View Single Post
  #378   Report Post  
Old July 19th 03, 02:55 AM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the

future
of ham radio.

Then who is?


The hams are the most qualified to judge what is good for the future of
ham radio.


So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed?
approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules.


Works for me.


But we both know the concept is bogus.

However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the
needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of
hams. It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler.


So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any
rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have
any interfernece issues related to them...such as
band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test
requirements, etc.?


Nope. Not at all.

The point is that the mere fact that FCC enacts a rule does not mean it's

a
good idea, or in the best interest of amateur radio. All it means is that

FCC
enacted the rule.


The original point made was a claim that the FCC doesn't
make rules at all that might be judged as being favorable
or unfavorable for ham radio. Clearly a specific rule may
be detrimental...but that doesn't mean the FCC didn't
or wouldn't weigh its need or benefit in light of what
it does for ham radio.

Was the 55 mph national speed limit a good idea, in the best interests of

the
motoring public? The "expert agency" recommended that rule, and it stayed

on
the books for decades.


Actually, the 55 was the brainchild (I'd call it a nightmare)
of a NJ reprentative who is now deceased. The problem was
the 55 limit had no "sunshine" aspect and that resulted in congress
getting tied up as being anti-safety by the insurance industry
who wanted the 55 limit.

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.

Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services so that they can coexist.

That's only part of their purpose.


What's the rest?


Others include need for the service, use, benefit of
the service to the public good, etc.
IF ham radio users truly began to dwindle, do you
doubt that the FCC would consider dropping ham radio
as a service even though there was no coexistence problem?

Read up on the history of the FCC. They were established to regulate

the
various services so all could operate with minimal interference. If

there
had been no conflicts among the various users of the radio spectrum,

there
would have been no FCC (see the book "200 Meters and Down").


That is so patently obvious...it does not,
however, prove or make any suggestion that the FCC
today does not consider rules as being beneficial or not
to ham radio service.


The point is that while they consider the beneficial aspect, they are not

all
powerful, nor necessarily even that friendly to what is best for amateur

radio.
IOW they're stuck with us and we're stuck with them.


I never said otherwise. My comment was directed at the concept that
the FCC "only" makes decisions based on interference based
issues. You agree that the FCC can and does consider the
beneficial aspect to a service...even if that decision may be
detrimental.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals
for ham radio or any other service.


Those goals are not necessarily what's best for amateur radio. Was the
re-imposition of "incentive licensing" in 1968 what was best for amateur

radio?
FCC (NOT hams!) insisted on it because they said amateur radio of those

days
was not meeting the goals FCC thought it should.


Again, I never claimed every decision was or had to be judged
by the FCC as being beneficial.

As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the

establishment
of the FCC.


And its predecessors, the FRC, DOC and Navy Department. Not pretty.

The initial purpose of the FCC derived from interference
mitigation.


Not just that - also deciding how to best apportion the spectrum, license
requirements, allowable uses of the spectrum, monitoring and enforcement.
Indeed, FCC defines what the various services are for! F'rinstance, once

upon a
time, hams broadcasting music was not illegal.

The charter of the FCC does not, however,
forclose consideration of what is or isn't beneficial for any
individual service.


No, it doesn't. Doesn't mean that the FCC always does what's best for

hams.
Doesn't mean FCC always makes the best choice or compromise, either.


We are in violent agreement on that :-)

We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist
since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was

only
by
intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in

there.

All of which happened about 80+ years ago.


Not all. Look at the changes of 1929 - less than 75 years ago.


Pickey, pickey...so I was off by 5 years or so.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.


Which makes all this discussion rather academic.


Not at all. Hopefully, FCC decisions can be influenced for a better future

for
amateur radio.


The ability to influence those decisions is the same today as
it was in the past. that's what the public input process
is all about.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK