(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me.

Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest
group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham
radio, not even close.

Actually, I was a "Private Sector Advisor" member of the US Delegation
(that's different than an "Observer" ... IARU was an "Observer" not a
member of a Member State Delegation)

I was officially listed on the Delegation as a private sector expert on
Agenda
Item 1.7, as well as the agenda items that my employer sent me for.
(This
is
because I was heavily involved, through NCI, in the US prep process for the
WRC on 1.7.)

OK . . .

OK.

There were also two other private sector "experts" on the US Delegation
for Agenda Item 1.7 ... Paul Rinaldo and Jonathan Siverling of the ARRL.

There's a couple more internationally well known ham radio power
brokers. Who the hell are Rinaldo and Silverling?? Never mind, don't
bother . .

Who is Brian Kelly?

(However, before anyone "flames" ARRL for not retaining the Morse
requirement in the ITU Radio Regs, I would remind them of two things:
1) the IARU postion was that that requirement should go
2) members of the US Delegation are *bound* to support the US position,
which was also that the Morse requirement should go.)

Making the point to having this squad of "experts" on hand in Geneva
moot before the conclave even it got off the ground eh?

Squad? Is this your real military experience showing through?

I find enormous humor in *you* of all people floating around Geneva
posing as an "private sector expert" in the testing and use of Morse
in ham radio in the U.S. Sez it all.

I noticed you weren't there.

Interestingly, when the US presented its Proposal on 1.7 at the CITEL
meeting in Mexico City last year, the FCC International Bureau rep asked
me to present the document in Plenary (I was also attending that meeting
as a member of the US Delegation) ... I asked him "Why me, not you?"
His response was "You know more about the issue and the background."

That's worse than appalling. One more chunk of evidence that the FCC
has been seriously dumbed down and is dragging ham radio down with it.
Phil is right.

Yes, yes. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. And the sky is
falling...

But the FCC is apparently still smart enough to use tools of
convenience to support it's own agenda. That's all you've been since
the gitgo Carl, an FCC tool.

At no point has eliminating the code tests ever had anything to do
with "modernizing" ham radio, "outdated modes", "taking ham radio into
the 21st century" or any of the rest of transparent bull**** which has
been touted as the rationales for eliminating the code tests Carl.
This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that?

You stuck your head up as a "leading proponent" of the FCC's agenda so
they seized the opportunity and paraded you around the assorted
conferences which have dealt with S25.5 as an "expert". . You've
simply been used as a expendable tool Carl and that's all you've been.
They basically made an ass of you. It's done all the time.

You stick your head up, notice the sky is falling, then back into the
sand.

Let's see how your "clout" holds up when you weigh in on BPL. You
being a self-proclaimed "expert" on wideband wireless technologies.

Rather than your expertise in wide rubberband technologies?

What can I say? I participated in the process ... I don't recall you as
having
participated in any of the US WRC prep meetings, Brian

No kidding! Do you think the FCC or the ARRL would have wanted me
espousing MY position on S25.5?

Its a free country, more or less. Go get involved in something
useful.

... nor did I see you
listed as a member of the US Delegation to the WRC.

Spare me, nail your WRC 2003 Delegate "appointment" to yer shack wall
along with all the rest of your ham radio achievement awards. Whatta
hero.

Actually, Carl, you might want to save your delegate name badge and
submit it to the NCI museum so that future generations will see that
at least a few tried to improve our service.

By the way who paid yer air fare to Geneva? You? NCI? The FCC? Thought
so. Otherwise you wouldn't have been there huh?

Oh, yeh. Must be time for the voluntary annual dues.

Back to Genesis here Tool: The NCI mission statement has been the
elimination of S25.5. Ya blew it, S25.5 lives on. Now what?

Obviously there's more work to do.

Way too much sour grapes around here. Kelley's probably another "No
Test International" advocate.

73, bb

On 11 Jul 2003 09:55:05 -0700, Brian wrote:

This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that?

(a) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years knows that from public
statements made by top brass (especially Reed Hundt) about
cost-cutting.

(b) There was an internal policy memo circulated to staff talking
about the need to privatize as many functions as possible in order
to cut agency spending. This was not made public and is not
available under FOIA because it dealt strictly with internal
management issues. I did not retain a copy of same (because to do
so would have been illegal).

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 11 Jul 2003 09:55:05 -0700, Brian wrote:

This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that?

(a) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years knows that from public
statements made by top brass (especially Reed Hundt) about
cost-cutting.

(b) There was an internal policy memo circulated to staff talking
about the need to privatize as many functions as possible in order
to cut agency spending. This was not made public and is not
available under FOIA because it dealt strictly with internal
management issues. I did not retain a copy of same (because to do
so would have been illegal).

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

Ah, I see. "Everybody knows..."

(Brian) wrote in message om...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

Ah, I see. "Everybody knows..."

"(c) Every FCC-watcher..." (SNIP)

Was there a problem with the parameters he set, Brain? I
understood them perfectly.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message om...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

Ah, I see. "Everybody knows..."

"(c) Every FCC-watcher..." (SNIP)

Was there a problem with the parameters he set, Brain? I
understood them perfectly.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, what can I say? You are an exceptional individual. Some would
say extraordinary, unique, even special.