|
Bash test publishing
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, I agree with all your comments and analysis. There was a time you clearly believed Bash broke the law, but you do seem to now recognize the many possibilities that are or were potentially in play back in the 60's. I still think he broke the law. But that's just my opinion as a nonlawyer. It must be remembered that he was never charged with anything, and that "innocent until *proven* guilty" is a cornerstone of our judicial process. Nice write-up. You should keep this text handy for every time the Bash issue resurfaces in this newsgroup. Heck, call it the FAQ on Bash :-) :-) I hereby authorize you to put all 8 reasons in a nice format and post them whenever the Bash question arises, Bill. Here or elsewhere. Just acknowledge the original source. Save you a lot of typing! 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY |
Bash
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bash tests published
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups.
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. How? Dick Bash did not see the actual exams except by taking them. Then he published them. And FCC did nothing about it. Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute, but the higher ups didn't allow it. Phil Kane has told about it first-hand - he was working in the office where Bash did his thing at the time. The only thing that can be derive or concluded from that is the probable fact that there was disagreement within the FCC as to the ability to pursue and win any case against Bash. Or any of the other reasons. All it takes is one! Whether Bash broke the letter of the law or not isn't clear, but it *is* clear that he broke the spirit of the law. I never met anyone convicted of breaking the spirit of any law. BINGO!!! There's also "innocent until proven guilty". The other issue that would be in play is the legality of the law itself on constitutional grounds. Possibly, but I find it hard to believe that the FCC would have lost on those grounds. Doing so would set a precedent that *no* license exam contents could be kept out of the public view. Still, FCC may have thought it better not to take that chance. If, back then, FCC had thought it was OK for people to see the actual exams, they would have been published (as they are now) rather than going through the additional work of making up study guides. That's in your opinion anyway. It's also common sense. FCC made up study guides consisting of essay questions that indicated the general areas of knowledge that would be on the test. Those guides were published - ARRL reproduced them in their License Manuals (they specifically mention that fact in the Manual). Why would FCC go through the trouble to make up those guides if it were OK for non-FCC people to see the actual exam? Still, unless there existed specific regulations about divulging and publishing the exam contents, FCC's case agains Bash might have been very weak. The Commercial license was still more difficult than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more modes in Commercial radio then. But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder". It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor than for a commercial endeavor. Wasn't too hard for a 16 year old between 10th and 11th grade. In fact, I'd have gotten it more than a year earlier except for the 2 year waiting period. "The Man" still keeping you down? Not at all. Experience was part of the requirement back then. It was and is a good idea. I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving to all, I thank the Lord for all the great and wonderful people and things in my life. Well said, Bill! I wish the same to all this fine day. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bash
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
An English Teacher
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, by discussing if Bash broke the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, you just answered your own question of "Where?" Len might have seen the Extra material. Just the opposite. Len claimed he saw the 1957 Extra test element (not the material - the actual *test*). Bash didn't do his thing until the 1970s, more than a decade later. Thank you and Congrats. For what? |
An English Teacher
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Wed 16 Nov 2005 19:09 wrote: From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35 wrote in message an old friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Not true, Len. ABSOLUTELY TRUE, Miccolis. Everyone realizes it. Why not admit that it is so? Let's go through it, shall we? Pro-coders (one can only wonder if Len means those who favored morse testing, those who favored morse use or those who were simply proficient at morse code) made up their own regulations. It isn't explained how or if these "pro-coders" all became Extra Class ticket holders. Extra Class license holders can't obtain that license without passing the most difficult theory and regulatory written exam offered in U.S. amateur radio and not all of those with morse code skills became Extra Class licensees. Len's statement appears to have some gaping holes. Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "holes," Heil. An abbreviated synopsis is all. Big holes, Len. Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra code test rate was 20 WPM. Unless a medical waiver was obtained, in which case the Extra could be had for a code test of as little as 5 wpm. The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951 restructuring that also added the Novice and Technician class licenses. The code test speed for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time. That's what Len said. No, it isn't. He left out the part about the medical waivers, which became a reality in 1990. He also said "the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket."" which wasn't the case at all. He sees it differently. He wasn't there, though. His opinion is not backed up by facts. I agree that a lot of old timers will not like losing Morse Exam, probably for the reasons Len has cited. I'm sure that people with disabilities really get under your skin. Nope - not at all. Just the one's who get Fast-Code waivers. 13 and 20 wpm are not Fast-Code. Why? Because the older-timers influencing the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur radio because so many had been professional telegraphers. No, that's not true at all. It does have that appearance. How? The ARRL did not create the Extra class license in 1951. They did not lobby for it either. It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement. Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity. What about the thousands of others - like myself - who earned the license because we wanted the privileges? In my case, that was in 1970, at the age of 16. You mom and dad provided you with three hots and a cot. So? That's what responsible parents do. I also had to go to school and make acceptable grades. Do all assigned chores at home and work (yes, I worked then). Plus all the usual activities of a kid my age back then. Or what? Let's say you brought home a "D" in math and science. Math and science were two different subjects in my high school. You don't say? You wrote as if they were one subject. Let's see... In math: 9th grade: Algebra 1 10th grade: Geometry 11th grade: Algebra 2 and Trigonometry 12th grade: AP Calculus In science: 9th grade: Introductory Physics 10th grade: Chemistry 11th grade: Biology 12th grade: AP Physics Never brought home any "D" marks so I don't know what would have happened. I suspect that if I had, there would have been no ham radio until the marks improved. But what if you were in the middle of preparing for another ham test with Bash (or its equivalent) study guides? Another non-event. I didn't hear of Bash books until long after I had the Extra. Nor any "equivalent". Of course I had a built-in advantage because I'd learned a lot of math and science for ham radio before I ever got to high school. I earned the Advanced in the summer between 8th and 9th grade, you see. You had an advantage because you started your ham "career" in your youth while supported by your family. Not really. Sure, I didn't have a fulltime job nor dependents to support. But I did have other responsibilities. OTOH, I had the distinct disadvantage of not having the mobility, money, freedom of action or education that most adults have. Others had an advantage because if they washed out of ditty bopper school in the military they became cooks and MPs. I wasn't one of those - I had already passed the Extra before entering 11th grade. A tidal wave of Morse Operators left the service at the end of WWII. Was there an MOS of "Morse Operator"? Or were they called "Radioman" or "Radio Operator"? Besides, that conflicts with what Len keeps telling us. He constantly denies that Morse Code played any important role in US military communication after the 1930s. It is plausible that some of them liked the idea of having a special ticket just for high and higher speed code operators with spectrum set-aside just for them. Some might even have found their way into the federal government, and even into the FCC and put the concept of Inventive Licensing into motion. Wild speculation that is not backed up by the facts of what really happened. And recall that Len wrote: "Why? Because the older-timers influencing the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur radio because so many had been professional telegraphers." and "It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement. Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity." The Extra was created in 1951, not 1968. It was meant as a replacement for the Advanced/Class A. I wonder where all the Veteran ditty-boppers ended up? Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard" than the Amateur Extra exam. You never completed that last test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license and could only get a SECOND class. Kindly prove that the old Amateur Extra was less difficult than the old First Phone. Heil, quit being the snotty lil kid trying to turn tables. That makes YOU look dumb. I took all the test elements for a First 'Phone 49 years ago. I've seen the test elements for an Extra of that time. Where? Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners. They were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC). In fact, back then FCC required 2 years' experience as a General or higher license just to *try* the Extra test. Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. How? Dick Bash did not see the actual exams except by taking them. Then he published them. And FCC did nothing about it. Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute, but the higher ups didn't allow it. Phil Kane has told about it first-hand - he was working in the office where Bash did his thing at the time. Whether Bash broke the letter of the law or not isn't clear, but it *is* clear that he broke the spirit of the law. If, back then, FCC had thought it was OK for people to see the actual exams, they would have been published (as they are now) rather than going through the additional work of making up study guides. The point is that you think Len was incapable of seeing an actual FCC exam or study material published by Bash or other Publishing Houses. Incorrect. Len claimed he saw the 1957 Extra written test. Not a Bash book or other study guide but the actual test. While not absolutely impossible, it is highly improbable because non-FCC folks were not shown the test unless they were taking it. Bash did not do his thing until more than a decade after 1957. The Commercial license was still more difficult than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more modes in Commercial radio then. But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder". It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor than for a commercial endeavor. Wasn't too hard for a 16 year old between 10th and 11th grade. In fact, I'd have gotten it more than a year earlier except for the 2 year waiting period. "The Man" still keeping you down? Not at all. Experience was part of the requirement back then. It was and is a good idea. How about "life" experience, such as an age requirement? Bad idea. No one has been able to show that the licensing of young hams has *ever* caused problems in the amateur radio service. Len cannot name even one case where a ham licensee's youth was a factor in a rules violation or other problem. "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use." N2EY Brian Burke, you have written that quote here several times, and claimed I wrote it. But I did not write that sentence - you did. Check google and show us what I actually wrote on that subject. I agreed with you then and I agree with you now. You're only agreeing with something you wrote. Not what I wrote. In all fairness, I should recheck the quote. Yes, you should. And its context. I've searched and cannot find it. Then why have you quoted me as writing it? |
Bash tests published
Unlicensed Community Radio wrote:
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups. I guess the guys in the pirate radio groups too stupid to read it here. |
An English Teacher
hey, care to join us for a mutual jacking session.
