Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting.
Day 7 and nothing new.
With all due respect, Bill....
Did you really expect that someone would point the way,
so that anticodetest folks could write reply comments
without having to look through all the comments?
No I doubt that Bill thinks the Procoder feel any reagrd to engage in
opne deabte we have hae in the SOP of most of the procoders here
However Bill in addresing the NG does not merely addres the ProCoder
So, answer his question!
OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point
Why mention it here?
Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.
the best New point is so repceprical licenseing issues but that hardly
seems enough to turn the course (it is but a hicup issue ar best)
Logical the R&O should be by the end of the week or at worst the month
How is that "logical"?
FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.
Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).
He does I suspect he will be disapointed
Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.
and if they choose to repsond to it they can say note it and in their
coment and give status subject to future dissusion
On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.
That majority is a very thin one.
and assumes facts not in evidence
biggest is the aumsume is that ALL comenetors favoring keeping code
testing as it is favor keeping code testing for the extra class if the
general class requirement is dropped
I am sure (based on nature of people) that at least one comentor
favouring code testing for general's would agree that if you are not
going to test for general no point in testing for extra either,
therefore the Majority already thin may not truely exist
So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.
Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome. Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.
Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.
98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).
The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.
R&O for 98-143 took several months. This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..
However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir
I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.
Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)
well I think some lawyers do, maybe we should ask Phil Kane
he may well understand better than I
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK