FCC & ARRL = Partners in the Culture of Corruption.

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...



You show your total lack of understanding of how the
Culture of Corruption functions in the FCC.


FCC & ARRL = Partners in the Culture of Corruption.

From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35


wrote in message
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

The "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly:

"Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save
lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!"

Not a valid reason but it was warm and fuzzy to pro-coders. :-)


FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).
Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.

Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and
pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements).
They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-)

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." Radiotelegraphy
got set up as the epitome of all amateur radio skills through
constant bombardment by the [u-know-who] membership organization.
Radiotelegraphy skill meant the telegraphers got the maximum
perquisites in rank-status-privilege. Now the pro-coders are
royally ****ed because "all their hard work" isn't going to
mean dink in this NEW world. They demand holding fast to the
status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem.

On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.

That majority is a very thin one.

There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket.

As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket
05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the
total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of
all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a
SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion.

Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use and
does not claim statistician training or experience (despite what
Robert Rightsell said on 14 November), yet Jimmie keeps on
stating "a majority wants code testing to stay" by virtue of
nebulous interpretation by Speroni. Speroni's "55 percent" is
waved like it is some ABSOLUTE TRUTH, almost a Divine Word.
Pfaugh. Speroni SPIN. The usual biased pro-coder merry-go-
round spinning, making only the pro-coders dizzy.

There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a
very close, half-and-half mix of opinions. The Commission
is stuck without the slightest trace of "consensus in the
amateur community" of opinion on this highly-polarized issue.

The Commission expressed a desire to see a "consensus" at the
beginning of those 18 Petitions' comments 2003-2004 but it
didn't get any.

So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.

Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome. Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.

Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion
of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns
right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out
some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a
decision goes against him.

Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.
98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).

So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5
before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is
NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug

The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.

R&O for 98-143 took several months.

About 10 1/2 months between the end of the official commentary
period on 98-143 and the issuance of 99-412 Report & Order.
The Commission had about 2200 filings to consider for their
decision.

This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..

I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as
many filings as 98-143. The Commission has to do SOMETHING
on editorial changes to regulations in regards to allocations
of operating frequency privileges for Technicians. Other than
that, the main issue of code testing go/no-go is quite simple.

Different set of conditions on speculating on decision time.

However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir

I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.

Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)

Sorry, the term "logical" doesn't apply there to any three of
you. Governmental decisions are biased by POLITICAL needs,
not "logic." Those that don't get what they want will try to
enoble themselves as "logical" as if they are the good guys.
That's a misuse of word definitions.

What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will
be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their
way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners."

What really happens - as it does in all Reports and Orders -
is that the Commission DECIDES, making a long, laborious set
of reasons for their decision with all appropriate references
(appropriate as they see fit). Once a decision is reached, it
becomes part of LAW...until it is changed again some time in
the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting
R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision
justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services.

Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and
make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part.
The pro-coders have had Their Way for a long time and they
feel They are "the public" or "more public" than others.
They want "Theirs" just like They've always had it. The
REAL Public can't be seen by them. The Commission tries
harder to "look" at what the REAL Public wants...and that is
a good thing in my mind.

wrote:
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35

wrote in message
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

The "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly:

"Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save
lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!"

Who wrote that, Len? You write as if it's a direct quote.

Not a valid reason but it was warm and fuzzy to pro-coders. :-)

FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).
Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.

Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and
pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements).
They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-)

Len, do you think phrases like "mighty macho morsemen" help
convince the FCC to see things your way?

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.

The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a
written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old
First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra.

Radiotelegraphy
got set up as the epitome of all amateur radio skills through
constant bombardment by the [u-know-who] membership organization.

Wrong again, Len. The Extra did not come about because of the ARRL. And
the original 1963 "incentive licensing" proposal from ARRL would have
given all amateur privileges to Advanced as well as Extra class
amateurs.

Radiotelegraphy skill meant the telegraphers got the maximum
perquisites in rank-status-privilege.
Now the pro-coders are
royally ****ed because "all their hard work" isn't going to
mean dink in this NEW world.

Do you think nobody will use Morse Code when the test is gone?

They demand holding fast to the
status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem.

Gee, Len, you go on about others' motivations but say nothing about
your own.

On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.

That majority is a very thin one.

There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket.

Yes, there is. Try counting by commenters and not by total filings.

As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket
05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the
total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of
all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a
SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion.

I specifically wrote "majority of commenters".

Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use

So am I.

Is there something wrong with Morse Code *use*?

and
does not claim statistician training or experience (despite what
Robert Rightsell said on 14 November), yet Jimmie keeps on
stating "a majority wants code testing to stay" by virtue of
nebulous interpretation by Speroni. Speroni's "55 percent" is
waved like it is some ABSOLUTE TRUTH, almost a Divine Word.

No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any
mistakes
that would change the results by even 1%?

Or are you just ticked that someone else did a better analysis than
you,
and had the skills to put it on a website for all to see?

Pfaugh. Speroni SPIN.

Where?

Do you think that someone who files a comment and five reply comments,
all basically saying the same thing, should be counted as six separate
opinions? I don't.

The usual biased pro-coder merry-go-
round spinning, making only the pro-coders dizzy.

There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a
very close, half-and-half mix of opinions.

Nope. There's two clear majorities of opinion, as expressed by the
tally of commenters: Dump Element 1 for General and keep it for Extra.

The Commission
is stuck without the slightest trace of "consensus in the
amateur community" of opinion on this highly-polarized issue.

Consensus isn't a majority. It's a lot more. I don't think you know
what
a consensus really is, Len.

The Commission expressed a desire to see a "consensus" at the
beginning of those 18 Petitions' comments 2003-2004 but it
didn't get any.

That "consensus" statement is lot older than 2003.

So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.

Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome. Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.

Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion
of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns
right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out
some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a
decision goes against him.

Wrong yet again, Len.

Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.
98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).

So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5
before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is
NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug

Like those who oppose changes in nearby real estate?

The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.

R&O for 98-143 took several months.

About 10 1/2 months between the end of the official commentary
period on 98-143 and the issuance of 99-412 Report & Order.
The Commission had about 2200 filings to consider for their
decision.

Now they have a lot more to read.

This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..

I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as
many filings as 98-143.

So what's your guess for The Pool, Len?

The Commission has to do SOMETHING
on editorial changes to regulations in regards to allocations
of operating frequency privileges for Technicians.

Why?

FCC made it clear they see no reason to change the privileges of
any license class. Their proposal is to dump Element 1, which will
mean that any noncodetested Tech will need to get a General to get
*any* HF/MF privileges.

Other than
that, the main issue of code testing go/no-go is quite simple.

Sure - just make no change ;-)

Different set of conditions on speculating on decision time.

However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir

I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.

Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)

Sorry, the term "logical" doesn't apply there to any three of
you. Governmental decisions are biased by POLITICAL needs,
not "logic." Those that don't get what they want will try to
enoble themselves as "logical" as if they are the good guys.
That's a misuse of word definitions.

What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will
be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their
way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners."

Will you ever stop being ticked off, Len?

What really happens - as it does in all Reports and Orders -
is that the Commission DECIDES, making a long, laborious set
of reasons for their decision with all appropriate references
(appropriate as they see fit). Once a decision is reached, it
becomes part of LAW...until it is changed again some time in
the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting
R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision
justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services.

Like they did on BPL?

Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and
make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part.

You mean like in your reply comments?

The pro-coders have had Their Way for a long time and they
feel They are "the public" or "more public" than others.
They want "Theirs" just like They've always had it. The
REAL Public can't be seen by them. The Commission tries
harder to "look" at what the REAL Public wants...and that is
a good thing in my mind.

BPL?

From: "Bill Sohl" on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 00:55


wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

I don't think anyone at ARRL is reading all the comments.

I suspect that Chris Imlay has a hard copy of every comment
filed which he has already reviewed.

If his law firm is any good they WILL have ALL of them for
reference. :-)

Len isn't a reliable source.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Jimmie is being nasty again. :-)


Despite his claim that he read and understood
all the comments, he didn't know that someone else was reading all the
comments too, and posting the results online for all to see.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Joe Speroni's website is "official" even though
he is an extremely-biased PRO-CODE advocate?

Even though the URL was on the first page of the comments,
he missed it completely.

To those of us accessing the FCC ECFS as our only immediate
source of information on Docket filings, the Comments are
NOT on "pages" but are filed according to date.

Didn't you forget the "IMHO" in regard to your opinion
of Len's analysis.

Jimmie NEVER forgets, Bill. He is like an effluent. :-)

Jimmie is the "renowned amateur historian" in here, by his own
admission. He is working mightily to be Law Giver. :-)

Jimmie is so highly biased on issues that he defies classes,
beyond Class C, even beyond Class F. :-)

Ho hum...

