As of the close of business on 1 Aug 05, the total Comments
on WT Docket 05-235 were 258. Of those approximately 7 were
either duplicates (two) or desired an intermediate decision
not covered by the NPRM. There were 78 Comments that were
against eliminating the morse code test. The remainder, 251
Comments were for the elimination of the morse code test.

The ratio of For versus Against elimination was 3.22:1.

Comments began on 20 Jul 05 with none logged in by the FCC
on 23 and 24 July, none on 30 and 31 July.

non dit

Len:

Ahhh, good to see such a thing. Restores a bit of faith in humanity. You
never have to fear the decision of the majority, logic, common sense and
decency still resides in the overall consensus.

I can go to sleep realizing God is good...
grin

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
As of the close of business on 1 Aug 05, the total Comments
on WT Docket 05-235 were 258. Of those approximately 7 were
either duplicates (two) or desired an intermediate decision
not covered by the NPRM. There were 78 Comments that were
against eliminating the morse code test. The remainder, 251
Comments were for the elimination of the morse code test.

The ratio of For versus Against elimination was 3.22:1.

Comments began on 20 Jul 05 with none logged in by the FCC
on 23 and 24 July, none on 30 and 31 July.

non dit

Len,

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
ups.com...
As of the close of business on 1 Aug 05, the total Comments
on WT Docket 05-235 were 258. Of those approximately 7 were
either duplicates (two) or desired an intermediate decision
not covered by the NPRM. There were 78 Comments that were
against eliminating the morse code test. The remainder, 251
Comments were for the elimination of the morse code test.

The ratio of For versus Against elimination was 3.22:1.

Comments began on 20 Jul 05 with none logged in by the FCC
on 23 and 24 July, none on 30 and 31 July.

non dit

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

From: "John Smith" on Mon 1 Aug 2005 23:05

Len:

Ahhh, good to see such a thing. Restores a bit of faith in humanity. You
never have to fear the decision of the majority, logic, common sense and
decency still resides in the overall consensus.

I wouldn't go at it QUITE that way, John. I'll put the BIG THING
on the federal government getting ON the Internet and letting folks
talk DIRECTLY to their government. No longer does one need a
legal firm or other organization to "talk for us" (or, laugh-in-ly,
as a "representative" ex-officio).

Up through the 1980s, "interfacing" with our government HAD to be
done at slow-speed via surface mail OR through some legal
representative. The ARRL helped (and hurt) the "amateur community"
by providing a legal firm on retainer in DC which, in turn,
"presented its case" to the FCC in neat legalistic format. Problem
is that the League HAD CONTROL of this "representative" process
all the way despite their spin that they "represented all amateurs."
They didn't since their membership was never greater than a quarter
of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs and right now is perhaps only
one out of five (have to wait until QST finishes their mid-year
"publishers sworn statement" to get an update on their numbers).
The League is only beholden to its membership and is in no way
obliged to "represent" non-members.

Once the Algore influence on Internet connecting by the government
began happening, we (those who were around prior to 1991 and
after the Internet became public) could COMMUNICATE *DIRECTLY*.
The first taste of this New Freedom for radio amateurs was
probably in 1998 and FCC 98-143, the NPRM on Restructuring.
Surprise, surprise, no more League filtering of opinions, us
citizens got to Comment easily and quickly DIRECTLY with the FCC.
I'm sure the League got a bit of a shock on realizing they no
longer had the CONTROL they thought they had.

Direct communication with our government is pretty much a good
thing despite the rare crackpot stuff that sometimes happens...
and even with "canned" Comments that originate with one author
and are spread around and copied and sent do work. Don't nobody
forget that those work for BOTH sides. :-)

So far, with the ECFS not yet completed for 2 Aug 05, the NCTAs
outnumber the PCTAs by at least 3:1.

I can go to sleep realizing God is good...

Yes, but lock the doors and windows...a PCTA may be lurking out
there somewhere ready to BEEP you! :-)

out dit

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