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. 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).
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.




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

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.

D. Stussy wrote:

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 compliance was met when it was required by international regulation
(and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic
then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance
of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license
classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we
are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules.
GEEEEESSSSHHHH!!

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
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 compliance was met when it was required by international regulation
(and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic
then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance
of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license
classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we
are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules.
GEEEEESSSSHHHH!!

Wrong with respect to the General, Advanced, and Extra license classes. Their
ability to operate on HF is dictated SOLELY by license class, and for these
classes, 47 CFR 97.501 indicates the credits (including element 1). These
classes have NO REFERENCE to any international requirement as necessary to be
met.

You need to re-read the operating frequency privilege rules in 47 CFR 97.301.

"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org:

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.


You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The
international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can
be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it
all the time.

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 Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org:
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.


You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The
international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can
be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it
all the time.

Please define "optional requirement."

If it's optional, it's not a requirement. If it's required, it's not an option.

47 CFR 97.301(e) is defined in terms of a requirement. That requirement,
having been turned into an option, no longer exists - but the appropriate
licenseholders, in order to execute the privilege, still must demonstrate
compliance with the non-existent requirement. How do they do this? If they
can't, then they don't have the privilege. I say that demonstrating compliance
with a non-existent requirement is an impossible act.

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.

You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the
Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated.

I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO
specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice
class licence.

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting
6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427
email: (work) (home)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm wrote:
You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the
Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated.

I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO
specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice
class licence.

Rules: You have obviously NOT been reading very carefully: 47 CFR 97.301(e).

As far as your potential conclusion that no-code technicians have HF privileges
now, that is clearly erroneous.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote:

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.

Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule
and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's
so difficult to get "good help nowadays"......

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....

Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a
code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration
MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the
Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered
complies with "international requirements".

S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has
met the requirement? That's impossible.

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.

The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the
decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This
isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement".

"Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set
by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an
entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a
temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule
change, so the situation remains as is.

Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how
the FCC works.

Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly
on this matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote:
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.

Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule
and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's
so difficult to get "good help nowadays"......

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....

Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a
code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration
MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the
Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered
complies with "international requirements".

If each government has a choice, then it's not an "international requirement."
A requirement means that there is no choice. The replacement S25.5 means that
each country has a choice to impose a NATIONAL REQUIREMENT on its
licenseholders (something they could have done anyway). How does that become
an international requirement when some member country to the agreement can opt
out?

S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has
met the requirement? That's impossible.

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.

The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the
decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This
isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement".

That statement focuses on "requirement," forgetting about "international."

"Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set
by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an
entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a
temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule
change, so the situation remains as is.

Yes, there has. Treaties and international agreements supersede national laws.

Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how
the FCC works.

Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly
on this matter.....

Perhaps so, but you will find that interpretation of rules and regulations was
one of my strongest points when I worked for them. Thinking can be taxing! :-)