----- Original Message -----

From: "Brian Kelly"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: The War Heats Up: The ARRL Goes After Powell


AK, so make a recommendation in every comment that you make to the FCC
that the Chairman must hold an Amateur Radio License or GROL. Best of
Luck.

And an EE + LLD . . .

Actually, knowing something about the technology the FCC Chairman has
authority over does not require an amateur radio license, although that
would suggest some minimal amount of comprehension of the medium he/she is
administering. The LLD (Doctor of Laws) is always problematic. An LLD
suggests many ethical character problems and a mind generally not
interested in real-world science or engineering. An experienced FCC field
engineer who understands both the technology of radio and the politics of
Congress, as well as the politics of the many communications special
interest groups, would most likely be the best candidate for FCC Chairman. I
believe that in days gone by, FCC engineers were promoted (actually
nominated and approved by Congress) to Commissioners. Don't know if any made
it to Chairman. For sure, they wouldn't stand for today's BPL stupidity and
nonsense.

ak

"King Zulu" wrote in message news:coRbd.251927$D%.224949@attbi_s51...
----- Original Message -----

From: "Brian Kelly"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: The War Heats Up: The ARRL Goes After Powell


AK, so make a recommendation in every comment that you make to the FCC
that the Chairman must hold an Amateur Radio License or GROL. Best of
Luck.

And an EE + LLD . . .

Actually, knowing something about the technology the FCC Chairman has
authority over does not require an amateur radio license,

That's why I said to make that recommendation, rather than make them
comply. This would then lend a smidgen of credibility to the claims
that non-amateurs should have no say in amateur radio rules.

although that
would suggest some minimal amount of comprehension of the medium he/she is
administering.

Certainly more than the current director has.

William wrote:

"King Zulu" wrote in message news:coRbd.251927$D%.224949@attbi_s51...

----- Original Message -----

From: "Brian Kelly"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: The War Heats Up: The ARRL Goes After Powell



AK, so make a recommendation in every comment that you make to the FCC
that the Chairman must hold an Amateur Radio License or GROL. Best of
Luck.

And an EE + LLD . . .

Actually, knowing something about the technology the FCC Chairman has
authority over does not require an amateur radio license,


That's why I said to make that recommendation, rather than make them
comply. This would then lend a smidgen of credibility to the claims
that non-amateurs should have no say in amateur radio rules.

although that

would suggest some minimal amount of comprehension of the medium he/she is
administering.


Certainly more than the current director has.

The current guy is called into an office, and told what he is going to
do. No education or comprehension required for that.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"King Zulu" wrote in message news:coRbd.251927$D%.224949@attbi_s51...
----- Original Message -----

From: "Brian Kelly"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: The War Heats Up: The ARRL Goes After Powell


AK, so make a recommendation in every comment that you make to the FCC
that the Chairman must hold an Amateur Radio License or GROL. Best of
Luck.

And an EE + LLD . . .

Actually, knowing something about the technology the FCC Chairman has
authority over does not require an amateur radio license, although that
would suggest some minimal amount of comprehension of the medium he/she is
administering.

Agreed.

The LLD (Doctor of Laws) is always problematic. An LLD
suggests many ethical character problems and a mind generally not
interested in real-world science or engineering.

Not always. I think your brush is too broad. There are LLDs and there
are LLDs: EE+LLD types are very different animals from the usual
run-of-the-mill attorneys and they're out there in some volume. I know
several of the general breed myself. Two are chem engs and another is
a mech eng who work in the complex field of patent law and are very
sharp technically. Another is an ME+LLD accident reconstruction expert
I worked with one case he had. One more is an EE+MBA+LLD technology
consultant to venture capital investors. I got into a tussle over an
injury insurance claim with an LLD+MD. There's a tough one . . !
Technically sharp lawyers are out there but are seldom found working
for neighborhood law firms.

An experienced FCC field
engineer who understands both the technology of radio and the politics of
Congress, as well as the politics of the many communications special
interest groups, would most likely be the best candidate for FCC Chairman.
I
believe that in days gone by, FCC engineers were promoted (actually
nominated and approved by Congress) to Commissioners. Don't know if any made
it to Chairman.

Amen. At least two, maybe three of the commisioners should come from
the pool of experienced communications lawyers. There are a bunch of
those specialists around and available and many of 'em are hams. The
ARRL has a whole network of 'em on tap per Chris Imlay. We even have
our very own RRAP resident comms lawyer, Phil Kane K2ASP, EE+LLD,
former head of the San Francisco FCC Field Office.

For sure, they wouldn't stand for today's BPL stupidity and
nonsense.

Troll for Phil, he'll explain it . . . !

ak

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

For sure, they wouldn't stand for today's BPL stupidity and
nonsense.

Troll for Phil, he'll explain it . . . !

Please help me out (explain) on the meaning of the last comment, Brian.

ak

"King Zulu" wrote in message news:Enfcd.258908$D%.239336@attbi_s51...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

For sure, they wouldn't stand for today's BPL stupidity and
nonsense.

Troll for Phil, he'll explain it . . . !

Please help me out (explain) on the meaning of the last comment, Brian.

Phil is an EE+LLD who has lurked in this group for years and who spent
28 years with the FCC. He knew the "old FCC" well and has bemoaned the
decline of the influence of the technically adroit within the FCC any
number of times via his posts in this NG. If you catch him in mood to
do so he'll "explain" his views on the matter for you. He's very droll
and is always a good read.

Some of my favorite "Philisms":

"The micturition contest will be in evaluating the terms "seriously
degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts". What is "seriously"?
How much is "repeatedly"?

It will ultimately come down to whose lawyer can shout louder and
longer and whether the FCC wants to support amateur radio or BPL.

We are very lucky so far that some provider/power utility hasn't told
Riley to go fly a trombone when a warning letter is issued."

- - - -

"The first question that I always ask an opposition witness is
swaigned to elicit his/her expertise or standing in the matter. Then
we know up front whether or not the individual is (forgive the
technical lawyer jargon) talking through a paper a**hole."

- - - -

"The two things that are guaranteed to light my rocket are non-lawyers
playing lawyer and non-engineers playing engineer...."

w3rv