On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "D. Stussy"
writes:
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.)
Gawd I dunno where they come from . . The modification of S25.5 has
allowed the national GOVERNMENTS to take options, it does NOT empower
the CITIZENS of the various countries to take any options. The U.S.
government has NOT yet stated what options it will take therefore the
rules we have been living under have NOT changed one bit and will NOT
change until THE U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SEZ SO.
Exactly: Each country has the OPTION. That means that it is NOT AN
INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT (but may continue to be a national one). However, 47
CFR 97.301(e) is written in terms of an international requirement that now no
longer exists.
It doesn't matter whether or not the U.S. Government chooses to take or ignore
the option. The operating privilege in .301(e) isn't based on the national
choice - it's based on the existence of an international requirement which no
longer exists.
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.
Amazing.
Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .
If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for the
"international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously, you will
have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the acceptability of the
proof....