August 7th 05, 06:36 AM
|
|
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
egroups.com...
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:
If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know
where
we stood.
And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to
comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be.
Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they
have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the
deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they
published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew.
Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a
whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy
beltway-style actually works.
Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT.
w3rv
Bottom line here...
1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).
2. Thousands of comments were filed with various
rationals in support of code testing....the FCC
in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every
pro-code test argument....
They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.
3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.
4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of
any code test requirement in the international treaty with
almost unanomous agreement by the countries
to do so.
5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing
for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty.
The FCC, now has an open comment period for
discussion of the proposed change.
6. Unless some great new and profound reason to
retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235
comment process, any prospect
of keeping any code test is just not going to happen.
The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs
have been rehashing) have no chance of winning
out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc.
7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be
retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't
going to happen either.
For two reasons:
(a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and
(b) The majority of current comments are actually
running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total
elimination of code testing.
Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?
Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey
of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty
close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams
now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority
in favor of ending code testing.
I'm surprised, Bill. If a scientifically structured poll was made, I would
likely accept the results, whether I agreed with those results or not. The
comments in this case are largely useless as for any thing representing
the majority of amateurs.
You have a good thesis in your last paragraph, but that is your thesis,
which you are willing to validate by an amazingly imprecise poll.
And just how/who would you have fund and conduct a precise
poll? Me? ARRL? FCC?
*Is* it a representative sample?
Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample?
When I go to the polls, I know that my vote is counted (barring
shennagins!) and if I vote for the winner, my candidate wins, if I vote
for the loser, my candidate doesn't.
Well here's the problem you face...FCC rules
are not voted on by hams or anyone else via the
comments filed.
posting any comment on this issue has no effect on the outcome. I know
that, you know that, and I choose not to comment for that reason.
Your choice.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
|