FM Community Radio wrote: The guys in the Pirate Radio groups will find the below interesting: wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Experiance interval for Extra
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? I suspect the number is relatively small. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bash
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! That's a matter of copyright violation. The federal government is expressly prohibited from claiming copyright protection for materials it generates. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Doesn't apply to government documentation. You and I are free to reproduce government documentation as much as we want. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. I think it is murky on any basis. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. But we'll never know what actually happened because there is NO record of the decision process and internal analysis the FCC might have done to determine it would not pursue any legal action against Bash. Phil Kane has his own opinions, but he's not the "higher ups" that made the final decision. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! Given the liklyhood of that happening, I'll stick with my opinion that you can't go back. One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. Interesting thought. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bash
Reposted for the interest of guys in the Pirate Radio Groups: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! That's a matter of copyright violation. The federal government is expressly prohibited from claiming copyright protection for materials it generates. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Doesn't apply to government documentation. You and I are free to reproduce government documentation as much as we want. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. I think it is murky on any basis. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. But we'll never know what actually happened because there is NO record of the decision process and internal analysis the FCC might have done to determine it would not pursue any legal action against Bash. Phil Kane has his own opinions, but he's not the "higher ups" that made the final decision. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! Given the liklyhood of that happening, I'll stick with my opinion that you can't go back. One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. Interesting thought. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY |
Experiance interval for Extra
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK That would not work, because of the rampant corruption in the FCC & ARRL. |
An English Teacher
|
An English Teacher
HEY...............
WOULD YOU PIRATE GUYS CARE TO JERK OFF WITH US? WE BEAT OUR MEATS ON CHANNEL 38 FM Community Radio wrote: The guys in the Pirate Radio groups will find the below interesting: wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Experiance interval for Extra
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? I suspect the number is relatively small. I tried and did not but then I was fousing on the General CSSE at the is time indeed a fair number of people failed the Novice and tech tests when taken together (a friend of manged to passed to tech and code test and fail the novice written she was rather depressed) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
|
Experiance interval for Extra
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate It's impossible to accurately determine *upgrades* from AH0A's numbers. An upgrade is classed as a modification, same as an address or name change. But if you look at the number of new licenses, it's clear that at least some new hams bypass Tech and go straight for General or Extra. AH0A's numbers only count as "new" licenses where the licensee was not in the database at all during the previous month. Of course some "new" licenses are actually "retread" hams, who let their licenses lapse for whatever reason and now are back. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Actually the enforcement would fall upon the VEs anyway. They'd be required to only give the Extra test to those who could show a General or Advanced license that had been issued at least X amount of time previously. Form 605 could be changed so that you'd have to indicate the effective date of the General, etc. So it really wouldn't be an FCC enforcement thing at all. OTOH, it would increase FCC admin work slightly because they'd have more upgrades to process. The big hurdle would be selling FCC on the idea that an experience requirement is needed, after 30 years without one. That selling job would rival convincing them that a 5 wpm code test is still needed.......;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
FCC & ARRL partners in the Culture of Corruption
|
Experiance interval for Extra
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate It's impossible to accurately determine *upgrades* from AH0A's numbers. An upgrade is classed as a modification, same as an address or name change. But if you look at the number of new licenses, it's clear that at least some new hams bypass Tech and go straight for General or Extra. AH0A's numbers only count as "new" licenses where the licensee was not in the database at all during the previous month. Of course some "new" licenses are actually "retread" hams, who let their licenses lapse for whatever reason and now are back. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Actually the enforcement would fall upon the VEs anyway. They'd be required to only give the Extra test to those who could show a General or Advanced license that had been issued at least X amount of time previously. Form 605 could be changed so that you'd have to indicate the effective date of the General, etc. Why should an applicant be prohibited from taking and passing the test? The time interval should be limiting the actual license issuance...not serve as a roadblock to taking the test at any time. So it really wouldn't be an FCC enforcement thing at all. OTOH, it would increase FCC admin work slightly because they'd have more upgrades to process. The big hurdle would be selling FCC on the idea that an experience requirement is needed, after 30 years without one. That selling job would rival convincing them that a 5 wpm code test is still needed.......;-) We'll likly never know :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
An English Teacher
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote: Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling at handwritten letters? In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere close to DC. Where were you? Still "chuckling" in the zygote pool? [ chuckle, chuckle ] Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has to accept ALL filings. By law. It's always been that way, Len. Not before 1934. :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] The correspondence on hot- ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more than a half century ago. Fun fact: Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US mail. Did the FCC "chuckle" over them? Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those "6000" comments? [ chuckle, chuckle ] In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before that. Where were you then? [ chuckle, chuckle ] Remember, Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday... |
