RadioBanter - Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

And in agreement with what you wrote, IF the FCC had meant this to be a
popularity contest, then it would have been called a VOTE.

IF the FCC had meant to gather information and rationale regarding the
requirement for or against Morse Code testing then it would have been called
a COMMENT.

Care to look and see what the FCC called it?

Jim

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy. What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

[email protected]

November 3rd 05 10:55 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

From: Bill Sohl on Nov 3, 7:24 am

"K4YZ" wrote in message
wrote:

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy. What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

"Polls?" "Support?" About the ONLY thing available
there is ARRL writings, hardly an unbiased source of
"poll" information. Let's go through some history -

I started this "score card" posting at the beginning of
August as part of my own desire to get some "visibility"
into opinions as filed with the FCC. It isn't "official"
except the tallying has been done in an honest manner with
the best accuracy...such accuracy continuously verified
with the ECFS search engine totals for specified dates.

As of 1 PM EDT on 3 November 2005, there been 3,687 filings
in WT Docket 05-235 between the 2005 dates of 15 July to and
including 31 October. I've read ALL of those filings. I
have copies of ALL of those filings. Each and every filing
is available to anyone who has Internet access to the FCC.

In 1990 there was NO Internet for the public (it went public
in 1991). The Comments and Replies on 90-53 were only
visible by either subscribing to a copy service of the FCC or
going to their DC reading room in person. Just the same, the
final Report and Order DID create the no-code-test Technician
class license in 1991 and the numbers in that class have not
ceased growing in 14 years. Did the ARRL have some kind of
"poll" on those back then? I don't recall any from them or
from any other source. The MOVEMENT towards no-code-test
had begun years before.

In 1998 there was Internet access to the public and the FCC
had gone on-line with the beginning of their ECFS. They had
not fully organized clerical tasks and an examination of
WT Docket 98-143 will show several Petitions mixed in with
those for the "Restructuring" NPRM. That Docket was
extended more than once, finally getting an official end on
15 Jan 99. The only "poll" on those filings was done by
Leroy (Larry) Klose II. A masterful and complex task
involving several different subjects of the NPRM, it is
still in the ECFS as submitted, can be found by looking just
past 15 January 1999. The total comment time was about 11
months...from the first appearance date of first 98-143
comments to the official close of comments on 15 Jan 99.
The number of filings in that 11-month period were only
about 2200. Did the ARRL supply any "official poll" on
98-143? I don't recall any or even if they mentioned
Larry Klose' fine tabulation. Roughly 400 filings have
been submitted in the YEARS after the close of comments on
98-143, most past the final R&O 99-412 which essentially
voided any need for "more comments." Anyone with Internet
access can see all of those filings.

WT Docket 05-235 (about NPRM 05-143) has had 3,687 filings
in about 15 weeks, an average of over 240 per week. Has
there been any "official poll" from the ARRL about 05-235?
I haven't seen any. I haven't seen any from anyone else
which is one reason for my creation of this "score card."

Supposedly there IS another "poll" or "score card" done
elsewhere. A URL or other website information source has
not been revealed publicly in here. Those who are
interested in someone else's "score card" can go there...
or they can go in and READ ALL of them.

The only "polling" information I've seen on the code test
issue has been in the editorials of ARRL publications,
hardly an unbiased source about morse code use. The ARRL
has conditioned the thinking of generations of amateurs
into the belief that morse code skill was the very
epitome of amateur radio. On the other hand, the ARRL
membership has NEVER been greater than a quarter of all
licensed U.S. radio amateurs; as of July this year their
publicly-stated membership was only 20 percent. The
ARRL claims to "represent all amateurs" yet they will
only allow MEMBERS to vote on anything. They represent
NONE of those desiring to GET INTO amateur radio. The
ARRL is simply PRO-code-test and their ONLY Comment on
05-235 so far (filed 31 October, last official day) is
largely a STALLING tactic to attempt HOLDING any final
R&O until the far future...i.e., they IMPEDE progress.

I am ceasing public posting of any "score card" on WT
Docket 05-235. The official end of the Comment period
was reached on 31 October...but the official end of the
Replies to Comments period isn't until 14 November. I
will forward private e-mail tallies to those I select.
You are getting one, Bill.

I have received too many false charges of "inaccuracy"
and general "dishonesty" about my "score card" to make
it useless continuing this tally in public. NONE of
those crybaby finger-pointers have provided any
"improvements" to tallying opinions nor of providing
"greater accuracy." They have NOT proved a single charge
of "inaccuracy" nor of "dishonesty." They DO continue
to obscure this important issue in U.S. amateur radio
regulations with long, long, long postings alleged to
be "just questions" or "clarifications." They are
neither. They are HECKLING. Malicious heckling
probably done in hopes that I will not have any time
left but to post replies to their "just questions."

Not to worry on time. I can MAKE time for continuing
observation of NPRM 05-143 progress. I stand my ground
on what I've posted in public so far. Those who
charge "dishonesty" or "inaccuracy" had damn well
PROVE their point with EXACT locations. Negative
criticsm does nothing but further the "Animal House"
behavior that has polluted this venue called a news-
group for the last year.

[email protected]

November 4th 05 01:34 AM

The Real Estate Analogy

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:

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.

You've said over and over that removing the Morse Code test would have
*no*
effect on existing licensees. Now you say you can't guarantee there
would be
no effect..

1. The 11 m amateur band of 1958 was taken away from amateurs
in the USA then, 47 years ago. It (and some other services)
were allocated to use part of it.

That's right. FCC made a big mistake doing that - one they're still
trying to deal with.

Why was that a "mistake?"

Because 27 MHz was/is not a good choice for short-range land-mobile
radio communications like cb.

Because the FCC did not have the resources to enforce its own
rules, and the cb folks did not have the discipline to adhere to
those rules.

Amateurs weren't using their former 11 meter band enough.

How do you know? You weren't a radio amateur then and
you aren't one now.

My reading of the history says that hams got 11 meters just
after WW2 as a sort of compensation for the near-total loss of
160 (a very popular band before WW2) to LORAN. By 1958,
hams had 15 meters and more access to 160. So FCC
reassigned 11 meters.

The fact that FCC could reassign 11 meters without a
treaty change was a big part of the decision, too.

The FCC is NOT "dealing with" CB now.

Sure they are. Where do you think freebanders come from?
Or the illegal makers and sellers of 11 meter amplifiers? Or
the intruders into the 10 and 12 meter ham bands?

Why do you care?

Because I don't want what happened to cb to happen to
amateur radio. It seems to me that *you* would like for
amateur radio to become just like cb.

YOU were NOT INVOLVED with radio of any kind
in 1958.

Yes, I was.

YOU were NOT AWARE of the FCC in 1958.

Yes, I was.

YOU were NOT AWARE of much of anything in 1958.

In 1958 I was four years old. I was aware of lots of things
at that age. A lot more than you'd give a four-year-old
credit for.

2. NPRM 05-235 is about the MORSE CODE TEST for a United States
radio amateur license examination. That has NOTHING to do
with "CB."

Not directly. But there is a definite connection.

Merde.

That's what I don't want ham radio to become, Len.

You are busy, busy, busy with SUPPOSITIONS and your own
imagining, not to mention living in a PAST when you were NOT
INVOLVED in any radio.

You're busy, busy, busy with trying to change a radio service you are
NOT
INVOLVED in..

3. You try to connect (1) and (2) and there is NO possible
connection.

Of course there's a possible connection. If the loss of the Morse Code
test causes amateur radio to become more like cb, it will have a
profound effect on *existing*
amateur radio operators. If the amateur bands become like the cb
channels, existing amateurs will be affected.

Waaaa...waaaa...The Sky Is Falling!

No, it isn't.

YOUR "amateur world" will
cease to exist then, right? The "world as you know it" will
disappear!

Not exactly. But my enjoyment of amateur radio would be affected, or
even destroyed. Which means I, an existing amateur, would be
affected.

Maybe you want the amateur bands to become like the cb channels..

Maybe you want me to disappear, too, right? :-)

Obviously *you* want *me* to disappear.

Existing licensees can be profoundly affected by rules changes.

Only MENTALLY.

Nope. The effects can be much more. Do you want 40 meters to
sound like the 40 cb channels?

How can you ask that?

I just type the words, Len. Why not just answer the question?

I think you want amateur radio to become more and more like
cb.

Are you forgetting I'm "not involved
in amateur radio," therefore I have "no business telling
amateur radio what to do?"

Where did I say that? You can say whatever you want. The
truth and validity of what you say is another matter.

I guess you have.

I'm "not allowed" to have any opinions on amateur radio,
according to yours and many other's messages in here.

I've never said you can't have and express opinions, Len.

NPRM 05-235 is about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie, NOT just
about ME. The point about eliminating the morse code test,
other than making the regulations better,

Who made you the judge about what is "better", Len?

Almighty God gave us humans a brain, Jimmie.

How do you know it wasn't evolution?

WE humans
don't all think alike and God for sure didn't make YOU
supreme judge.

I know - and nobody made *you* the supreme judge either, despite the
fact you think and act like you are.

is to give ALL
those interested in amateur radio the OPPORTUNITY to get into
it without that old, outdated, arbitrary manual test for
morsemanship.

All those interested have had the opportunity to "get into" amateur
radio without a Morse Code test since February 14, 1991.

That's SUCH A TIRED CLICHE' you coders use.

Not a cliche. The truth. You have chosen not to avail yourself of that
opportunity.

I was on HF first
in 1953 (before you were even conceived), legally, and with
more RF power output than amateurs were ever granted here.

No, *you* weren't. You were allowed to make certain adjustments
to transmitters bought and paid for by others, as part of a large
team (a whole battalion!) of people.

But *you* as an individual weren't "on HF" then.

Sweetums, I'm very tired of YOUR ASSUMED "superiority" and
your terribly CONDESCENDING "let them eat cake if they have
no bread" to peasants.

What "superiority"? What peasants?

But you haven't taken advantage of that opportunity, Len. Nor of the
opportunity that has existed since 1990 to get full privileges with
only a 5 wpm code test.

So? I had a FIRST CLASS Radiotelephone (Commercial) license.

Which does not allow you to operate an Amateur Radio station.

I took the OPPORTUNITY to get one in one test session at an
FCC office in 1956...and then USED that in my aerospace
career in California. All you got was a 2nd Class. Tsk.
Not much "superiority" THERE, was it?

There was a time when a First Class 'Phone or even a Second Class
was a near-guarantee of a decent job in "radio". That time is gone. I
knew it was on the way out even in the 1970s - that's why I went for
degrees in Electrical Engineering.

There will be NO effect on operating privileges of already-
licensed amateurs due to elimination of the morse code test.
NONE

Can you guarantee that?

