In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has the USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

The smart money will wait until the treaty is ratified.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is possible
for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.

BINGO. In fact, considering both the R&O and the FCC response to the
Worser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration, I would be very, very
surprised if FCC bothered with an NPRM.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

The next step is "what other changes are needed?" That will take an NPRM


73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has the USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

And since "concensus" is a term totally foreign to ham radio, Bill Cross himself,
the big stick at FCC for ham radio, the guy who makes all the rules that are
rubberstamped by the other otherwise-occupied staff, will make the new rules for
us, himself. He said so at Dayton a couple years ago.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:45:24 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:

And since "concensus" is a term totally foreign to ham radio, Bill
Cross himself, the big stick at FCC for ham radio, the guy who makes
all the rules that are rubberstamped by the other otherwise-occupied
staff, will make the new rules for us, himself. He said so at Dayton a
couple years ago.

Hey, that's the way it was done (with the names changed) some 40
years ago when I started sniffing around the FCC to see if I wanted
to work there.

Why should it be different now ?? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane