| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Contact the FCC and Tell Them to get rid of CW Test and Requirements
Don't do anything so a few spoiled hams can keep their precious
bands to themselves and keep the average citizen out of ham radio. The average citizen has no FCC lic.and no interest it what happens to ham radio. THis is who we do not want. THe average citizen belongs on 11 meters |
If you want to CW reqiurement to go away, some one is going need to file a
petition for rule change with the FCC. Until this happens, nothing can change, I have no problem with the CW requirement going away, as the FCC has stated Being able to send CW does not make some one a proficient ham operator. So for those who want to get on HF and not learn code, get of your asses and file a petition with the FCC. Otherwise, start to study and learn CW. |
Kf6vyh wrote: If you want to CW reqiurement to go away, some one is going need to file a petition for rule change with the FCC. Until this happens, nothing can change, I have no problem with the CW requirement going away, as the FCC has stated Being able to send CW does not make some one a proficient ham operator. So for those who want to get on HF and not learn code, get of your asses and file a petition with the FCC. Otherwise, start to study and learn CW. Print and keep: http://www.texasstar.com/code.gif |
Keith wrote:
Another EXTRA class licensee that wants to keep dinosaur technology in ham radio testing. Don't do anything so a few spoiled hams can keep their precious bands to themselves and keep the average citizen out of ham radio. The way to get the average citizen involved in ham radio is to eliminate the tests altogether. NTI anyone? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kf6vyh wrote:
If you want to CW reqiurement to go away, some one is going need to file a petition for rule change with the FCC. Until this happens, nothing can change, I have no problem with the CW requirement going away, as the FCC has stated Being able to send CW does not make some one a proficient ham operator. So for those who want to get on HF and not learn code, get of your asses and file a petition with the FCC. Otherwise, start to study and learn CW. Then again, just about any ARS test subject doesn't make proficiency one way or the other, does it? - mike KB3EIA - |
Average, above average, and below average citizens have access to radio --
CB, FRS, GMRS, MURS with no tests. The best way to get the average citizen in to ham radio is to pass the tests -- The FCC sed that You did that when you got your drivers license -- didn't you ??? How did you get thru school, el, hi, college -- took the damn tests -- right? Achieve me buckos, can do, be all you can be -- take the damn test! Audacity that's the spirit! --------------------------------------------- "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Keith wrote: Another EXTRA class licensee that wants to keep dinosaur technology in ham radio testing. Don't do anything so a few spoiled hams can keep their precious bands to themselves and keep the average citizen out of ham radio. The way to get the average citizen involved in ham radio is to eliminate the tests altogether. NTI anyone? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Keith wrote:
As long as no code techs and others that are interested in HF ham radio operation do nothing the FCC and the ARRL will drag their feet to keep this dinosaur technology for the next year or so. Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: If you do nothing then nothing can change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CWProtest/ -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Deserve? |
In article , "Roland Stiner"
writes: The FCC is unresponsive to the public's wishes, they do what they want; look at the recent decision to expand media ownership by one company! Didn't the House overrule the FCC on that one a few days ago? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
You "deserve" nothing! You wanna be on HF? Study the code.