An English Teacher
wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling at handwritten letters? In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere close to DC. Where were you? Still "chuckling" in the zygote pool? [ chuckle, chuckle ] Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has to accept ALL filings. By law. It's always been that way, Len. Not before 1934. :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] The correspondence on hot- ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more than a half century ago. Fun fact: Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US mail. Did the FCC "chuckle" over them? Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those "6000" comments? [ chuckle, chuckle ] In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before that. Where were you then? [ chuckle, chuckle ] Remember, Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday... Jim has an Honorable discharge? I didn't even know that he served. |
An English Teacher
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling at handwritten letters? In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere close to DC. So you don't really know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has to accept ALL filings. By law. It's always been that way, Len. Not before 1934. :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] The correspondence on hot- ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more than a half century ago. Fun fact: Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US mail. Did the FCC "chuckle" over them? Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those "6000" comments? No - but they existed, nonetheless. [ chuckle, chuckle ] In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before that. In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either. |
An English Teacher
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling at handwritten letters? In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere close to DC. So you don't really know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) 98-143 had an average of 206 filings per month while 05-235 had 949 per month. The percentage of written letter filings on 98-143 was 10.4 while on 05-235 it was only 2.2 percent. Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has to accept ALL filings. By law. It's always been that way, Len. Not before 1934. :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] What...no pointy remark to that? :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US mail. Did the FCC "chuckle" over them? Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those "6000" comments? No - but they existed, nonetheless. Riiiiight...you went to the Reading Room at the FCC to "see" them? Was a fairly easy access to documents before 11 September 2001. Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on the subject and you got the number in a vision? 1964 is FORTY ONE YEARS AGO, old-timer. Two generations in time. CWO Johnny Walker had already gotten his first spy payments from the KGB. The Vietnam War was beginning to hot up again now that the French had given up there. Communist China was busy with their "cultural revolution." The beginning of the solid-state era had begun. Teletype Corporation was busy starting marketing for their 100 WPM teletypewriters. The first of the comm sats had been lofted. The Cold War was still set on "simmer" with no sign the flame had gone out. We got coast-to-coast TV, in color, and some radio amateurs thought manual morse code marked "excellence in radio!" :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before that. In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either. "Nothing?!?" Mais non! Eight years prior to 1964 I'd already passed my First Phone test and had been working at four broadcast stations (got the signatures on the back of my First Phone license certificate). Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no test, never was a test for them). I'd already worked at a southern California broadcast station on a part-time basis, got that signature on the back of my first renewed First Phone certificate. I was still subscribing for updates to the FCC regulations (loose leaf format) from the U.S. GPO but that would soon change to bound format, reprint every two years (too many radio services already). I'd already used that First Phone for radio communications while a student pilot (given up due to cost of private flying vs other expenses), avoiding having to get a Restricted 3rd Class Phone (which required some letters of explanation from the Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office to the instructors at Skyways that operated out of Van Nuys Airport...they didn't believe it). In my job of designing and engineering semiconductor test sets at Birtcher, all I had to do on "FCC matters" was making certain those test sets and their plug-ins didn't exceed incidental RF radiation limits (the very low-duty cycle plug-ins were found to cause RF oscillation at tester pulse edges, solved by using ferrite tubes as chokes on the test socket leads). A renewal of the CBs was coming up soon, those renewals, pro forma as they were, had to go to the FCC...and with notary public seals. Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena was busy hiring for their spacecraft work and I shift to there from Monterey Park, CA, in late 1964. Spacecraft fabrication in a clean room didn't involve any "FCC licenses." What RF work was needed took place under government radio regulations, not civil radio. FCC was not involved in government radio then...or now. [ chuckle, chuckle ] No, sweetums, I was NOT opining anything pro/con on morse code skill as the primus inter pares of amateur radio operating excellence nor had I any "incentives" for ham radio in 1964. Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then? [ chuckle, chuckle ] |
An English Teacher
|
An English Teacher
wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling at handwritten letters? In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere close to DC. So you don't really know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to hapen at least if it does they are all supose to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rul of of law when it suits you cut Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on the subject and you got the number in a vision? FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was how the ARRL tired to kill the ars cut The beginning of the solid-state era had begun. The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len. bad jimmie Stevie job is to play speling cop cut You weren't a ham then and you're not one now. Morse Code is one form of excellence in radio, btw - then and now. only in your opinion and that of others IMO it has been one of the banes of the ARS for decades cut In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either. "Nothing?!?" Mais non! Nothing. You didn't work for FCC, didn't have anything to do with FCC rules for the Amateur Radio Service. a flat out lie Jim he has had something to do with making the FCC rules as has Myself Bil Sohl yourself and a couple of thousand others cut Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no test, never was a test for them). Did FCC ever turn anybody down for a cb permit? Are you still on cb, Len? why should he not be on CB Or did the changes in that service make it unappealing to you? Cbers seem by and large politeir than hams with folks they disagree with they can be a bit vulgar for my taste on the air, but there are 40 channels to choose from cut Spacecraft fabrication in a clean room didn't involve any "FCC licenses." What RF work was needed took place under government radio regulations, not civil radio. FCC was not involved in government radio then...or now. [ chuckle, chuckle ] No, sweetums, I was NOT opining anything pro/con on morse code skill as the primus inter pares of amateur radio operating excellence nor had I any "incentives" for ham radio in 1964. Like I said - you had nothing to do with amateur radio policy back then, nor with FCC's regulation of amateur radio... more lies Jim Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and well in radio today. Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then? Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear How many techniques did you pursue back then which are long gone - dead - now? Does anybody use 100 wpm teletypewriters anymore? Do broadcast stations have FCC licensed engineers on duty while they're on the air anymore? Etc. Your value system is very clear, Len - if something in radio took some of your time or effort but didn't pay back in dollars, you avoided it. if your statement is accurate (not comenting on that yea or nea) so what you value nothing without involing Morse Code I think Money is better standard than Code knowledge you can use money to feed yourself can't do that with morse |
An English Teacher
From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm
wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills. Their sense of humor is limited only to THEM "laughing" at those who disagree on telegraphy testing. BTW, there's 3,796 filings now, one was added on the 28th. :-) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to hapen at least if it does they are all supose to have been mailed before the deadline The specific date periods on comments applies to the Commission's activities on decision-making for a final Memorandum Report and Order. That date period is determined by statements made in the publishing of a docket/proceedure in the Federal Register. Standard practice at the FCC. In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6 calendar weeks LATE. NPRM 05-143 was opened to the public on 19 July 2005. Publishing in the Federal Register didn't happen until 31 August 2005. The date period for comments was not specifically stated in NPRM 05-143, was specifically stated in the Federal Register on 31 August 2005. The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that was delayed SIX WEEKS. In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public filed 52% of all comments filed. The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment period beginning date. The Commission is fairly speedy on getting proceedings published in the Federal Register. The "public" does not consist of just attorneys and beaurocrats handling law, so they would generally be unaware of that delay. Such a long time was unexpected. why does it seem you don't care about the rul of of law when it suits you Jimmy Noserve only cares about the preservation of morse code, everything from "operating skill" to the license test. He can't bear to give up any of that. Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on the subject and you got the number in a vision? FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was how the ARRL tired to kill the ars Mark, Jimmy has NOT proven his "fact." The only way to determine that "fact" is to visit the FCC Reading Room in DC and view all the filings. Those old dockets and proceedings aren't on-line. As to "disaster," that is subjective opinion. In the long run, "incentive licensing" only served to harden the class distinction among licensees. It got too cumbersome for the future to the Commission, so they streamlined it via FCC 99-412. The League lobbied for, and got "incentive licensing." Old-timers of the League loved radiotelegraphy, following the "tradition" established by its first president, St. Hiram. Old-timers wanted to prove Their radiotelegraphy skill was the "highest" attribute of amateurism. They got it, complete with rank- status-privilege. Especially the privileges. They were better than anyone...in their minds. The beginning of the solid-state era had begun. The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len. bad jimmie Stevie job is to play speling cop Sister Nun of the Above got into the act, spanking ruler at the ready. She didn't hit anything, though. Sister apparently has never used the word "jibe," thought I was "jiving her." :-) You weren't a ham then and you're not one now. Morse Code is one form of excellence in radio, btw - then and now. only in your opinion and that of others Up to mid-2000, the highest-rate telegraphy skill was NECESSARY to achieve the "highest" class license. IMO it has been one of the banes of the ARS for decades True enough. But, look out, I can see Sister approaching with her ruler! She is going to criticize use of the word "bane!" :-) In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either. "Nothing?!?" Mais non! Nothing. You didn't work for FCC, didn't have anything to do with FCC rules for the Amateur Radio Service. a flat out lie Jim he has had something to do with making the FCC rules as has Myself Bil Sohl yourself and a couple of thousand others Jimmy is getting desperate on "having to do with" stuff. :-) The FCC has had commentary periods for nearly all the major issues affecting U.S. radio amateurs since its creation in 1934. [exceptions are federal orders to cease transmission on Presidential orders and the "housekeeping" changes to Parts of Title 47 which regarded legal clarification of some regulations corrections] The Constitution of the United States gives all its citizens the Right to address their government...on anything. The comment period of dockets and proceedings at the FCC is one way to do that on specific radio regulatory issues. Jimmy seems very territorial. He regards federal amateur radio regulations as "private turf" which can ONLY be discussed by licensed radio operators to their government. That is wrong. The FCC must listen to ALL...including English teachers who haven't the foggiest notion of what "radio" is, let alone amateur radio (she had to research the subject through WikiPedia). :-) Both Bill Sohl and Carl Stevenson have appeared in-person before the FCC in regards to the code-test/no-code-test issue. That's about as close as ANY in here have been to the regulation-decision-makers without actually working there (as Phil Kane did). The Staff and Commissioners at the FCC decide