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.

From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm


wrote:


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

My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's
specifications. My johnson still works fine.

Next question...


No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

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

You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent?

Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's
surprising!



All existing amateurs could be affected.

By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk!



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

I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society.

I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur
radio service.

To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur
radio licensees?" I think not.




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

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

BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner.

"NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is
just a notice.

"R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and
Order MAKES a regulation.

An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same."



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

Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie.

Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER?



What *is* your problem, Len?

Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?"



You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket
has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service.



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

...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup...




I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...




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

"Rot?"

How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the
art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over
your expertise in making it?

Did they ever gush over your classic johnson?




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

Could you ever get any of them to work?



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

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

Is it hard to beat a classic johnson?


Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on.

See if it turns you on.

wrote:
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm

wrote:

No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

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

You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent?

Why do you want to know, Len?

What does it matter?

You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket
has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service.

Sure it does - you're just in denial.

If a rules change makes amateur radio more like cb, there's
a definite connection. I think you'd like it if amateur radio
became just like cb radio.

I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...

"Johnsons" Len.

Not "johnsons".

You seem obsessed by the latter, both your own and other people's. Why?

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

"Rot?"

Yes. As if newer is always better and older is worthless. You seem
to believe what Orwell wrote in "1984": "Ending is better than
mending".

How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the
art" ham rig doing?

Whoever said it was "state of the art", Len? Certainly not me.

In any event, I used the Southgate Type 7 in the CW part of the
ARRL November Sweepstakes this past weekend. Made 443
QSOs in 77 sections. Only missed North Dakota, Alaska and the
Pacific sections. Worked K0HB and W4NTI, too.

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

Could you ever get any of them to work?

Yes, Len - all of them that weren't hangar queens - parts units. If you
want to know
how many that is, it comes to:

Heathkit:
Working: DX-20/VF-1, HW-101 (2 of them, with HP-23 and HP-13 supplies),

AR-2/QF-1, HW-2036,
Parts units: HW-101, DX-100

RME: 4350A and 45, both working

National:
Working: NC-173, NC-200
Parts units: NC-173

Hallicrafters: SX-99 and SX-101, both working

Gonset: Super 6, working

Southgate: Types 1 through 7, all working

Johnson:

Working: Adventurer, Valiant, Viking 2/122VFO
Parts unit: Viking 2

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

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

Except for the Southgates, one of the HW-101s, and the HW-2036,
I sold all of the above equipment - at a profit.

Sunuvagun!

From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm


wrote:


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

My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's
specifications. My johnson still works fine.

Next question...


No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

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

You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent?

Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's
surprising!



All existing amateurs could be affected.

By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk!



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

I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society.

I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur
radio service.

To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur
radio licensees?" I think not.




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

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

BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner.

"NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is
just a notice.

"R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and
Order MAKES a regulation.

An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same."



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

Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie.

Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER?



What *is* your problem, Len?

Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?"



You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket
has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service.



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

...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup...




I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...




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

"Rot?"

How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the
art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over
your expertise in making it?

Did they ever gush over your classic johnson?




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

Could you ever get any of them to work?



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

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

Is it hard to beat a classic johnson?


Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on.

See if it turns you on.

wrote:
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm


wrote:

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

I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society.

Then *this* is your lucky day, Leonard. There isn't any Amateur
Radiotelegraphy Society!

I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur
radio service.

Boy, that's tough. Maybe if you actually become involved in amateur
radio, you could take action in having them removed.

To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur
radio licensees?" I think not.

You'll have to take my word on this, Len. I don't want you to love me.


I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...

Well, Lennie, the term is "classic Johnsons". How are you concerned
over our appreciation?

Dave K8MN