About Us

[email protected]

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

By now they've long since
gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get
rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado.

They gotta accept 'em and read 'em. They don't have to act on them.

Who audits this process to make sure they all get "equal reads" and
consideration? Where's the published policies on the topic? Answer:
There ain't neither. You can fill in the rest.

They do read all of the comments.

Highly unlikely particulary in cases like Anderson's nonsense *and*
I'll only believe it when I see it. Unless you gots documentation to
the contrary or you've been there yourself.

Yer missing the point.

*Somebody* at FCC reads 'em. That's all.

My guess is that the FCC doesn't even start reading the comments until
after the comments close. Then they sort them by commenter, because
some folks send multiple copies and there's no point reading the same
thing more than once.

Then, I think, somebody goes through them weeding out the obvious
cranks and fakes, as well as the dupes. Also, they probably pile up the
simple "rubber stamp" ones ("I agree with ARRl/NCI/NCVEC").

What's left are the ones that need a bit of serious reading. Much
smaller pile. You think Len's stuff makes it to that pile?

What they conclude is another matter.

Yeah, they conclude on sight that they're not gonna actually read his
crap . .

All I'm saying is that they read it. Taking it seriously is another
thing...

Then he's even more off the wall than I've given him credit for.

Not my problem. Not yours, either.

That I agree with.

Ya broke da code.

FCC could have just dropped Element 1 in August 2003. Memorandum Report
and Order, coupla paragraphs and done. All they'd have to do is say
that the issue was thoroughly discussed before the 2000 restructuring,
and the treaty was the only reason they kept Element 1.

But they didn't, and now it's almost 3-1/2 years later.

(a) They're toying with us for jollies.
(b) They know it doesn't matter one way or another.
(c) They're internally deadlocked on the subject just like we are.
(d) It'll show up in Omnibus II.

I'd say (a) and (b), plus a bit of

(e) They are ticked off at the 18 petitions, lack of consensus and
mountains of commentary.

I doubt that there's much (e) involved, they've been patrolling up and
down our back road in the RF wilderness for decades and they're quite
used to it. Used to us and our level of noisy BS.

Today's FCC isn't the FCC of 20-30-40 years ago.

In any event thee and
me are bulletproof, we're 20WPM Extras so I could care less when they
bite the bullet and do whatever they're gonna do about the code test.

Code test is a completely different issue.

I used to think the code test thing was a slam dunk. Maybe it still is.
But the fact that FCC has taken so long so far makes me wonder. For all
we know, they could keep it just because. Or they could do what Canada
did. Or something else.

'Course I thought I was bulletproof in 1967 too when I had a General .
. .

Heck I was just a Novice and I saw it coming. I wondered what all the
fuss was about. I still do.

But that makes no difference when it comes to getting what we want out
of FCC. I think we'd do a lot better to get a consensus *before*
deluging them with proposals and comments, that's all.

Idealism and standard motherhood get you nowhere.

I'm not saying it'll ever happen, just that it explains why it takes so
long to get anything from FCC.

Eternity is not a particulary long time in gummint buracracies like the
FCC. Been there, been part of it.

Good point. Why should they hurry?

and why the result is so unlike what is
proposed.

. . . "Mother knows best" . . .

Somebody wrote in a post in QRZ.com that they'd been in direct e-mail
contact with the FCC about the anomalies and confusion in the R&O and
the FCC agreed that the R&O needs more work before it goes to the
Register. That'll push implemetation of a cleaned-up version out until
God knows when. Reset: Game started over.

Roger that! The whole thing may have been a bit of a mind-game. ARRL
gripes, so they put out a messy R&O that makes ARRL look bad.

I noticed in another of your posts that you didn't understand why the
80M CW band and 75M phone band are called what they are. Or something
akin to that.

I was asking why FCC treats them as two separate bands in Part 97,
that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!	Iitoi	Policy	81	November 15th 06 11:59 PM
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!	Slow Code	Antenna	25	October 31st 06 12:31 AM
i confess	Steveo	CB	18	December 15th 04 06:20 AM
THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP NEEDS MACHO MEN AND TOUGH GUYS	Andre	Shortwave	1	July 5th 03 01:03 PM
WHERE ARE ALL THE TOUGH GUYS IN THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP?	LLOYD DAVIES N0VFP	General	0	July 4th 03 05:21 PM

Menu

About Us