No, I cannot "GUARANTEE" that.

So your claim is meaningless.

Will existing Amateur Extras lose their license and/or
privileges? I doubt it. Same with Generals.

Your doubt isn't a guarantee.

Technicians
WILL have a chance to enjoy more of their hobby with
increased frequency privileges.

No, they won't! You are mistaken, Len.

Obviously you haven't read the entire NPRM - or maybe you
don't understand it. Typical.

If FCC enacts the NPRM as written, *no* class of license
will gain *any* operating privileges. Technicians will still
be VHF/UHF only, unless they have passed a Morse Code
test. No HF for Techs who haven't passed a Morse Code test
under the NPRM.

The NPRM specifically *denies* giving any existing licensees
any more privileges. They specifically point out, again and
again, that if the Morse Code test is removed, existing
Technicians need only pass the General written exam to
get lots of HF privileges.

Those Techs who *have* passed a Morse Code test will retain
their HF privileges - consisting of Morse Code on parts of 80,
40, 15 and 10 meters, plus SSB voice on part of 10 meters.

If Element 1 is removed, the only way for a non-code-tested
Tech to get *any* HF/MF privileges is for that non-code-tested
Tech to pass the General written.

FCC also repeatedly points out their commitment to an
incentive licensing system of three license class levels.

That's the way the NPRM is written.

Why are you so against that?

I'm against any reductions in Morse Code or written
testing. I think Morse Code testing is a good thing
for the Amateur Radio Service.

In fact, I think the dropping of the Morse Code
test for Technician, back in 1991, was a big mistake.

Just my opinion.

Why do you want to hold Techs in their present
Ghetto?

What "ghetto"? VHF/UHF?

Ah, you ENJOY being "elite" and looking down on
"inferiors!" :-)

I don't look down on anyone, Len.

And it's not just operating privileges that are effects of such a
change.

Here's an analogy:

Oh, oh, the segue into the NON-APPLICABLE Miccolis "analogies!"

It's very applicable. That's why you don't like it.

You've told us of your house on Lanark Street - how much you paid for
it, how much it's worth now, the nearby gated community, etc.

How can you BELIEVE that? You don't believe what I write!

I've never been to your house but I've been in the area.

You KNOW everything, why am I not surprised? :-)

It's a safe bet that your area is mostly single-family houses built
after WW2, with little or no commercial development.

You could FIND OUT for sure by accessing the LA CITY website.
You are an experienced computer user, yes? You shoud be
able to instantly FIND OUT EXACTLY.

Why should I bother? I describe the big picture - you'll fill in the
details.

World War II ended in 1945, Jimmie. "My street" was developed
beginning in 1960.

Which is post-WW2. I was right!

Also a safe bet that while there
may not be many CC&Rs, the zoning probably prevents much diversity of
development on your street.

You COULD find out for sure instead of IMAGINING. But, what
the heck, YOU never were to any zoning or developing meeting
in the Van Nuys "valley government" meetings, were you? I was.

I was right about the zoning, too.

Little boxes on the hillside (actually at the foot of the hill...)

WRONG.

Yep, they're actually on the hillside! I was right again.

"Little boxes" of 1400 to 2400 square feet on third-
acre land parcels, each one worth in excess of a half million
now.

2400 sf isn't a big house, Len. They're little boxes on the hillside,
all right.

And a half-million is a pretty lowpriced house in suburban LA,
isn't it?

Do you think the owner of a half-million-dollar house is better than
the owner of a quarter-million-dollar house?

The difference in elevation between the "bottom" of the
hill and the "top" is about 450 feet, the "top" of the local
hill is 50 feet above that.

"Little boxes, on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky..."

If you are trying to be "accurate" you've failed miserably.

Actually it looks like I'm dead-on accurate except for the
boxes being on the hillside rather than at the bottom.

"There's a pink one, and a blue one, and a yellow one, and a purple
one"

I have topographic maps of my area. Do you?

Yes, I have topographic maps of my area.

"And they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the
same"

Now suppose someone bought some properties near you - say next door or
across the street. And suppose they sought to tear down the existing
houses and build new ones that would change things on Lanark Street.
Suppose they wanted to put up multifamily townhomes, some as rentals
and some as condos. Some retail space too. Of course that would
probably take a zoning change.

Sweetums, this area has ALREADY HAD A ZONING CHANGE.

So my hypothetical has already happened! Sunuvagun!

Worse
for you, I was the speaker for our neighborhood back a decade
plus ago.

Why is it worse for me? Did you win the debate?

Good speech but it didn't matter...the issue had
already been decided in favor of changing the "R" (Residential)
to "R-1" (Residential with limited multi-family).

If it was a good speech, it would have mattered. But you *LOST*.

One in our
neighborhood affected found that out after the fact. The
developer requesting the change (for "senior citizen
apartments") ran out of money and couldn't start. We (us
neighbors) were at the meetings with the second developer
who did the walled community (single-family houses).

And you *opposed* the changes, right? You *opposed* what others,
including your local elected Government officials, thought was
best...right?

And you *LOST*...

Do NOT tell ME what the zoning changes are in MY neighborhood
are, Jimmie.

Is that an order? Who made you Supreme Newsgroup Ruler?

YOU are NOT INVOLVED here.

Just like *you* are not involved in amateur radio.....

If you need information, just ask, don't make up stories.

I was being hypothetical, Len. You seem to have trouble dealing in
abstractions.

Would you support and accept that sort of change, Len?

I accepted it, as did my neighbors. We did NOT "support" it.

You opposed it, then, and only accepted it because you LOST
the debate.

The neighbor who found out about the under-the-table zoning
change now works for our Councilwoman and has been at
neighborhood meetings with the government as organizer.

That's nice. But you folks still failed to stop the change.

After all, it
would give a lot more people the opportunity to get into your
neighborhood without the old, outdated, arbitrary necessity of a huge
down payment and massive mortgage. It would be an end to the old
arbitrary requirements of single-family houses, etc. It would not
directly affect *your* house - you're already there, established, etc.
The new rules would not touch your house. You wouldn't
give up anything except your mental image of the neighborhood.

All of us at 840 feet MSL or lower (my back yard is 820 feet)
lost ALL the view we had. New homes were two-story.

"ALL" the view? You can't see the sky?

Was it 'the end of the world as you knew it'?

Why were you so against that change? Ah, you ENJOYED being
"elite" and looking down (literally!) on your neighbors! ;-)

Would you oppose or support that change?

I already described what happened, dumb bass. Inject yourself
with your own hypotheses and "questions." They didn't apply to
me.

They applied almost exactly.

Let's recap....

More than 40 years ago, you bought the house on Lanark Street.
Classic little ticky-tacky box on the hillside, lots of nice things
about the
house and the area. Zoning (which is The Government) protected
you from certain changes.

Then someone wanted to change the zoning, because their vision
of the area and its future were different from your own. You
opposed the change even though it would have no direct effect
on your house. But The Government prevailed, the zoning
changed, and the new *two story* houses were built. And the
value of your property continued to rise.

Was it The Government's role to always keep things As They Were
When You Bought Your House? To guarantee your "view" regardless
of the wishes and needs of those "downhill" fro you?

Seems like you thought it was.

Or suppose a licensed radio amateur moved in next door and wanted to
put up a few 70 foot towers with big beams (like K8MN's). Would that be
OK with you?

Yes. The FAA would get on their case before me.

Ah - you expect a different branch of The Government to protect you
from
that.

You forget where
your "analogies" are located. Look up BUR on a "sectional."

There's ALREADY an amateur two blocks up, WITH beams. Just not
at 70 foot height. Lower.

2 blocks away isn't next door or across the street.

[you WILL reply "how much lower, Len?" as if that were somehow
'important! :-) ]

Your postings here exceed mine in number and length, Len.
You're describing yourself, not me.

Gosh, better STOP, right? Jimmie NO LIKE my postings!

You're really emotionally invested in rrap....

Tsk, bad "investment." Isn't earning me any "interest."

All on "account" of some dumb bass making analogues that
don't apply and trying to keep amateur radio frozen in
the standards and practices of the 1930s.

You wanted to keep your neighborhood frozen in
the standards and practices of the 1960s, Len.

The analogy is near-perfect. You reacted exactly as predicted.
You opposed a change that would only affect you *mentally* and/or
*emotionally*, and expected The Government to place *your*
desires above those of the other property owners.

At least in the case of the zoning, you were in the affected
community. In the case of amateur radio, you're the outsider
trying to get those who are in the community to accept the
changes *you* want, and The Government to make you
happy........

Iitoi

November 4th 05 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Why don't you just reveal this "website" and be done with it? If it is "so much better" than what I've done, then others will obviously see so!

One other analysis that I've seen is by a Northern Mariana Islands callsign http://ah0a.org/FCC/05-235/ --- it may be the site that N2EY refers to.

If it is, N2EY's blustering is a puzzlement because the results at that site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of CW testing.

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM", "Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and other junk).

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

[email protected]

November 4th 05 04:04 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the
AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[email protected]

November 4th 05 09:40 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

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

Probably not.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

which reminds me - time to update The Pool...

Bill Sohl

November 4th 05 01:33 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in message
oups.com...
Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General. Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the
AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?" In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing. The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl

November 4th 05 01:46 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

The trend is and has been towards ending code. Nothing
has changed to alter that general opinion.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Fair enough.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule. Inactivity in response to the treatty 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.

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Iitoi

November 4th 05 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Sohl

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a claim.

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

[email protected]

November 4th 05 09:09 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

From: Iitoi on Fri 4 Nov 2005 01:34

Wrote:

Why don't you just reveal this "website" and be done with it? If it is
"so much better" than what I've done, then others will obviously see so!

One other analysis that I've seen is by a Northern Mariana Islands
callsign http://ah0a.org/FCC/05-235/ --- it may be the site that N2EY
refers to.

That certainly seems to be the one. Nice and colorful, looks great
in any GUI display. :-)

Joe Speroni (AH0A) has to be taken for what he is: An absolute
morseman who values morse code skill over everything else in
United States amateur radio. Speroni is also a Petitioner to the
FCC who has yet to have his Petitions granted. shrug :-)

I put Speroni into a category of one who has a LOT of emotional
baggage tied up in morse code and code testing.

If it is, N2EY's blustering is a puzzlement because the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

No "puzzlement" to me. :-) Jimmie has been consistently
against on just about everything I've ever written in here.
Since I am NOT in favor of morse code testing (as are several
others), he loves to "get on my (and their's) case" to show
"how mistaken" I (and they) am.