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:

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

The "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly:

"Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save
lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!"

Who wrote that, Len? You write as if it's a direct quote.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie seems fearful of exposure of something.
Guilty conscience? :-)

Had Jimmie gone INTO the ECFS filings on WT Docket 05-235, he
would have SEEN THAT repeated many times. Jimmie did not,
apparently thinks HE wrote it. Jimmie did not. Jimmie did
NOTHING about "defeating terrorists" or "saving lives" during
hurricane Katrina.


Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and
pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements).
They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-)

Len, do you think phrases like "mighty macho morsemen" help
convince the FCC to see things your way?

Tsk. Self-appointed "Superior [Moot] Court Judge" Miccolis
thinks this newsgroup is some sort of "communication with the
FCC?!?" Jimmie, you are terribly confused about reality.

Now you just relax, take some deep breaths, and go to the
FCC ECFS and search for my name. [it is very easy given the
software tools provided by the FCC...even morsemen can
usually understand it] Look at any of my filings before the
Commission. Examine them closely. Do you see any phrasing
of mine using "mighty macho morsemen?" No? Well, then,
WHY do you think I stated that to the Commission?

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?

The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a
written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old
First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra.

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.

EVERYONE knows that the Amateur Extra is granted ONLY when
BOTH the code test AND the written examination tests are
passed. One CANNOT have one without the other.


Do you think nobody will use Morse Code when the test is gone?

Irrelevant. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the morse code TEST.

They demand holding fast to the
status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem.

Gee, Len, you go on about others' motivations but say nothing about
your own.

Tsk, tsk, you are trying the old, tired trick of Dudly the
Imposter, attempting to misdirect the subject into some
nebulous "personal" fault.

It is readily apparent that MOST Amateur Extras prize their
"accomplishment" and self-elevate themselves to a higher
plane of existance that ordinary mortals. Do not be modest
in appearance...such boasting of yours has been readily
apparent since day one of your appearance on the AOL group
all about amateur-radio-as-you-know-it-and-cribbed-right-
from-the-ARRL-hymn-book statements there.


There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket.

Yes, there is. Try counting by commenters and not by total filings.

Already done that, Jimmie. YOU did NOT. You are trying to
escape by accepting Speroni's biased website "tally" as "your
own. You have NOT gone into the ECFS and real ALL the filings
there or done your own sorting. All you do is blindly believe
equally-biased pro-code "interpreters" such as Speroni and
then try to make out as if you did it.

The polarization of opinions is too strong, TOO CLOSE, for any
statistical validity FOR EITHER "SIDE" to "win." You KNOW
this but are unwilling to admit it after your obvious-to-all
bias for code testing. Why do you persist in living a lie?

As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket
05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the
total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of
all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a
SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion.

I specifically wrote "majority of commenters".

Who cares what you "specifically" wrote? This is NOT Moot Court
and there is NO penalty for some imagined charge of perjury
you invent on-the-spot to justify your words.

Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use

So am I.

Joe Speroni is also a multiple-petitioner before the Commission
who has been DENIED by them each time. Have YOU petitioned the
FCC for anything, Jimmie?


Is there something wrong with Morse Code *use*?

No. But NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code *use*. :-)

Try to stay focussed on what the NPRM actually said.

Are you fearfull that the Commission will take away your
little morse code sandbox on HF?


No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any mistakes
that would change the results by even 1%?

No, Jimmie, Speroni's RESULTS are ALL THERE IS. HE did all
the "interpreting" and some of that is WRONG...see a "pro-code"
comment from an English Department [instructor] who said out-
right in her Comment that she is neither into amateur radio
nor desirous of obtaining a license.

What did Speroni DO about all those Comments of the 5 weeks
between the release of NPRM 05-143 and the Notice in the
Federal Register on 31 August 2005? Note the words of the
Notice in the Federal Register - the one that makes the
procedings legal - stating the OFFICIAL dates.

Or are you just ticked that someone else did a better analysis than you,
and had the skills to put it on a website for all to see?

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. "Skills?!?" Money and
time to afford preaching the morse code gospel for years?
Long after EVERY OTHER radio service in the USA has dropped
morse code mode communications?