what is to be changed and how to change radio regulations...DEPENDING on input from the "public." [a "researching" of Parts 0 and 1 of Title 47 C.F.R. will explain that, also the Communicaitons Act of 1934, a Law passed by Congress] Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no test, never was a test for them). Did FCC ever turn anybody down for a cb permit? Are you still on cb, Len? why should he not be on CB Citizens Band Radio Service had "permits?" :-) Strange, my forms said they were LICENSES. No tests at all required. Were any "turned down?" I don't really know. I've heard of those but never met anyone who was "turned down." I opt NOT to bother with CB radio since it is not to my needs in communicating anything by radio. The little two-way radio terminal called a "cell phone" serves both me and my wife very adequately in mobile communications needs. My old Johnson Viking Messenger CB radio still works, is still operating within FCC regulations. It is a relatively easy task to connect it up to an antenna (mag-mount) in the car, plug it into the car's 12 VDC system, and operate. If the vibrator high-voltage supply will continue working, it is as reliable as any old tube radio. [vibrator supplies were NEVER considered reliable, but they were terribly cheap in consumer grade tube equipments] Living within a mile of I-5 passing through has shown that a few channels for CB are way too few for the hundreds of thousands of CB users...years ago. Cbers seem by and large politeir than hams with folks they disagree with they can be a bit vulgar for my taste on the air, but there are 40 channels to choose from Irrelevant to Jimmy's remarks. All Jimmy wants to do is show contempt for CB. Since he was living in 1958 when that service (on the 27 MHz band) was created, he feels contemptuous of all who have not taken a federal test to "qualify" for radio transmission below 30 MHz. :-) [I think he was born an amateur...:-) ] CB communications are "Too vulgar?" I've heard much, much greater vulgarity in the military service (which Jimmy was never a part of nor will he ever be). I've heard greater vulgarity on shop floors from union members. I've heard greater vulgarity in the black sections of Los Angeles. I need to brush up on my Spanish to find out if the language there in the barrios is "too vulgar." :-) Like I said - you had nothing to do with amateur radio policy back then, nor with FCC's regulation of amateur radio... more lies Jim Jimmy, who never worked IN the FCC (and will never do so), thinks that just having an amateur license means he had "something to do with amateur radio regulations." :-) Jimmy is just being "vulgar." :-) Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and well in radio today. Tsk, tsk, Jimmy's working receiver can't pick up anything but the "low end" of the HF amateur bands...and he thinks that radiotelegraphy is still a big mode in radio? Incredible! Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then? Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear You have to give Jimmy some slack, Mark. Since his receiver can't pick up anything outside the "low end" of HF ham bands, he thinks HF is still "alive with the sounds of morse code" (as if Julie Andrews were singing it on top of a hill). How many techniques did you pursue back then which are long gone - dead - now? Does anybody use 100 wpm teletypewriters anymore? Do broadcast stations have FCC licensed engineers on duty while they're on the air anymore? Etc. Actually, those electromechanical teletypewriters with 100 WPM throughput are still in use in a few places...but they are waaayyyyyy down in numbers. Teletype Corporation went defunct some years ago...they couldn't produce a product inexpensive enough to handle written communications needs. Even TDDs have dropped electromechanical teletypewriters in favor of smaller, easier to use solid-state terminals. The requirements for licensed COMMERCIAL radio operators at radio broadcasting stations is down but I haven't checked to see if broadcasting regulations changed to allow ALL. An amateur radio license was NEVER a "qualification" to operate anything but an amateur radio on amateur frequencies. Vacuum tube design and use in designs is almost kaput. The solid-state devices made most of them obsolete. Tubes remain only as very high-power transmitter final amplifiers, as wideband (one octave plus) amplifiers in microwaves, as magnetrons in microwave ovens, as assorted klystrons in microwave radios. CRTs are going bye-bye, replaced by solid- state displays in TV sets (to press a ****y point, "liquid- state" in LCD screens). A very few optical detection devices use multi-stage photomultipliers. NODs (Night Observation Devices) still depend on a special photodetector and photon multiplier tube set. Oh, and high-power radars still use pulsed maggies for those transmitters. Tubes are now used only as REPLACEMENTS...except by those who can't hack engineering of solid-state circuits...or long for days of yore, when they were born (or before). Your value system is very clear, Len - if something in radio took some of your time or effort but didn't pay back in dollars, you avoided it. if your statement is accurate (not comenting on that yea or nea) so what you value nothing without involing Morse Code Poor Jimmy is verging on a breakdown. He is picking up on the old socialist or communist sloganeering against evil, filthy capitalists who have obtained money the old fashioned way... they EARNED it! Jimmy sounds like he doesn't have much money. Tsk, tsk. I entered electronics and radio in the vacuum tube era and learned how to design circuits using tubes. Had to put aside everything but the basics of those circuits in order to work with transistors, then ICs. Took lots of learning AND relearning to do all that and I did it on my own time. It was worth it in the knowledge acquired, the experience gained in making successful designs, eminently satisfactory to me. Lots and lots of new things were learned out of sheer interest in learning more about NEW areas, things that were NOT of personal monetary gain. Jimmy can't shift out of his League-conditioned thinking about morsemanship being the ultimate skill in radio. He doesn't understand how it is to BEGIN in HF communications WITHOUT any morse code mode needs. He must really resent others who've entered the bigger world of radio communications without being required in any way to be morsemen. you can use money to feed yourself can't do that with morse One can waste a LOT of time looking for radiotelegraphy jobs! Those are quite scarce! If Jimmy wasn't so old, he could join the Army and be an "army of one" analyzing foreign morse code radio intercepts (but I'll bet he would hate the Ft. Huachuca M.I. school in the summertime). I doubt there is one job opening in the entire USA that requires any manual telegraphy (morse code) skills for wired communications now. If he joined SAG or SEG he might get a part in some western movie or TV show as an actor playing the part of a telegrapher. Well, Jimmy could go to sea if he got a Radiotelegraph (Commercial) license. Problem is, he'd have to use SSB voice, one of the TORs (Teletypewriter Over Radio), and VHF FM voice for most ship masters. Jimmy wouldn't like that. He couldn't pop into the galley and cook big turkeys at his whim. Confusion say: Man with one-track mind often get train of thought derailed. bit bit |
