On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:06:38 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Then explain why .301(e) based HF operating privilege on something OTHER than
simply holding element 1 credit....

Because it was written very sloppily.

That's right. And as it is phrased, it is dependent on the licensee meeting a
condition which he cannot meet (because it no longer exists). Therefore, if
one of the requisite conditions for operating cannot be met (due to the July 5
2003 change), how can any Novice or Tech licensee now operate on HF?

I have said that they can't, as a result dependent on the change to the
international agreement....

K0HB wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote


If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the
logic.



Logic? All I see is a troll.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Stussy doesn't apply logic, he has been spouting the same stuff
over and over. He just can't seem to except the fact that until
the FCC drops the code requirement, if it does, that nothing has
changed as far as U.S. Amateur radio.

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

My point: The international requirement was removed. However, FCC regulations
still require it. Since one CANNOT comply with a non-existent requirement,
then the privilege previously granted has likewise been removed.

We are a nation of laws, and those laws must be enacted or
changed in a democratic process, this one included.

The international rule was changed from "you will" to "you may",
therefore the legal premise for the continuation of code testing until
the US law has been changed IS valid.

If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the
logic.

For right now, the FCC has decided that they do, and continues to
grant Novices and "Tech Plus" certain HF operating spectrum.

And the ruling number is?

See Part 97. The same rules that were in effect on July 4th
still apply today.

Steve, K4YZ

Stussy blabbered again:

3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges.
That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code.
YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. What I said is that coded
Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the
international change.

Have you seen any directive from the FCC that says that coded
Novices and Technicians can no longer operate HF?
Everything is the same as it was before the conference. Get used
to it. When you deserve the title Mr. I will address you as Mr.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...

3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges.
That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping

code.

YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing.


Accepted ...

I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time
...


What I said is that coded
Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the
international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT

based on

holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on

an

international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a
national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no

way

under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with

the

non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED.


Mr. Stussy,

Please read VERY SLOWLY:

The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed.

It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..."

In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory.

Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any
class of amateur license requires a Morse test.

Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse
test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation.

Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed,
and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges.

The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and
eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO
difference.

I respectfully hope you get it this time ...

Carl - wk3c

Don't count on it, it just doesn't seem to take with Stussy.

"D. Stussy" wrote


If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the
logic.


Logic? All I see is a troll.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, K0HB wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote
If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the
logic.

Logic? All I see is a troll.

Then you need your eyes checked....

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, JJ wrote:
K0HB wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote
If my position is wrong, as you seem to think, point out the fault in the
logic.

Logic? All I see is a troll.

Stussy doesn't apply logic, he has been spouting the same stuff
over and over. He just can't seem to except the fact that until
the FCC drops the code requirement, if it does, that nothing has
changed as far as U.S. Amateur radio.

1) Try addressing me PROPERLY; i.e. a surname is normally prefixed by Mr.

2) I agree that the FCC hasn't changed anything, but they didn't have to.
They made their regulation dependent on a regulation outside of their control,
and when that outside regulation was changed, the change to the U.S. rules was
AUTOMATIC on account of the dependency. The change that was made propagated
down; no explicit change to U.S. law was even needed.

3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges.
That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping code.
YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing. What I said is that coded
Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the
international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT based on
holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on an
international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a
national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no way
under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with the
non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED.

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

3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges.
That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping
code.
YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing.

Accepted ...

I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time
....

What I said is that coded
Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the
international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT
based on
holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on
an
international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a
national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no
way
under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with
the
non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED.

Mr. Stussy,

Please read VERY SLOWLY:

The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed.

It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..."

In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory.

Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any
class of amateur license requires a Morse test.

Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse
test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation.

Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed,
and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges.

The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and
eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO
difference.

I respectfully hope you get it this time ...

Carl - wk3c

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...

3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges.
That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping
code.
YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing.

Accepted ...

I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time
...

What I said is that coded
Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the
international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT
based on
holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on
an
international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a
national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no
way
under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with
the
non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED.

Mr. Stussy,

Please read VERY SLOWLY:

The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed.

I disagree. The SECTION that formerly defined an international requirement was
changed. The new text defines NO requirement that is imposed on the countries
that are party to the agreement. It indicates that each country is free to
choose whether or not they want to have a NATIONALLY imposed requirement.

What you don't seem to understand is that by giving each country a choice to
impose something on their licensees (and ONLY THEIR licensees), the section is
no longer an "international requirement" by definition - because countries can
opt out - and thus it's not required of them. Where countries CHOOSE to impose
the restriction, it's not "international" (but national) in nature.

The international requirement HAS disappeared.

It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..."

In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory.

Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any
class of amateur license requires a Morse test.

That is NOT an obligation on the licensees, but on the licensor. The
requirement that 47 CFR 97.301(e) refers to is a licensee obligation (as well
as on the licensor). Since the licensor in this case is the FCC, a U.S.
Government agency, should they CHOOSE (i.e. it's not a requirement that they
impose it) to impose a requirement, it's a NATIONAL requirement, not an
international one.

Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse
test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation.

Not relevant. Licensees aren't required to show compliance to anything other
than the "international requirement" which was eliminated. What the FCC has
determined is not the requirement stated for access per .301(e).

Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed,
and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges.

I haven't said that any of their rules are illegal. I disagree that nothing
has changed: The FCC might not have changed any of their rules, but the rule
that one of their rules is dependent on HAS CHANGED, and that change flows
through, whether good or bad, sensical or not, etc.... It doesn't matter that
the FCC didn't change a thing; the rule still changed due to the external
reference changing.


The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and
eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO
difference.

I fully agree with this last statement.

I respectfully hope you get it this time ...

Get what?


Now, if every country were required to choose that they must have a morse code
testing requirement of their licensees, that would be an "international
requirement" because there really isn't any choice or discretion.