Alun L. Palmer wrote:

At least Len finally answered the citizenship question, although I'm not
convinced by his answer.

Nor am I.

As it happens (and many of you already know this) I'm not a US citizen
myself. This means that I can't vote in federal elections, although beleive
it or not, voting in local elections is upto local government to decide. In
fact, I think that the states have the power to let aliens vote in federal,
but not presidential elections, but none of them do any longer, although I
understand it was common in pioneering times when few people were citizens.
One city in this state does allow non-citizens to vote, but it's not the
city I live in.

Point is, commenting isn't voting.

It would be nice to vote, but I am eligible to apply for citizenship at any
time, so this is not a big issue for me. I prefer not to renounce my native
citizenship, even though it would have no legal effect in itself, i.e. the
UK doesn't recognise renunciation.

I don't think FCC cares one way or the other.

When it comes to FCC comment procedures, there is no system in place for
checking the citizenship of anyone who posts a comment, and no longer any
restriction on aliens holding a licence, although there once was, but that
was before my time.

Not only that, but there's probably no real system of checking
that commenters are who they way they are. Of course there
are probably laws on the books for deliberate false statements
but I don't think FCC has gone after any amateur radio commenters
with them...

Hence, if I post a comment it will be counted by the
FCC, if not by Len. OTOH, if people don't post their citizenship (I don't
when commenting to the FCC) Len won't know whether to include them or not
(even though the FCC will).

I think the *content* of the comments is more important than whether
the
commenter is a citizen.

I think this is Jim's point, as it does reflect
on the accuracy of the scorecard, albeit not enough to keep Element 1 from
going West!

It's one point of many I'm making about the (in)accuracy of Len's
'scorecard'.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
From: Alun L. Palmer on Nov 6, 8:57 am

"Usenet Central" wrote in
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message

: Any way you look at it though, more than half the comments are in
: favour of the NPRM and less than a third against,

Not in fact is it ANY WAY (every way) you look at it. If Lenards
tally is accurate,

But it isn't.

your issue seems almost exactly an even race since
the official Federal Register publication of the NRPM with 50.41% in
favor or dropping Morse and 49.59% in sympathy to retain at least some
Morse examination.

A more accurate analysis puts the numbers at 45% in favor and 55%
against.

Based on your presidents election experience you
should exam for perhaps hanging chads in some preceints in Florida.

It's only an even race if you count those who want to retain a code test
for Extra only as being in the anti camp. I guarantee that the FCC will be
able to think of no reason to retain it only for Extras. In your dreams,
maybe.

Let's look at the facts:

1) The NPRM proposes complete elimination of
all Morse Code testing for an FCC-issued amateur radio license.

2) Only 45% of those submitting comments support complete elimination
of
all Morse Code testing for an FCC-issued amateur radio license. That's
a
clear *minority*.

3) A clear majority (well over 60%) of those submitting comments
support elimination of
Morse Code testing for a General-class FCC-issued amateur radio
license.

4) A clear minority (well under 40%) of those submitting comments
support no change in Morse Code testing for an FCC-issued amateur radio
license.

5) The comments are not a vote. FCC accepts comments from all
interested parties, including multiple comments from the same person.
But one person's opionion isn't
worth more because of multiple filings.

Speaking of paradoxes, the code test for extra people allow
the "lesser classes" to be free of federal code testing for a
license.

What's wrong with that?

They are the classic mugwumps sitting astride the
code-test-fence, one foot on each side.

It's not an either-or issue

So, which way to count them? :-)

Because they submitted comments.

We can all go to AH0A.ORG and use Speroni's "unbiased" (Ha!)

His tabulation is unbiased compared to yours.

lumping of the code-test-only-for-extras comments as being
Absolutely FOR CW! [no red strike-outs on THOSE icons!]

They are against the NPRM, which calls for complete elimination
of all code testing.

Of course, Joe Speroni is an unabashed morseman since way back.

Ad hominem attack noted.

He also had a couple Petitions DENIED by the FCC. shrug

In order to have a petition denied, a petition must be filed.

