K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out
where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed.
What a concept!

The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that
almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions
are for alleged violations using *voice* modes?

If we regulate by that principle, then we should extend the same "just st=
ay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged viola=
tions.

Only if the mode is as popular as Morse Code is on the HF/MF bands.

I take it you'd be in favor of that? If not, why not?

See above!

Do you include "robot" modes?

So it wasn't submitted as a restructuring proposal, but as
comments to other proposals.

That's correct. It was formally submitted to FCC on three occassions whe=
n the
Commission solicited comments.

Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I think it would be
better if it were sent to FCC as a formal proposal. Because it would
then get a lot more attention than it would as a comment.

But it's *your* proposal, not mine.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out
where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed.
What a concept!

The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that
almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions
are for alleged violations using *voice* modes?

If we regulate by that principle, then we should extend the same "just stay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged
violations.

Only if the mode is as popular as Morse Code is on the HF/MF bands.

Interesting. In other words, if SSTV or PSK-xx (just a couple of examples ---
pick your own other candidate) became as popular as Morse, then that mode ought
to enjoy the same "full band" freedom that only Morse now enjoys. That seems to
be inconsistent with your previous "modes should be kept separate" stance.
Maybe you're starting to see it my way after all.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote

Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.

Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

You don't (mostly) agree with the thing, but you think it would be better for
FCC to give it "a lot more attention"?

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.

Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

( "I spell my name...DANGER!")*

You don't (mostly) agree with the thing,
but you think it would be better for
FCC to give it "a lot more attention"?

Yes. You see, I have this wild concept that even ideas I
disagree with are better off being discussed than being
hidden away. You know, that whole "democracy" thing...

I think you have come up with a proposal that represents a
clear, coherent and concise point of view. That I don't
agree with most of it is immaterial; I think it at least
deserves the same exposure and discussion as the 18 other
proposals, most of which are far less clear, coherent or
concise. (like the one that would put beginners on 160
with limited power - wassup with THAT? Or the NCI and
first NCVEC proposals, that are tunnelvision to the max.
Or the second NCVEC proposal...)

IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

The proposal of the "think tank" contains only one element
of your proposal. You were *years* ahead of them!

There's still time to put it into proposal form and send it to FCC as
a formal proposal.

Why not?

Suppose it were sent to FCC, and they gave it an RM number.
And suppose it drew a lot of comments that supported it. Say
75% in support.

Who could then say it wasn't what the amateur community wants?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.

Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

( "I spell my name...DANGER!")*

You don't (mostly) agree with the thing,
but you think it would be better for
FCC to give it "a lot more attention"?

Yes. You see, I have this wild concept that even ideas I
disagree with are better off being discussed than being
hidden away. You know, that whole "democracy" thing...

I think you have come up with a proposal that represents a
clear, coherent and concise point of view. That I don't
agree with most of it is immaterial; I think it at least
deserves the same exposure and discussion as the 18 other
proposals, most of which are far less clear, coherent or
concise. (like the one that would put beginners on 160
with limited power - wassup with THAT? Or the NCI and
first NCVEC proposals, that are tunnelvision to the max.
Or the second NCVEC proposal...)

IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

The proposal of the "think tank" contains only one element
of your proposal. You were *years* ahead of them!

There's still time to put it into proposal form and send it to FCC as
a formal proposal.

Why not?
break


Suppose it were sent to FCC, and they gave it an RM number.
And suppose it drew a lot of comments that supported it. Say
75% in support.

Who could then say it wasn't what the amateur community wants?

Anyone that did not like would say it as with anything in the ARS
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote
Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.
Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

WHAT exactly *IS* the issue then?

You don't (mostly) agree with the thing,
but you think it would be better for
FCC to give it "a lot more attention"?

Yes. You see, I have this wild concept that even ideas I
disagree with are better off being discussed than being
hidden away. You know, that whole "democracy" thing...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are now going to demonstrate a
remarkable degree of HYPOCRISY as quoted following:

I think you have come up with a proposal that represents a
clear, coherent and concise point of view. That I don't
agree with most of it is immaterial; I think it at least
deserves the same exposure and discussion as the 18 other
proposals, most of which are far less clear, coherent or
concise. (like the one that would put beginners on 160
with limited power - wassup with THAT? Or the NCI and
first NCVEC proposals, that are tunnelvision to the max.
Or the second NCVEC proposal...)