An English Teacher
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm (SNIP) Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you (SNIP) FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was how the ARRL tired to kill the ars THE only reason comment volume ( 6000 ) on incentive licensing was so high is because every General and every Advanced was going to LOSE privileges. Human nature is such that when threatened with a lose, people speak up... but if the changes don't truly alter their current status then most don't care and say nothing. (SNIP) Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and well in radio today. It has a following in amateur radio, but that's like saying that archery is not dead as a weapon of choice because a group of people like and do it. Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then? Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear Maybe not dying, but taking a smaller role as each year moves forward. Are there absolute proofs that is so? No, but reality on the ham bands seems to me to indicate so. Your mileage may vary :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
An English Teacher
On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm (SNIP) Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form consdiering it cutting the OT lecture (SNIP) FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was Not at all. The comments were split about even, for and against. yes totaly which way the coment ran shows very little and was another OT coment how the ARRL tired to kill the ars Shows how little you know of the subject. cuting your lecture the ARRL wanted to restrict the number that is recorded from many sources that the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
An English Teacher
Bill Sohl wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm (SNIP) Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. Analogy: When a government agency puts out a project proposal and requests bids, there's always a deadline. Submitting a bid after the deadline isn't a violation of any law, but the bid will rarely if ever be considered. (An exception might be made if there were no bids or no responsive bids before the deadline). Ham Radio analogy: Contests usually have deadlines for log submissions. Sending in a late submission doesn't break the contest rules, but a late log submission probably won't make the writeup or qualify for any awards. (SNIP) FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was Not at all. The comments were split about even, for and against. how the ARRL tired to kill the ars Shows how little you know of the subject. The original 1963 ARRL proposal to FCC was simple: Return to the pre-1953 rule that required a ham to have an Advanced or Extra to work 'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz. Reopen the Advanced to new issues. No other changes. Existing Advanceds and Extras would have lost nothing. Existing Generals and Conditionals needed only to pass a written test to get the Advanced and they'd have full privileges again. Simple and effective. That proposal generated other proposals - at least 10 of them got RM numbers. The complexity of incentive licensing comes from those other proposals. THE only reason comment volume ( 6000 ) on incentive licensing was so high is because every General and every Advanced was going to LOSE privileges. That's not exactly the case, Bill, as seen above, but it's of little consequence to your point. Regardless of which version or proposal we look at, large numbers of hams stood to either lose privileges or have the upgrade requirements for them raised. Human nature is such that when threatened with a lose, people speak up... but if the changes don't truly alter their current status then most don't care and say nothing. Agreed - particularly when so many considered their license privileges to be theirs for life. But that was all beside my point. What I was and am pointing out is that even back in 1964, when there was no internet, no email, no ECFS and the US ham population was less than 40% of what it is now, FCC received 6000+ comments on a major ham radio rules change proposal. Alternative proposals, too - without word processors, websites, newsgroups or online organizations. IOW, Len's contention that the internet has somehow changed the ability of amateurs to contact FCC is not true. All ECFS has really done is make it faster and more convenient. But even in the bad old days thousands of hams were commenting directly to FCC. (SNIP) Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and well in radio today. For the price of a little study and a few tests, Len could have gotten his ham license 41 years ago. But he wasn't willing to expend the time or effort, and so he's missed out on 41 years of fun in amateur radio. No wonder he's so bitter.... It has a following in amateur radio, but that's like saying that archery is not dead as a weapon of choice because a group of people like and do it. Yep - the archery analogy is a good one. Archery isn't "dying" or a "dead end" just because guns exist. In fact, IIRC, here in PA the use of archery for deer hunting is on the rise. Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then? Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear Gee, Mark, do you ever actually listen to the HF amateur bands? Particularly the parts where amateurs commonly use Morse Code? Maybe not dying, but taking a smaller role as each year moves forward. As there are more modes added, all of the existing ones are used a little less on a percentage basis. Back in 1964, a ham on HF had the following mode choices: Morse Code/CW SSB voice AM voice NFM voice (very rare) 60 wpm Baudot-encoded RTTY (no other variety allowed) Fax (very rare) SSTV (very rare) And that was about it. All those still exist today, plus a long list of newer modes like PSK31, PACTOR, etc. Are there absolute proofs that is so? No, but reality on the ham bands seems to me to indicate so. Your mileage may vary :-) which is a very different thing from a "dying technique". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What Law is Broken?
wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm (SNIP) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? OK, I'll bite: What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form consdiering it That's not the same as breaking a law. (SNIP) FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was Not at all. The comments were split about even, for and against. yes totaly which way the coment ran shows very little and was another OT coment Not at all. It shows the incentive licensing concept had lots of support and lots of opposition - 40+ years ago. how the ARRL tired to kill the ars Shows how little you know of the subject. cuting your lecture Because it proves you're wrong. the ARRL wanted to restrict the number that is recorded from many sources Show me one. that the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highscool radio clubs? |
What Law is Broken?