Has Leonard Anderson filed any petitions with FCC?

Jimmie

Who?

say Speroni is MORE ACCURATE.

Let's put that to a "vote"...

Should multiple comments and reply comments
which express the same opinion from the same
person be counted separately?

Or should they be counted as one opinion?

My analysis put the code-test-only-for-extras in a separate
category, neither for nor against the NPRM. Readers will
have to decide for themselves how to "rate" them.

That can easily be done with the AH0A analysis.

You also counted multiple filings by the same person as
separate opinions even if they say essentially the same thing.

If a person writes a lot of reply comments, does that mean
their opinion is worth more than the person who simply
wrote a comment? Your tally says it does.

What the Commission will actually DO in the future is up to
them.

And it's *not* a vote.

Some poor guy/gal or small group there has got a
whale of an analysis task to wade through nearly 3700 filings
after 14 November 2005 and try to get a feeling of what the
"public" wants.

What the public wants is only one factor in the decision. FCC
rules are not democratic nor a referendum. They're more like
a benevolent dictatorship - the governed can ask but there's no
absolute mandate. Those who make the rules are appointed,
not elected, too.

That's going to take quite a while, I'd say
more than the 10+ months between 15 Jan 99 and late December
1999 on WT Docket 98-143 for Restructuring.

Is that an entry for The Pool?

98-143 had no
more than about 2200 filings between official start and end
times of Comments/Replies.

The FCC is mandated to do what they think is best. Doesn't mean
they always live up to the mandate.

FCC once said it wanted a "consensus" on opinions in amateur
radio. It should be blatantly obvious that there is NO such
"consensus" with regard to WT Docket 05-235 and NPRM 05-143.

Nor was there a consensus on 98-143 but FCC acted anyway.

Nitpickers can make all the "finger-pointing" they want about
"illusionary four decimal place percentages" but the opinions
filed so far have a damn close near-even split betweeen For
and Against.

Not true, unless you consider multiple filings of the same opinion
by the same person as being worth more.

If A files a comment supporting one position, and B files a comment
and 9 reply comments supporting a different position, should B's
opinion be worth 10 times what A's opinion is worth, simply because
B is more adept at spamming ECFS?
is B's opinion

Whichever way the final R&O goes, we've all seen a part of
history in the making in regards to U.S. amateur radio.

The history of amateur radio is made every day.

Democracy in action, visible on the FCC ECFS! Good thing!

It's a good thing but it's not "democracy". ECFS is not a vote, and
there is no requirement for FCC to follow the commentary, with or
without percentages.

For example, after comments closed back in 1999, the majority
thought that FCC should retain at least two code test speeds. This
was clearly documented by KC8EPO and reported by WK3C (as
WA6VSE). "Democracy in action" would require that FCC follow
that majority opinion.

But FCC reduced code testing to one speed, the absolute minimum they
considered adequate for treaty compliance.

Now the majority that think FCC should retain a
code test for Extra. "Democracy in action" would require that
FCC follow that majority opinion.

We'll see if they do...

wrote:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am
While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

Comments aren't votes. Filings on ECFS do not decide
FCC regulations.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

FCC seeks the comments of all interested parties.

Citizenship is not a requirement.
Residency is not a requirement.
Licensure is not a requirement.

Alun's comments are as welcome to FCC as those of
any citizen.

In fact one of the most-cited-for-support comments to the Restructuring
R&O were
those of Kenwood - a Japan-based manufacturer of radio equipment. So
FCC
*does* consider all comments regardless of who makes them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens.

Alun doesn't have a reciprocal license. He has an FCC-issued
US amateur radio license. He passed all the tests required
for that license at the time it was issued - no freebies or byes
because of his UK license.

That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).

Yet FCC seeks comments from all interested parties, even those who
are not allowed to vote.

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States).

And?

As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official!

Different subject entirely.

Do you *really* think FCC will disregard all comments filed
before August 31 because they were early?

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all.

FCC could easily put something on ECFS saying "noncitizens should not
comment" or "US citizens only". Other govt. websites do similar stuff
when citizenship is an issue.

BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.