And, for the record, I was never able to pass the code test. So, I never got a ham ticket. Keith wrote: As long as no code techs and others that are interested in HF ham radio operation do nothing the FCC and the ARRL will drag their feet to keep this dinosaur technology for the next year or so. Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: If you do nothing then nothing can change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CWProtest/ -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ |
Keith,
A tech will still have to pass the element 3 written in order to obtain the general. A modest try at a troll, no doubt. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03 |
In article , Keith
writes: As long as no code techs and others that are interested in HF ham radio operation do nothing the FCC and the ARRL will drag their feet to keep this dinosaur technology for the next year or so. Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: If you do nothing then nothing can change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CWProtest/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , Keith writes: As long as no code techs and others that are interested in HF ham radio operation do nothing the FCC and the ARRL will drag their feet to keep this dinosaur technology for the next year or so. Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: If you do nothing then nothing can change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CWProtest/ -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ Well, I did just what you asked! Here is what I sent: ---------------------- TO: Michael K. Powell, Chairman, FCC Dear Chairman Powell, I am an Amateur Radio Operator, licensed for over 21 years. As you know, the recent World Radiocommunication Conference, WRC-03, has eliminated the ITU International Treaty requirement for Morse Code proficiency testing, and has left the decision whether or not to require Morse code testing in any member nation's Amateur Radio Service up to the individual administrations. I appeal to you NOT to take any action to eliminate the Morse code test (Element 1) from the U.S. FCC Amateur Radio Licensing requirements. You will undoubtedly be receiving many petitions from current and prospective radio amateurs to do this, but the fact is, these people are simply unqualified to know and understand the benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW mode in the Amateur Radio Service. Indeed they, for the most part, simply desire to be relieved of the necessity to expend the time and effort required to learn a useful radiocommunications skill at a basic proficiency level. Such "dumbing-down" of Amateur Radio serves no useful purpose, and would, in fact, probably have the effect of placing HF radiotelephone operating privileges in the hands of a large number of eager, yet technically uninvolved individuals. This could cause a dramatic increase in the number of operating violations on the HF voice allocations, increasing the FCC's enforcement workload without having any overall positive impact on the service. Knowledge of the Morse code gives radio amateurs the ability to communicate effectively using low power, and under operating conditions which cause even the latest digital modes to fail. It is the ultimate backup communications mode. Unfortunately, the many benefits of the Morse/CW mode will be increasingly unavailable to radio amateurs if future operators are not required to obtain even an entry-level exposure to the use of the Morse code through a testing requirement for an amateur license with HF operating privileges. Therefore, I urge you to simply leave the FCC's amateur radio licensing structure and requirements as it is, and retain the Element 1 Morse code test forever. I assure you that this is in the best interest of the Amateur Radio Service and the FCC. Sincerely, Lawrence J. Roll, K3LT 1300 S. Farm View Dr. A-31 Dover, DE 19904-7721 (302) [xxx-xxxx] ---------------------- Note: Copies to be sent to the Commissioners as well. 73 de Larry, K3LT Bravo Bravo capital job my man. Let the whinning commence. Dan/W4NTI |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:13:24 -0700, Keith
wrote: As long as no code techs and others that are interested in HF ham radio operation do nothing the FCC and the ARRL will drag their feet to keep this dinosaur technology for the next year or so. Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: In the meantime, let's hope the spambots capture those addresses, it might help convince the givernment to do something on the federal level about unsolicited commercial e-mail. If you do nothing then nothing can change. Is that why you've been doing nothing about trying to pass a code test? The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Or gets tossed in the scrap heap after it's been replaced with a brand new one. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CWProtest/ Speaking of yahoos, your two signed posts came from extra.newsguy.com as did the anonymous post encouraging no-code Techs to violate the terms of their license. Coincidence? Or merely a troll who doesn't realize that nothing on the Internet is truly anonymous? You decide. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
[posted and mailed]
"Phil Kane" wrote in .net: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:13:24 -0700, Keith wrote: Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: If you do nothing then nothing can change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Ah, I see that you are playing lawyer, Keith. The above is NOT the correct procedure to get the Rules changed. It will only annoy the Five Tubeless Tyres (tm) who have no conception of what amateur radio and code tests are all about nor do they wasnt to acquire same. That's much lower-level staff work..... Thank you for playing and be sure to come back some other time. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Principal Attorney (retired) Communications Law Center San Francisco, CA Phil, I've written a petition. Care to take a look at it? |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:00:39 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote:
