|
The 14 Petitions
As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS
documents on public view a RM-10805: 229 RM-10806: 214 RM-10807: 174 RM-10808: 191 RM-10809: 179 RM-10810: 178 RM-10811: 956 Total: 2,121 (10811 has 45.1% of total) RM-10781: 321 RM-10782: 271 RM-10783: 276 RM-10784: 254 RM-10785: 256 RM-10786: 423 RM-10787: 674 Total 2,475 (10787 has 27.2% of total) Grand total: 4,596 documents for all 14 petitions. The Public Notice declaring 10781 through 10787 as open for comments for 30 days was posted on 29 August 2003. The Public Notice declaring 10805 through 10811 as open for comments for 30 days was posted on 8 October 2003. Docket 03-104 (Broadband over Power Lines) is still open for comments and can be reached under the Consumer page at the FCC for manually typed-in commentary rather than go to the ECFS upload page. 03-104 had 5,086 comments on record. FCC 03-104, the Docket on Broadband over Power Lines has 5,081 documents on record as of close of ECFS on 7 November 2003. LHA |
|
"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net... Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed. But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote. 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. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: "Rupert" wrote in message link.net... Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed. But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote. Egbert, according to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, there's NO "license membership requirement" to petition our government for the redress of grievances. None at all. You seem to be confusing the FCC with the ARRL. Try to separate church from state. Good luck on becoming unconfused. LHA |
In article . net, Rupert
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. There are only 4,600 documents in the ECFS as of the end of the day on the east coast, this Thursday. If you have a large hard disk and lots of time, feel free to collect ALL of them and view them, or categorize them as you want. They are all in PDF and most browsers will automatically invoke at least an Acrobat Reader (free download from Adobe) if you click on the lower left underline of each listing box. Disregarding the RM-10811 comments, I'd say that the opinions are roughly split evenly as to retention or elimination, based on spot- checking the short (1-page) comments and reading all of the comments over 1 page. RM-10811 was submitted by FISTS and their website encourages affirmative one-liners by all members. Over half of the FISTS petition comments are such one or two sentence "support" statements. According to the latest ARRL news blog, RM-10811 is the only one that counts (FISTS is solidly pro-code) and Joe Speroni (a decided PCTA) is the only acknowledged "petition statistician" in the ARRL biased viewpoint. Oddly enough, Speroni, AH0A, is responsible for RM-10808 which gathered only 191 comments. The FISTS petition comment total stands at 959. The official Comment period for all petitions ended last week. LHA |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
Egbert, according to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, there's NO "license membership requirement" to petition our government for the redress of grievances. None at all. From which particular grievance are you seeking redress, Leonard? Dave K8MN |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: "Rupert" wrote in message link.net... Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed. But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote. 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. Perhaps, but you might find that it's more complex than it appears at first. Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license. First off, there'd be a considerable number of ballots returned because the license holder was either dead, dropped out, or didn't have a current address in the database. Note that the last in that list is a rules violation..... Second, the survey would have to be carefully constructed to get accurate results. And you'd probably find that there's a wider diversity of opinion than just "keep the code test/dump the code test". Yet at the same time you'd want the survey to be simple. Perhaps something like this: "What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?" 1) It should be totally abolished 2) It should be required only for Extra 3) It should be required only for Extra and General 4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges 5) It should be required for any amateur license 6) No opinion/don't care Yet this question doesn't address code speed or medical waivers, or other possibilities like "choose the code test or a special written test". The more choices given, the greater the possibility that none of them would be a majority answer, or even a clear plurality. Then you'd be right back where you were before. Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in that case? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in
om: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: I noticed that you couldn't find time to join in the Veteran's Day greetings in another thread, although you profess admiration and respect for them. Matter of fact, I don't believe I've EVER seen you partake in any sincere regards on either Veteran's Day, Armed Forces Day or Memorial Day. 1. You are NOT, nor ever were, my commanding officer or even ranking superior anywhere, including this newsgroup. You are just rank. An answer I expected. Usual LennieRanting. You SHOULD thank God that I never WAS your "commanding officer" under any circumstances. I never would have put up with your broggadacio and lying. 2. I was elsewhere Sunday through Wednesday, taking part in veterans memorial services or visiting the VA hospital here in the Valley. Such visiting doesn't end after Veterans Day since those guys (and a couple gals) aren't going anywhere else. It's NOT like your own hypocritcal "sincerity" suddenly turning on during an official holiday and then definitely turning OFF all "sincerity" and so forth for the rest of the year. YadaYadaYada. Excuses of the lamest kind...again, an answer I would expect from you. Others took the time to put a kind reply in there, even on the "official" day I do not believe you. I doubt you were ANYwhere near ANY veteran for the purpose of supporting ANY veteran. Your track record of untruthfulness lends itself to this doubt. You cannot be trusted. You spend hundreds of hours yearly in THIS forum, yet when "kind words" are being exchanged, even amongst the "opponents", you are nowhere to be found. 