That "public" includes noncitizens.

What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists.

You seem to think that "the public" doesn't include Alun
even though he's lived in the USA for years and holds a
valid FCC amateur radio license.

Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Anyone can comment.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

By excluding the comments of noncitizens, you're saying you
have no regard for their opinions.

WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth."

That's right. So the citizenship stuff doesn't apply.

There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS.

Which isn't "democracy".

That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

So why did you bother to do a scorecard at all, Len?

I think you expected a different outcome and are now
chagrined that your opinions aren't shared as much as
you expected.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday.

What's so special about it?

Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

ECFS isn't an election, Len.

And the fact is that nonresidents have a lot of control over what
happens to California laws. Federal law can preempt state law
even if the residents of a state are against the federal law.

Regardless of ECFS, FCC will do whatever they do. Most
indications are that they will just delete Element 1 and make
no other changes to Part 97 at this time, regardless of
'consensus' or 'majority' or 'scorecards'.

If that happens, the only way for noncodetested Technicians
to get HF privileges will be for them to upgrade to General or Extra.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
The trend is and has been towards ending code testing.

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

IYHO

Of course.

Inactivity in response to the treaty change by the FCC
can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host
of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate
issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending.

Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could
cite it, but they haven't.

IF (let's be hypothetical)

Sure!

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Did code waivers come first, or ADA?

I I think the ADA may predate waivers...
but that isn't of any importance anyway.
The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately
do anything. Most or much of the ADA
impact has been with new accomodations.
Application of ADA in existing situations
has usually been the reult of a complaint by
an individual or a group of individuals.

Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they
say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the
license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a
waiver of the Extra *written* test?

Anyone can demand anything.

Of course.

But there's as much reason to use ADA against the
Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras
only" code test.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

On your first statement
regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and
that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain
any code testing.

Probably right!

Which is why further discussion on this is
a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what
the FCC does before continuing this
hypothetical.

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

Several:

First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully
cited against FCC regulations

So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet.

Or maybe it doesn't apply.

Ditto my last comment.

Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial
thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar.

ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access"
on a broad basis.

Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be
interpreted to mean being allowed to take the
test, not being guaranteed a license.

Ditto my last again.

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum.

That's a contradictory statement. You say
there's no additional privileges
and then you note that there is.

Read it again! I wrote there are no additional
operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit
more spectrum.

I know what you said, but in reality your except
does contradict your lead statement.

There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

Ditto my last.

Let me try another way...

What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee?

There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra.

There's the really spiffy callsigns.

But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the
same modes, too, and the same power level.

On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that
are for Extras only.

Which clearly is additional operating privileges.

The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in
the
Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly
related
to the privileges gained.

I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate
the point UNLESS someone actually goes there.

Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right
to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only
access to the tests is a right.

I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise.

But would they win?

I believe so, but for now see no need to discuss or debate
the point UNLESS someone actually goes there.

As an analogy, consider the national parks. There
are places where access to the park by motor
vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that
all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle
because some people can't walk to them?

ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done.
Your national park analogy doesn't apply.

I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor
vehicles.

The ADA calls for "reasonable" accomodations. That
is the defining point.
But again, for now I see no need to discuss or debate
the point.

Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national
parks, access by
everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of
the park.

Which is why the legislation isn't absolute as to access.
Ditto again...end of discussion for now.

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems.

We clearly differ in opinion then.

I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The
two grading methods would be open to everyone.

What would be the problem?

Cross that bridge if and when it happens.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Let's see...up to the end of 31 October there were 3,680
filings of which 240 were of the "indeterminate" kind. That's
about 6.5 percent (only two digits used, can't use any
"illusions of accuracy" with you, can we?). The other three
categories were pretty well UN-ambiguous on deciding either
YES to the NPRM, NO to the NPRM, or "let's keep it for Extra."

Your methods are faulty.

You need "experts in analysis" to divine the "true meaning"
of those filings?

Nope. Just common sense.

I guess so...anything to try your damndest
to fudge, alter the percentages in favor of pro-code. Tsk.