Jimmie ("N2EY," which any day might become his legal name) has
now resorted to attacking my choice of residence (the one I
chose in May of 1963) and attempts ridicule of that location
by partial lyrics of an old pop song ("little houses made of
ticky-tacky"). :-) TS. I'll turn my collar around and get
out my punch for his card. [he's probably never heard of the
"TS Card" that was common in the military]

Speroni's "Analysis" is probably no more "flawed" than mine.
The difference is in his categorization and the fact that he
has NOT posted it in here. I began posting results almost
daily from the beginning of August; Speroni has ONE display
and MUST be taken as "accurate" (since he is an unabashed
morse code advocate). Speroni hasn't been subjected to the
heckling I've received in here on a regular basis since
September. :-)

Speroni counts REPLIES to Comments as "duplicates" in order
to arrive at a code-favored percentage in his "results." We
could extend that to questionable categorization of husband-
wife teams filing separately...but that effort isn't worth
the time wasted for "accuracy." There's also some obvious
(if one checks the posted address) of family members filing
separately. Lots and lots of variations of "inaccuracy"
charges possible!

Note also the subtle biasing of the icon indicators on
Speroni's "analysis" sheet. All those against code testing
have the red slant bar across them. All those for code
testing are green or blue with no ("do not do") red slant
bars. Those for-code icons are also clear, nothing to show
that they are the exact OPPOSITE of the NPRM. :-)

My "percentage" was shown strictly as an INDICATOR of the
opinion. What the FCC uses for decisions is up to them.
My "score card" isn't "official." Neither is Speroni's.

If anyone bothered to look at my continuing series of "score
card" postings, they would have seen a most decided "FOR"
position on the NPRM early in the comment period (better than
2:1). By the official notice date in the Federal Register,
VERY late in my opinion, the pro-code-test comments had
increased but not yet achieved "supremacy" over the no-code-
test comments OR the "code test for extra" folks.

Here's an important fact AND a big unknown about the
comments: According to the statements in both the NPRM
and Federal Register, the comment period begins ONLY on
the FR notice date. WE citizens don't know if the FCC
will consider all those comments made BEFORE the notice
date! If the FCC doesn't, then the number of CONSIDERED
filings drop to nearly half and the "percentages" get
skewed. Speroni did NOT mention that in his "analysis."
I did, from day one of the FR notice. The Federal Register
notices are legally binding on federal law, regulations,
and rules.

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Speroni has NOT "classified" or even included 10 filings
that showed up under 31 Oct 05, all done by LAW STUDENTS.
As of 2 PM EDT on 4 Nov 05, those "moot court" exercise
papers number 17 (3 are unidentified as to individual and
were copied and filed as one filing by the FCC). The total
number of filings up to the official end of Comments period
are now 3,697, not the lower number Speroni shows for today.

All this doesn't matter in RRAP as far as Miccolis is
concerned. Anyone favoring code testing is "accurate" to
him and anyone not favoring code testing is "inaccurate!"

Quod erat demonstrandum (for years in here). :-)

[a fan of author Tony Hillerman novels]

Bill Sohl

November 4th 05 11:19 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The president stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

W2DNE

November 4th 05 11:40 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The president stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Last I checked the president stands in the white house. Also last I checked
there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require possibility
of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing outright.

[email protected]

November 4th 05 11:58 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

Obviously not!

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[email protected]

November 5th 05 12:57 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General. Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

Does anyone think otherwise?

I'll wager $1 across state lines that Jim Miccolis/N2EY does.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the
AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?" In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing. The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

It matters not. What matteres is the Jim Miccolis/N2EY has a platform
to attempt to discredit Len under any and every circumstance. Another
$1 says thats the truth.

[email protected]

November 5th 05 01:02 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is.

Indeed it does but this is the very, very first time you've mentioned
it. All you've talked about up to this point is how some anonymous
tabulations are perfect and Len's is inaccurate, inaccurate,
inaccurate! Hi, hi!!! I think you have an axe to grind.

If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license.

You don't say?

But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

Really?

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Says who?

[email protected]

November 5th 05 01:09 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Fair enough.

Agreed.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule.

How do we know that? If that precedent really existed,
why didn't FCC institute waivers as soon as the
treaty requirement ended? They wouldn't need an NPRM -
they could cite the 1990-2000 procedures and just change
the words for "5 wpm".

Inactivity in response to the treatty 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.

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?

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

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

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum. There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

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.

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?

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Tanya

November 5th 05 05:50 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

My, oh my. Lennie's Rely's runneth over yet again.

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Iitoi on Fri 4 Nov 2005 01:34

Wrote:

Why don't you just reveal this "website" and be done with it? If it is
"so much better" than what I've done, then others will obviously see so!

One other analysis that I've seen is by a Northern Mariana Islands
callsign http://ah0a.org/FCC/05-235/ --- it may be the site that N2EY
refers to.

That certainly seems to be the one. Nice and colorful, looks great
in any GUI display. :-)

Joe Speroni (AH0A) has to be taken for what he is: An absolute
morseman who values morse code skill over everything else in
United States amateur radio. Speroni is also a Petitioner to the
FCC who has yet to have his Petitions granted. shrug :-)

I put Speroni into a category of one who has a LOT of emotional
baggage tied up in morse code and code testing.

If it is, N2EY's blustering is a puzzlement because the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

No "puzzlement" to me. :-) Jimmie has been consistently
against on just about everything I've ever written in here.
Since I am NOT in favor of morse code testing (as are several
others), he loves to "get on my (and their's) case" to show
"how mistaken" I (and they) am.

Jimmie ("N2EY," which any day might become his legal name) has
now resorted to attacking my choice of residence (the one I
chose in May of 1963) and attempts ridicule of that location
by partial lyrics of an old pop song ("little houses made of
ticky-tacky"). :-) TS. I'll turn my collar around and get
out my punch for his card. [he's probably never heard of the
"TS Card" that was common in the military]

Speroni's "Analysis" is probably no more "flawed" than mine.
The difference is in his categorization and the fact that he
has NOT posted it in here. I began posting results almost
daily from the beginning of August; Speroni has ONE display
and MUST be taken as "accurate" (since he is an unabashed
morse code advocate). Speroni hasn't been subjected to the
heckling I've received in here on a regular basis since
September. :-)

Speroni counts REPLIES to Comments as "duplicates" in order
to arrive at a code-favored percentage in his "results." We
could extend that to questionable categorization of husband-
wife teams filing separately...but that effort isn't worth
the time wasted for "accuracy." There's also some obvious
(if one checks the posted address) of family members filing
separately. Lots and lots of variations of "inaccuracy"
charges possible!

Note also the subtle biasing of the icon indicators on
Speroni's "analysis" sheet. All those against code testing
have the red slant bar across them. All those for code
testing are green or blue with no ("do not do") red slant
bars. Those for-code icons are also clear, nothing to show
that they are the exact OPPOSITE of the NPRM. :-)

My "percentage" was shown strictly as an INDICATOR of the
opinion. What the FCC uses for decisions is up to them.
My "score card" isn't "official." Neither is Speroni's.

If anyone bothered to look at my continuing series of "score
card" postings, they would have seen a most decided "FOR"
position on the NPRM early in the comment period (better than
2:1). By the official notice date in the Federal Register,
VERY late in my opinion, the pro-code-test comments had
increased but not yet achieved "supremacy" over the no-code-
test comments OR the "code test for extra" folks.

Here's an important fact AND a big unknown about the
comments: According to the statements in both the NPRM
and Federal Register, the comment period begins ONLY on
the FR notice date. WE citizens don't know if the FCC
will consider all those comments made BEFORE the notice
date! If the FCC doesn't, then the number of CONSIDERED
filings drop to nearly half and the "percentages" get
skewed. Speroni did NOT mention that in his "analysis."
I did, from day one of the FR notice. The Federal Register
notices are legally binding on federal law, regulations,
and rules.

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Speroni has NOT "classified" or even included 10 filings
that showed up under 31 Oct 05, all done by LAW STUDENTS.
As of 2 PM EDT on 4 Nov 05, those "moot court" exercise
papers number 17 (3 are unidentified as to individual and
were copied and filed as one filing by the FCC). The total
number of filings up to the official end of Comments period
are now 3,697, not the lower number Speroni shows for today.

All this doesn't matter in RRAP as far as Miccolis is
concerned. Anyone favoring code testing is "accurate" to
him and anyone not favoring code testing is "inaccurate!"

Quod erat demonstrandum (for years in here). :-)

[a fan of author Tony Hillerman novels]

Bill Sohl

November 5th 05 01:10 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in
favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

But the ADA wil surely be a part of it IF FCC retains
any code testing going forward.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

They could have dropped code immediately too but that
didn't happen either. The wheels of government change turn ever
so slowly.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

Obviously not!

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For
NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

Well I surely don't care.

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

For extra the opposite is just barely a majority...I wouldn't
hang any hopes on that meaning anything to the FCC.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

Exactly!

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

ROTFLMAO

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl

November 5th 05 01:17 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Last I checked the president stands in the white house.

I'll never claim to be a great speller.

Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min.

The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty
required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13
or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require
possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing
outright.

The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical
certification statement.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

[email protected]

November 5th 05 01:47 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in
favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

But the ADA wil surely be a part of it IF FCC retains
any code testing going forward.

How do we know that for sure, Bill?

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

They could have dropped code immediately too but that
didn't happen either. The wheels of government change turn ever
so slowly.

Agreed!

My point is that it's not a done deal until they actually do it. And if
there were no question, they'd have done it already.

In any event, the NPRM indicates that FCC is strongly predisposed
to just eliminate Element 1 - and make *no* other changes.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

Obviously not!

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For
NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

Well I surely don't care.

Nor I, really. It's just an academic exercise - FCC doesn't have to go
with
majority opinion.

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

For extra the opposite is just barely a majority.

55% is more than "just barely". Most US presidential elections are a
lot closer
(in the popular vote).

..I wouldn't
hang any hopes on that meaning anything to the FCC.

Nor I. But the fact is that the majority opinion does not support
complete
elimination of the Morse Code test.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

Exactly!

So why keep a scorecard at all?

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

ROTFLMAO

Thought you'd enjoy that!

73 de Jim, N2EY

[email protected]

November 5th 05 04:28 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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:

In fact, your *only* filing on that NPRM was those reply comments,
wasn't it? And despite your years of experience in computer-modem
communications, you couldn't manage to submit via ECFS back
then, even though thousands of us figured it out.

Whoooo-eeee...you are REALLY in a snit about 1998 issues!

I'm just recalling some facts, Len. You've tried and tried to impress
with your alleged 'years in computer-modem communications' but
in fact you couldn't get ECFS to accept your filing back then. And
you make a lot of noise about when other people comment but in
fact you only sent in Reply Comments to that NPRM.

Pot...kettle

That was over six years ago.

So what? You repeatedly bring up stuff that's much older and even
less relevant.