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: (SNIP) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Jim is right. Anyone can send the FCC comments, messages, etc at anytime. The sending or submission of a comment outside the comment period is NOT a violation of the law. The only violation of law that could be in play then is IF and only IF the FCC accepted and integrated the comment into the FCC proceedings...BUT, even then I suspect if anyone complained that the courts would take a less than hard-line stand regarding post deadline comments. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form considering it That's not the same as breaking a law. Of course the FCC could read a post deadline comment and consider it in their braod internal review process and never make reference to it in a follow-up R&O. Who outside the FCC would even know? (SNIP) the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highschool radio clubs? I'm curious about that conclusion/result too. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
What Law is Broken?
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: (SNIP) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Jim is right. Anyone can send the FCC comments, messages, etc at anytime. The sending or submission of a comment outside the comment period is NOT a violation of the law. strawman never said the sending of a late coment is crime I said for the FCC to consider to violate the concept of the rule of law it flouts the intent of the craetion fot he legal framwork that is supposed to guide these proceedings It is part of the road to chaos The only violation of law that could be in play then is IF and only IF the FCC accepted and integrated the comment into the FCC proceedings...BUT, even then I suspect if anyone complained that the courts would take a less than hard-line stand regarding post deadline comments. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form considering it That's not the same as breaking a law. Of course the FCC could read a post deadline comment and consider it in their braod internal review process and never make reference to it in a follow-up R&O. Who outside the FCC would even know? (SNIP) the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highschool radio clubs? I'm curious about that conclusion/result too. obvious realy something killed them about the same time also the restriction of HF that result make them obviously unattractive even today the presense of the morse code test has made the efforts of a gruop of teachers to gte a new club off the ground (with uqipement left the schoool by a late ham ) the kids simply aren't interested Morse Code as entry requirement Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
What Law is Broken?
From: Bill Sohl on Nov 30, 5:35 am
wrote in message wrote: On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message wrote: wrote: By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? It serves to indicate that there are some (allegedly "qualified") radio amateurs who cannot keep up with basic law and regulations. FCC 99-412 R&O (Memorandum Report and Order) was issued in late December 1999 establishing the "Restructuring" of U. S. radio amateur regulations to take effect in mid-2000. Comments on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Docket 98-143 are superfluous to both the public and the Commission AFTER an R&O has established the NEW regulations. There can be no question that "comments" made in August 2005 on any issue that was settled 5 years prior are superfluous and irrelevant to the Docket subject. becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Jim is right. No, only disingenuous. Phil Kane ought to jump in here and explain the process on proceedings, "sunschine laws" and the like. Some Dockets visible on the ECFS have rather bold red notices included about what the Commission staff can CONSIDER insofar as reaching a decision on any Docket subject. That is law insofar as the Commission has decided for itself. Anyone can send the FCC comments, messages, etc at anytime. True, but only because the Commission leaves the ECFS and Secretary's incoming correspondence desk OPEN for several reasons: Viewing by the public as an archive, most convenient to the public unable to access the FCC Reading Room thousands of miles away; supplemental information on the Docket subject such as opening up a new Petition for change or revision by the Commission of some part of a Docket subject at a later date. The sending or submission of a comment outside the comment period is NOT a violation of the law. The one "charging" this "violation" first was Miccolis. There is NO explicit "law" or regulation forbidding such filing after a comment deadline date. However, as explained above, the Commission staff is obliged to act on ITS OWN REGULATIONS which have stated the "official" dates of comment filings. The use of specific comment period dates serves as a convenience for both the public and Commission. The Commission is required to regulate many civil radio services and as a result has a large number of tasks required by both Congressional Law and its own regulations. Comment periods cannot be open-ended and have any reasonable conclusion. The only violation of law that could be in play then is IF and only IF the FCC accepted and integrated the comment into the FCC proceedings...BUT, even then I suspect if anyone complained that the courts would take a less than hard-line stand regarding post deadline comments. See Part 0, Title 47 C.F.R. See Communications Act of 1934. See Telecommunications Act of 1996. Comment period statements by the Commission are not "illegal" but PROCEDURAL. Since the Commission has stated a Notice of PROPOSED Rulemaking, it must - at some point - make a DECISION on this proposed rulemaking. Ergo, it establishes a deadline for comments from the public to give the Commission sufficient time to reach a decision on this proposed rulemaking. That is reasonable and logical for the Commission's purpose and task. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form considering it That's not the same as breaking a law. There is NO SPECIFIC LAW in regards to comment date periods being stated by the Commission. There IS its own regulation (see Part 0) and the "sunshine law" precedents in regards to what the Commission allows ITSELF to "see." Of course the FCC could read a post deadline comment and consider it in their braod internal review process and never make reference to it in a follow-up R&O. Who outside the FCC would even know? The "barracks lawyers" who will endlessly "debate" some decision/action by any agency, long past any reasonable time of argument. :-) There are some in here who "know" what the FCC is doing even though they've never worked there. the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highschool radio clubs? I'm curious about that conclusion/result too. There are over 9.700 club licenses in the FCC database right now. Maybe they all graduated high school? :-) |
What Law is Broken?
|
What Law is Broken?
wrote Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB |
What Law is Broken?
From: K0HB on Nov 30, 4:46 pm
wrote Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. Try Part 0 and/or Part 1 of Title 47 C.F.R. It is NOT in BUPERSINST 1900.8B. Have a nice day, |
An English Teacher
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com