You're the one "fudging", Len. By counting multiple comments
and reply comments from the same person as separate opinions
rather than duplicates, you're saying that some people's opinions
are worth more than others simply because they wrote more.

What's worse is that you tried to hide that fact, and the effect it
has on the 'scorecard'.

By the way, I don't know if the FCC uses "percentages" or not.
I used them to get a clearer picture of the total of opinions.

You muddied that clarity by counting some people's opinions
multiple times.

You dislike that.

Not at all.

Obviously, since the comment period start
showed that MORE were in favor of the NPRM than against.

And then the trend went the other way. Like it or not.

I started this "computer-modem" think in early December,
1984. The Internet didn't go public until 1991. Have you
seen any registry of domain names recently? No? You think
it is "easy" to find something specific even with a search
engine?

It was easy for me. Just googled "05-235 stats" and it came
right up.

You don't have website, though, even though AOL has a homepage
for every screen name.

I'm telling the Federal Communications
Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think
the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be."
[i.e., my desires]

How does your posting a 'scorecard' *here* tell the FCC anything,
Len?

As an attachment to THREE filings on WT Docket 05-235, Jimmie.

How does your posting it *here* tell the FCC anything, Len?

Notice the word "here"?

Your posts *here* are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio
Should Be.

No.

Yes. That's a fact.

Your comments to FCC are full of your ideas about
How Amateur Radio Should Be.

MOST of my filings to the FCC have been about MORSE CODE
TESTING, Jimmie.

But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it
was "petulant" and "whiny".....

The code test is essentially about
GETTING INTO amateur radio HF privileges.

So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it
will take at least a General license for new hams to
get *any* HF privileges.

Long ago I
started communications on HF without a single requirement
to know or test for morse code and did it LEGALLY.

Sure - as part of a *battalion* of military servicepeople caring
for a bunch of transmitters. You were trained to do the job,
tested along the way, and supervised at every opportunity.

The transmitter operation was completely governed by set
procedures and by experienced personnel.

Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes
that, even if you don't.

You've
never fully explained why the artificiality of testing
for morsemanship is so damn necessary for amateur
operations

Because hams use Morse Code, for one.

(you think you have but you are only parroting
your conditioned thinking imposed by long-ago morsemen).

Nope. I think for myself. I've given my reasons for
my support of Morse Code testing in my comments
to FCC, and here.

You don't like them, so you attack me and claim
nonsense like "conditioned thinking" rather than
a simple difference of opinion.

You
would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion"
as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-)

If you had really "dropped it", there would be no discussion....

Tsk, tsk. You come along every once in a while and BRING
IT TO THE SURFACE AGAIN (in rather sulpherous phrasing) and
*I* am the one "bringing it up?"

You haven't "dropped it", Len.

You've spent most of a decade on usenet arguing against a simple
test for a license in a radio service with which you have no
involvement. That's your right, of course, but it is kind of odd
behavior. You must be very invested *emotionally*...

Good grief...you aren't going into the MOTIVATIONAL aspects
are you?

Why not?

You go into detail explaining other people's motivations, so yours
are fair game even if you won't discuss them or admit to them.

You've been doing heckling, catcalls, and booing from the
peanut gallery in computer-modem communications since 1984, eh?

No, sweetums, I said I am used to receiving heckling,
catcalls, and booing from the peanut gallery.

No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len.


1. The "answers" were ALREADY POSTED in each of the "score cards"
I put up via Google. Well before you "asked" for the first
one.

Those "answers" aren't clear.

Then SHOW us "clarity."

Here's an example:

"Len's scorecard counts not only comments but all filings on the NPRM.
If
the same person submits multiple filings, they are counted as
duplicates
only if they are exactly identical. Multiple nonidentical filings are
counted
the same as if they were filed by different people, thereby skewing the
count towards support for Len's opinion."

Now *that's* clear. Also true.

So far, all you've done is bitch and
whine and mewl about in a remarkable display of petulant,
peurile juvenility of displeasure with certain folks.

I'm not calling people names, Len. You are.

Who appoint you "judge" of what is "a good thing" or a "bad thing?"