Actually more like cast-iron pot calling stainless steel kettle....

Sweetums, it wasn't ME who brought up (or brings up) those
old, old WT Docket 98-143 comments. Tsk, tsk, my Scorecard
is on Docket 05-235. 2005, not 1998.

You keep bringing up history from a half-century ago, Len, as if it had

some relevance. Are you saying your 1998 Reply Comments are
irrelevant to amateur radio policy? If so, many will agree!

I have NOT pursued
that since except for the accusations leveled at me in
here.

What "accusations", Len? The facts were presented and you confirmed
them. You even accused ARRL and some VEs of fraud and dishonest
over the licensing of some young amateurs.

My "score card" postings don't mention that, Jimmie.

So? Are you the sole judge of what can be discussed in a thread?

If you can't get your analogies in order, PLEASE try to
refrain from dredging up the PAST. It won't help whatever
you think your case IS.

You weren't at the VE session, don't know any of the people involved,
and yet you accused others of fraud.

Tsk, tsk. My OPINIONS about those six-year-old licensees
remain the SAME, sweetums. DEAL WITH IT. :-)

Your opinions are not backed by any facts, then. So we
should treat them appropriately....

And you claimed that because, in *your* opinion, 6-year-olds could not
understand the material on the test, no one under the age of 14 should
be allowed to hold an amateur radio license.

Who is doing the "dredging up," Jimmie? :-)

It's what you said then and still defend. It's relevant to your
"opinions".

Truth is, you've repeatedly defended your position on the issue.
You didn't "drop it".

Now you *could* come out and say it was a bad idea and that
there should be no age requirements for an amateur radio license.

Awwww....you want me to say "sowwy?" :-)

Why not admit your mistake and say you were wrong, and your
opinions have no basis in fact? Because that's the case, Len.

Jimmie, DROP this old argument.

You're not the boss here, Len. Probably not the boss anywhere....

It has NO BEARING on NPRM 05-143.

Sure it does. Proves your lack of reasoning skills in some areas.

You DO? Okay,
I'll try to hound you about NEVER serving your country in
the military

You do that already. I've never claimed any military service.

Then why did you claim all that "knowledge" about being IN the
military, Jimmie?

I don't, Len. Who is this "Jimmie" you keep bringing up?

every time you make some pontifical remark
showing your "military expertise."

That would be never, Len. Because I don't claim "expertise" at
anything.

Ho. Ho. Ho. YES, you do! :-)

Show us an example. A direct link to a posting would be good.

Posting documented facts isn't claiming expertise.

I do know a few things, though, and it really seems to tick you
off when one of your mistakes is pointed out. Like the in-service
dates of Soviet Bear bombers....

I acknowledged that I DID confuse
the existance of that type of Soviet aircraft at the time
involved. EXACT AIRCRAFT DETAILS of the entire Cold War
wasn't a career specialty of mine in aerospace.

Point is, you exaggerated the threat you were under. And you didn't
check your facts before posting. It took me only seconds to find out
the relevant facts. One would think someone with your alleged 'years of
experience in computer-modem communications' would have checked
the facts before posting.

There's also the issue of how you treat someone who points out your
mistakes. You behave in a very unprofessional manner, Len.

You want to microscope-focus on minutae in order to show a
poster is "mistaken" and therefore of no value whatsoever
in these non-discussions. :-)

DID the USSR have bombers capable of reaching from Kamchatka
to the Kanto Plain on Honshu in Japan in the mid-1950s? Yes,
they DID. Both the USA and USAF had anti-aircraft measures
for such events. Did the USSR have an air-deployable nuclear
weapon in that same time? Yes, it did. Was I stationed in
Tokyo in that time? Yes, I was. Was I involved in contingency
plans and drilling for same at that time? Yes, I was. I'll
not argue the TYPE of Soviet aircraft the USSR MIGHT have used
in the mid-1950s to deliver any nukes. None were dropped.

To quote your classic "sphincters post":

'You knew the job was dangerous when you took it'

But, WHAT DOES IT MATTER on the type of Soviet aircraft
involved then?

You exaggerated the threat you were under, Len.

YOU were NOT INVOLVED. YOU were NEVER IN
THE MILITARY!

Doesn't change the fact that *you* were mistaken.

And btw....

People of *my* generation grew up knowing that we were under
the constant threat of nuclear annihilation from missile attacks
against which there was essentially no defense. The missiles
would arrive in minutes, not hours, and if they did the job
we'd all be dust. Growing up in a big city halfway between
the nation's capital and the nation's largest city, I knew there
was little point in fallout shelters and such, because we were
within range of both land- and submarine-launched Soviet
missiles, and a prime target.

Fortunately sanity prevailed.

So don't lecture *me* about the Soviet nuclear threat, Len old boy,
because I grew up with it. You didn't.

But you have "a problem" with 13 year olds getting amateur radio
licenses.

No.

Then you're saying there should not be any age requirement for an
amateur radio license.

Tsk, tsk. I'm NOT dragging up 6 1/2 year old arguements
in here. :-)

Admit you were wrong about the whole age-limit thing, then.

I have a "problem" with mental 13-year-olds in here
posing as adults

It's not all about you, Len.

Ha. Ha. Ha. More "civil discourse" there, Jimmie? :-)

What's uncivil about that?

and who ask all sorts of inane "questions"
(that were already answered a priori) and make all kinds of
accusations...all of which may be summed up as HECKLING.

Not by any reasonable definition of heckling.

I'm not the one recommending an age requirement for a US amateur radio
license. You are.

I DID. I dropped it after 13 January 1999.

Yet you kept on defending it.

That was OVER SIX YEARS ago.

Your defense of it is a lot more recent.

You are STILL OFFENDED over that!

Not me. I just think it's a really bad idea.

So...maybe you LIKE talking to 13-year-olds on the radio using
radiotelegraphy that makes all age clues meaningless?

Why, yes! I enjoy using Morse Code to communicate with hams of
all ages. I've worked 10 year olds on Morse Code and 90+
year olds too. I've Elmered hams of all ages, too.

Is THAT what it's called now?!?

"Elmering" is the term applied to helping less-experienced hams to
learn.

What matters to me is the person on the other end of the QSO, what
they have to say, and how much fun the whole process is. The other
ham's age is of vanishing importance to me.

Tsk, tsk...you sound like Captain Code.

You like talking to little boys, Jimmie?

I enjoy communicating with people of all ages, Len. From little
babies to people much older than you (yes, such people do exist! ;-))

What's *your* problem? Can't you deal with young people?

Does that satisfy some internal desires of yours?

Working other hams is a lot of fun for me. This weekend is the CW SS.
I intend to work a lot of other hams using Morse Code. For fun.

Enjoy. Keep advancing the state of the amateur art.

I do! You don't.

Keep the electronics trades knowledgeable about your progress.

Why? It's really all about money to you, isn't it?

That's right. Your postings are fair game for comment and
question by others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They
are not immune to question and/or debate.

Wow! You've FINALLY gotten the picture, Judge! :-)

Tsk, tsk. You forgot to add in the part where, if YOU ask
someone something they MUST answer or you will make tens
of thousands of words in messaging if you don't get the
answers you WANT! :-)

That's what *you* do, Len.

In this thread I was just posting a near-daily tally of the
filings and their content on WT Docket 05-235.

Complete with errors and misdirections.

YOU turned it
into minor-league Spanish Inquisition stuff with your
"questions" and old, old arguments from the past on very
different subjects.

I pointed out some possible inaccuracies, in your
"work", Len. That's a good thing

Poor Jimmie? Double-degreed "engineer" and you can't MAKE
ENOUGH to spend over $100 on a rig? :-)

It really *is* all about money to you, Len.

Oh, oh, the commie sympathizer comes out of his closet in PA?

"Commie sympathizer"? That's almost funny! You really are clueless
if you'd call me that.

I was just asking a question... :-)

See that funny hook-like punctuation mark? That's called a
"question mark." That denotes a Question.

Well, that's a sure indication YOU don't have as much money
as YOU want. :-)

Who does? Do you?

Yes. :-)

I have enough.

How much is "enough?" Your answers aren't clear.

Enough to meet my needs and most of my wants.

That's what's important. I'm also very wealthy in
things that cannot be bought.

Tsk. Better get to the market. Your "milk of human kindness"
turned sour some time ago...

Yup...and it shows you HATE professionals for some reason.

Not me. I am one!

Prove it.

Why?

Odd, because you claim to BE a professional in electronics.

Where?

I am a professional in electrical engineering. There's a lot more
to EE than "electronics".

Where do you DO this "professional" stuff, Jimmie?

At work, Len. That's all you need to know.

Us readers don't know WHERE since you won't mention your
employer...not here, not to the FCC.

Why should I? Would it make any difference? Or would it simply
be something else for you to insult and denigrate?

Now, now, you should be PROUD of what you do.

I am.

If you were really
PROUD, then you wouldn't mind revealing your employer.

I don't "mind" at all. Many people know where I work. You don't,
and that seems to bother the heck out of you. Why?

Perhaps it's time to repost your classic "sphincters post", where you
denigrated and insulted the military service experiences of a US Coast
Guard radio operator.

Perhaps you need a tranquilizer instead?

Not me. I'm calm, cool and collected. You're all worked up.

I'm "all about money?"

I didn't say that.

I wrote:

"It really *is* all about money to you, Len."

Why do you say that?

Because of the way you behave here, Len.

And apparently, it is. Your behavior confirms it.

Not really. Got some. Spent some.
Dropped $1100 last week at CompUSA-GoodGuys for a 27" HD
LCD flat panel TV this week and it works just dandy.

See? There you go. Gotta mention what you bought and how much it
cost.

No, I don't "gotta."

But you do. Did you "pay CASH" for it, too?

My wife and I have been enjoying the
pictures and programs on that TV. We have digital cable
service, Jimmie, over 150 channels of a great variety of
programs.

Does that make you a better person than someone without
digital cable?

Tsk, tsk, I guess if one is "anti-code" then one can't mention
(evil?) money? :-)

Money isn't "evil", Len.

LCD and plasma panel HD-ready TVs might be starting to come
down in price. DTV is the FUTURE, Jimmie. FCC said so.

What does that have to do with your 'scorecard', Len?

Telegraphy is the PAST.

Radiotelegraphy is the present. And the future.

ARRL don't want to admit that, but it IS.

ARRL isn't about telegraphy, Len.

You sure seem to be one of those people who consider "net worth" and
"personal worth" to be synonymous....

Nothing "synonymous" there, Jimmie. We planned for it, got it.

It ain't braggin'.

Remember "It ain't braggin' if ya done it"? :-)

You just confirmed my statement.

[it
doesn't do morse code so I guess you wouldn't be interested
in it]

Doesn't make the programs any better, though. Mostly JUNK on TV...

