On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency
table:

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class

This is self-explanatory.

and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in
accordance with the international requirements.

The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the
international requirements".

Agreed


Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration
was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a
license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done
by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1.

Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to
determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration.

That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each
Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether
to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for
each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code
testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely
by the revision of S25.5.


So far, so good

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.


That's not what 301(e) says, though, is it?

The problem I have in your analysis is that 301(e) itself is one of the
rules concerning element 1. It mentions Element 1 per se nowhere, but
there is no other rule tying Technician HF privileges to Element 1.

This last statement of yours is indisputable re the General and Extra, in
that Element 1 is still required to obtain those licences. However, there
is nowhere in Part 97 any statement that a Technician needs Element 1 for
anything, instead there is only the wording in 97.301(e).

The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a
separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they
-are- changed.

Agreed

Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of
giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license
but have never passed the code test.

Does that answer your question?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon




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.

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"?

I've taken exactly the opposite approach: IF there is no international
requirement (it's now OPTIONAL), then how can one show compliance with a
requirement that itself no longer exists? My answer is that one CANNOT be in
compliance with a non-existant requirement, and thus HF privileges defined in
..301(e) have been STRIPPED effective July 5, 2003 from those who previously
held them, not granted to those who didn't have them.

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.
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.

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.

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.

What novice HF bands? Novice licenseholders are likewise affected despite the
fact that their licenses DO include element 1 credit, because that credit has
no bearing on the ability to use those bands. If element 1 were an important
fact, then 47 CFR 97.301(e) would have been written that way instead of making
reference to the "international requirement" [that no longer exists.]

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

Ratification won't make a difference here. Rejection of the treaty might!

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

The FCC rules are based on that international requirement.
Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on
HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency
requirements a tech can operate on HF.

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse
code.

And before July, there was no specific "code speed"
international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who
could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm
even though the ITU had no speed minimum.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

The rule includes the words "has received credit", which gives the FCC
control over what speed they will give credit for.

Receive credit for what? A requirement that no longer exists?

How does one demonstrate compliance with a non-existent requirement?

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:
It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that
want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a
microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International
requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code
proficiency is GONE.

Which means that NO ONE can be compliant with meeting the now non-existent
regulation, and therefore, no technician or novice licensee has any operating
privilege below 30MHz.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:14:23 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse c=
ode.

Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself.

Exactly and 97.301(e) depends on the international proficiency requireme=
nts
laid out in s25.5. Now that there are no longer any proficiency requireme=
nts in
s25.5 then 97.301(e) is affected.


25.5 Any person seeking a license to operate the apparatus of an amateur
station shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to rece=
ive
correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals. The administrations concer=
ned
may, however, waive this requirement in the case of stations making use
exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz.

New Text of Article 25.5 (effective July 05, 2003)

25.5 =A73 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seek=
ing a
licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to se=
nd and
receive texts in Morse code signals.

s97.301(e)

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.

The US government has no standards for a technician to know morse code. =
To
receive a certificate yes, but the only reason a tech could not transmit =
on HF
was because of 97.301(e). Now that no code technicians have no requiremen=
t in
international law to know code they should be allowed to transmit on thei=
r
allocated frequency. That doesn't mean they can hop on 20 meters, it mean=
s they
can operate voice/data/cw 28.1-28.5 or even CW on 80, 40 and 15 meters.

Wrong. What it means is that there is a requirement in the FCC regulation =
that
NO LICENSEE CAN MEET.

The international change does not mean that no-code technicians can use tho=
se
HF frequency ranges. It does mean that coded-technicians and novices can N=
O
LONGER use them - because none of them can show compliance with a requireme=
nt
that no longer exists.

The reason that 97.301(e) was written that way is because the government
expected s25.5 to be just deleted and techs could then operate HF. The AR=
RL
with their fancy footwork is trying to stop the removal of morse code as =
a
requirement for a HF license.

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.

But don't worry it looks like BPL is going to destroy the bands anyway a=
nd you
morse code nuts can keep your death grip on those keyers. The ARRL has do=
ne
nothing but help put ham radio in it's grave.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess
element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards
set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF.

I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says.

I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF
privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show
compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a
non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege.

The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the
s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was
changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set
down in 97.301(e).

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.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate
compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one
of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have
no such privilege.

It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on
HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules.

What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and
day.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:47:46 GMT, "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
And YES, the FCC *does* have records of which Techs have HF privs, so the
writer above is totally wrong.

The FCC does not have information on techs who pass element 1. PERIOD. Only if
they upgrade to general or extra.

Not totally correct. The FCC doesn't have information on techs who passed
element 1 after April 15, 2000.

However, what does having passed element 1 for technicians have to do with the
..301(e) privileges? I see no such requirement.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Spamhater wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:

It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons
that
want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a
microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International
requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code
proficiency is GONE.

--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

BUT UNTIL THE AMERICAN LAWS are rewritten, changed, updated (pick your
term), the CW requirement STILL exists in our Radio Laws.
You can NOT sidestep laws that exist. A law may be come effective in one
sense but when it affects so many countries, it takes time in the
administrative governments to trickle down. As I understand it, there are
yet, a few countries who will refuse to abide by the International Treaty's
standards to the letter.
The International Union decided to drop CW as a requirement, that does NOT
mean WE have to. IF the other countries are not so willing to go with it
either, then perhaps the FCC won't be so quick to jump either.

Note: If anyone has a CHOICE, then it's not a REQUIREMENT. A requirement, by
definition, means that there is no choice....

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark


--
Try these to learn about newsgroup trolls.

http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

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?

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?