLY declined to enact such a sunset clause, and the
text of 301 does NOT contain one, no matter how you try to twist it.

That is true - the FCC didn't enact a sunset clause to eliminate code
testing
for HF as NCI requested. I never said that's what they did.

The FCC DID enact a sunset clause that TERMINATES HF operation by licenses
of
lesser privilege than General class. That's what I've been saying that
they
did.

THEY DID NO SUCH THING. You are WRONG and your continued
repetition of incorrect information is not doing anyone a service.

Again (and again ... you people must not be able to read, only write)
....
the FCC *DOES* have records of which Techs have 5 wpm credit and
which don't ... this idea that "there are no records, so you can get
away
with it is 1) false, and 2) borders on inducement to violate the rules.

[Count your levels of quotation; you attribute this to me but I didn't say
it.]

Sorry ... but my responses are still correct.

Carl - wk3c

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
...
Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to
avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally
or
otherwise.

AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that
"wierd"
thing I
said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the
"sunset."

It is NOT a sunset clause ... NCI specifically asked for a sunset clause
so code testing would "automagically" go away when S25.5 was suppressed
or changed so that code testing was no longer required by the ITU Radio
Regs.

The FCC SPECIFICALLY declined to enact such a sunset clause, and the
text of 301 does NOT contain one, no matter how you try to twist it.

That is true - the FCC didn't enact a sunset clause to eliminate code
testing
for HF as NCI requested. I never said that's what they did.

The FCC DID enact a sunset clause that TERMINATES HF operation by licenses
of
lesser privilege than General class. That's what I've been saying that
they
did.

THEY DID NO SUCH THING. You are WRONG and your continued
repetition of incorrect information is not doing anyone a service.

Then explain why .301(e) based HF operating privilege on something OTHER than
simply holding element 1 credit....

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs
have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is.

Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF
privileges
effective July 5, 2003.

False ... please stop preaching this nonsense.

If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR
97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international
requirement
that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that
subsection?

I am not going to waste any more time arguing this ridiculous assertion of
yours ... it is false ... and other knowledgeable folks have told you so as
well.

I am inclined to think that you're just trolling for attention, and I don't
plan
to give you the satisfaction any more.

Carl - wk3c

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:06:38 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Then explain why .301(e) based HF operating privilege on something OTHER than
simply holding element 1 credit....

Because it was written very sloppily.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"D. Stussy" wrote


If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR
97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international requirement
that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that
subsection?


Oh, this is so easy it almost makes me feel guilty ruining your lame
rant.

The "international requirement" is that each country decides whether
their licensees need Morse testing to operate on HF.

For right now, the FCC has decided that they do, and continues to
grant Novices and "Tech Plus" certain HF operating spectrum.

Sunuvagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB
--
"Reality doesn't care what you think." -- K0HB

Phil,

I posted a similar message once before.

Maybe you ignored me, maybe you never saw it ...

I would like to communicate with you via e-mail.
Please e-mail me a real e-mail address where I can
reach you.

Thanks and 73,
Carl - wk3c

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:06:38 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Then explain why .301(e) based HF operating privilege on something OTHER
than
simply holding element 1 credit....

Because it was written very sloppily.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs
have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is.

Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF
privileges
effective July 5, 2003.

False ... please stop preaching this nonsense.

If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR
97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international
requirement
that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that
subsection?

I am not going to waste any more time arguing this ridiculous assertion of
yours ... it is false ... and other knowledgeable folks have told you so as
well.

No, they haven't. They all confused my position with that of someone else that
advocated that no-code technicians do have HF privileges. No one responded to
my position.

I am inclined to think that you're just trolling for attention, and I don't
plan
to give you the satisfaction any more.

I have asked a legitimate question. How can one prove compliance with a
non-existent condition? If you think that's nonsense, that VALIDATES my point.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, K0HB wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote
If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR
97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international requirement
that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that
subsection?


Oh, this is so easy it almost makes me feel guilty ruining your lame
rant.

The "international requirement" is that each country decides whether
their licensees need Morse testing to operate on HF.

By definition, if one has a choice, then it's NOT a requirement. If each
country is free to choose, then it's a NATIONAL CHOICE, not an international
requirement. Your response is non-sequitur.

My point: The international requirement was removed. However, FCC regulations
still require it. Since one CANNOT comply with a non-existent requirement,
then the privilege previously granted has likewise been removed.

If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the
logic.

For right now, the FCC has decided that they do, and continues to
grant Novices and "Tech Plus" certain HF operating spectrum.

And the ruling number is?