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.