From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35
wrote in message
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
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 "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly:
"Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save
lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!"
Not a valid reason but it was warm and fuzzy to pro-coders. :-)
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).
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.
Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and
pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements).
They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-)
Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as
"extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through
lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Radiotelegraphy
got set up as the epitome of all amateur radio skills through
constant bombardment by the [u-know-who] membership organization.
Radiotelegraphy skill meant the telegraphers got the maximum
perquisites in rank-status-privilege. Now the pro-coders are
royally ****ed because "all their hard work" isn't going to
mean dink in this NEW world. They demand holding fast to the
status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem.
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.
There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket.
As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket
05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the
total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of
all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a
SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion.
Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use and
does not claim statistician training or experience (despite what
Robert Rightsell said on 14 November), yet Jimmie keeps on
stating "a majority wants code testing to stay" by virtue of
nebulous interpretation by Speroni. Speroni's "55 percent" is
waved like it is some ABSOLUTE TRUTH, almost a Divine Word.
Pfaugh. Speroni SPIN. The usual biased pro-coder merry-go-
round spinning, making only the pro-coders dizzy.
There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a
very close, half-and-half mix of opinions. The Commission
is stuck without the slightest trace of "consensus in the
amateur community" of opinion on this highly-polarized issue.
The Commission expressed a desire to see a "consensus" at the
beginning of those 18 Petitions' comments 2003-2004 but it
didn't get any.
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.
Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion
of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns
right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out
some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a
decision goes against him.
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).
So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5
before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is
NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug
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.
About 10 1/2 months between the end of the official commentary
period on 98-143 and the issuance of 99-412 Report & Order.
The Commission had about 2200 filings to consider for their
decision.
This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..
I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as
many filings as 98-143. The Commission has to do SOMETHING
on editorial changes to regulations in regards to allocations
of operating frequency privileges for Technicians. Other than
that, the main issue of code testing go/no-go is quite simple.
Different set of conditions on speculating on decision time.
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 :-)
Sorry, the term "logical" doesn't apply there to any three of
you. Governmental decisions are biased by POLITICAL needs,
not "logic." Those that don't get what they want will try to
enoble themselves as "logical" as if they are the good guys.
That's a misuse of word definitions.
What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will
be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their
way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners."
What really happens - as it does in all Reports and Orders -
is that the Commission DECIDES, making a long, laborious set
of reasons for their decision with all appropriate references
(appropriate as they see fit). Once a decision is reached, it
becomes part of LAW...until it is changed again some time in
the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting
R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision
justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services.
Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and
make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part.
The pro-coders have had Their Way for a long time and they
feel They are "the public" or "more public" than others.
They want "Theirs" just like They've always had it. The
REAL Public can't be seen by them. The Commission tries
harder to "look" at what the REAL Public wants...and that is
a good thing in my mind.