From: "Bill Sohl" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 13:18

Len,

Thanks for the status analysis.
Will you be doing periodic updates too?

Aperiodically, as time here permits.

So far, I've READ each and every Comment posted in the ECFS
on WT Docket 05-235. I've noted which ones were absolutely
FOR code test elimination and which ones were absolutely
AGAINST code test elimination. There are a few "gray area"
Comments which want an in-between state; i.e., code test for
some classes but not others...or the writing is too ambiguous
as to what the commentor is trying to say. The third category
has to be subjectively judged and I "put on my editor's hat"
to gauge those. The first two categories have NO possible
ambiguity since this is a highly-polarized subject and most
are very definitely on one side or the other.

As for approximately mid-afternoon in DC on 2 Aug 05 there
are 55 more Comments, one of which is mine (5 pages worth, but
a small download file, about 30K). Based on previous Dockets,
the ECFS totals are not stable until about 6 PM in DC as the
incoming Comments undergo some kind of human perusal/check
prior to appearing in the final day's listing. 6 PM in DC is
3 PM out here.

A ratio of greater than 3:1 FOR the NPRM is still holding.

dot bye

Len:

Well, that is cheating looking at the docket info...

How about you do a little "Len's Crystal Ball" piece--keeping it
up-to-date of course!, kinda give us a glimpse into the future? FCC and
arrl have such boring methods, we have seen them many, many times
before--time for a change and a bit-o-fun!

Warmest regards,
John

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:22:02 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "Bill Sohl" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 13:18

Len,

Thanks for the status analysis.
Will you be doing periodic updates too?

Aperiodically, as time here permits.

So far, I've READ each and every Comment posted in the ECFS
on WT Docket 05-235. I've noted which ones were absolutely
FOR code test elimination and which ones were absolutely
AGAINST code test elimination. There are a few "gray area"
Comments which want an in-between state; i.e., code test for
some classes but not others...or the writing is too ambiguous
as to what the commentor is trying to say. The third category
has to be subjectively judged and I "put on my editor's hat"
to gauge those. The first two categories have NO possible
ambiguity since this is a highly-polarized subject and most
are very definitely on one side or the other.

As for approximately mid-afternoon in DC on 2 Aug 05 there
are 55 more Comments, one of which is mine (5 pages worth, but
a small download file, about 30K). Based on previous Dockets,
the ECFS totals are not stable until about 6 PM in DC as the
incoming Comments undergo some kind of human perusal/check
prior to appearing in the final day's listing. 6 PM in DC is
3 PM out here.

A ratio of greater than 3:1 FOR the NPRM is still holding.

dot bye

6. John Smith Aug 2, 1:27 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: John Smith - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:27:55 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 2 2005 1:27 pm
Subject: Status of WT Docket 05-235
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Len:


Well, that is cheating looking at the docket info...

? How else to look at REALITY? Look it square and fair, no
hesitation.

How about you do a little "Len's Crystal Ball" piece--keeping it
up-to-date of course!, kinda give us a glimpse into the future? FCC and
arrl have such boring methods, we have seen them many, many times
before--time for a change and a bit-o-fun!

No. Firstly, you guys don't pay enough...together you can't get up
scale (fees). Secondly, there's ten kinds of "insiders" in here all
"explaining" what the FCC "is all about." Those get nauseous as
well
as repetitive. Thirdly, I go after things DIRECTLY instead of
sitting in here all the time and "explaining" things like so many
others do.

I've Commented directly to the FCC on 98-143, BPL, and all 18
petitions. I doubt there are any other "regulars" who've had the
guts
to do the same...I've not seen them in the ECFS on ALL of those.

yah yah

Len:

OK, I gave you your chance, I am going back to consulting with Sylvia Browne...
frown

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
6. John Smith Aug 2, 1:27 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: John Smith - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:27:55 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 2 2005 1:27 pm
Subject: Status of WT Docket 05-235
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Len:


Well, that is cheating looking at the docket info...

? How else to look at REALITY? Look it square and fair, no
hesitation.

How about you do a little "Len's Crystal Ball" piece--keeping it
up-to-date of course!, kinda give us a glimpse into the future? FCC and
arrl have such boring methods, we have seen them many, many times
before--time for a change and a bit-o-fun!

No. Firstly, you guys don't pay enough...together you can't get up
scale (fees). Secondly, there's ten kinds of "insiders" in here all
"explaining" what the FCC "is all about." Those get nauseous as
well
as repetitive. Thirdly, I go after things DIRECTLY instead of
sitting in here all the time and "explaining" things like so many
others do.

I've Commented directly to the FCC on 98-143, BPL, and all 18
petitions. I doubt there are any other "regulars" who've had the
guts
to do the same...I've not seen them in the ECFS on ALL of those.

yah yah