Of course, anything that doesn't feature morse code
and/or include morse code testing in the future is
relegated to "trash." [very "democratic"]

IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

Define "amateur community."

Then go look at the Radio Communications Act of 1934 and
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and show where the
*ONLY* considerations for amateur radio regulations are
to be put before the "amateur community."

Are ONLY members of the "broadcasting community" allowed to
comment on Mass Media Broadcasting regulations? Are ONLY
members of "private mobile radio community" allowed to comment
on PLMRS regulations? NO. The FCC - obligated by law - is
REQUIRED to listen to ALL CITIZENS' comments. That is true
democracy.

True democracy is NOT a small group of a private organization
in one corner of the country determining everything in amateur
radio.

Based on those EIGHTEEN proposals STILL before the FCC and with
thousands of comments filed on them, there is NO SUCH THING as
the "amateur community." There is an obvious NON-harmonius
polarization evident within what MIGHT be called an "amateur
community."

You have NO "solution" to bring harmony to this mythical "amateur
community" with the possible exception of everyone holding fast
to the status quo, agreeing with the self-appointed mover-and-
shaker "representative" called the ARRL. None of those "solutions'
are democratic or even egalitarian. They are merely totalitarian
and antiquated as well as biased and elitist.

There's still time to put it into proposal form and send it to FCC as
a formal proposal.

Suppose it were sent to FCC, and they gave it an RM number.
And suppose it drew a lot of comments that supported it. Say
75% in support.

Who could then say it wasn't what the amateur community wants?

Trying to be "logical" on hypothetical situations of your own
devising is on the road to good old reducto ad absurdum city.

There are EIGHTEEN proposals before the FCC and roughly half
of those have been before them for two years. Has the FCC
acted on its own "housekeeping" NPRM for regulations yet?
And you now want to add a NINETEENTH proposal which - as you
presuppose - will garner a "75% 'approval'?" Ridiculous.

Where is this illustrious, "representative" league in terms of
going "in there" and shaking the regulatory process tree?
This "representative" attempted to oppose the revisions of
S25 despite the IARU already taking a stand in favor of that
revision - publicly - two years prior. This "representative"
failed to bring about a 60 meter amateur band and was relegated
to appeasing the five channels instead. This "representative"
(of all hams) has continued to fail in obtaining a below-MF
amateur band for years...even though Europeans have enjoyed
such privileges for years.

The "amateur community" is NOT the imaginary cohesive group
of clubby members you fantasize. It is a wide-open diverse
group whose "lowest classes" (Technicians) are fast
approaching a MAJORITY of all U.S. radio amateur licensees.
You MUST begin thinking much farther out than your own
personal desires in order to advocate some "action."
So far, you've NOT demonstrated any of that.
=20

wrote:
From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am
K=D8=88B wrote:
wrote
Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.
Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

WHAT exactly *IS* the issue then?

Changing the rules to what best serves the amateur radio
service, Len.

IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

Define "amateur community."

In the case of FCC regulations, any person or group that is interested
enough to comment on proposed revisions to the
FCC rules affecting amateur radio.

That includes but is not limited to licensed radio amateurs,
unlicensed persons who are interested in amateur radio,
equipment manufacturers, clubs, national, regional and local
amateur radio organizations, and other interested parties.

I've never advocated that *any* interested party not be heard.
Never told anyone to "shut the hell up" in a newsgroup...

What's your definition of "amateur [radio] community", Len?

--

btw, thanks again for confirming what I had
long suspected....

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am
K=D8=88B wrote:
wrote
Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.
Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

WHAT exactly *IS* the issue then?

Changing the rules to what best serves the amateur radio
service, Len.

BUZZ the issue is what best allows the ARS to serve the public interest


IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

Define "amateur community."

In the case of FCC regulations, any person or group that is interested
enough to comment on proposed revisions to the
FCC rules affecting amateur radio.

That includes but is not limited to licensed radio amateurs,
unlicensed persons who are interested in amateur radio,
equipment manufacturers, clubs, national, regional and local
amateur radio organizations, and other interested parties.

I've never advocated that *any* interested party not be heard.
Never told anyone to "shut the hell up" in a newsgroup...

What's your definition of "amateur [radio] community", Len?

--
=20
btw, thanks again for confirming what I had
long suspected....