On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...

3) You seem to think that I am saying that no-coders have HF privileges.
That's the only thing I can conclude about your comment about dropping
code.
YOU ARE WRONG. I haven't said any such thing.

Accepted ...

I will probably regret responding to this, but I have to try *one* more time
...

What I said is that coded
Technicians and Novices have LOST HF privileges as a result of the
international change. Why? Because their right to operate HF was NOT
based on
holding "element 1 credit" (like that of the other license classes) but on
an
international requirement that has been eliminated (and replaced with a
national option) and with the referred to requirement gone, there is no
way
under the FCC's regulation that these licensees can show compliance with
the
non-existent requirement; thus, their HF privileges were CANCELLED.

Mr. Stussy,

Please read VERY SLOWLY:

The international requirement has not been eliminated, it has been changed.

I disagree. The SECTION that formerly defined an international requirement was
changed. The new text defines NO requirement that is imposed on the countries
that are party to the agreement. It indicates that each country is free to
choose whether or not they want to have a NATIONALLY imposed requirement.

What you don't seem to understand is that by giving each country a choice to
impose something on their licensees (and ONLY THEIR licensees), the section is
no longer an "international requirement" by definition - because countries can
opt out - and thus it's not required of them. Where countries CHOOSE to impose
the restriction, it's not "international" (but national) in nature.

The international requirement HAS disappeared.

It now says "Administrations SHALL determine ..."

In ITU-ese, "shall" is mandatory.

Therefore, the FCC is OBLIGATED to determine whether or not any
class of amateur license requires a Morse test.

That is NOT an obligation on the licensees, but on the licensor. The
requirement that 47 CFR 97.301(e) refers to is a licensee obligation (as well
as on the licensor). Since the licensor in this case is the FCC, a U.S.
Government agency, should they CHOOSE (i.e. it's not a requirement that they
impose it) to impose a requirement, it's a NATIONAL requirement, not an
international one.

Since the FCC had ALREADY determined that a 5 wpm Morse
test was required for HF access, it has already met that obligation.

Not relevant. Licensees aren't required to show compliance to anything other
than the "international requirement" which was eliminated. What the FCC has
determined is not the requirement stated for access per .301(e).

Thus the existing FCC rules are "legal," nothing has changed,
and NOBODY has lost ANY privileges.

I haven't said that any of their rules are illegal. I disagree that nothing
has changed: The FCC might not have changed any of their rules, but the rule
that one of their rules is dependent on HAS CHANGED, and that change flows
through, whether good or bad, sensical or not, etc.... It doesn't matter that
the FCC didn't change a thing; the rule still changed due to the external
reference changing.


The fact that the FCC is free to make a NEW determination and
eliminate the Morse requirement from its own rules makes NO
difference.

I fully agree with this last statement.

I respectfully hope you get it this time ...

Get what?


Now, if every country were required to choose that they must have a morse code
testing requirement of their licensees, that would be an "international
requirement" because there really isn't any choice or discretion.