|
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is. Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF privileges effective July 5, 2003. |
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is. Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF privileges effective July 5, 2003. False ... please stop preaching this nonsense. Carl - wk3c |
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote: ... 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. AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that "wierd" thing I said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the "sunset." It is NOT a sunset clause ... NCI specifically asked for a sunset clause so code testing would "automagically" go away when S25.5 was suppressed or changed so that code testing was no longer required by the ITU Radio Regs. The FCC SPECIFICALLY declined to enact such a sunset clause, and the text of 301 does NOT contain one, no matter how you try to twist it. That is true - the FCC didn't enact a sunset clause to eliminate code testing for HF as NCI requested. I never said that's what they did. The FCC DID enact a sunset clause that TERMINATES HF operation by licenses of lesser privilege than General class. That's what I've been saying that they did. THEY DID NO SUCH THING. You are WRONG and your continued repetition of incorrect information is not doing anyone a service. Again (and again ... you people must not be able to read, only write) .... the FCC *DOES* have records of which Techs have 5 wpm credit and which don't ... this idea that "there are no records, so you can get away with it is 1) false, and 2) borders on inducement to violate the rules. [Count your levels of quotation; you attribute this to me but I didn't say it.] Sorry ... but my responses are still correct. Carl - wk3c |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote: ... 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. AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that "wierd" thing I said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the "sunset." It is NOT a sunset clause ... NCI specifically asked for a sunset clause so code testing would "automagically" go away when S25.5 was suppressed or changed so that code testing was no longer required by the ITU Radio Regs. The FCC SPECIFICALLY declined to enact such a sunset clause, and the text of 301 does NOT contain one, no matter how you try to twist it. That is true - the FCC didn't enact a sunset clause to eliminate code testing for HF as NCI requested. I never said that's what they did. The FCC DID enact a sunset clause that TERMINATES HF operation by licenses of lesser privilege than General class. That's what I've been saying that they did. THEY DID NO SUCH THING. You are WRONG and your continued repetition of incorrect information is not doing anyone a service. Then explain why .301(e) based HF operating privilege on something OTHER than simply holding element 1 credit.... |
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is. Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF privileges effective July 5, 2003. False ... please stop preaching this nonsense. If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR 97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international requirement that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that subsection? I am not going to waste any more time arguing this ridiculous assertion of yours ... it is false ... and other knowledgeable folks have told you so as well. I am inclined to think that you're just trolling for attention, and I don't plan to give you the satisfaction any more. Carl - wk3c |
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. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"D. Stussy" wrote
If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR 97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international requirement that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that subsection? Oh, this is so easy it almost makes me feel guilty ruining your lame rant. The "international requirement" is that each country decides whether their licensees need Morse testing to operate on HF. For right now, the FCC has decided that they do, and continues to grant Novices and "Tech Plus" certain HF operating spectrum. Sunuvagun! With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- "Reality doesn't care what you think." -- K0HB |
Phil,
I posted a similar message once before. Maybe you ignored me, maybe you never saw it ... I would like to communicate with you via e-mail. Please e-mail me a real e-mail address where I can reach you. Thanks and 73, Carl - wk3c "Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... 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. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "D. Stussy" wrote in message rg... On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: BOTTOM LINE: *Until the FCC changes its rules* no-code Techs have NO HF privs ... sorry, folks, but that's the way it is. Neither do Novices nor the "coded" Techs. They lost their HF privileges effective July 5, 2003. False ... please stop preaching this nonsense. If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR 97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international requirement that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that subsection? I am not going to waste any more time arguing this ridiculous assertion of yours ... it is false ... and other knowledgeable folks have told you so as well. No, they haven't. They all confused my position with that of someone else that advocated that no-code technicians do have HF privileges. No one responded to my position. I am inclined to think that you're just trolling for attention, and I don't plan to give you the satisfaction any more. I have asked a legitimate question. How can one prove compliance with a non-existent condition? If you think that's nonsense, that VALIDATES my point. |
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, K0HB wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote If you think it's nonsense, then tell me how these licensees, under 47 CFR 97.301(e) are supposed to show that they have met an international requirement that no longer exists in order to have the privileges listed in that subsection? Oh, this is so easy it almost makes me feel guilty ruining your lame rant. The "international requirement" is that each country decides whether their licensees need Morse testing to operate on HF. By definition, if one has a choice, then it's NOT a requirement. If each country is free to choose, then it's a NATIONAL CHOICE, not an international requirement. Your response is non-sequitur. 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. 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? |
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. |
"Ryan, KC8PMX"
wrote in message They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of the people out there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its validity as a testing element. Kim W5TIT But gee Kim, if someone has "made it" as a VE, shouldn't they be proficient in the mode(s) they are testing on? At this point, it's not important or needed for morse testing has LONG AGO deleted the "sending" part of it and relied ONLY on the applicant decoding pre-recorded tapes. Seems to me that if someone is going to qualify as a VE, they should be at an extreme proficiency level...... I've helped correct tests for teachers for subjects I knew nothing about...nothing extradordinary there with multiple choice...or checking a submitted set of decoded morse text. If a VE or VE team cannot effectively send a method of communication like morse code as a required testing mode, it makes me wonder of the value of the mode in the first place. If they are relagated to only using CD's or tapes, I guess that would show the "dumbing down" of amateur radio, bringing it "one step further to extinction." The reliance on tapes and CDs is because it is NOT all that easy to be right on with sending code at any set speed (5, 13, 20 or whatever) by hand. It is far easier to "machine generate" code text at specific speeds and record them for a permanent use in testing. Seems to me it should not be a problem for the whole VE groups to have a set "pre-scripted" QSO's. There could be as many as needed, 10, 20, 30 or more pre-made QSO's to send. Far better to have the 20-30 or 40 prescripted QSOs recorded and simply play back one. I initially learned morse for the 5 wpm test using 78 rpm record set from (I think) AMECO. But, for all this speculation, the code test is soon to be just a historic footnote, so what's all the fuss? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com