On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote:
It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC
regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000
changes.

Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule
and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's
so difficult to get "good help nowadays"......

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders
to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this
if the international requirement doesn't exist....

Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a
code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration
MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the
Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered
complies with "international requirements".

If each government has a choice, then it's not an "international requirement."
A requirement means that there is no choice. The replacement S25.5 means that
each country has a choice to impose a NATIONAL REQUIREMENT on its
licenseholders (something they could have done anyway). How does that become
an international requirement when some member country to the agreement can opt
out?

S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has
met the requirement? That's impossible.

Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it
is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means
that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES.

The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the
decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This
isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement".

That statement focuses on "requirement," forgetting about "international."

"Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set
by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an
entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a
temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule
change, so the situation remains as is.

Yes, there has. Treaties and international agreements supersede national laws.

Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how
the FCC works.

Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly
on this matter.....

Perhaps so, but you will find that interpretation of rules and regulations was
one of my strongest points when I worked for them. Thinking can be taxing! :-)