Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#282
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#283
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#284
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.... |
#285
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#286
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#287
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#288
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#289
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#290
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|