| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#16
November 16th 05, 04:35 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
wrote in message oups.com... an old friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting. Day 7 and nothing new. With all due respect, Bill.... Did you really expect that someone would point the way, so that anticodetest folks could write reply comments without having to look through all the comments? No I doubt that Bill thinks the Procoder feel any reagrd to engage in opne deabte we have hae in the SOP of most of the procoders here However Bill in addresing the NG does not merely addres the ProCoder So, answer his question! 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 best New point is so repceprical licenseing issues but that hardly seems enough to turn the course (it is but a hicup issue ar best) Logical the R&O should be by the end of the week or at worst the month How is that "logical"? 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. This NPRM is far more concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as long.. 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 :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
| DX test Results | Broadcasting | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
Threaded Mode
