RadioBanter - View Single Post - Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

November 7th 05, 03:03 AM

wrote in
oups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am

wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
snip

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink).

While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens. That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).

This shows how little you know about the current version of part 97.
Reciprocal licences (Form 610-A) are no longer issued. Anyone from a
country with a reciprocal agreement simply operates in the US under their
foreign licence, with an appropriate prefix. Also, anyone except a
representative of a foreign government can obtain a regular US licence by
taking the same tests as anyone else.

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States). As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

If someone entered a comment using their UK call it would likely not even
cross the minds of the Ofcom staff whether they were a British citizen,
which is the mirror image of the situation here.

WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth." There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS. That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday. Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!

The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by the
FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out that they
don't. However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about
the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should, and
there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them, instead of
skewing your interpretation of the comments.

It would be interesting to group the comments as follows:-

1) US citizens who hold a ham licence and reside in the US
2) US citizens who aren't hams and reside in the US
3) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and reside in the US
3) US citizens who are hams but live outside the US
4) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and live overseas
5) None of the above

However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by
whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't even
do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered. I suspect
most comments fall in group (1), but these are not the only ones that will
be considered.