On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote:

That is what I'm talking about. There is no longer a international
requirement for morse code so tech's can pick up the microphone and
talk on 10 meters. Here in America the FCC has to issue a warning
notice, then a violation notice and the person cited can then simply
demand a hearing before a administrative law judge. The ALJ is a
pretty informal process and you just need to cite the rules and they
are not very strict when it comes to matters like these. If you have a
tech license and you operate outside your allowed bands like pop up in
the twenty meter band and keep it up they might come after you. But if
you meet the international requirements and stay in the HF TECH bands
it is not a violation of the rules and no one can verify if you have
passed a horse and buggy CW test any god damn way.

Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging
others to violate the Rules, I see.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
A real lawyer who does FCC rule
interpretation for a living, and
does it successfully.

"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:45:56 -0700, Keith wrote:

That is what I'm talking about. There is no longer a international
requirement for morse code so tech's can pick up the microphone and
talk on 10 meters. Here in America the FCC has to issue a warning
notice, then a violation notice and the person cited can then simply
demand a hearing before a administrative law judge. The ALJ is a
pretty informal process and you just need to cite the rules and they
are not very strict when it comes to matters like these. If you have a
tech license and you operate outside your allowed bands like pop up in
the twenty meter band and keep it up they might come after you. But if
you meet the international requirements and stay in the HF TECH bands
it is not a violation of the rules and no one can verify if you have
passed a horse and buggy CW test any god damn way.

Playing lawyer again (and getting it wrong, of course), and urging
others to violate the Rules, I see.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
A real lawyer who does FCC rule
interpretation for a living, and
does it successfully.




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

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".

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.

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

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. 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

"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"?

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.

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.

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

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.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

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.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

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.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

You did fine up to here. I fully agree.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

If a government can choose NOT to require something, then it is not an
international requirement but an option. The FCC regulation is dependent on an
international requirement that no longer exists, so how can anyone show
compliance with it?

They can't. What this was was a way for the FCC to get rid of the "technician"
HF privileges and make the novice license so useless that the latter will
either upgrade or die. They dont' have to worry about the "tech plus" class
anymore - there isn't one! 47 CFR 97.21(e) [or whatever it is] that designates
renewals of technician plus licensees as technician demonstrates the FCC's real
intent on this issue.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

I disagree to as what it says.

I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement
that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists.

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?

D. Stussy wrote:
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?

The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a
code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been
dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a
code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is
still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that?

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!