"Rupert" wrote in message

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To give
those
"yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the process.) and send a
ballot out to all those licensed "of record." Makes too much sense and
requires some effort. IOW, against the contemporary trend.

Regulatory matters are not decided by ballot or popularity polls. They are
decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what is in the public
interest. Thus the *quantity* of comments on the petitions is of no
consequence --- all that matters are the facts and arguments presented. Most
of the comments I have read are noticeably short on persuasive arguments for
either side of the issue.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Even if it were decided by "vote", the vote would be by the entire
citizenry, not only those few already favored with a license.

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Rupert" wrote in message

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To give
those
"yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the process.) and send a
ballot out to all those licensed "of record." Makes too much sense and
requires some effort. IOW, against the contemporary trend.

Regulatory matters are not decided by ballot or popularity polls.

In some cases, they are. And in most cases the popularity of an issue has at
least some influence.

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in 1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and sunset
clause" idea?

They are
decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what is in the public
interest.

Ideally, yes. In practice, that's rare. For example, is the homogenization of
broadcast radio brought about by "deregulation" of ownership in the public
interest? How about BPL and the prophecy of 'broadband nirvana" - is that in
the public interest?

If such matters "are decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what is in
the public interest", why do so commenters/petitioners give a biography of
their education and experience in their commentary? Shouldn't the facts speak
for themselves, and not depend on who is saying them?

Thus the *quantity* of comments on the petitions is of no
consequence --- all that matters are the facts and arguments presented.

I disagree. Of course, popularity alone is not the deciding factor. Nor should
it be. But popularity does have an effect in most regulatory decisions.

Most
of the comments I have read are noticeably short on persuasive arguments for
either side of the issue.

Agreed!

Even if it were decided by "vote", the vote would be by the entire
citizenry, not only those few already favored with a license.

Anyone can petition to or comment to the FCC, but in amateur license matters
there are very few outside of licensed amateurs, amateur organizations and
manufacturers of amater equipment who bother to comment.

Almost *anyone* can pass the Technician test and get a license - that's been
proven by the licensing of young children. So almost anyone who is really
interested in being included in such a poll can get a license, just as almost
any citizen over 18 who is interested in voting can register to vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

If such matters "are decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what
is in
the public interest", why do so commenters/petitioners give a biography of
their education and experience in their commentary?

Because it gives them a sense of self-importance, I suppose.

So almost anyone who is really interested in being included
in such a poll can get a license, ......

Ah yes, "I got mine, now you get yours; then you can comment"!!!! (Just
when I was looking for a good example of a "sense of self-importance"!)

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in
1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and
sunset
clause" idea?

Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio
Regulations.
(The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the time.)

NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way
clear,
but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome.

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in
1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and
sunset
clause" idea?

Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio
Regulations.
(The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the time.)

You misunderstood me, Carl. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Note that I wrote "still have code testing in the USA today" (emphasis on
"today")

IIRC, NCI asked for 5 wpm right away and a sunset clause that would dump
Element 1 if/when S25.5 removed the treaty requirement. FCC did the 5 wpm thing
but did not enact the sunset provision.

My point was that I think if there had been overwhelming support of both parts
of the NCI proposal, FCC would have done the sunset clause thing and code
testing would have disappeeared in the USA more than five months ago. YMMV.

NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way
clear,
but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome.

Was there not a request for a sunset clause that would do it automatically?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in
1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and
sunset
clause" idea?

Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio
Regulations.
(The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the
time.)

You misunderstood me, Carl. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Note that I wrote "still have code testing in the USA today" (emphasis on
"today")

IIRC, NCI asked for 5 wpm right away and a sunset clause that would dump
Element 1 if/when S25.5 removed the treaty requirement. FCC did the 5 wpm
thing
but did not enact the sunset provision.

Actually, we asked them to be rid of code testing then, or, in the
alternative if
they could not find a legitimate "out" on S25.5, to drop the code test to
the
minimum they thought necessary to meet that obligation and enact a sunset
clause.

My point was that I think if there had been overwhelming support of both
parts
of the NCI proposal, FCC would have done the sunset clause thing and code
testing would have disappeeared in the USA more than five months ago.
YMMV.

NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way
clear,
but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome.

Was there not a request for a sunset clause that would do it
automatically?

Yes, but we weren't surprised that they did not adopt it ... the agency
typically
doesn't like to prejudge the future ...
however, the old addage "Don't ask, don't get." has some truth to it ... so
we asked anyway.

73,
Carl - wk3c