Same person who made *you* the judge.

Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie.

But you act like one here.

3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur
community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old,
Old, OLD standards and practices.

Really? How do you know?

I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind.

That leaves you out...

You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing.

Not as closed as yours, Len.

Compare the percentages of commenters supporting Morse Code testing
in 1998-1999 with those of the current NPRM. How much difference
is there *really*?

Roughly, 1400 more filings. In three months of WT Docket 05-235
there have been 3,680 filings. In the eleven months of WT
Docket 98-143 filings there were only about 2,200.

*Percentages*, Len. Percentages in support of the various options.

What you want is different from the way things actually work, Len.

You may *want* everyone to just accept what you write here, but
they may not.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. All I was doing was a tally of filings on
WT Docket 05-235. You hopped in and made this a Cause
Celebre' (with oak leaf clusters) of "mistakes"! :-)

Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact.

YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD.

Neither are you, Len.

That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge"
and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to
what YOU find "objectionable."

"make nasty"? How? Looks to me like you consider any disagreement
with your views to be "making nasty".

Sweetums, you are getting LESS "superior" every time you deny
YOU ever did anything wrong. :-)

What have I "done wrong", Len?

Disagreed with you?
"Asking for clarification" of yours is nothing more than adult-
language puerile petulant HECKLING done for malicious intent
of your own.

How is asking for clarification "heckling"?

...when it's obvious that others opinions in the "amateur
community" aren't skewed the way YOU WANT them to be! :-)

It's clear you tried to skew them the way *you* want them, Len. But
the majority still opposed it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...my Notes said that DUPLICATES would be counted
as "Indeterminate" category and not used for the Percentage
figures. Clearly.

Not "clearly", because you don't define what a "duplicate" really is.
If the
same person files comments that are not identical, do you count them as
duplicates? Or are they separate comments and counted as such?

Yes and no. Take your choice.

Your skewing has been revealed

How about Leonard H. Anderson, who has 6 filings? Do they show
up as a count of 1 or 6 on the tally of "for" filings? I think you
count them as 6 in the "for" column because they're not identical
and hence not duplicates.

The ONLY way you will know FOR SURE is to do your OWN tally,
Jimmie. You obviously don't believe a thing I write about
my own tally.

You avoid the question because you know I'm right.

Why am I supposed to follow the "rules" of this "alternate
compilation?"

You don't have to, Len. But your scorecard would be more accurate
if you did.

Why would it be "more accurate" Jimmie?

Because one person's opinion should not be counted multiple times.

Well then, go BITCH to the FCC and NTIA (who govern part of the
U.S. Internet) that I am being terribly "dishonest" and have me
thrown off the 'net or something! :-)

Why? You're the source of the inaccuracy, so I'm telling you.

WRONG. I'm accurate.

No, you're not. QED

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
cut

I guess so...anything to try your damndest
to fudge, alter the percentages in favor of pro-code. Tsk.

You're the one "fudging", Len.


now you are making accusation of fraud
cut

Your comments to FCC are full of your ideas about
How Amateur Radio Should Be.

MOST of my filings to the FCC have been about MORSE CODE
TESTING, Jimmie.

But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it
was "petulant" and "whiny".....

more name calling Jim

The code test is essentially about
GETTING INTO amateur radio HF privileges.

So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it
will take at least a General license for new hams to
get *any* HF privileges.

now you claim to know what the FCC will enact?

personaly I hope that they will heed my word and Jim Haneys ( sp?an
ARRL officer) and enact a R&O that gives the intail class currently
called Tech the prevelegdes of the class once known as Tech plus

cut
Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes
that, even if you don't.

You've
never fully explained why the artificiality of testing
for morsemanship is so damn necessary for amateur
operations

Because hams use Morse Code, for one.

some hams do not all

some hams NEVER use manual morse and never will
cut

You've been doing heckling, catcalls, and booing from the
peanut gallery in computer-modem communications since 1984, eh?

No, sweetums, I said I am used to receiving heckling,
catcalls, and booing from the peanut gallery.