Ooooooo! A glimpse into the Dark Side of the netherworld's
TV critics! Are you a counterpart of Ebert or Roeper? :-)

Wow! Remember who once said "I've just GOT to get cable!" :-)

Who wrote that, Len?

I want the FCC to make NPRM 05-143 into a Report and Order...without
changes to the basic precepts in the NPRM.

Why? Those changes won't affect you.

They MAY.

Very unlikely.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...can you "GUARANTEE" that? :-)

To a high degree of confidence, yes!

They WILL affect all those who desire to enter HF
amateur radio without taking a code test.

So? You're not one of them.

Neither are most of the staff and all of the Commissioners at the
FCC! They MAKE the U.S. amateur radio regulations,

Because it's their *JOB*, Len. It's not your *JOB*. You're Not
Involved.

Other than mentally, emotionally, how will the removal of the
morse code test affect YOU?

If it damages the amateur radio service, it affects me.

"Damages?" Tsk, tsk. Who made YOU "judge" of what is "damaged?"

The US Constitution, for one.

Don't you have any other hobby besides radiotelegraphy?

Oh yes.

Don't you have any other hobby than ranting on and on for years about
a test in a radio service that you are Not Involved in?

And
making some of the longest "I'm only asking 'question'" posts
in the history of newsgrouping... :-)

Your postings are longer and more frequent than mine, Len. Also
less accurate.

It won't remove any of your
operating privileges, won't make you re-test.

I'm not afraid of any retest, Len.

You seem to be afraid of any test, though. Or any question.

Taken - and passed all - REAL Tests, Jimmie. No fear.

You're afraid of the Morse Code test, Len. It's a REAL test...

Even this long one. I've ANSWERED all your questions, haven't I?

Nope. Not at all.

But that's SOP for you.

[email protected]

November 5th 05 04:41 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

Bill Sohl wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

True - up to a point.

It can also be argued that the precedent is limited only to
'higher-speed' code tests, and not to code testing in general.
IOW, there's a difference between a waiver of a higher level
of skill vs. a complete waiver of the skill.

As an analogy, there have been cases (not amateur radio)
where a disabled person was given additional time to
complete a test that, for everyone else, had a strict time limit.

That person essentially got a waiver of the time limit but not
of the test itself.

Opponents of the waiver said that the time limit was an
integral part of the test.

Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min.

The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty
required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13
or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there.

But only for higher-speed tests, not for the basic skill itself.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require
possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing
outright.

The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical
certification statement.

Which took the form of a letter from any M.D. or D.O. stating that
it would take the person longer-than-usual to reach the skill
level necessary to pass the 13 or 20 wpm code test. There was no
requirement of an actual documented disability, nor that the
disability would make it *impossible* for the person to pass the test.
Nor did the disability have to be permanent and/or untreatable. The
doctor didn't have to write the letter, just sign it. Nor did the
doctor
need any particular qualifications to make the judgement.

I don't know of anyone who sought a medical waiver who was
denied if they had the required doctor's letter.

Most of all, the waivers did not come about because of ADA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl

November 6th 05 02:01 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the
United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to
come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?

Ending code testing.

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

IYHO

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Fair enough.

Agreed.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule.

How do we know that? If that precedent really existed,
why didn't FCC institute waivers as soon as the
treaty requirement ended? They wouldn't need an NPRM -
they could cite the 1990-2000 procedures and just change
the words for "5 wpm".

Inactivity in response to the treatty 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ditto my last.

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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl

November 6th 05 02:16 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in
favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level
of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the
NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his
results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

But the ADA wil surely be a part of it IF FCC retains
any code testing going forward.

How do we know that for sure, Bill?

I am reasonably certain such woud be the case.
That is my prediction, if and only if FCC
retains code testing at any level. Others such
as yourself are free to disagree.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

They could have dropped code immediately too but that
didn't happen either. The wheels of government change turn ever
so slowly.

Agreed!

My point is that it's not a done deal until they actually do it. And if
there were no question, they'd have done it already.

There is, IMHO, no question...just the process which
is, as I've said, just slow government process.

In any event, the NPRM indicates that FCC is strongly predisposed
to just eliminate Element 1 - and make *no* other changes.

And I have seen nothing offered in any comments that
will, IMHO, change that.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he
could
not find the AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's
filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

Obviously not!

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For
NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes
and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

Well I surely don't care.

Nor I, really. It's just an academic exercise - FCC doesn't have
to go with majority opinion.

Agreed then.

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

For extra the opposite is just barely a majority.

55% is more than "just barely". Most US presidential elections are a
lot closer
(in the popular vote).

55% is one number, 50.x% is Len's.

..I wouldn't
hang any hopes on that meaning anything to the FCC.

Nor I. But the fact is that the majority opinion does not support
complete
elimination of the Morse Code test.

Fair enough.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

Exactly!

So why keep a scorecard at all?

For interesting dialog :-) :-)

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

ROTFLMAO

Thought you'd enjoy that!

I did indeed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl

November 6th 05 02:25 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in message
ps.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) 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.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such
a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

True - up to a point.

It can also be argued that the precedent is limited only to
'higher-speed' code tests, and not to code testing in general.
IOW, there's a difference between a waiver of a higher level
of skill vs. a complete waiver of the skill.

Agreed... BUT there is no longer ANY international
treaty requirement for even a basic skill which, I believe,
is exactly why we have an open (almost closed now)
NPRM addressing ending ALL code testing.
It is also why, IMHO, the FCC won't go with any
code test at all for Extra.

As an analogy, there have been cases (not amateur radio)
where a disabled person was given additional time to
complete a test that, for everyone else, had a strict time limit.

That person essentially got a waiver of the time limit but not
of the test itself.

Opponents of the waiver said that the time limit was an
integral part of the test.

Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5
word-per-min.

The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty
required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13
or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there.

But only for higher-speed tests, not for the basic skill itself.

And again, the basic skill was, in the past, an ITU treaty
requirement. It ain't anymore.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require
possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing
outright.

The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical
certification statement.

Which took the form of a letter from any M.D. or D.O. stating that
it would take the person longer-than-usual to reach the skill
level necessary to pass the 13 or 20 wpm code test. There was no
requirement of an actual documented disability, nor that the
disability would make it *impossible* for the person to pass the test.
Nor did the disability have to be permanent and/or untreatable. The
doctor didn't have to write the letter, just sign it. Nor did the
doctor
need any particular qualifications to make the judgement.

Agreed..and such was "my" intent regarding medical
certficiation.

I don't know of anyone who sought a medical waiver who was
denied if they had the required doctor's letter.

Nor would they (IMHO) in the future IF any code
test remains.

Most of all, the waivers did not come about because of ADA.

Agreed as to the past.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Alun L. Palmer

November 6th 05 04:57 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Usenet Central" wrote in
link.net:

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

BGO

--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

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.

Alun L. Palmer

November 6th 05 05:19 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in
oups.com:

wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
wrote:

no effort to squech it has been made.

Tsk, tsk...LOTS of "squelching" has been ATTEMPTED. :-)

By you and Mark..

Case in point: All these allegations of "honesty" and FALSE
charges of an inordinate number of "mistakes."

By whom?

Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

The thread is about your "scorecard", Len. Asking how the
numbers are derived, what rules are used in the derivation,
and who checks your work are right on-subject.

For example, if someone filed 1 comment and 3 reply comments
on the NPRM, did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else?

he has the right to ignore me if
he likes, as do you of course, and I have
the right to tell to shut
up and stoping acting like High Inqusitor
or impling that Len is doing something imporper in reading and
counting as he sees fit

Mark, simply Being Here and Being NOT for morse code
is "improper" and "incorrect!" :-)

How many hunderd question does Jim need to
ask before he reconizes that Len is not required to answer him

Doesn't matter. Jimmie Noserve is a Radio god

"Radio god"?

Looks like an extreme exaggeration. How do we know you
don't exaggerate other things?

in here and can
act/do/write whatever he wants to and that WILL be "correct"
(because that is his opinion and anything against it
is "wrong").

Disagreement with him is "wrong," thus "validating" his false
charges of "mistakes." :-)

Good description of your behavior here, Len.

Your mistakes are well documented. Such as the legality of
amateur operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

On the contrary, I like Jim because he is rational and polite.

Thanks, Alun!

Jim is always right.

Gosh, Len, so you *can* call me by my name!

He must be because he says so...those
against his opinions are "wrong." :-)

When it comes to one-sided opinions in favor of code testing, he
gets upset and irrational. shrug

He did raise a valid point about citizenship, i.e. it is
irrelevant, but I raised this point myself with Len before and
didn't get an answer.

I thought I answered that. :-)

I'll have to get busy and find out every other government
administrations' Elections so that I can go vote on those
issues...if I don't need to be a citizen there. :-)

Last I saw, United States citizens voted on, expressed
opinions on United States laws, regulations, rules.
As far as
I've seen so far, Title 47 C.F.R. applies ONLY to United
States
citizens on United States soil.

US citizenship is not a requirement for getting an FCC
amateur radio license. Passing the required tests *is* a
requirement.

A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required
to comment. Neither is there an age requirement to comment.

Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young
people into what he considers 'adult' activities....

FCC doesn't exclude noncitizens, so why should a count of the
comments exclude them? A noncitizen can get an FCC license, but
has to take the same tests as a citizen, so why shouldn't their
comments be counted?

By INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, the United States allows non- citizens
to be granted United States radio operator licenses.

That's right.

Do NON-citizens vote on United States laws, regulations, rules?

A comment is not a vote. An NPRM is not an election. FCC doesn't have
to act on what the majority of comments want.

Doing a voluntary examination of an on-going WT Docket and
reporting what I found is hardly "telling the FCC or anyone in
here" "what to do."

Who said it was?

The issue is the accuracy of your 'scorecard'.

Tsk, tsk. Since this is a private

It's not private at all. You blab it all over a public forum,
so it's fair game for comment and question by others.

That's what free speech in a public forum is all about, Len.
If you make statements here, others have the right to comment
on them and question their validity.

Is your 'scorecard' a collection of alleged facts, or is it
just your opinion?

all-voluntary "score card," the one doing the READING of ALL
filings is allowed to set the conditions. :-)

Of course.

Those
conditions have been FULLY EXPLAINED in each "score card"
I've posted...since the end of July, 2005.

No, they haven't. For example:

If someone posts multiple comments that are not identical,
are they counted as one comment or more than one?

If a group or club posts a comment with multiple signatures,
does that count as one comment or more than one?

How is it decided what constitutes a "valid address"?

Why is there some kind
of "dispute" NOW rather than in the past two months?

Is there a time limit on questions?

