On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:08:36 GMT, KØHB wrote:

Which raises the next question --- who CARES what the FCC wants.

I care what the FCC wants. Whether I think that they are on the
right track or not is not the issue.

We the people engage professionals to do a job, in this case, be the
"Highway Patrol of the Airwaves". We frustrate that by second-guessing
them at every turn, telling them that we know better, and thereby not
letting them do the job that we hired them for.

If the bottom line is that the folks we engage do not do a
professional job, throw then out and get folks who will. This
presumes that you have better professional qualifications than they
do.

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

They should serve the wants of the people, not the other way around.

No, they should provide for the NEEDS of the people. Otherwise,
it's like letting the kids live on candy bars and soda rather than
health-giving food.

Happy New Year to y'all.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:08:36 GMT, KØHB wrote:

Which raises the next question --- who CARES what the FCC wants.

I care what the FCC wants.

Your income is tied to what the FCC wants.

Whether I think that they are on the
right track or not is not the issue.

Correct for a barrister in your position.

We the people engage professionals to do a job, in this case, be the
"Highway Patrol of the Airwaves". We frustrate that by second-guessing
them at every turn, telling them that we know better, and thereby not
letting them do the job that we hired them for.

That usually involved the assistance of a barrister

If the bottom line is that the folks we engage do not do a
professional job, throw then out and get folks who will. This
presumes that you have better professional qualifications than they
do.

The NPRM and R/O of 98 sure didn't impress. How many of those folks
retired on a fat salary?

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

Hans is an employer? Of what sort?

They should serve the wants of the people, not the other way around.

No, they should provide for the NEEDS of the people.

Needs/Wants? Jim "needs" numerous license classes. As long as he can
stay on top.

Otherwise,
it's like letting the kids live on candy bars and soda rather than
health-giving food.

Happy New Year to y'all.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil, Happy New Year to you, too!!!

On 31 Dec 2005 12:56:53 -0800, wrote:

I care what the FCC wants.

Your income is tied to what the FCC wants.

My income is totally independent of what the FCC wants. The agency
could be abolished tomorrow and my income will not change one bit
(unless "tomorrow" is the day that the COL increase on my pension
annuity and Social Security kicks in, as it will tomorrow). The FCC
has no connection with that, nor with the private investments that
also provide for my retirement income.

The NPRM and R/O of 98 sure didn't impress. How many of those folks
retired on a fat salary?

If you think that retiring on 50% of a salary that is 50% (or more)
less than what one could get in the private sector is "fat", I have
a (Weeatstone) bridge that I can sell you "real cheaply".

Do not forget that a Federal retirement annuity (prension) is not a
"gift" from the taxpayers. It is an annuity that is bought by the
employee with after-tax money and such purchase is not optional.

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

Hans is an employer? Of what sort?

Ask him.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 12:56:53 -0800, wrote:

I care what the FCC wants.

Your income is tied to what the FCC wants.

My income is totally independent of what the FCC wants. The agency
could be abolished tomorrow and my income will not change one bit
(unless "tomorrow" is the day that the COL increase on my pension
annuity and Social Security kicks in, as it will tomorrow). The FCC
has no connection with that, nor with the private investments that
also provide for my retirement income.

I didn't realize that you were no longer practicing your craft.

The NPRM and R/O of 98 sure didn't impress. How many of those folks
retired on a fat salary?

If you think that retiring on 50% of a salary that is 50% (or more)
less than what one could get in the private sector is "fat", I have
a (Weeatstone) bridge that I can sell you "real cheaply".

Consider that the newer FERS states very clearly that your Social
Security IS your retirement. And I had been told all of my life that
it was a SUPPLEMENT to a retirement. The OF's in Federal Service are
getting a much better deal than that.

Do not forget that a Federal retirement annuity (prension) is not a
"gift" from the taxpayers. It is an annuity that is bought by the
employee with after-tax money and such purchase is not optional.

Writing a sensible NPRM appears to be optional. Does the FCC trot out
that kind of crap to the boradcasters?

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

Hans is an employer? Of what sort?

Ask him.

Will do.

On 31 Dec 2005 15:53:01 -0800, wrote:

I didn't realize that you were no longer practicing your craft.

I most certainly am still active as evidenced by my having to pay
obscene Bar licensing fees every year. I still do ARRL Volunteer
Counsel work, although things up here are pretty quiet, and I'm VP -
Regulatory Counsel at a major player in the public safety communications
engineering field. I do not take on any other clients, and for
personal reasons my FCC work is pro-bono so I'm not dependent on the
FCC for income.

If you think that retiring on 50% of a salary that is 50% (or more)
less than what one could get in the private sector is "fat", I have
a (Weeatstone) bridge that I can sell you "real cheaply".

Consider that the newer FERS states very clearly that your Social
Security IS your retirement.

I opted out of FERS when it first started and remained in the CSRS
plan. My SocSec is based in the 15 years that worked in the private
sector and paid into SocSec. FERS participants do, however, make
mandatory contributions to a annuity plan that is separate from
SocSec, and all Federal employees are eligible to contribute to a
voluntary 401-K plan that is on a par with "private" plans.