No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len.

why?

cut

3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur
community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old,
Old, OLD standards and practices.

Really? How do you know?

I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind.

That leaves you out...

and you jim

You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing.

Not as closed as yours, Len.

as you confess here

What you want is different from the way things actually work, Len.

You may *want* everyone to just accept what you write here, but
they may not.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. All I was doing was a tally of filings on
WT Docket 05-235. You hopped in and made this a Cause
Celebre' (with oak leaf clusters) of "mistakes"! :-)

Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact.

BUUUZZ a lie Jim your statement is an opinion

YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD.

Neither are you, Len.

That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge"
and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to
what YOU find "objectionable."

"make nasty"? How? Looks to me like you consider any disagreement
with your views to be "making nasty".

Sweetums, you are getting LESS "superior" every time you deny
YOU ever did anything wrong. :-)

What have I "done wrong", Len?

lied about Len amoug other things
cut

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the
Amateur Radio Service?

Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-)

I've already shown that they could be.

Why should something be discarded just because it's old?

sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-)

Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd
try not to imagine the state of yours...

No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean.

There's very little chance that changes in the rules of the amateur
radio service will have *any* effect on you, because
you're not a licensed radio amateur, and it doesn't appear
that you'll ever be one.

The morse code test WILL AFFECT new licensees.

And existing ones.

What "existing ones?" Upgraders? You can't upgrade, Jimmie.

All existing amateurs could be affected.

But it almost certainly won't affect you, Len.

How do you know that? Show your work.

As I have explained befo

It has been possible to get an amateur radio license in the USA
without any code test since 1991. It's been possible to get any
available class of amateur radio license in the USA with only a
5 wpm code test since 1990.

But you haven't gotten one. And except for you "Extra out of the
box" claim back in 2000, you haven't said you intended to.

You're not an existing licensee nor are you likely to be a new one.

I was a "licensee" in 1956.

Not in the amateur radio service, you weren't..

On top of that, you've tried more snide uncivil "civility" in
my "motivation" towards getting any amateur radio license.

How? It's quite obvious you don't want such a license and will
probably never get one.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. There you go again. Not nice, Jimmie.

What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your
disdain of the ARS is not a secret.

NO ONE is required to toady up to some already-licensed U.S.
radio amateur and HAVE to state "motivation." NOBODY.

You don't have to state your "motivation".

Yes, I do.

Then state it, Len.

But it does seem odd that
you won't state why you're so obsessed with a license test for a
license you don't seem to want, and which has no effect on you at all.

I'm sure it is "odd" to you, Jimmie. You are finding fault
with everything I say or do, making long, long, long, long,
long, long posts arguing minutae. :-)

FCC can also decide to change license privileges, subbands, etc., all
of which can have a profound affect on those who actually operate in
the licensed service.

NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie.

Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from
FCC.

For example, it specifically denies all requests for a new entry-class
license. It also repeats FCC's support for a three-tier system of
license
classes. Plus much more.

The TEST. The TEST does NOT affect those ALREADY LICENSED.

Yes, it does. If a change affects the amateur radio service itself, it
affects those already licensed.

Only those "upgrading."

Not just them.

Gosh...imagine that, the possibility of a NO-CODE-TEST EXTRA!

It would be the END OF THE CODER'S WORLD AS THEY KNOW IT!

Need some help doing a "Kevorkian?" :-)

Gee, Len, that's not funny.

The TEST affects those GETTING INTO U.S. amateur radio.

But not only them.

And since you're clearly not one of them, why do you care so much?

Since YOU are "clearly not one of" the military, government,
or the aerospace business or even "of" radio other than
amateurism, why did you post so many "caring" messages on
THOSE subjects? Hmmm?

"You can not answer a question with another question" - Len Anderson

Some days back, you posted a description of your experiences with
cb radio back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. You told us how
you installed a manufactured cb transceiver and antenna in your car and
used it. You told us the performance was *excellent* - for about four
years. Then it wasn't so excellent anymore.

Here's that description again:

"One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the
USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed
for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control).
Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

Let's look at that last sentence again:

"Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

Where did the excellence go, Len?