As far as the "Indeterminate" column of my scoring, the notes
explain what was done.

Not completely.

At issue in WT Docket 05-235 is just
whether or not NPRM 05-143 should be made into an R&O or not.
NPRM 05-143 is NOT some comprehensive all-inclusive Remake
of Part 97 as in the "Restructuring" of '98-'99. It is just
about morse code testing, whether it should stay or go...in
USA amateur radio regulations.

The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

Back in 1999 you posted reply comments recommending an age requirement
for all classes of amateur license, even though
that NPRM never mentioned anything about an age requirement.

Should your reply comments be called "indeterminate" because
of that?

Other than the non-specific "Indeterminate" opinions, there
are only three others: FOR the NPRM, AGAINST the removal of
code testing, and retention of code testing ONLY for the
Amateur Extra class. Perhaps that is just too difficult to grasp?

Perhaps your explanation is incomplete?

What IS difficult to grasp - by the PCTA - is that the NCTA are no
longer a minority.

That has not been shown to be true.

In fact, many PCTA just cannot
believe that radio hobbyists cannot love, honor, and obey the
cherished Belief that morse code testing is "necessary."

Len has a proven track record of mistakes here, particularly in
the area of FCC regulations, so it's not unreasonable to ask about
how his numbers are compiled and how they are checked.

"Proven track record?!?" :-)

Yes. You've made serious mistakes in your statements about
Part 97. And you've refused to correct or even acknowledge them.

Is that what is called "politeness" and "civility?" In here
I guess so... :-)

It's called stating a fact.

The way to "check" my numbers is to GO AND READ ALL THE
COMMENTS-FILINGS ON WT DOCKET 05-235 AND DO YOUR OWN
TALLIES OF OPINIONS.

You're not the only one reading the comments, Len. And your
numbers don't agree with others' results.

Jimmie has NOT even made ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235.

If someone makes multiple filings on that docket, and they
are not identical, will you count them as one comment or more than
one?

Do "filings" include only comments, or are reply comments and
other materials included in the count?

Is your 'scorecard' only a count of comments, or are reply
comments included too?

Jimmie has NOT stated he has READ a single filing on 05-235.

Who is "Jimmie", Len? Can't be me, because I've read several of
the comments. Reply comments too. And the whole NPRM.

Jimmie has spent a LOT of time and effort trying his best
to obscure and misdirect the NPRM "scorecard" results by
all these "challenges" and FALSE statements about my previous
alleged "inaccuracies."

I've simply asked questions and stated facts. It's a fact that
you have a proven track record of mistakes here. Here's another:
you once stated you had *never* used a certain screen name to post
here, and then it was shown that you had. I think you called
yourself 'Averyfine'...

Hey, it's a neat trick to try and sway public opinion in this
computer-modem kind of communications. Done well enough, constant
repetition of FALSE charges will make some folks believe that a
person is "highly inaccurate." :-)

Is that your methodology here, Len? Perhaps you're counting on nobody
checking your work.

The NPRM proposes to eliminate *all* Morse Code
testing for an amateur license. Someone who supports
the NPRM must, by definition, support the removal
of *all* code testing, not just some of it. Otherwise they are
opposed to the NPRM.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nothing in ANY NPRM is so sacrosanct as
to demand absolute obediance to the NOTICE of PROPOSED
RULE MAKING.

There's no A in "obedience", Len. Are you getting worked up over this?

Had Jimmie seen other NPRMs and the
resulting R&Os, he would understand that. Obviously, he has NOT.

I don't know what "Jimmie" has read, but I've read plenty of
NPRMs and the resultinf R&Os.

The detail of whether they support the current level
of Morse Code testing, or whether they support a
reduction but not complete elimination, does not
change the fact that they are opposed to the NPRM as it stands.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. :-)

Tsk, the purpose of a COMMENT period is to allow
CITIZENS to make their desires known to their government on a
PROPOSED ruling.

Not just CITZENS, Len - all interested parties. FCC has
not rejected the comments of noncitizens - why chould you?

In fact, one doesn't even have to be a human being to
comment. FCC accepts comments from corporate organizations
as well. They cited the comments of Kenwood back in the R&O
about the 2000 restructuring.

If Kenwood files comments, will you count them or reject them?

Those desires ARE now PUBLIC. 2,641 filings' worth.

Do they include reply comments or just comments in your totals?

Miccolis has NOT read ALL of them,

Are you sure?

hasn't even made his own filing.
I have read ALL of them...including the 19 more for
24 October 2005 (making 2,660 filings) which will be
posted on 25 October (plus any additional the FCC wishes to add).

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

Seems that way.

So...where is the "score card" by James Miccolis?

And...WHO will "check his work?" :-)

It's not about me, Len. It's about *your* 'scorecard'.

Who checks Miccolis' "work" on his bi-monthly "license
number" postings? [he won't say from where he cribs his numbers]

Anyone can check my posted numbers very simply by doing the
math. I've stated the source of those numbers here.

If there's a math mistake I'll correct it. But I don't recall
anyone pointing out such a mistake.

The FCC will have no problem deciding that they have a mandate to
abolish Element 1 based on the comments.

Perhaps - but recall that FCC is not required to follow
the majority opinion. They did not follow majority opinion in 1999
either...

Tsk. Morse lovers are seeing the handwriting on the
wall. Finally. Wow, news flash, morse code testing is NOT favored
by a majority! [sunnuvagun!]

How do you know it's not favored by a majority?

The ARRL represents a distinct MINORITY of all USA amateur radio
licensees. A mere 20%.

How is that number derived?

Yet, on any
other issue, What The ARRL Says is some kind of "truth"
about amateur radio...anyone against that will get all
sorts of nastygram grief from ARRL Believers!!!

More important to the discussion of 'scorecards' is the
accuracy of the count. At present, Len's 'scorecard' is
made up of about 2500 comments that pass some vaguely defined tests
of validity.

"Vaguely defined tests of validity?!?"

Yes.

2,645 filings for the period 15 July 2005 to 22 October 2005.

Miccolis is IN ERROR...it was NOT "2500." Tsk, tsk.

I wrote "about 2500" - which was accurate when it was written.

With such ERRORS, Miccolis is establishing a "PROVEN TRACK
RECORD OF MISTAKES!!!" :-)

Really?

"Vaguely defined?"

Yes.

The Notes in my "score card" postings explain it, well past "vague"
judgements by PCTA Miccolis.

If someone posts multiple comments that are not identical,
are they counted as one comment or more than one?

If a group or club posts a comment with multiple signatures,
does that count as one comment or more than one?

How is it decided what constitutes a "valid address"?

Are reply comments included or just comments?

With a base of 2500 comments, a single comment
represents .04% of the
total, and 25 comments represent 1% of the total.
With the totals being
so close, it would not take a lot of mistakes to change the apparent
majority.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...PCTA Miccolis has NOT CHECKED THE WORK!

How could anyone check your work, Len? You haven't shown it.

Showing the apparent results to four significant figures may
give the illusion of accuracy to some, but in fact there's a pretty
big range of interpretation to those numbers.

Only in the "Indeterminates." Many of THOSE are so vaguely
comprehensible that it would take an extreme favoritsm to
one side or the other to put them in an "un-ambiguous"
category. READ THEM AND SEE.

"Illusion of accuracy?" :-) With over a thousand filings judged
into four categories, four-place accuracy was thought

Thought by whom?

needed to trends, changes, closeness-of-differing-opinions
and so forth. That is insufficient for the highly judgemental
(and rather disturbed by revelations) James Miccolis. He
wants "the work checked" by another PCTA...possibly to show
the "true light of the efficacy and necessity of morse code
testing?"

Are you afraid of having your work checked, Len?

PCTA James Miccolis has NOT made any filing whatsoever as of
midnight, 22 October 2005.

So?

If I make 10 nonidentical comments, will they count as 1 comment or
more than 1?

He has NO indication of READING
ANY of the 2,641 filings (except the first one, maybe) on
WT Docket 05-235. Then he "challenges" me to "show the work"
as if he is some kind of "authority" on what should be posted in
here!

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

Seems that way.

Magnificent performance! [of petulant spite]

By you....;-)

For example, if one person submits multiple comments that are
omewhat different from each other (but all from the same person), are
they all counted, or just one?

That has been EXPLAINED.

No, it hasn't.

Duplicates are put into the Indeterminate
category. There are TWO flagrant violators of that, one
for, one
against the NPRM. Can Miccolis NAME those two? I can.

How can we be sure you caught every single person that filed more than
one comment?

But, I've READ all 2,641 filings made up to midnight, 22
October 2005.

Really? That's nice.

If one person submits comments and reply comments
(but all from the
same person), are they all counted, or just one?

More necro-equine flagellation. :-)

Leads me to believe you're counting reply comments too.
And not checking for dupes.

If a club or organization comments, does that count
as one comment or multiple comments?

Sigh...:-) So far, ONE club has filed (but not
given any list of members).

Only one?
Editor Moseson of CQ has filed...does PCTA Miccolis demand that ALL
SUBSCRIBERS TO CQ be counted also? :-)

Only if ALL SUBSCRIBERS to QST are also counted...

If a single comment has multiple signatures, does it count as one
comment or does the number of signatures come into play?

Which filing by whom and on what date has "multiple signatures?"

You tell me.

Does Miccolis get multiple ligatures squirming around, trying
to find a fresh spot on the dead horse?

So far, Miccolis has NOT CHECKED MY WORK,

Nobody can. You haven't shown it.

probably has NOT READ
ALL of the 2,641 filings to midnight, 22 October, 2005.

"probably"? Aren't you sure? Previously you were sure, now
you're not.

He has
NOT made his OWN filing by that date.

Is a comment a requirement? The deadline isn't till next week.

You can see that depending on how the above questions are
answered, and rules are applied, the results can be far different.

What "rules" were "necessary" to be followed, Miccolis?

Were they "published" prior to 15 July 2005?

Did you "define what should be done" by the end of August, 2005?
[no, you did NOT]

Did you "define what should be done" by the end of September, 2005?
[no, you did NOT]

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

Tsk, Miccolis must have become suddenly aware that there is NO
majority favoring the retention of the morse code test in
the United States' regulations for civil radio, Title 47
C.F.R.,
Part 97! [sunnuvagun!]

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

Miccolis is seeing the "end of ham radio" (as HE knows it)
when things are progressing ever onwards towards elimination the
morse code test! Poor thing...he stays up late on Sunday night,
even into Monday morning to vent his Grief and Upset at that!

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

So we are all just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Probably.

"Probably?" :-) It's UNAVOIDABLE. It WILL come about.

Crystal ball?

The only question is when.

The official end of Comments on WT Docket 05-235 is 31
October,
2005, a week from now. The official end of Replies to
Comments
is 14 November 2005.