3. This thread is solely about the 14 petitions against/for morse code testing in the U.S. amateur radio license test regulations. It was posted as a "heads up" for those who have not been tracking the numbers of comments on the 14 petitions. Try staying with the program. As if you ever let a thread topic stop YOU from ranting on for days about YOUR pet theme. 4. Back under your bridge little troll. After you get out from under it, big troll. You're a scumbag, Lennie Anderson. This just made it even a bit more evident... Steve, K4YZ This thread does have nothing to do with veterans. I would hope that the main message of November 11th is that too many people have died in senseless wars. BTW, I was in the local Veteran's Day parade with the scouts. This seems like a tactic to divert the thread from the no-code petitions. |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t: "Rupert" wrote in message ink.net... Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed. But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote. 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. 73 de Bert WA2SI Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I. |
In article , Alun
writes: "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Rupert" wrote in message ink.net... Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed. But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote. 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. 73 de Bert WA2SI Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I. Sure - nobody is saying that should change. However, note that there has been an amateur radio license with no code test available here in the USA for almost 13 years now. That license gives full VHF/UHF operating privileges and requires only a 35 question written test. A code test is only required for access to the HF/MF amateur bands. So anyone who wants to obtain an amateur license can do so without any code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license. First question: who is going to front the six figures required to send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC? No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail - except for Congressional mailings, of course. "What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?" 1) It should be totally abolished 2) It should be required only for Extra 3) It should be required only for Extra and General 4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges 5) It should be required for any amateur license 6) No opinion/don't care Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in that case? Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ??? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote: Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license. First question: who is going to front the six figures required to send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC? No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail - except for Congressional mailings, of course. "What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?" 1) It should be totally abolished 2) It should be required only for Extra 3) It should be required only for Extra and General 4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges 5) It should be required for any amateur license 6) No opinion/don't care Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in that case? Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ??? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane No response would probably be the commonest item even if the ballots come with return postage paid by the government. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote: Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license. First question: who is going to front the six figures required to send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC? Never happen. And with return postage guaranteed it could get close to seven figures. No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail - except for Congressional mailings, of course. Isn't it neat how Congress passes all sorts of rules for everyone else but exempts itself from those very rules? Classic case of "do as I say, not as I do"... "What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?" 1) It should be totally abolished 2) It should be required only for Extra 3) It should be required only for Extra and General 4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges 5) It should be required for any amateur license 6) No opinion/don't care Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in that case? Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ??? 'zactly. But I don't think it would be that bad. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"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. |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote: Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license. First question: who is going to front the six figures required to send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC? No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail - except for Congressional mailings, of course. "What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?" 1) It should be totally abolished 2) It should be required only for Extra 3) It should be required only for Extra and General 4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges 5) It should be required for any amateur license 6) No opinion/don't care Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in that case? Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ??? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane No response would probably be the commonest item even if the ballots come with return postage paid by the government. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Bottom line, who cares since the entire concept is a joke anyway and stands NO chance of ever happening. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Alun" wrote in message ... However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties. How would you then define the group to be polled? Even polling just the licensed hams would be prohibitive in terms of postage as mentioned in other posts. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties. How would you then define the group to be polled? Even polling just the licensed hams would be prohibitive in terms of postage as mentioned in other posts. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though. |
Alun wrote:
If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though. Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in
t: Alun wrote: If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though. Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf? - Mike KB3EIA - No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me! |
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 |