It went to the Chevrolet auto dealer in Canoga Park, CA, as a
trade-in.

Your cb radio was traded in at a car dealership?

Only the antenna and its lead-in. Went with the car. Dealer
liked that. I kept the Johnson Viking Messenger.

That's not what was meant by "before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

That refers to cb radios, and how the cb radio service wasn't so
excellent
anymore.

You know that the cb service went downhill. The same thing could happen
to the amateur radio service. You're avoiding the issue because you
know I'm right - or maybe because that sort of slide is exactly what
you want.

It was a 1953 Austin-Healey sports car with an
all-aluminum body (excellent ground plane).

Terrible for magmounts, though.

I never said anything about "magmounts," Jimmie. "Magmounts" were
scarce in those days.

Your sense of technical humor has gone missing, Len - if it ever
existed.

Maybe you'd like a nice image of that Austin-Healey? I have one.

The last time you sent me an "image", (unrequested and unwanted spam)
it contained male nudity. No thanks.

Clearly shows the CB "shorty" (base-loaded) antenna.

So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite
appropriate....

That "Healey"
got me an introduction to my first wife. She persuaded me to
buy the replacement 1961 Impala Convertible. She was diagnosed
with cancer soon after and died after a year.

I am sorry for your loss.

I can't believe that.

It's true, nevertheless. You don't believe in a lot of things,
but that doesn't change their truth.

YOU really know what it's like? Other
than reading about it in books?

I know what it's like to lose someone to cancer, yes. And to
see someone die before their time.

I am sorry for your loss.

After a long period of bachelorhood, I got re-acquainted with my
high-school sweetheart, also unattached. We were married and
are living together happily now.

That's nice. But what does it have to do with amateur radio policy?

That's from your post on the subject, a few days ago. No mention of a
trade-in or your first wife. The excellence you wrote about was cb.

Jimmie, go get laid or something.

What *is* your problem, Len?

You can't take opposition to your cherished views, eh? You can't take
strong
debate.

You are going wayyyy too far in criticsm.

You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

And the fact remains that cb quickly went downhill in the late 1960s
and early 1970s - about the same time frame as what you describe.

No.

Yes. Although I was never on cb, I did listen to it from time to time,
and knew several active cbers back then. By the mid1960s the
cb service was already a problem.

You are describing LATER things than what happened here.

"Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

Your words. Documenting the loss of excellence in the cb service.

You know it happened, but to admit it here would prove me right, and
you can't tolerate that.

There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go
through difficulties?

No. Not at all.

NO?

No. I am sorry for your loss.

That's odd. To see your postings in here, I am nothing but
trouble and affect you greatly.

You don't affect me much at all, Len.

Maybe you want an ice-cold emotionless
set of numbers of performance of the Viking Messenger now (I
still have that old radio)?

Why?

Why NOT? You love to ARGUE minutae in posts. It would be a ripe
area for more harrassment, "questions," et al.

It still meets manufacturers' (and FCC) specifications.

But I don't think you use it.

Why do I have to USE it?

You don't have to use it. Point is, the cb service is such a mess that
even you don't participate in it.

Your '53 Healey was a classic sports car. Maybe not the fastest or most
powerful thing on four wheels but definitely a classic - and classy
too. Fun in the tradition of a Triumph or MG.

Why do you care?

I appreciate all sorts of classics.

You were NOT in the sports car culture of
southern California in the 50s and 60s.

So? You're not in the amateur radio of any
decade, but you comment on it at extreme
length.

It doesn't concern you.

Amateur radio doesn't concern you either, but
that doesn't stop you.

Your only "road race" was on foot.

So? I've run many road races. Have you?

Probably never heard of Watkins Glen either.

Not only heard of it but been there several times. Have you?

I am somewhat surprised that you still have the Johnson Viking
Messenger, though. The thing has *vacuum tubes*, right? (At least the
early Messengers did).

So? I'm NOT ALLOWED to keep things?

You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you
would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all,
you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology"
and all that sort of rot.