On WT Docket 98-143 the official end of the last extension of
Comments was 15 January 1999. The final R&O
on "Restructuring"
wasn't released until the last week in December, 1999.
That is
roughly 10 months of decision-making...but on a LOT
more issues
than just morse code testing.

So?

James Miccolis wasn't IN the FCC in 1998, 1999, and he isn't
IN the FCC in 2005.

Neither are you, Len - ever.

However, he KNOWS things and anyone who doesn't agree with this
innate knowledge "makes mistakes!"

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

FCC may simply be responding to the fact that if they
don't drop Element 1, the petitions and proposals will continue,
making more work for them, but no more resources.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. If the decisions don't go YOUR way, then you
can renounce the FCC as some sort of meaningless beaurocracy
that doesn't serve the "public need," right? You ARE U.S.
amateur radio, aren't you? [you sure sound like it]

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

The FCC will take its time, make its decisions, the issue an
R&O. They will do so WITHOUT having James Miccolis "check
their work!" However, any decision arrived at WILL be fully
explained in THEIR Report and Order and appropriate
Commentors
noted in references. So far, as of midnight, 22 October 2005
the FCC CANNOT cite any James Miccolis as a referencible
Commentor...he has NOT even submitted any Comments on 05-235 as of
that date!

So?

Jimmie, you can make all the FALSE and
misdirected "questions"
you wish about me. All I do is READ ALL the Comments and
Replies to Comments on 05-235. The OPINIONS on what the FCC should
do in its final R&O come from United States citizens.

Not just citizens.

The FCC is bound by law and reputation to "serve the public
interest." They seem to do a good job of that, despite what the
losers on past decisions snarl about.

You're the one 'snarling'. Len.

I'm just asking some questions. You seem to be very
upset over them.

Okay, you can try more misdirection and multiple postings and you
are going to get the same replies from me.

IOW, nothing of any substance.

That
doesn't affect the final R&O one iota. You've had all
your amateur life to crow about the efficacy of morse code
as a "necessary" part of licensing...and now you are seeing that
all of that will soon be gone.

The test may be gone, but Morse Code use by hams will go on.
For a long time.

You won't be able to
crow much in the future...but you may have to EAT some...

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

Besides - what does all this matter to you? You're not going to
get a license anyway, test or no test.

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

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.

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.

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. 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 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!

73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK

Alun L. Palmer

November 6th 05 05:25 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am

wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

The thread is about your "scorecard", Len.

No, it is about A score card, specifically on WT Docket 05-235,
done to provide some insight on the Comments made and the
prevailing opinions of OTHERS out there, as much up to date as
possible for anyone else interested in NPRM 05-143.

The first thread was begun by me on 2 August, 2005, intended as
a quick-look compilation of filings that had begun on 20 July by
individuals. The second thread was begun by me on 2 August 2005,
specifically to show both the original Docket opening filings and
those filed after the Notice in the Federal Register. The third
thread (this one) was begun on 17 October due to all the
gabbling and squabbling about charges of "inaccuracy" by all
those who didn't bother to do their own compilation. shrug

To almost the end of 26 October 2005, there have been 3,055
filings on WT Docket 05-235. Has Miccolis READ them? ALL
of them? I have. I have appended two listings of filings
with my Replies to Comments done at the date those Replies
were filed. Miccolis FAILED to note that had been done; ergo,
Miccolis has READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

Brian Burke has filed on WT Docket 05-235, even Dan Jeswald,
Bill Sohl, and a few others. James P. Miccolis has NOT filed
ANYTHING on WT Docket 05-235 as of 7 PM EDT on 26 October 2005.

Asking how the
numbers are derived, what rules are used in the derivation, and who
checks your work are right on-subject.

But NOT necessary. I include Notes with each posting of the
"score card" which explain the categorization. Those are
comprehensive to those who bother to READ things.

Since this is a private compilation, I do my own "checking"
prior to each posting. Those can be verified by ANYONE who
bothers to READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

For example, if someone filed 1 comment and 3 reply comments on the
NPRM, did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else?

The OPINION expressed in EACH Comment or Reply to Comments
is EVIDENT in their CONTENT. That is self-evident (to
those who are not busy with misdirection of asking stupid
little questions designed to annoy the score-keeper).

James P. Miccolis has NOT posted ANYTHING similar to what
I have done...yet wishes to be some kind of "judge" on
what should be and what should not be. Tsk, tsk.

Your mistakes are well documented. Such as the legality of
amateur operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

THIS thread is about NPRM 05-143 and the filings in WT
Docket 05-235. If there are "mistakes" in the tabulations,
those can be found by ANYONE who bothers to READ the filings.

So far, the ONLY "mistake" was a juxtaposition of two note
numbers in the new form of the second thread begun on the
first of September. That was pointed out by Bill Sohl in
public, I acknowledged that and correct the juxtaposition.

Neither NPRM 05-143 nor WT Docket 05-235 concern themselves
with any "operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-
period." :-)

Gosh, Len, so you *can* call me by my name!

Your name is James P. Miccolis. You haven't filed anything
in the FCC ECFS since 23 August 2004. It is NOT "Jim."

US citizenship is not a requirement for getting an FCC
amateur radio license. Passing the required tests *is* a requirement.

NPRM 05-143 is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the FCC.
Any Report and Order issued as a RESULT of Comments then
becomes LAW in the form of an FCC Regulation of U.S. civil
radio. Do you understand that, or must it be explained in
voluminous detail to you?

A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required to comment.

Did you fail high school Civics class? The First Amendment
of the United States Constitution guarantees CITIZENS the
right to make comments to their government. United States
citizens...NOT citizens of OTHER countries.

Neither is there an age requirement to comment.

Given the childish behavior of some, especially those spiteful
ones attempting to misdirect a thread showing the day-by-day
change in the filings of WT Docket 05-235, perhaps there
should be. Even more so when those spiteful children have
great difficulty in accepting the prevailing opinions in the
"amateur community."

Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young
people into what he considers 'adult' activities....

There is a minimum age to serve in the United States military.
I have NO difficulty with that. I HAVE served. Has James P.
Miccolis served his country in that country's military? No, he
has not. Miccolis perceives "problems" on such minimum age
limits, yet has NOT served.

The state of California has a minimum age limit on many things,
drivers licenses for one. I have no problem with those. Miccolis
perceives I have "problems" there? I have not.

There are hundreds of local communities which have very definite
AGE LIMITS in their ordinances and codifications of law, all with
definite moral and ethical purposes to those. I have no "problem"
with them. Miccolis perceives "problems" where none exist.

Miccolis wishes to drag up SEVEN-YEAR-OLD Comments on WT Docket
98-143...which are NOT a part of NPRM 05-143. Why? The only
possible reason is his personal spite and the attempt to mis-
direct this thread into the usual Flame War squabbling.

A comment is not a vote. An NPRM is not an election. FCC doesn't have
to act on what the majority of comments want.

Had Miccolis done HIS OWN COMPILATION on the filings of WT Docket
05-235, he would have found that the majority of those making
Comments since Federal Register Notice date of 31 August are NOT
favoring NPRM 05-143. Miccolis should keep that in mind, if and
when the FCC gets around to making their Report and Order. :-)

Note that Miccolis has often referred to FCC 99-412
("Restructuring")
Report and Order as "not following the majority!" :-)

The issue is the accuracy of your 'scorecard'.

I try to issue those daily. As a service to anyone interested in
the progress of the public comment period on NPRM 05-143. I try to
make them as accurate as possible.

James P. Miccolis hasn't issued any tabulations/compilations on the
filings of WT Docket 05-235. One wonders if he has READ them at
all.

The CHARGES of "inaccuracy" are specious, NOT backed up by any
other tabulations/compilations on WT Docket 05-235.

Tsk, tsk. Since this is a private

It's not private at all.

It is a PRIVATE ENDEAVOR. As in "by myself." It is made "public"
as in public view, as a result of posting.

I can do it by private e-mail as easily. That way it would not
(seemingly) offend you so much that you write the following:

You blab it all over a public forum, so it's fair game for comment and
question by others.

Sigh...you still do NOT understand computer-modem communications.
These newsgroups unrestricted by moderators are ALL open and
public to anyone who has access to a provider or to Google.

That's what free speech in a public forum is all about, Len.

You ABUSE "free speech" by general heckling...apparently because
of personal spite at getting opposite opinions to your mighty and
imperious statements made in public.

If you make statements here, others have the right to comment on them
and question their validity.

Hello? You've just gotten a taste of "rights" right up your
I/O port. :-)

Is your 'scorecard' a collection of alleged facts, or is it just your
opinion?

Neither. It is my honest effort to show the day-by-day
compilation of filings on WT Docket 05-235.

Such a compilation/tabulation can be done by ANYONE having
access to the FCC ECFS or to the FCC Reading Room.

Miccolis has NOT done ANY of his own compilation/tabultion
in order to BACK UP HIS CHARGES OF INACCURACY. Tsk, tsk.

The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

NPRM 05-143 is solely about morse code testing, elimination of
test element 1 to be specific. Had you bothered to READ ALL of
filings in WT Docket 05-235 you would have seen some filings
which were NOT EVEN ABOUT THE NPRM! :-) Is the FCC going to
consider those in regards to NPRM 05-143? :-)

Should your reply comments be called "indeterminate" because of that?

You will label my comments anydamnthing you want...that's totally
predictable! :-)

I'd not call your spiteful little misdirections in here as
"indeterminate." INDEFATIGUABLE is more like it... :-)

Perhaps your explanation is incomplete?

Perhaps you ought to grow up and accept the FACT that a very
large group in the amateur community does NOT think like you do
about either morse code or morse code testing! [sunnuvagun!]

Yes. You've made serious mistakes in your statements about
Part 97. And you've refused to correct or even acknowledge them.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then you should cancel my amateur radio license
then, refuse to give me my amateur paycheck? :-)

It's called stating a fact.

Here's a FACT: James P. Miccolis spending a lot of time late at
night (almost 11:30 PM when his latest missive was launched) in
order to HECKLE a no-code-test-advocate. :-)

You're not the only one reading the comments, Len. And your numbers
don't agree with others' results.

PRESENT THOSE "NUMBERS" then. "Prove" the "inaccuracy."

"Put up or shut up," Jimmie (that's a phrase, not a command).

You've spent days on trying to imply "inaccuracy" on my part,
yet you have NO PROOF out in public. You "babble" in here in
an effort to misdirect everyone's attention. [it isn't
working, Jimmie, get a new knuckle-spanking ruler for the
Nun of the Above]

Jimmie has NOT even made ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235.

James P. Miccolis has made one, either... :-)

Jimmie has NOT stated he has READ a single filing on 05-235.