Alun wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in t: Alun wrote: If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though. Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf? - Mike KB3EIA - No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me! A couple years back, People Magazine ran an online vote for "Most Beautiful Person of the Year" on their website. This was shortly after the movie "Titanic" was released. People's "choice " was for Leonardo DeCaprio to run away with the honors (go figure!) Well the word got around in the newsgroups that this was going on, and the suggestion was made to all newsgroupies to go to the page and do a write-in vote for "Hank, the angry drunken dwarf" http://www.hankthedwarf.com/plain/frameset.html Hank was definitely NOT one of the "beautiful people", and was a perfect foil for the shallow business of celebrity worship as practiced by the likes of People magazine. Unfortunately, Hank's "lifestyle" caught up with him at an amazingly early age, and he is no longer with us. But he and hundreds of thousands of newsgroupies spanked People magazine a good one: http://www.hankthedwarf.com/flash_dynamic/news.html Quote: PEOPLE ONLINE MAY 1998 Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf wins People Online's Most Beautiful Person in the World Poll receiving 230,169 votes dwarfing runner up Leonardo DiCaprio and Rick Flair by over 200,000 votes. People Online's articles after the spectacle said: "Though we're hardly novices at handling online polls--this was out sixth--nothing could have prepared us for the agony, the ecstacy…and well, the angry, drunken dwarf." But my point in all this is: Internet polls mean absolutely nothing whatsoever! I voted for Hank three times in that poll, and if it happened today, I could vote for him five times without trying. If I tried, I suppose I could give him around 300 votes or so. This is the internet, and online voting won't work. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in :
Alun wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in t: Alun wrote: If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though. Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf? - Mike KB3EIA - No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me! A couple years back, People Magazine ran an online vote for "Most Beautiful Person of the Year" on their website. This was shortly after the movie "Titanic" was released. People's "choice " was for Leonardo DeCaprio to run away with the honors (go figure!) Well the word got around in the newsgroups that this was going on, and the suggestion was made to all newsgroupies to go to the page and do a write-in vote for "Hank, the angry drunken dwarf" http://www.hankthedwarf.com/plain/frameset.html Hank was definitely NOT one of the "beautiful people", and was a perfect foil for the shallow business of celebrity worship as practiced by the likes of People magazine. Unfortunately, Hank's "lifestyle" caught up with him at an amazingly early age, and he is no longer with us. But he and hundreds of thousands of newsgroupies spanked People magazine a good one: http://www.hankthedwarf.com/flash_dynamic/news.html Quote: PEOPLE ONLINE MAY 1998 Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf wins People Online's Most Beautiful Person in the World Poll receiving 230,169 votes dwarfing runner up Leonardo DiCaprio and Rick Flair by over 200,000 votes. People Online's articles after the spectacle said: "Though we're hardly novices at handling online polls--this was out sixth--nothing could have prepared us for the agony, the ecstacy…and well, the angry, drunken dwarf." But my point in all this is: Internet polls mean absolutely nothing whatsoever! I voted for Hank three times in that poll, and if it happened today, I could vote for him five times without trying. If I tried, I suppose I could give him around 300 votes or so. This is the internet, and online voting won't work. - Mike KB3EIA - That's why I mentionned 'Chicago voters'. With apologies to anyone reading this in Chicago, the town is famous for voting fraud. The term 'Chicago voter' has been used to mean someone casting a vote on behalf of a dead person. As you point out, in most Internet polls that isn't even necessary, as no ID is submitted. That doesn't mean that there is no solution, though. Some form of pre-registration process would be needed. |
"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 |
On 14 Nov 2003 03:39:11 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:
In article . net, Rupert writes: Len Over 21 wrote: As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on public view a What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change, and how many want to keep the code. There are only 4,600 documents in the ECFS as of the end of the day on the east coast, this Thursday. If you have a large hard disk and lots of time, feel free to collect ALL of them and view them, or categorize them as you want. They are all in PDF and most browsers will automatically invoke at least an Acrobat Reader (free download from Adobe) if you click on the lower left underline of each listing box. Disregarding the RM-10811 comments, I'd say that the opinions are roughly split evenly as to retention or elimination, based on spot- checking the short (1-page) comments and reading all of the comments over 1 page. RM-10811 was submitted by FISTS and their website encourages affirmative one-liners by all members. Over half of the FISTS petition comments are such one or two sentence "support" statements. According to the latest ARRL news blog, RM-10811 is the only one that counts (FISTS is solidly pro-code) and Joe Speroni (a decided PCTA) is the only acknowledged "petition statistician" in the ARRL biased viewpoint. Oddly enough, Speroni, AH0A, is responsible for RM-10808 which gathered only 191 comments. The FISTS petition comment total stands at 959. The official Comment period for all petitions ended last week. LHA Element 1 will be gone next year. Face it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gary Sanford |
"N2EY" wrote
