Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article t, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC? I already did (as you knew perfectly well). But only as a comment to another's proposal, not as a stand-alone petition. Hopefully Hans has a ready supply of replies for the FCC to use when people comment on his petition. It just won't seem right to comment on it there without being called stupid...oops, I mean novel! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article t, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC? I already did (as you knew perfectly well). But only as a comment to another's proposal, not as a stand-alone petition. Hopefully Hans has a ready supply of replies for the FCC to use when people comment on his petition. So far, Hans has sent in his ideas only as a comment to others' petitions and proposals, Mike. He hasn't sent FCC a petition or proposal to FCC. It just won't seem right to comment on it there without being called stupid...oops, I mean novel! ;^) I think that if Hans was really serious about his proposal, he'd send it off to FCC just like the other 14 petitioners recently did. I say this because it is highly doubtful that the major and unique features of his proposal would be adopted by any other group such as ARRL, NCVEC, or NCI. It is also highly doubtful that his proposal, when submitted as a comment, would have nearly so much effect nor gather nearly so much attention as if submitted as a proposal. If and when Hans did submit it as a petition, FCC would then most probably assign it an RM number and take comments and reply comments on it. Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. It would be fascinating to see the reactions.... But it's Hans ideas and therefore his call as to whetehr to submit it or not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Excellent point. There are a total of 4,661 documents on the ECFS for those 14 petitions mainly concerned with code testing. That's more than was gathered on NPRM 98-143 by close to 2K. Happy Y3K, I think that should be "Y1K" considering the Reverend's love of the past... Just a thought. WMD |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
K0HB, the perfect argument against code.
KØHB wrote: "N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? Why, yes. What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? Not here. But I don't know about in the much wider arena of petitions to the FCC. The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. The comment and reply comment periods to all of those 14 petitions are long past. ARRL hasn't started yet. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? What noise level? Right now there are no petitions/RMs/NPRMs on amateur license requirement changes out there. Yours would have the comment stage to itself right now. Soon ARRL will have its board meeting, and then there will probably be a proposal that will gather all kinds of comments. Obviously you don't want to compete with that! Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. Considering the way FCC tossed out 14 RM numbers in two batches of seven, if you wait you may find your proposal batched with ARRL's. If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process before you ever get the petition sent in. Happy Y3K, And looking forward to Y4K 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. ...... If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process before you ever get the petition sent in. Did I miss something? Is this the last NPRM that FCC will issue in Amateur Radio matters? The current salad bowl of 14 (15?) petitions is primarily concerned with Morse testing for HF access. I've already commented on that matter. The changes I'd like to see in the Amateur Radio service are only mildly concerned with Morse Code, but primarily concerned with the fundamental licensing structure of our service. I don't want that issue lost in the cacaphony of noise surrounding the Morse Code testing issue, so if I do submit a petition it will be timed to avoid being confused as a "Morse Code" petition. 73, Hans, K0HB |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. ...... If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process before you ever get the petition sent in. Did I miss something? No, but I did. Thank you for clearing up your thinking on your method of presenting your proposal, Hans. Is this the last NPRM that FCC will issue in Amateur Radio matters? Of course not! But once FCC does so (probably some months after ARRL does its proposal), it will be a while before they want to reopen that can of worms again. Of course I could be mistaken on that. I thought that FCC would simply dump Element 1 via Memorandum Report and Order soon after S25.5 changed. At most I thought there'd be a quickie NPRM. But instead it looks like we're in for a long ride. The current salad bowl of 14 (15?) petitions is primarily concerned with Morse testing for HF access. I've already commented on that matter. So did I. Perhaps my preference for doing a job once rather than nickel-and-diming it to death is showing in that I think a more comprehensive approach (like your proposal) is better. But that's just me - and it's *your* proposal anyway. The changes I'd like to see in the Amateur Radio service are only mildly concerned with Morse Code, but primarily concerned with the fundamental licensing structure of our service. I don't want that issue lost in the cacaphony of noise surrounding the Morse Code testing issue, so if I do submit a petition it will be timed to avoid being confused as a "Morse Code" petition. I can certainly understand and respect that approach even if I don't agree with it 100%. My main concern is that if you wait until the Morse Code test issue noise dies down, it may be a long wait *and* there may be an addy-tood of "oh no, we're not going to reopen THAT can of worms again". Meanwhile, really bad proposals like the "21st Century" ideas may take the stage, or even be enacted. As much as I disagree with some parts of your proposal, it is infinitely preferable to the "21st Century" concepts. So it becomes clear to me now that you will submit it to FCC when you know the time is right - which is not right now. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. So what is your likly timetable for submission? After an ARRL submission? If yes, how soon after? There is a risk of submitting beyond a point where the FCC has already digested the 14 or probably will be 15 submissions and then posts a NPRM. By that time any new proposals aren't likly to get any attention...IMHO. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
ARRL FUD about BPL | General |