Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#191
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#192
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#193
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#194
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#196
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#197
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#198
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#199
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#200
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|