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

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.

Not entirely. FCC has turned over testing and test development to hams,
yet
retains supervisory control. Or look at repeater coordination - hams
determine
the coordination, and FCC enforces their decisions!

But the FCC still sets the regulations.

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.

That much I agree with. But it's also true that just because FCC does
something
is no guarantee that the something is good for the ARS.

Agreed.

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.

Doesn't matter - the point is that the "expert agency" enacted it for one
reason and kept it for another, even though many if not most of those
affected
thought it was a bad idea.

There was NO expert agecy involved at all. The NJ rep was a memeber
of congress (house of representatives). I would certainly NOT
call the house an "expert agency."... would you?

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?

It would take a lot of dwindling. And that's not happening - amateur radio
in
the USA is not only growing, but it's growing faster than the population.

I agree...my hypothetical was just
a discussion point.

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.

The point is that the threats are more recent. Lookit BPL - that's today.

BPL isn't however, a desire for another service
to get rid of hams. I agree BPL is a major threat
to all of us, but for different reasons.

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.

'zactly. But all too few hams take a part in it. Look at the restructuring
NPRM
- 675,000 hams, less than 2300 comments.

But not filling comments doesn't mean all hams
haven't looked at a proposed rule and simpy
said to themselves....OK by me for this one and
not filed a comment at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK