Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#291
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
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. That's right. And as it is phrased, it is dependent on the licensee meeting a condition which he cannot meet (because it no longer exists). Therefore, if one of the requisite conditions for operating cannot be met (due to the July 5 2003 change), how can any Novice or Tech licensee now operate on HF? I have said that they can't, as a result dependent on the change to the international agreement.... |
#292
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() K0HB wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the logic. Logic? All I see is a troll. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB Stussy doesn't apply logic, he has been spouting the same stuff over and over. He just can't seem to except the fact that until the FCC drops the code requirement, if it does, that nothing has changed as far as U.S. Amateur radio. |
#293
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"D. Stussy" wrote in message .org...
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. We are a nation of laws, and those laws must be enacted or changed in a democratic process, this one included. The international rule was changed from "you will" to "you may", therefore the legal premise for the continuation of code testing until the US law has been changed IS valid. 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? See Part 97. The same rules that were in effect on July 4th still apply today. Steve, K4YZ |
#294
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Stussy blabbered again: 3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges. That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code. YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. What I said is that coded Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the international change. Have you seen any directive from the FCC that says that coded Novices and Technicians can no longer operate HF? Everything is the same as it was before the conference. Get used to it. When you deserve the title Mr. I will address you as Mr. |
#295
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... 3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges. That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code. YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. Accepted ... I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time ... What I said is that coded Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT based on holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on an international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no way under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with the non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED. Mr. Stussy, Please read VERY SLOWLY: The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed. It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..." In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory. Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any class of amateur license requires a Morse test. Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation. Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed, and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges. The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO difference. I respectfully hope you get it this time ... Carl - wk3c Don't count on it, it just doesn't seem to take with Stussy. |
#296
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"D. Stussy" wrote
If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the logic. Logic? All I see is a troll. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
#297
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, K0HB wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the logic. Logic? All I see is a troll. Then you need your eyes checked.... |
#298
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, JJ wrote:
K0HB wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the logic. Logic? All I see is a troll. Stussy doesn't apply logic, he has been spouting the same stuff over and over. He just can't seem to except the fact that until the FCC drops the code requirement, if it does, that nothing has changed as far as U.S. Amateur radio. 1) Try addressing me PROPERLY; i.e. a surname is normally prefixed by Mr. 2) I agree that the FCC hasn't changed anything, but they didn't have to. They made their regulation dependent on a regulation outside of their control, and when that outside regulation was changed, the change to the U.S. rules was AUTOMATIC on account of the dependency. The change that was made propagated down; no explicit change to U.S. law was even needed. 3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges. That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code. YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. What I said is that coded Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT based on holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on an international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no way under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with the non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED. |
#299
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... 3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges. That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code. YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. Accepted ... I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time .... What I said is that coded Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT based on holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on an international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no way under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with the non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED. Mr. Stussy, Please read VERY SLOWLY: The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed. It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..." In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory. Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any class of amateur license requires a Morse test. Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation. Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed, and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges. The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO difference. I respectfully hope you get it this time ... Carl - wk3c |
#300
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... 3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges. That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code. YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. Accepted ... I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time ... What I said is that coded Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT based on holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on an international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no way under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with the non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED. Mr. Stussy, Please read VERY SLOWLY: The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed. I disagree. The SECTION that formerly defined an international requirement was changed. The new text defines NO requirement that is imposed on the countries that are party to the agreement. It indicates that each country is free to choose whether or not they want to have a NATIONALLY imposed requirement. What you don't seem to understand is that by giving each country a choice to impose something on their licensees (and ONLY THEIR licensees), the section is no longer an "international requirement" by definition - because countries can opt out - and thus it's not required of them. Where countries CHOOSE to impose the restriction, it's not "international" (but national) in nature. The international requirement HAS disappeared. It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..." In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory. Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any class of amateur license requires a Morse test. That is NOT an obligation on the licensees, but on the licensor. The requirement that 47 CFR 97.301(e) refers to is a licensee obligation (as well as on the licensor). Since the licensor in this case is the FCC, a U.S. Government agency, should they CHOOSE (i.e. it's not a requirement that they impose it) to impose a requirement, it's a NATIONAL requirement, not an international one. Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation. Not relevant. Licensees aren't required to show compliance to anything other than the "international requirement" which was eliminated. What the FCC has determined is not the requirement stated for access per .301(e). Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed, and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges. I haven't said that any of their rules are illegal. I disagree that nothing has changed: The FCC might not have changed any of their rules, but the rule that one of their rules is dependent on HAS CHANGED, and that change flows through, whether good or bad, sensical or not, etc.... It doesn't matter that the FCC didn't change a thing; the rule still changed due to the external reference changing. The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO difference. I fully agree with this last statement. I respectfully hope you get it this time ... Get what? Now, if every country were required to choose that they must have a morse code testing requirement of their licensees, that would be an "international requirement" because there really isn't any choice or discretion. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|