No, NOT "TICKED," Jimmie. I put my time and effort into a
running account of numbers on the expressed opinions on NPRM
05-143 as seen on the ECFS public listings in WT DOCKET 05-235
and did it in THIS NEWSGROUP. I have no morse axe to grind
long after all the other radio services (except amateur radio)
have dropped it for communications. YOU DO.

YOU are TICKED, Jimmie. You are ticked because the early
Commenters were eager to Comment FOR the NPRM by a 2:1 ratio
that went against the wishes of the pro-coders.


Do you think that someone who files a comment and five reply comments,
all basically saying the same thing, should be counted as six separate
opinions? I don't.

Tsk, tsk. Then MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN to the Commission.

The Commission has established (long ago) the PROCEDURE of
Comments and Replies to Comments. Think of it as a "hearing."
It is NOT a "court." It is NOT some "election" and counting
of "votes." The Commission takes in all of those filings
and studies them, then reaches a decision based on what the
Commission thinks is "good for the PUBLIC." The PUBLIC, Jimmie,
not some vociferous pro-coder extras who think they are
"better" than others by virtue of their radiotelegraphy skill.

You already have a model filing in the ECFS showing "how to
do it." Look in the ECFS under filings on WT Docket 98-143
on date of 25 Januarly 1999 for Steven James Robeson.
Remember also that the LAST day of OFFICIAL filings on
98-143 was 15 January 1999. Try not to be as late as this
Robeson person...and try to avoid his Klu Klux Klan style of
trying to strip a citizen's rights guaranteed under our
First Amendment of the United States Constitution.


There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a
very close, half-and-half mix of opinions.

Nope. There's two clear majorities of opinion, as expressed by the
tally of commenters: Dump Element 1 for General and keep it for Extra.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie. YOU are an Extra. YOU love morse
code. YOU are seeing what YOU WANT TO SEE.


Consensus isn't a majority. It's a lot more. I don't think you know what
a consensus really is, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, "Judge of the Superior Court" and Sister Nun
of the Above is trying to tell a published author and
editor "all about words and their definitions?!?"

Webster's New World Compact and Office Dictionary (1989) states:

"con-sen-sus: 1. an opinion held by all or most 2. general
agreement, esp. in opinion."

Don't try to explain your remark "It's a lot more." You will
get into some strange mysticism of morse and the Beliefs of
the Church of St. Hiram. Sorry, but the Commission is not
bound by the visions of mystics and is compelled by law to
separate church and state.

Tsk, you are confusing your Nun's habit with the robes of a
judge. Irrelevant since you cannot tell the difference.


Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion
of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns
right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out
some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a
decision goes against him.

Wrong yet again, Len.

No, RIGHT again. See all the postings in Google by "N2EY."

Quid pro quo affirmation of what I said...including what
you've said so far in your post being replied to.


So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5
before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is
NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug

Like those who oppose changes in nearby real estate?

NPRM 05-143 has NOTHING to do with real estate. The FCC
does NOT regulate real estate; such is left to local
state and county governments. Are you deficient in basic
government of the United States?

Stop trying to misdirect the thread. It makes you appear
to NOT know what you are talking about.


I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as
many filings as 98-143.

So what's your guess for The Pool, Len?

Irrelevant. Laws and regulations of the United States are
NOT a game or lottery. Are you also deficient in basic
law? Did you fail civics classes in high school?


FCC made it clear they see no reason to change the privileges of
any license class.

Then WHY are you so concerned?

Their proposal is to dump Element 1, which will
mean that any noncodetested Tech will need to get a General to get
*any* HF/MF privileges.

Tsk, tsk, do you also try to teach your grandmother how to
suck eggs?

I'm well aware of NPRM 05-143 and what it said as of 21 July
2005. Do you need a copy? It's on the ECFS, pre-dated,
under 15 July 2005. It has the time-stamp of when it was
received by ECFS, different from its Search Results filing
date.

Does a Report and Order conform EXACTLY to what a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking says? At ANY time at the Commission?
I've not seen ANY and that includes MANY different
procedings, not just on the amateur radio service regulations.
Would you point out which R&O was EXACTLY like its NPRM?
That would reinforce your contention and your alleged
prescience.


What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will
be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their
way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners."

Will you ever stop being ticked off, Len?

Why do you say I am "ticked off?"

We don't have any ticking device at the southern house. There's
one at the northern house in Washington but that mechanical
clock is seldom used, either by us (when we are there) or our
house-sitter/occupant.

