About Us

July 29th 03, 04:09 AM

(N2EY) wrote in
:

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.

But not in that rule, and it's the only rule controlling Tech access to
Novice HF subbands. 97.301(e) refers apparently to 25.5, which now refers
right back again.

For the General and the Extra the requirement remains at 5 wpm until the
FCC changes it, but that is a separate issue.

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.

Since when did a poorly written rule not apply?

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.

Which is not relevant to what the verbiage means now that s25.5 has been
altered.

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

It is a fallacy of argument to say that someone is an expert, so therefore
they must be right. Their arguments must stand or fall on their own
merits. I do not question anyone's qualifications, as I do not see it as
relevant to whether they are right or wrong.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Amateur Radio NewslineÃ¢â€žÂ¢ Report 1360Ã¢â‚¬â€œ September 5 2003	Radionews	Dx	0	September 6th 03 09:08 AM
Amateur Radio NewslineÃ¢â€žÂ¢ Report 1360Ã¢â‚¬â€œ September 5 2003	Radionews	Dx	0	September 6th 03 09:08 AM
Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st	Bert Craig	Policy	12	July 30th 03 12:04 AM
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st	N2EY	Boatanchors	0	July 27th 03 05:22 PM
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st	Merl Turkin	Policy	0	July 25th 03 02:28 AM

Menu

About Us