Do not forget that a Federal retirement annuity (prension) is not a
"gift" from the taxpayers. It is an annuity that is bought by the
employee with after-tax money and such purchase is not optional.

Writing a sensible NPRM appears to be optional. Does the FCC trot out
that kind of crap to the boradcasters?

The new crop of folks try - seems like writing understandable
English is becoming a lost art - but us old-timers get it fixed a
lot quicker and easier than in the Amateur service because in
general there's no bickering amongst the broadcast engineers when it
comes to FCC regs. I serve as a chapter vice-chair in the Society of
Broadcast Engineers and my firm mentioned above has a working partnership
with one of the largest broadcast consulting engineering firms in the
country.

Anyhow, the FCC is less concerned about things technical in the
broadcast field than they are in stuff like mergers and consumer
affairs and schedules for transition to DTV/HDTV and HD Radio (yes,
there is such a thing). On the latter score, the systems allowed
and in use are total trash. That's what happens when engineers are
replaced by non-engineers who don't or won't understand technical
stuff or what "good regulatory practice" is.

Let that be a lesson to us as we argue about the content of amateur
radio operator exams and the structure of amateur licensing.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 15:53:01 -0800, wrote:

I didn't realize that you were no longer practicing your craft.

I most certainly am still active as evidenced by my having to pay
obscene Bar licensing fees every year. I still do ARRL Volunteer
Counsel work, although things up here are pretty quiet, and I'm VP -
Regulatory Counsel at a major player in the public safety communications
engineering field. I do not take on any other clients, and for
personal reasons my FCC work is pro-bono so I'm not dependent on the
FCC for income.

If you think that retiring on 50% of a salary that is 50% (or more)
less than what one could get in the private sector is "fat", I have
a (Weeatstone) bridge that I can sell you "real cheaply".

Consider that the newer FERS states very clearly that your Social
Security IS your retirement.

I opted out of FERS when it first started and remained in the CSRS
plan.

Any intelligent person would

My SocSec is based in the 15 years that worked in the private
sector and paid into SocSec. FERS participants do, however, make
mandatory contributions to a annuity plan that is separate from
SocSec,

1% of gross is hardly a "retirement," thus their claim that the social
security -supplement- IS your retirement.

and all Federal employees are eligible to contribute to a
voluntary 401-K plan that is on a par with "private" plans.

There were 3 choices of investment vehicles; not thrilling. What is a
401K limited to?

Do not forget that a Federal retirement annuity (prension) is not a
"gift" from the taxpayers. It is an annuity that is bought by the
employee with after-tax money and such purchase is not optional.

Writing a sensible NPRM appears to be optional. Does the FCC trot out
that kind of crap to the boradcasters?

The new crop of folks try - seems like writing understandable
English is becoming a lost art - but us old-timers get it fixed a
lot quicker and easier than in the Amateur service because in
general there's no bickering amongst the broadcast engineers when it
comes to FCC regs. I serve as a chapter vice-chair in the Society of
Broadcast Engineers and my firm mentioned above has a working partnership
with one of the largest broadcast consulting engineering firms in the
country.

Anyhow, the FCC is less concerned about things technical in the
broadcast field than they are in stuff like mergers and consumer
affairs and schedules for transition to DTV/HDTV and HD Radio (yes,
there is such a thing). On the latter score, the systems allowed
and in use are total trash. That's what happens when engineers are
replaced by non-engineers who don't or won't understand technical
stuff or what "good regulatory practice" is.

Let that be a lesson to us as we argue about the content of amateur
radio operator exams and the structure of amateur licensing.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Our question pool is no longer under the thumb of the FCC. It is
entirely an amateur endeavor. The VEC may also send code at any speed
they choose, as long as they string out the between word spaces.
Another poster said he couldn't copy 5WPM unless it was sent at the
30WPM rate over a 5 day period. Hi!

Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:08:36 GMT, KØHB wrote:

Which raises the next question --- who CARES what the FCC wants.

I care what the FCC wants. Whether I think that they are on the
right track or not is not the issue.

Yep, that's one issue.

Another is how to craft proposals that have a chance of being enacted.
Knowing
what the FCC wants is part of how to do that.

We the people engage professionals to do a job, in this case, be the
"Highway Patrol of the Airwaves". We frustrate that by second-guessing
them at every turn, telling them that we know better, and thereby not
letting them do the job that we hired them for.

OTOH we do have to tell them what we want and don't want. Doesn't mean
we'll get all of it, but not saying anything is a sure way to get
things we don't
want.

If the bottom line is that the folks we engage do not do a
professional job, throw then out and get folks who will.

YES!

This
presumes that you have better professional qualifications than they
do.

Well, maybe...

Consider that the President, who is Commander in Chief, isn't required
to have any military experience. Or that the FCC Commissioners aren't
required to have engineering experience or degrees....

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

They should serve the wants of the people, not the other way around.

No, they should provide for the NEEDS of the people.

Yep - all the people.

Otherwise,
it's like letting the kids live on candy bars and soda rather than
health-giving food.

And stay up late whenever they want to, etc.

Good analogy!

Happy New Year to y'all.

Happy New Year, Phil, and good to see you again.

73 de Jim, N2EY