Of course the Johnson Viking Messenger is interesting from an
historical POV because it was such a departure for the company. Instead
of a big desk-crushing VFO transmitter, they built a compact
lightweight transceiver of pretty good quality. And it still works!

How do you KNOW "it still works?"

You said so.

Aren't you going to CHALLENGE
my measurements of it?

No.

I'm "surprised" you haven't made negative of that.

Surprise, surprise!

So I guess it's not so surprising that for more than 40 years you've
held onto one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Davie Heil wants to talk about other "johnsons" (meaning
penises).

Where do you get that, Len?

K8MN did not write of "johnsons" at all. He wrote about "Johnsons".
(See
the capital J?)

Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name.
Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example,
just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs,
three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates
and yes, at least four different Johnsons.

Does that turn you ON? Go talk with Davie about
"small johnsons!" :-)

Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with
one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as
the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus
the 122 VFO).

Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio?

NOT at all.

Denial.

How can you can guarantee that what happened to cb cannot happen to
amateur radio?

I didn't "GUARANTEE" anything, Jimmie. The future happens when
it happens.

So what I'm concerned with could happen. You won't admit that,
of course.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the
Amateur Radio Service?

Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-)

I've already shown that they could be.

Why should something be discarded just because it's old?

sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-)

Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd
try not to imagine the state of yours...

more name calling
cut

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Did code waivers come first, or ADA?

I I think the ADA may predate waivers...
but that isn't of any importance anyway.

I think it is. IMHO anyway.

The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately
do anything. Most or much of the ADA
impact has been with new accomodations.
Application of ADA in existing situations
has usually been the reult of a complaint by
an individual or a group of individuals.

Exactly - and *nobody complained*. It took
backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to
get waivers, not advocacy by any US
group.

But there's as much reason to use ADA against the
Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras
only" code test.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

On your first statement
regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and
that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain
any code testing.

Probably right!

Which is why further discussion on this is
a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what
the FCC does before continuing this
hypothetical.

I think it's worthwhile to consider where a
path may lead before going that way.

Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial
thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar.

ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access"
on a broad basis.

Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be
interpreted to mean being allowed to take the
test, not being guaranteed a license.

Ditto my last again.

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum.

That's a contradictory statement. You say
there's no additional privileges
and then you note that there is.

Read it again! I wrote there are no additional
operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit
more spectrum.

I know what you said, but in reality your except
does contradict your lead statement.

Not at all. See below.

There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

Ditto my last.

Let me try another way...

What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee?

There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra.

There's the really spiffy callsigns.

But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the
same modes, too, and the same power level.

On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that
are for Extras only.

Which clearly is additional operating privileges.

But not *different* operating privileges!

(I should have said it that way from the beginning!)

IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz
vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional
knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't
needed
for the higher one?

It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use
14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly
for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the
stuff in the written tests?

By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to
question all test requirements.

The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in
the
Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly
related
to the privileges gained.

I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate
the point UNLESS someone actually goes there.

Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the
precedent, what possible argument could be used against
them?

This is actually backing up your assertion that FCC won't go
for waivers under any circumstances, because they set
the precedent for more waivers in cases like the above.

Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right
to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only
access to the tests is a right.

I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise.

But would they win?

I believe so, but for now see no need to discuss or debate
the point UNLESS someone actually goes there.

And so far, nobody has.

As an analogy, consider the national parks. There
are places where access to the park by motor
vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that
all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle
because some people can't walk to them?

ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done.
Your national park analogy doesn't apply.

I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor
vehicles.

The ADA calls for "reasonable" accomodations. That
is the defining point.
But again, for now I see no need to discuss or debate
the point.

"Reasonable" means there's a very wide latitude for
interpretation and argument.

Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national
parks, access by
everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of
the park.

Which is why the legislation isn't absolute as to access.
Ditto again...end of discussion for now.

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems.

We clearly differ in opinion then.

I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The
two grading methods would be open to everyone.

What would be the problem?

Cross that bridge if and when it happens.

"Failing to plan is planning to fail"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Because some old silverhaired guys at ARRL needed FCC to validate that they were better than their peers.

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