Who is "Jimmie", Len? Can't be me, because I've read several of the
comments. Reply comments too. And the whole NPRM.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Nun of the Above, try to go with the flow of
newsgrouping. Don't PRETEND you don't know... :-)

I've simply asked questions and stated facts.

Snide, spiteful heckling is more like it... :-)

It's a fact that
you have a proven track record of mistakes here.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...more uncivil attempts at character assassination.
Keep it up...it worked well for the National Socialist Party of
Germany in the 1930s. :-)

If you try real hard, you might even convince others I have
underarm odor!

Is that your methodology here, Len?

All I'm doing is READING ALL the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and
showing - as honestly as I can, as accurately as I can - the
four categories of opinions therein.

Perhaps you're counting on nobody checking your work.

Doesn't matter. ANYONE can "check my work." All they have to
do is go in and READ ALL of the filings, count them up, tabulate
the results.

ANYONE can go in to the FCC ECFS and "check my totals" posted in
here. Just set the date blocks on the ECFS form and the ECFS
will automatically total ALL of those within that date period!

[new technology applied...you should try some sometime...]

Had Jimmie seen other NPRMs and the
resulting R&Os, he would understand that. Obviously, he has NOT.

I don't know what "Jimmie" has read, but I've read plenty of
NPRMs and the resultinf R&Os.

Jimmie Noserve also pretends to be an expert on military life.
Hasn't served a day, though. The Nun of the Above is busy
looking for knuckles to slap with her ruler. ["give a Nun
an inch and she thinks she's a ruler"]

Hello? You are in a NEWSGROUP. You wish to heckle your
perceived enemies...yet you demand all this "civility" of
"proper names" and other bullsnit. :-)

Not just CITZENS, Len - all interested parties. FCC has not rejected
the comments of noncitizens - why chould you?

Okay, James P. Miccolis, you hop on over to some Australian
place and TELL THEM HOW THEIR LAWS SHOULD BE. You think
you will be "considered," mate? :-)

Jimmie-James, you get yourself a copy of the United States
Constitution and try to UNDERSTAND IT. Especially the
First Amendment.

In fact, one doesn't even have to be a human being to comment.

The ARRL hasn't filed anything on WT Docket 05-235 as of
8 PM EDT, 26 October. Some describe the ARRL as "soul less"
and without substance. :-)

Jimmie-James P. Miccolis of PA has NOT FILED ANYTHING on
WT Docket 05-235 (as of 8 PM EDT, 26 October 2005).

If Kenwood files comments, will you count them or reject them?

Kenwood who? :-)

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or comments?

I've EXPLAINED my categorizations since my first "score card"
posting on 2 August 2005. See the "Notes" for each one.

Jimmie-James, I can't grab your finger and point it FOR YOU
at the Notes. You HAVE to read them.

It's not about me, Len. It's about *your* 'scorecard'.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmie-James. You are busy, busy, busy making it
YOUR teeny little "judgement at Nuremburg." :-)

Who checks Miccolis' "work" on his bi-monthly "license
number" postings? [he won't say from where he cribs his numbers]

Anyone can check my posted numbers very simply by doing the math. I've
stated the source of those numbers here.

If anyone with newsgroup access can access them, WHY do
you post them here AS IF you "derived them?" :-)

The ARRL represents a distinct MINORITY of all USA amateur radio
licensees. A mere 20%.

How is that number derived?

That's been EXPLAINED to you in public several times!

Go to the QST advertising page at the ARRL site, observe
the "Publisher's Sworn Statement" that appears there twice
a year. Compare that to the total number of USA amateur
radio licensees at about the same time.

That's so terribly EASY to do...even for a double-degree.

:-)

How could anyone check your work, Len? You haven't shown it.

Two tabulations have been appended to two Replies to Comments.
Those are in PUBLIC VIEW at the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235.

ANYONE can go to the ECFS and READ ALL the filings and do their
own compilations/tabulations. Really. It should be EASY for
any Amateur Extra with two degrees. :-)

By the way, "filings" refer to each document as listed in the
Search Results for any ECFS listing. That includes some filings
which have nothing at all to do with NPRM 05-143 or even the
amateur radio regulations! [sunnuvagun!] Another one is
completely blank. I've seen it. Do you know at which date it
was filed? You would if you had READ ALL of them.

Are you afraid of having your work checked, Len?

Not at all. Feel free to "check it" by READING ALL filings. :-)

If I make 10 nonidentical comments, will they count as 1 comment or
more than 1?

So...MAKE THEM! :-)

James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything with the ECFS since
August of last year. ["put your money where your mouth is"]

Leads me to believe you're counting reply comments too.
And not checking for dupes.

Speaking of "dupes," why are you trying to DUPE everyone into
thinking I'm "always in error?" :-)

Are you so ****ed off at certain posters in here you stay up
until nearly midnight to post nastygrams? :-)

Go ahead, READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and do
your own compilations/tabulations. Check it out.

So far, Miccolis has NOT CHECKED MY WORK,

Nobody can. You haven't shown it.

Yes I have. It's IN the ECFS in two different Replies to
Comments. You just haven't seen it yet. :-)

Want to check my numbers out for totals? Easy to do with the
FCC ECFS and proper use of the date blocks. ECFS does the
totals for that period for you. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Is a comment a requirement? The deadline isn't till next week.

NOBODY "requires" you to do anything, Jimmie-James. :-)

The deadline (official) for WT Docket 05-235 Comments is
31 October 2005. The deadline (official) for Replies to
Comments is 14 November 2005. Both dates are Mondays (in
case you can't do a calendar in your head).

So far, James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything in WT
Docket 05-235. But, he has been busy, busy, busy baring
his spite in here, asking dumb questions about things which
have already been EXPLAINED to him in each "score card"
posting I've made. :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

Ho, ho, ho...and the moon is made of green cheese... :-)

James Miccolis wasn't IN the FCC in 1998, 1999, and he isn't
IN the FCC in 2005.

Neither are you, Len - ever.

I don't have to be, Jimmie-James...not to exercise my First
Amendment Rights. :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

You're the one 'snarling'. Len.

Nah. I'm just "answering your questions!" :-)

I'm just asking some questions.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

The test may be gone, but Morse Code use by hams will go on.
For a long time.

ERROR! MISTAKE! The code test is STILL there! :-)

That's about the 5th ERROR you've made in your one heckle-gram.

You are building up a fine "track record for mistakes!" :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

Besides - what does all this matter to you? You're not going to get a
license anyway, test or no test.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...are you FORBIDDING my getting an amateur radio
license? That's not NICE, Jimmie-James.

I thought you said "all I'm doing is asking questions?"

If so, why do you say such a NOT-nice thing at the end of your
posting?

Have you been taking testosterone supplements and studying the
newsgroup conduct of Dudly the Imposter? :-)

Or are you tied down on the track in the tunnel and seeing a
bright light coming towards you...and suddenly realizing it IS
a locomotive? :-)

Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

Dee Flint

November 6th 05 05:37 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Usenet Central" wrote in
link.net:

[snip]

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.

The same thing could be said about any topic that isn't rules, good
operating practice, electrical safety or RF safety. A single license class
and single test would suffice to easily cover those three areas. Afterall,
whether or not the licensee knows how to detect or fix a problem does not
let him get out of following the rules and being responsible for his
operation.

However, the FCC continues to follow the concept that people need motivation
beyond just personal curiosity to pursue the "self training" part of the
basis and purpose. Code is as logical a choice as any other topic.

But I agree that the FCC will decide to drop code entirely if they choose to
move forward.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[email protected]

November 6th 05 06:19 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

On 6 Nov 2005 17:57:57 +0100, "Alun L. Palmer"
wrote:

"Usenet Central" wrote in
hlink.net:

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

BGO

--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

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.

the FCC has already stated same in NPRM

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

W2DNE

November 6th 05 08:25 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .
----CLIPPED ABOUT 500 LINES---

Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

JESUS H CHRIST ON A UNICYCLE --- LEARN TO TRIM BEFORE YOU POST !!!!!

[email protected]

November 6th 05 08:43 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

BGO [probably Barnabus Grumwich Overbite]

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.

Speaking of paradoxes, the code test for extra people allow
the "lesser classes" to be free of federal code testing for a
license. They are the classic mugwumps sitting astride the
code-test-fence, one foot on each side.

So, which way to count them? :-)

We can all go to AH0A.ORG and use Speroni's "unbiased" (Ha!)
lumping of the code-test-only-for-extras comments as being
Absolutely FOR CW! [no red strike-outs on THOSE icons!]

Of course, Joe Speroni is an unabashed morseman since way back.
He also had a couple Petitions DENIED by the FCC. shrug

Jimmie say Speroni is MORE ACCURATE. He is a morseman, ergo,
he is "accurate." shrug wink, wink... :-)

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.

What the Commission will actually DO in the future is up to
them. 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. 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. 98-143 had no
more than about 2200 filings between official start and end
times of Comments/Replies.

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.

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.

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

[email protected]

November 6th 05 10:13 PM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am

wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

big snip so as not to offend W2DNE...:-)

Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

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.

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.

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. 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).

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). 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! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

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.

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

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

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!

Alun L. Palmer

November 7th 05 03:03 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in
oups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am

wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
snip

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink).

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.

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.

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. 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).

This shows how little you know about the current version of part 97.
Reciprocal licences (Form 610-A) are no longer issued. Anyone from a
country with a reciprocal agreement simply operates in the US under their
foreign licence, with an appropriate prefix. Also, anyone except a
representative of a foreign government can obtain a regular US licence by
taking the same tests as anyone else.

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). 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! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

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.

If someone entered a comment using their UK call it would likely not even
cross the minds of the Ofcom staff whether they were a British citizen,
which is the mirror image of the situation here.

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

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

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!

The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by the
FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out that they
don't. However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about
the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should, and
there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them, instead of
skewing your interpretation of the comments.

It would be interesting to group the comments as follows:-

1) US citizens who hold a ham licence and reside in the US
2) US citizens who aren't hams and reside in the US
3) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and reside in the US
3) US citizens who are hams but live outside the US
4) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and live overseas
5) None of the above

However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by
whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't even
do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered. I suspect
most comments fall in group (1), but these are not the only ones that will
be considered.

[email protected]

November 7th 05 03:22 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

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

Ending code or code *testing*?

Ending code testing.

Whew!

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

IYHO

Of course.

Inactivity in response to the treatty 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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[email protected]

November 7th 05 03:24 AM

Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

On 6 Nov 2005 19:22:50 -0800, wrote:

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

Ending code or code *testing*?
cut

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?

does not matter

the ADA is here now

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.

no there is not

you simply don't understand the ADA

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!

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.

it would apply the same to the FCC as the rest of the govt
enough
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Page 3 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page