As I understand it a committee of the House voted to overturn it. It would then need to go to the Senate. And all that bs. This may indeed be the ONLY route we have to take against the FCC concerning BPL. No, there's also a route through the U S Court of Appeals for the Dictrict of Columbia. This may be better because the Court doesn't get election campaign assistance from the industry. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Keith" wrote in message ... As long as no code techs and others that are interested in HF ham radio operation do nothing the FCC and the ARRL will drag their feet to keep this dinosaur technology for the next year or so. Write the FCC and let them know this is not satisfactory. There are 200,000+ hams that deserve immediate access to the HF bands today. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail Chairman Michael K. Powell: Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: If you do nothing then nothing can change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets replaced... |
dinosaur technology
CW ? Hardly, CW is ALIVE AND WELL in the ham bands today. YEA !!! jw wb9uai |
On 26 Jul 2003 04:36:47 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
Phil, I've written a petition. Care to take a look at it? Be glad to. Address OK in callbook. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
this dinosaur technology Dinosaurs are extinct ... CW is NOT. Long live the code. jw wb9uai |
|
"Erik Swanson" wrote in message m... ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ... ... previous quoted message elided ... Well, I did just what you asked! Here is what I sent: ---------------------- TO: Michael K. Powell, Chairman, FCC Dear Chairman Powell, ... You will undoubtedly be receiving many petitions from current and prospective radio amateurs to do this, but the fact is, these people are simply unqualified to know and understand the benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW mode in the Amateur Radio Service. A mode that is now out of use by pretty much all government services (emergency services included). I personally have an interest in learning the code, but don't see how it should remain a requirement if it is no longer to be the 'lingua franca' of HF throughout the world. Yes it is a low bandwidth, low power mode that can be very useful, as this writer points out, but without that international status I don't think that it should be required anymore than an in depth understanding of psk31 or any other digital mode. All operators should know of its existance, where on the bands it is expected to be located, and where to learn more. There will always be a place for Morse/CW and I'm sure there will always be enthusiasts... even if it is no longer a requirement... just like french is no longer THE lingua franca of the world ironically enough. Erik Swanson KG6GOP You did real well up to the Frency part. Whatever they agree with is screwed up to start with. Dan/W4NTI |
Phil Kane wrote:
You do know that letters, e-mails, etc. do not get put into the Docket Record and therefore are not required to be considered in reaching a decision unless they are formally filed using the format and procedures specified in Part 1 of the FCC Rules. Now if there was a way to find the petition for rule making the NCVEC sent in, then we could comment on it. I can't find it at the FCC's web page. Seems if you don't know the number, you're screwed..... |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: You do know that letters, e-mails, etc. do not get put into the Docket Record and therefore are not required to be considered in reaching a decision unless they are formally filed using the format and procedures specified in Part 1 of the FCC Rules. Now if there was a way to find the petition for rule making the NCVEC sent in, then we could comment on it. I can't find it at the FCC's web page. Seems if you don't know the number, you're screwed..... It hasn't been assigned an RM number or put on public notice yet ... NONE of the Petitions are open for comment yet ... the procedure is to wait for them to be assigned an RM number and put on public notice. Comments filed before then probably go into the bit-bucket. BTW, NCI's Petition was filed Aug. 13 and is available on the NCI website at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link as a .pdf download. 73, -- Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c Grid Square FN20fm http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c ------------------------------------------------------ NCI-1052 Executive Director, No Code International Fellow, The Radio Club of America Senior Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Standards Association Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group Chair-elect, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory Committee Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee Member, QCWA (31424) Member, ARRL Member, TAPR Member, The SETI League ------------------------------------------------------ Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century. Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio. http://www.nocode.org |
Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl.
A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that they are in sequence? I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner or later it will have to be changed. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl. A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that they are in sequence? I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner or later it will have to be changed. - Mike KB3EIA - I dunno, Mike. Were you around during the last restructuring? The NPRM was the most amateurish piece of literature I've ever seen from a government agency. The R/O was the second most. Left more questions than answers. Of course, there was a lot of interference from the ARRL in the process, so... |
|
Brian wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl. A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that they are in sequence? I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner or later it will have to be changed. - Mike KB3EIA - I dunno, Mike. Were you around during the last restructuring? nope. The NPRM was the most amateurish piece of literature I've ever seen from a government agency. The R/O was the second most. Left more questions than answers. Of course, there was a lot of interference from the ARRL in the process, so... Hmm, too bad. Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no element 1. It would make good joke material, or maybe the start of a legend. "The ghost of Element 1" 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no element 1. Not really! Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC): 1A - 5 wpm code 1B - 13 wpm code 1C - 20 wpm code 2 - Novice written 3A - Tech written 3B - General written 4A - Advanced written 4B - Extra written Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written (Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra. Etc. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WA3IYC wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no element 1. Not really! Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC): 1A - 5 wpm code 1B - 13 wpm code 1C - 20 wpm code 2 - Novice written 3A - Tech written 3B - General written 4A - Advanced written 4B - Extra written hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written (Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra. Etc. 73 de Jim, N2EY Where you posting from, Jim? - Mike KB3EIA - |
