About Us

November 7th 05, 10:32 AM

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

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

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

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

But it isn't.

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

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

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

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

Let's look at the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with that?

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

It's not an either-or issue

So, which way to count them? :-)

Because they submitted comments.

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

His tabulation is unbiased compared to yours.

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

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

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

Ad hominem attack noted.

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

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

Has Leonard Anderson filed any petitions with FCC?

Jimmie

Who?

say Speroni is MORE ACCURATE.

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

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

Or should they be counted as one opinion?

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

That can easily be done with the AH0A analysis.

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

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

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

And it's *not* a vote.

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

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

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

Is that an entry for The Pool?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The history of amateur radio is made every day.

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see if they do...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Docket Scorecard	[email protected]	Policy	108	October 29th 05 12:02 AM
Docket 05-235 Scorecard	[email protected]	Policy	83	September 7th 05 05:32 PM
Stonewalling on WT Docket 05-235?	[email protected]	Policy	13	September 6th 05 01:13 AM
Stonewalling WT Docket 05-235?	[email protected]	Policy	2	August 31st 05 09:10 PM
Status of WT Docket 05-235	[email protected]	Policy	7	August 2nd 05 11:37 PM

Menu

About Us