On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
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.

I say that you're both wrong. If there is no international requirement, then
there is no way to demonstrate compliance with it. If you think I'm wrong,
please identify acceptable proof of compliance. (Not needing any proof means
that there is no requirement, and that's a contradiction of the FCC regulation
itself.)

What WRC-03 did is change the requirement into an option. Since it's not a
requirement anymore, there's no measureability of compliance, so how can one be
compliant?

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.

I go further: One may also assume that a Technician or Novice that does have
proficiency has no right to operate there - because said proficiency is
"measured" in terms of a now non-existent requirement.

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.

Very poor. If the FCC wanted to do this in a way that didn't depend on an
outside body of law, they could have chosen language to indicate dependence on
"element 1 credit" and avoid the entire problem.

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.

I fully agree with that. Now that the international requirement has been
killed (and replaced with an option), HF privileges for technicians (and
novices) have also died. I interpret this as meaning that ANY type of
technician is equal to the "no-code" technician (except those pre-87's who have
the credit in hand for a general class license but haven't applied yet), and
that novices only have the 222Mhz and 23cm bands for operating.

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.

You should see all the defective and less than perfect regulations in the tax
code. That's my "home turf."