Steve Robeson K4YZ Dec 14 2001, 8:34 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Dec 2001 13:34:29 GMT
Local: Fri, Dec 14 2001 8:34 am
Subject: It's Time To Demand A Re-Vamp of the FCC
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

After careful consideration of several events lately, I think
it's time to
start approaching our representatives and demand that a "kinder,
gentler" FCC
be replaced by the autocratic nonsense that proliferates today.


The FCC of today is a joke. In this authors opinion, it has a
long way to
go to pull itself out of the shoulder-shrugging, responsibility
shirking,
hand-washing, pass-the-buck attitude of the 70's and 80's.


First of all, the below cited item is one of the "could have said
yes but
said no "because we can"" instances where the FCC is just a bit too
impressed
with itself to cooperate with the users of the spectrum.


QUOTE: (from ARNewsline)


THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPICS: FCC SAYS NO TO SPECIAL CALL SIGN


An idea for a special events call sign to celebrate the 2002 Winter
Olympics
has drawn a negative response from the FCC. Tom Schaefer, NY4I, of
Sandy,
Utah, had requested that the agency allow amateurs Utah hams to
substitute the
number 2002 or 02 for the 7 in their callsign. This, for the time
period
preceding and up to though the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
But
after mulling it over for a few months the Schaefer says the agency
responded
with a definite no:


UNQUOTE


Never mind that even third-world nations do that very thing
(allow
temproary changes in calls for Olympic events, or that it would have
not
required anything more than a blanket STA for the period
requested...Heck
no...Why allow Amateurs to celebrate one of the truly (or at least as
close as
it will ever get) de-politicised international events that we can take
pride
in? ESPECIALLY in the wake of recent events... ! ! !


Example: "We, the FCC, hereby allow any licensed Amateur Radio
Operator
living within the State of Utah to substitute the figures "2002" for
the number
"7" in thier callsign for the period of (dates of the event) in
recognition of
the Olympics. Operators residing in Utah with a numeral other than
"7" may
substitute thier numeral with the original numeral plus "02", ie K4YZ
would be
K402YZ. Only stations with a permanent mailing address in Utah may
participate. Have a nice day".


See how easy that was? Took some GS-5 stenographer 2 minutes to
type up
and another 30 minutes to get posted to the Federal Register or other
authorized media.


Second is my aversion to the FCC being allowed to exert it's
Victorian
opinions on who they consider to be of "good character" to be a
"Commission
Licensee"...I speak of persons who may have commited a crime in the
past, NOT
related to radio, and are now prohibited or are sanctioned in thier
quest for a
license, regardless of which radio service it may be in.


I was always of the opinion and understanding that once time was
served,
one's "debt to society" was paid and they were reassimilated into that
society.
We are obviously NOT that society if we continue to punish people
AFTER their
time is served.


Next is my concern on the Agency's obvious lack of concern on
maintaining
a balance between the needs of ALL citizens versus corporations which
would
seek to make a profit from the finite resources of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Again, this author does not believe that the FCC always
acts in the
best interests of the citizenry, but rather manufacturers and other
corporate
entities who can talk the smoother line.


Evidence the FRS and MURS services, the 220-222mHz debacle, and
the recent
attempt to liberalize Part 15 radiation limits. NONE of these acts
were
mandated by the needs of industry to meet an ongoing consumer
need...they were
done to provide the opportunity to CREATE a market for thier wares.


THAT is wrong.


Next, I would like to know how the FCC comes up with these
horrific fines.
While I will be the first to demand that violators be punished and
sanctioned,
even those acts should be within reason and by the order of a court
AFTER due
process of law...NOT because the FCC says "Because I Said So"....NAL's
are
un-Constitutional, in my non-law-school opinion.


Lastly, I object in no uncertain terms to the passing of
responsibility of
radiocommunication regulatory enforcement to agencies OTHER than the
FCC or
other appropriately trained federal agency. (ie: local police or
sheriff's
agencies) Yes, local police should have the authority to intervene in
cases
where a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER exists...to me, this means some jerk
jamming
local emergency services, navigation aids or law enforcement
communications, or
being able to take action against persons who are using radio to
commit
felonies or actively harass other citizens. This would be no more
different
than a cop arresting someone who just buzzed the Mayor's house. The
FAA
regulates avaition, but no one would dare suggest that a threat to
safety was
inappropriate for local law enforcement to take action on.


As much as I would like to see the "freeband" mess cleaned up,
the passing
of laws that allows local law enforcement to do this is wrong. As
pointed out
by others, it is just one more obligation that already over-burdened
officers
must now familiarize themselves with, and leaves the door open for
misunderstanding and confusion with law abiding users of the radio
spectrum.


There are other matters that I see occuring with the FCC that
give me
cause, both as a licensee and as a citizen, to be concerned for the
welfare of
spectrum management within the United States. It's time to clean
house.


73


Steve, K4YZ


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account