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"!) Not at all. More like "I'm interested enough in the ARS to join". Do you place much credence in the political opinions of someone who could legally vote, but won't even take the time to register? 73 de Jim, N2EY First off, your analogy is flaccid at best. In order to register to vote, I generally need only to reveal my place of residence (with evidence like an ID card, or be vouched for by another person registered to vote in the jurisdiction). I need not take any written or skills test, nor pay any examination fee, nor demonstrate any particular knowledge of the issues. (In fact such impediments to registering/voting used to exist in some jurisdictions, notably in the south, and are deemed unconstitutional.) It speaks volumes that you'd suggest such impediments to comment on something as mundane as regulations regarding a hobby radio service. Second off, regardless of the applicability of your analogy, I do not judge a persons political opinion based on whether he/she has taken the time to register to vote. (I don't even raise that question, because it is irrelevant to the value I place on their opinion.) I attach credence to their opinion based on their ability to make well constructed arguments, to succinctly state their views without resort to emotion or cliché, and evidence that they may have considered alternate or opposing views. The fact that you have an amateur license suggests that you will have an opinion about amateur radio regulation, but it gives no credence in and of itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration. Similarly a non-licensed individual may have an opinion but lack of a license similarly gives no credence in and of itself whether that opinion is or is not worthy of consideration. Thus your "almost anyone who is really interested in being included in such a poll can get a license" strikes me as just another version of the discredited practice of 'poll taxes' by which privileged persons attempted to limit the influence of 'lesser' (in their pecking order) persons in political affairs. I don't see how your mileage can vary. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , Gary Sanford
writes: Element 1 will be gone next year. Face it. Maybe. It's been almost half a year since WRC 2003 removed the treaty requirement, yet less than a dozen countries have dropped or have announced the dropping of code tests. The US isn't one of them. Some say FCC could announce the suspension of Element 1 tomorrow. Others say it takes a full NPRM process. Typical NPRM cycle in the ARS takes so long that we're talking 2005.....just look at 98-143. The NPRM appeared somewhere in the middle of 1998 but the changes that resulted weren't effective until April of 2000. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Oddly enough, Speroni, AH0A, is responsible for RM-10808 which gathered only 191 comments. The FISTS petition comment total stands at 959. The FCC doesn't go by the number of "votes" on a petition. One well reasoned comment can out-rule many "me too" comments. |
"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 |
KØHB wrote: First off, your analogy is flaccid at best. In order to register to vote, I generally need only to reveal my place of residence (with evidence like an ID card, or be vouched for by another person registered to vote in the jurisdiction). I need not take any written or skills test, nor pay any examination fee, nor demonstrate any particular knowledge of the issues. (In fact such impediments to registering/voting used to exist in some jurisdictions, notably in the south, and are deemed unconstitutional.) It speaks volumes that you'd suggest such impediments to comment on something as mundane as regulations regarding a hobby radio service. Second off, regardless of the applicability of your analogy, I do not judge a persons political opinion based on whether he/she has taken the time to register to vote. (I don't even raise that question, because it is irrelevant to the value I place on their opinion.) I attach credence to their opinion based on their ability to make well constructed arguments, to succinctly state their views without resort to emotion or cliché, and evidence that they may have considered alternate or opposing views. Hans, do you consider your occasional foray into profanity, referring to Jim's anology as flaccid, or calling me stupid as something other than emotional responses? Of course, I'm stupid, so I might not know th edifference!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
Actually, outlining some experience/qualifications to render a view lends a certain degree of credibility to comments. And a distinct image of pompousness. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
Hans, do you consider your occasional foray into profanity, referring to Jim's anology as flaccid, or calling me stupid as something other than emotional responses? That's a stupid question. (Regardless of the old bromide about "there ain't no such thing as....") 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote
Hans, do you consider your .... referring to Jim's anology as flaccid ..... as something other than emotional responses? I call it descriptive (certainly it's not emotional!!). According to my Funk and Wagnalls (gotta love a guy with a funky name like that!): ==== flaccid: adj. soft and limp: (example: flaccid biceps) In other words, without strength, weak, ie., "flaccid analogy" If that strikes an emotional chord with you, then you must truly be a "sensitive" guy! With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:42:20 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
Actually, outlining some experience/qualifications to render a view lends a certain degree of credibility to comments. It also helps to establish one's status as an "interested party" in the legal sense. And, as I know full well, sometimes it is legally required to disclose one's background and present status to avoid claims of "conflict of interest" based on present or past associations with the matter or the agency. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On 19 Nov 2003 23:33:34 GMT, N2EY wrote:
But I have it on good authority that FCC does place some value on the "credentials" of the person making the comments. Perhaps K2ASP would comment on this. The same is true in any professional field. It's called "credibility". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"N2EY" wrote
Perhaps K2ASP would comment on this. I'd BET on it!!! And I'll bet on his answer too. It'll have an anecdote to some incident back when he had a life. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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 |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:42:20 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Actually, outlining some experience/qualifications to render a view lends a certain degree of credibility to comments. It also helps to establish one's status as an "interested party" in the legal sense. And, as I know full well, sometimes it is legally required to disclose one's background and present status to avoid claims of "conflict of interest" based on present or past associations with the matter or the agency. Thanks, Phil and Carl, for explaining it far better than I did. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com