About Us

November 7th 05, 11:45 AM

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

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

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

FCC seeks the comments of all interested parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And?

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

Different subject entirely.

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

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

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

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

That "public" includes noncitizens.

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

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

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

Anyone can comment.

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

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

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

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

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

Which isn't "democracy".

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

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

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

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

What's so special about it?

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

ECFS isn't an election, Len.

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

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

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

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