On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote:
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.

There may no longer be an international requirement for Morse code
proficiency, but there still is an FCC requirement for Morse code
proficiency, and until the FCC drops that requirement, NOTHING HAS
CHANGED concerning U.S. Amateur Radio.

And this "FCC morse code proficiency" requirement is stated in 47 CFR 97.301(e)
where?

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?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:
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.

Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit for
proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each country
shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has
decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse assessment"
of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm.

I say that you're both wrong. If there is no international requirement, then
there is no way to demonstrate compliance with it. If you think I'm wrong,
please identify acceptable proof of compliance. (Not needing any proof means
that there is no requirement, and that's a contradiction of the FCC regulation
itself.)

What WRC-03 did is change the requirement into an option. Since it's not a
requirement anymore, there's no measureability of compliance, so how can one be
compliant?

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"?

Nope.

I go further: One may also assume that a Technician or Novice that does have
proficiency has no right to operate there - because said proficiency is
"measured" in terms of a now non-existent requirement.

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.

Poor verbiage, that's all.

Very poor. If the FCC wanted to do this in a way that didn't depend on an
outside body of law, they could have chosen language to indicate dependence on
"element 1 credit" and avoid the entire problem.

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.

Except that's not what it means.

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.

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I
don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always
treated it as a poor relation.

I fully agree with that. Now that the international requirement has been
killed (and replaced with an option), HF privileges for technicians (and
novices) have also died. I interpret this as meaning that ANY type of
technician is equal to the "no-code" technician (except those pre-87's who have
the credit in hand for a general class license but haven't applied yet), and
that novices only have the 222Mhz and 23cm bands for operating.

What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C,
K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question their
motivation and qualification.

You should see all the defective and less than perfect regulations in the tax
code. That's my "home turf."

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

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.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

You did fine up to here. I fully agree.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

If a government can choose NOT to require something, then it is not an
international requirement but an option. The FCC regulation is dependent on an
international requirement that no longer exists, so how can anyone show
compliance with it?

They can't. What this was was a way for the FCC to get rid of the "technician"
HF privileges and make the novice license so useless that the latter will
either upgrade or die. They dont' have to worry about the "tech plus" class
anymore - there isn't one! 47 CFR 97.21(e) [or whatever it is] that designates
renewals of technician plus licensees as technician demonstrates the FCC's real
intent on this issue.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

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.

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Don't look now, but it would seem to me that all of the above have quite
a LOT do do with people. However, then again, as I've always suspected,
you're probably writing from another planet.

For 14 years now a lot of folks have known that you were from K-Pax.

LHA














I really doubt that anyone in here attends motion pictures released later
than 20 years ago. They won't know what I referred to. No problem...so
few can be expected to have any sense of humor or knowledge of the
modern world or entertainment beyond Archie comic strips.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:

Phil,

So how's retirement going

What "retirement"?

I have less "sitting around" time now than when I was working full
time. I work out at the gym three times a week which I never could
when I had a "real job" (tm). Ditto for hamming.

Pro bono legal and engineering consulting is more fun than I thought
it would be.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Well, now see? I can understand that. BUT, I am not
sure that someone *using* the handicapped as an excuse
is something that we should all applaud--*if* that is
what Keith is doing. Maybe he really *does* know
someone he's taking up for. But, I haven't heard him
mention anyone.


Since I'm still having problems reading your messages, I'll end with these
comments. Those who cheat when it comes to the ADA are causing problems for
the truly disabled. The general stereotype is that everyone claiming a
disability is faking it. My wife was recently hurt while working for the
military and now has a disability (her body is 30 percent disabled). Even
though her disability is very real, many people immediately assume she is
faking it because the injuries are not outwardly visible (no wheelchair).

As a result, my wife has to constantly deal with an impression she
cheating some insurance company out of money using a fake disability. In
reality, the military and VA decided she was disabled, and assigned the
percentage of disability, based on their own x-rays, surgeries, and
follow-up treatment. The VA is now sending her to college for vocational
rehabilitation and she gets a small disability check each month ($510).

Trust me when I say she would gladly give all that back in trade for no
disability to live with for the rest of her life and no pain at night from
each day's activities.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Phil Kane" wrote:

That's called an "Administration" in ITU-speak.


Phil, why can't lawyers like yourself use everyday, plain, English?
Reading the Code of Federal Regulations or US Code (or whatever) is like
reading something written in another language. I think it's a conspiracy to
confuse everyone else in an effort to insure work for lawyers.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) Nowhere in the Constitution of the United
States is there any mention of radio, morse code,
the United Nations, nor the Federal Communications
Commission. [that includes Amendments which were
ratified by the states much later than the original
Constitution acceptance-ratification. (snip)


Len, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you as you try to twist what
I've said. The Constitution gives Congress the power to ratify international
treaties. That ratification process you want explained has be established
for over two hundred years and can easily be researched yourself if you
really want to know something about it. The United States is not, and has
never been, automatically subject to any treaty change by either the UN or
ITU. Any change in a treaty requires action by our government before it
becomes the law of this land. When it comes to code testing, our government
will have to take steps before any change takes place in this country. Until
you offer something which disputes any of this, nothing further needs to be
said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , "D. Stussy"
writes:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:
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.

Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit
for
proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each
country
shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has
decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse
assessment"
of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm.

I say that you're both wrong.

Well, there you have it.

If there is no international requirement, then
there is no way to demonstrate compliance with it.

That's an "if-then" statement. There IS an international requirement, though.

If you think I'm wrong,
please identify acceptable proof of compliance. (Not needing any proof means
that there is no requirement, and that's a contradiction of the FCC
regulation itself.)

Not at all. S25.5 still exists, it's just been modified. It says now that each
country shall decide.

What WRC-03 did is change the requirement into an option.

No. It simply allows each country to set its own requirements. Right now the
USA sets the requirement at 5 wpm.

Since it's not a
requirement anymore, there's no measureability of compliance, so how can one
be compliant?

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"?

Nope.

I go further: One may also assume that a Technician or Novice that does have
proficiency has no right to operate there - because said proficiency is
"measured" in terms of a now non-existent requirement.

False circular logic.

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.

Poor verbiage, that's all.

Very poor. If the FCC wanted to do this in a way that didn't depend on an
outside body of law, they could have chosen language to indicate dependence
on "element 1 credit" and avoid the entire problem.

Maybe. I think FCC wanted to avoid mentioning Element 1 so they wouldn't give
the impression that you could get a new Novice or Tech Plus.

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.

Except that's not what it means.

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.

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I
don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always
treated it as a poor relation.

I fully agree with that. Now that the international requirement has been
killed (and replaced with an option), HF privileges for technicians (and
novices) have also died. I interpret this as meaning that ANY type of
technician is equal to the "no-code" technician (except those pre-87's who
have
the credit in hand for a general class license but haven't applied yet), and
that novices only have the 222Mhz and 23cm bands for operating.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.

What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C,
K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question
their motivation and qualification.

You should see all the defective and less than perfect regulations in the tax
code. That's my "home turf."

And these regs are K2ASP's "home turf". Do you think W3KC or K2UNK haven't been
over that bit of Part 97 a few times?

73 de Jim, N2EY