K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
robert casey wrote:
wrote:
Recently there have been some claims about "what the
majority wants" in regards to FCC NPRMs.
THe FCC doesn't make rules based on how polling comes out.
I was speaking about comments, not polls. But you're right
either way, in that the FCC can ignore the majority
if it wants to.
The FCC is legaly bound to ignore the majority in what it sees as the
public interest
"...legaly (legally) bound to ignore..."
I don't think so.
In this case, the truth is in the middle. FCC is not required to follow
majority opinion, but neither are they supposed to ignore it.
The main point is that the majority opinion on 98-143 wanted more code
testing than 5 wpm. But that opinion was ignored by FCC. The majoriy
wanted 5 wpm for General but *not* for all code-tested licenses.
KC8EPO's analysis proves it.
One very
good comment can trump many "me toos".
Or one comment that FCC just happens to agree with.
Look at the BPL situation....
Besides, the FCC isn't
in the business of handing out gold stars. If a requirement
serves no regulatory purpose, the FCC doesn't want to bother
with it.
Or if FCC doesn't want to be bothered in the first place...
Indeed the FCC doesn't want to be bothered with much from the ARS, we
should count ourselves lucky to get any enforcement action
Us or anyone else. However the FCC has demonstrated significant
enforcement actions over All services in recent years. Refer to the
FCC's NOV/NOUO archives.
Sure.
However, none of that is really what I was driving at.
My point is simply that the majority of comments on code testing
(57%) on 98-143 were in favor of at least two code test speeds,
including at least 12 wpm for Advanced and Extra. That fact is
proved by KC8EPO's published results, right here on rrap back
in March of 1999. (WA6VSE/WK3C posted them).
so?
FCC ignored the majority opinion back then and reduced code
testing to 5 wpm. The majority opinion was *not* acted upon
by FCC.
and No one ever promised or sugessted it would be
Sure it was.
It was called the Constitution of the Untied States.
That's not what the Constitution promises.
What the Constitution does is to set the structure of our govt. and
limit its power. What that means in specific cases is what keeps the
Supremes busy.
Note that the Constitution is particularly concerned with protecting
the rights of the individual and the minority against those of the mob
and the majority. That's why we have trial-by-jury instead of
trial-by-public-opinion-poll.
And it takes a 2/3 vote to amend the constitution, not just a majority.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA - remember that?) failed to be enacted
because of the lack of a 2/3 majority, even after a time extension.
That concept has been lost in the caucophony of
least-common-denominatior bar-lowerings.
It's called checks and balances. The wishes of the majority are
balanced against the rights of the individual.
the FCC has a DUTY to the PUBLIC interest first and only then to the
interests of the ARS and finaly to the WISHES of the ARS
"The "wishes" you refer to are by citizens of the United States
who told the government what they wanted.
The government ignored them.
Yep, they did.
Actually, the only time the govt. is required to submit to the will of
the majority of the people is in certain elections and referenda. (In a
presidential election, the candidate with the majority of votes can
still lose - it's already happened).
Whether FCC did the best thing or not is a matter of opinion.
But the plain simple fact is that the majority was *not*
anti-code-test.
so
So the wishes of the citizens were ignored.
Yup.
The Consitution was violated.
Nope. There's no requirement for FCC to do what the majority of
commenters want.
Now of course if the majority of comments on 05-235 are in
favor of no more code testing, FCC will most certainly say
they are simply doing what the majority wants.
Not likely
Absolutely. Watch.
Of course!
The FCC will simply issue it's report and order
And in that R&O they will say "...the majority of respondents..."
Because FCC has to include verbiage justifying its actions.
73 de Jim, N2EY