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!