I suspect that when the FCC eliminates "Element 1" they will (editorially)
renumber the elements. Carl - wk3c "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... WA3IYC wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no element 1. Not really! Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC): 1A - 5 wpm code 1B - 13 wpm code 1C - 20 wpm code 2 - Novice written 3A - Tech written 3B - General written 4A - Advanced written 4B - Extra written hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written (Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra. Etc. 73 de Jim, N2EY Where you posting from, Jim? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I suspect that when the FCC eliminates "Element 1" they will (editorially) renumber the elements. I sure hope so, Carl! Stuff like that drives me crazy! yea.. I know.. I'm already there.. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match, I take the former every time. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. Apparently it didn't bother FCC for decades. But then again, they often focus on the wrong things. Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written (Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra. Etc. 73 de Jim, N2EY Where you posting from, Jim? Home, as usual. There are three screen names on this account. One is used by other(s), one is my call and this one is a "universal spare" based on my old call. For some reason AOL is having trouble with NG access on my other screen name so I switched over to this one for a while. But I'm still me. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match, I take the former every time. I'm afraid we're gonna get the taffy-pull/furball anyway, though. By inaction, FCC has opened the floodgates to a zillion petitions on everyhting under the sun. Which will then be smooshed into an NPRM, and finally maybe some rules changes that have little resemblance to said NPRM. Maybe somewhere in there that stupid BPL idea will get squelched. No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea as BPL has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match, I take the former every time. When you put it that way, yes. Bu I expect that there will be lots of that taffy pulling, when we have a former President of NCI espousing his terrible proposed changes, while Carl's method would work without making a mess. But the FCC has to weigh both. There will probably be even more proposals as time goes on. And since many of the statement I've seen from them talk about their desire to remove regulations, I wonder what the final outcome might be. In an extreme (admittedly unlikely) outcome, we may not have to worry about the numbering of the elements. There may be no elements. But I see a possibility of there being only one element after the dust settles. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers line up. So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match, I take the former every time. When you put it that way, yes. Bu I expect that there will be lots of that taffy pulling, when we have a former President of NCI espousing his terrible proposed changes, What are you talking about above? If you're refering to W5YI, he may have made/not made some PERSONAL comments in the NCVEC meeting, but as far as I can read, they did not get into the NCVEC petition ... while Carl's method would work without making a mess. By this, I take it you mean NCI's petition ... we appreciate your kind words of support. :-) But the FCC has to weigh both. There will probably be even more proposals as time goes on. And since many of the statement I've seen from them talk about their desire to remove regulations, I wonder what the final outcome might be. In an extreme (admittedly unlikely) outcome, we may not have to worry about the numbering of the elements. There may be no elements. But I see a possibility of there being only one element after the dust settles. The FCC is NOT going to abandon amateur testing ... they can't under the ITU Radio Regulations ... in fact, there is an ITU Recommenation on the qualifications of amateurs that is mentioned, though not in a mandatory way, in the newly-revised Article 25 ... it's there as "good advice/guidance to administrations" ... Carl - wk3c |
"WA3IYC" wrote in message ... No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea as BPL has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear. 73 de Jim, N2EY Whoever said the FCC was an "expert agency"??? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On 22 Aug 2003 10:43:17 GMT, WA3IYC wrote:
No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea as BPL has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear. I hate to admit it, but my own loss of respect for the policy, administrative, and in some regards technical decisions being made by the top brass of said "expert agency" was one of the reasons that this "expert" and many others are no longer with said "agency". My mentor in climbing the legal ladder just hit the retirement rolls, and a good protege of mine is heading for same at the end of next month. They feel the same way. After a while when one plays in manure one can't get rid of the smell.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Retired and loving every minute of it.... Work was getting in the way of my hobbies |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:48:47 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:
But there could end up being *one* test, no? An commision that would seriously consider the technically bankrupt technology of BPL would be most capable of such a thing. They are being considered by two entirely different processors with entirely different agendas and outside pressures. BPL will be well briefed to the "Eighth Floor" Commission sanctum folks by the time that the Commission has to look at it, and the decisions at the Commission level will be industry-political, not technological. Ham testing, OTOH, will be decided at the Division Chief level, two levels below the Commission, and will be rubber-stamped by the Bureau Chief (one level below) as well as by the Commission. That's the real world. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com