Jimmie, I say YOU are the one "ticked off." You try to be
an all-knowing guru of amateur radio in here, holding fast
to the status quo (and the status-rank you achieved under
old regulations). CHANGE seems to be anathema to you. You
keep bringing up the past, the past before your existance,
as if you had been there. You do not look to the future.
You do not think of newcomers in any way except to go through
the same motions as you had to. Your only interest seems to
be triumphing all extras (you are one) as the ultimate all.
Of course you hate CHANGE. It will destroy your self-esteem,
your bragging rights. That must REALLY tick you off!


the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting
R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision
justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services.

Like they did on BPL?

Access BPL, Jimmie. NPRM 05-143 has NOTHING to do with Access
BPL.

You have NOT looked at the latest regulations in Part 15, have
you? I thought not. View those. Also, remember one thing:
The FCC was NOT ABLE TO PROHIBIT any Broadband over Power Lines
OTHER than place limits on its incidental RF radiation.

Try not to misdirect into other areas when discussing NPRM
05-143.

Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and
make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part.

You mean like in your reply comments?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...there you go again, taking things out of
context and trying to misdirect discussion.

YOU are NOT any "judge" of who can say what on any procedings
and dockets at the FCC. YOU cannot accept opposite-opinion
commentary or discussion without being ticked off...and making
long-winded "discussions" and many diversions to different
areas and taking things out of context.

You are a judge of one...a judge of the Acapella Court, singing
your little heart out to hold the amateur status quo as much as
possible. Basic problem is that you are tone deaf and can't
read the music. That is grating to all the listeners.

"Got your ears on?"

Dave Heil wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

so more people might comet and bring it to the attention of the FCC

I strongly urge more people to "comet". You, on the other hand, seem to
have taken up the role of meteorite and burned upon entering Earth's
atmosphere.


dave has gone delusional again
flshing the rest unread without further coment

wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
cut

I don't think anyone at ARRL is reading all the comments.

Len isn't a reliable source. Despite his claim that he read and
understood
all the comments, he didn't know that someone else was reading all the
comments too, and posting the results online for all to see. Even
though
the URL was on the first page of the comments, he missed it completely.


do you have anything on the topic or just posting to attack len some
more

wrote:
Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê wrote:

A thinner majority was decided your so-called "leader of the free world".

Cheerio,
Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte

Barney, our President is merely -our- leader. It is in the vacuum of
an almost leaderless world that you prop him up as the "leader of the
free world." I sure hope your intel guys pass no more bad info our
way. Could strain relations.

GW is leader of the free world one of the few people leading at all
everyone is just following the polls

GW like , love or loath him is a leader

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.

The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a
written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old
First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra.

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.

EVERYONE knows that the Amateur Extra is granted ONLY when
BOTH the code test AND the written examination tests are
passed. One CANNOT have one without the other.

One can now obtain it with s very slow f i v e w o r d p e r
m i n u t e morse exam. That's very, very slow.


It is readily apparent that MOST Amateur Extras prize their
"accomplishment" and self-elevate themselves to a higher
plane of existance that ordinary mortals.

That isn't readily apparent at all. It is a false premise.

Do not be modest
in appearance...such boasting of yours has been readily
apparent since day one of your appearance on the AOL group
all about amateur-radio-as-you-know-it-and-cribbed-right-
from-the-ARRL-hymn-book statements there.

Anyone's accomplishments in areas where you've fallen short must kick
your "braq quotionent" into high gear.


I specifically wrote "majority of commenters".

Who cares what you "specifically" wrote?

I care.

This is NOT Moot Court
and there is NO penalty for some imagined charge of perjury
you invent on-the-spot to justify your words.

Yes, there is a penalty. You look petty by your attempt at squirming,
Leonard.


No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any mistakes
that would change the results by even 1%?

No, Jimmie, Speroni's RESULTS are ALL THERE IS. HE did all
the "interpreting" and some of that is WRONG...see a "pro-code"
comment from an English Department [instructor] who said out-
right in her Comment that she is neither into amateur radio
nor desirous of obtaining a license.

Hmmmmm. Don't you fit right into that particular category, Len?


Tsk, tsk, tsk, "Judge of the Superior Court" and Sister Nun
of the Above is trying to tell a published author and
editor "all about words and their definitions?!?"

Somebody has to do it, Len. You foul up more words and definitions than
quite a number of posters who've never done any editing or who've not
had anything published.

Dave K8MN