"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

s97.301(e) reads:

For a station having a control operator who has
been granted an operator license of Novice Class
or Technician Class and who has received credit
for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with
the international requirements.

(followed by frequency table)

The 'international requirements' (ITU-R s25.5)
now read: (snip)


The "international requirements" have to ratified, and FCC rules
changed,
before any content of those "international requirements" become the law
of this land. Until that happens, your license is dependant on existing
FCC rules and regulations. The courts will enforce those existing
regulations, not some possible future change in them.

Further, the changes in the "international requirements" do not
eliminate
code testing - it simply leaves it up to individual governments to keep
or end testing. If the US decides not to end testing, there will be no
change in our laws for the courts to even consider in your defense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


To be fair though, I am playing devil's advocate to some extent. I don't
want to get Techs in trouble. What I'm saying is that there is now at
least an arguable interpretation of the _existing_ regulations that would
allow no-code Techs on the Novice bands now.

The key words in FCC s.97.301(e) are "Technician Class and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". The current wording of ITU s25.5 (supra) does
not _require_ anyone to pass a code test unless the administration says
so, ergo it is _not_ a _requirement_ , international or otherwise.

The FCC rule does not stop after "has received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy". If it did it would be unambiguous. If we give any weight to
the next part of the sentence "in accordance with the international
requirements", we are forced to take into account the fact that the
international regulations do not require "proficiency in telegraphy' any
longer, as of July 5th inst. If this means anything, it ought to mean that
since there is no longer an international requirement for proficiency in
telegraphy, then the rule should be interpreted to apply simply to
"Technician Class" operators without further qualification.

OTOH, relying on this argument is risky!


Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the argument
you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting to
see presented and debated in a court of law...

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the argument
you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting to
see presented and debated in a court of law...

Personally I *encourage* all those who think that they now have HF
privileges to hop on and start using what they think they have..

Let enough people know, and we (or you yourselves, since you're so sure)
can make recordings of your activity, then ship 'em off to Riley and get
his interpretation of the matter!

Have the courage of your convictions folks?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the
argument
you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting
to
see presented and debated in a court of law...

Personally I *encourage* all those who think that they now have HF
privileges to hop on and start using what they think they have..

Let enough people know, and we (or you yourselves, since you're so sure)
can make recordings of your activity, then ship 'em off to Riley and get
his interpretation of the matter!

Have the courage of your convictions folks?

- Mike KB3EIA -


heh heh. I doubt it, Mike--but they'd be the ones to test the whole debate,
eh?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Risky, yes, but only because one would not wish to be the acid test for
whether the argument would work or not in a court of law. But the

argument

you present above is very interesting and I'd find it very interesting

to

see presented and debated in a court of law...

Personally I *encourage* all those who think that they now have HF
privileges to hop on and start using what they think they have..

Let enough people know, and we (or you yourselves, since you're so sure)
can make recordings of your activity, then ship 'em off to Riley and get
his interpretation of the matter!

Have the courage of your convictions folks?

- Mike KB3EIA -



heh heh. I doubt it, Mike--but they'd be the ones to test the whole debate,
eh?

I wish they would test the system so much! There is so much more to
"rules" han just a verbatim translation. There is intent, and spirit.
Since there is always someone who likes to put a spin on the rules, ther
has to be constant interpretation of the same.

- Mike KB3EIA -