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.

That's the point -those existing regulations incorporate by reference an
international requirement that no longer exists


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/

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international
requirement that no longer exists


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the only
"international requirements" recognized by this country are those in the
treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the recent
changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the only
treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently ratified).

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty change
does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up to each
member state to decide for themselves.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote in
:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international requirement that no longer
exists


I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the
only "international requirements" recognized by this country are those
in the treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the
recent changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments
above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the
only treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently
ratified).


Fair comment

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the
changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty
change does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up
to each member state to decide for themselves.


True, although it still may be possible to interpret 97.301(e) in such a
way that the no-code Techs have the Novice bands before the FCC changes
any rules. Albeit it is risky for Techs to do that without a declaratory
ruling from the FCC saying that this is the correct interpretation of the
rule.

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

That's the point -those existing regulations
incorporate by reference an international
requirement that no longer exists

I'll try it again, Alun. The new treaty with those changes has to be
ratified before it becomes the law of this land. Until that time, the only
"international requirements" recognized by this country are those in the
treaty this country has already ratified (the one prior to the recent
changes). That treaty requires CW for HF privileges.

What's all this "treaty ratification" thing?!?

I thought that the US Congress ALREADY ratified membership with
the United Nations and the UN organizations long ago. The ITU is a
UN organization.

Does the US Congress "have to ratify" each and every change in any
ITU that effects US civil communications laws? I don't see any such
"ratification" process for any number of decisions done by the FCC
in regards to FCC International Bureau decisions. Please explain.

To put this another way (and reply more directly to your comments above),
the "international requirements" for code testing does exist in the only
treaty this country legally recognizes (the one currently ratified).

Code testing is the "only" treaty the US "recognizes?"

FCC does considerable International communications decision-
making without any fuss and furor about "treaty ratification."

Once the new treaty is ratified (the new treaty containing the changes),
at that point, and only at that point, will the FCC be able to consider
eliminating CW for HF privileges. Remember, however, that the treaty change
does not require the FCC to drop code - the change leaves it up to each
member state to decide for themselves.

Our states decide whether or not to test for amateur morse code?!?

Will this "ratification" be done in a General Election or a special
Election like ratifying an amendment to our Constitution?

Is there some kind of separate "treaty" concerning morse code that
is NOT done with the ITU?

The FCC may find a way to stop code testing before the new treaty is
ratified, but it is not at all clear if that is even possible (in other
words, don't hold your breath).

Please explain this new "ratification" process.

I was sure the USA had already joined the International
Telecommunications Union and agreed to abide by THAT treaty.

LHA

"Len Over 21" wrote:

What's all this "treaty ratification" thing?!?

I thought that the US Congress ALREADY ratified
membership with the United Nations and the UN
organizations long ago. The ITU is a UN
organization.


All international treaties have to ratified by Congress, Len. While we are
a member of the United Nations and the ITU, we are not automatically subject
to all treaties offered by either of these organizations. Indeed, we are not
even subject to significant changes to treaties we have already ratified -
unless a mechanism for changes was included in the ratified treaty, any
changes to that treaty have to be ratified.


Code testing is the "only" treaty the US "recognizes?"


The currently ratified treaty is the only treaty this country recognizes.
That treaty has a code testing requirement.


Our states decide whether or not to test for amateur
morse code?!?


I'm not referring to the individual states within the United States. A
"state" in this context is "a country or nation with its own sovereign
independent government."


Please explain this new "ratification" process.


Read the Constitution of the United State of America.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

All international treaties have to ratified by Congress....


And you know how our recent history on treaty ratification has gone.
(in other words we haven't ratified them) This could be interesting.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:11:31 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

I'm not referring to the individual states within the United States. A
"state" in this context is "a country or nation with its own sovereign
independent government."

That's called an "Administration" in ITU-speak.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote:

That's called an "Administration" in ITU-speak.


Phil, why can't lawyers like yourself use everyday, plain, English?
Reading the Code of Federal Regulations or US Code (or whatever) is like
reading something written in another language. I think it's a conspiracy to
confuse everyone else in an effort to insure work for lawyers.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:00:26 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote:

That's called an "Administration" in ITU-speak.


Phil, why can't lawyers like yourself use everyday, plain, English?
Reading the Code of Federal Regulations or US Code (or whatever) is like
reading something written in another language. I think it's a conspiracy to
confuse everyone else in an effort to insure work for lawyers.

The famous story about Arturo Toscanini, at the time the conductor
of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra:

Most professional orchestras make certain changes and cuts in
traditional (i.e. "warhorse") compositions and thusly use scores
which have lots of hand-written "modifications" for that purpose.

The tale is told of a member of the orchestra who went to The
Maestro and said "Mister Toscanini, my score for Beethoven's Eighth
Symphony is so marked up I can't read it. I have purchased a brand
new score - can you show me EXACTLY what changes and cuts you want
in it?" Toscanini replied: "let me see the old score". He looked at
it and said: "there's nothing wrong with this one except that you
need to add another cut -here- and make a change -there-".

(With thanks to the late Meredeth Willson as told in his book
"And There I Stood With My Piccolo")

There's nothing wrong with the language of the USC or CFR if (1) one
has a good command of American English and (2) one has a good
command of law and (3) one understands what the statute/regulation
was intended for in the first place.

The same thing is true of the writings of any technical profession.
I have always felt that an understanding of FCC regulations is as
important to ham radio as an understanding of the technology being
used by the ham.


--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane