About Us

July 30th 03, 01:24 PM

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
.org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:

False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for
the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously,
you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the
acceptability of the proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

w3rv

You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements_"

(_emphasis_added_).

The phrase "international requirements" is a clear reference to s25.5,
which now makes code testing optional for each administration, such as the
FCC. The code requirement for access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies appears
nowhere except in rule 301(e), which in turn only refers back to the
optional language in s25.5. If the FCC refer to the international
regulations for the code requirement, and it says there that it is
optional, then where is the determination from the FCC as required under
s25.5 that code is required? Nowhere, that's where!

Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have
access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do
this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems
could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the
rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is
what, I seriously doubt that they care.

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