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