In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

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.

Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit for
proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each country
shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has
decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse assessment"
of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm.

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"?

Nope.

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.

Poor verbiage, that's all.

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.

Except that's not what it means.

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)

FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I
don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always
treated it as a poor relation.

What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C,
K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question their
motivation and qualification.

73 de Jim, N2EY