wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
(SNIP)
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.

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.

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

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).

Of course. But that takes time.

Probably not more than a couple of months anyway.

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.

Doesn't matter - FCC will most probably address that issue in the R&O.

Actually it does matter as it defines the importance in the
eyes of the FCC.

Note that FCC doesn't have to say that a reason is a bad reason, or
false, etc. All they have to do is say the reason is insufficient.

Agreed.

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.

55% of commenters isn't a thin majority.

By your count anyway.

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.

Sure they do - they just aren't required to follow the majority
opinion.

Please point to such recognition of any true majority opinion
regarding comments as previously stated by the FCC in
past amateur proceedings.

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.

I've already addressed that in "The Pool"...

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).

If so, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 in August 2003? I
am still surprised they didn't.

FCC is just following their own legal process.

Or, why did they reject NCI's "sunset clause" idea?

You'll have to ask the FCC that question.

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..

True. But there are more comments to read.

Most are one or two sentances. No big deal.

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 :-)

One of those oxymorons like "jumbo shrimp" or "tight slacks"...

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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 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...