Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in :



Alun Palmer wrote:


You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements _"



You are taking what is an aside, and basing your whole argument
on it.
Won't work.

This argument doesn't work on enough levels that it is surprising
that
anyone would use it.

1. My first remark about the very secondary nature of the "in
accordance with....."



That is the strongest argument against it, i.e. is it a condition? It
may not be, but this is the first post to attack that point


2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall
determine whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an
amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive
texts in Morse code signals."

Do you agree that this is the reworded article 25.5?



Yes


The administration has determined that the persons seeking a
license must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test.


Not so fast. Where does it say that in respect of the Novice
frequencies?


Until it changes it's requirements, it will continue.


3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with.



Who said there was? Maybe D Stussy, but his line of argument is truly
wierd

Yeah, reading his argument makes me dizzy.


4. Morse code testing is not abolished. Individual administrations now
make that call- to test, or not to test.



Yes, but have they actually made it in respect of those particular
frequencies? I'm not sure that they have.


Since many contries have individual bending of the rules, (US
technician, Japanese Low power HF as examples, there is already
evidence of some modification of the rules. This of course complicaes
matters.

So we are left with starting from the premise that we or whatever
country is in initial compliance. That initial compliance is dated from
the day before the rule change.

This to me says that the present state is in compliance, even
though
the requirement for the Morse test has been modified.

I certainly understand your argument.

Yes, I beleive you do now. I think we are at least 'on the same page'.

But when situations like
this
crop up, and one rule interferes with another, those who would be
called on to make a ruling have to make it with the concept of the
spirit of the rule, plus they have to make rulings that do not throw
the institution into chaos.



Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or
otherwise.

I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no-
coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be
detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually
no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it
permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem
go away!



Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.


No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra


- Mike KB3EIA -


73 de Alun, N3KIP