RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 2nd 05, 04:52 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:

Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on
the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795
filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel
of laffs! :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

So you really don't know what you're talking about when
you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

he can make the same assumetion you can

Which assumption is that?

Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very
SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills.

Is there anything wrong with being serious or intense?

Let's see....WK3C and K2UNK spent their own time and money to
visit FCC officials about the Morse Code test issue. That's pretty
SERIOUS and INTENSE, isn't it?

(not that there's anything wrong with that...)

BTW, there's 3,796 filings now, one was added on the 28th. :-)

Was any law broken by such late filings?

By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

Why does that matter?

becuase it isn't suposed to hapen at least if it does they are all
supose to have been mailed before the deadline

Who says it isn't supposed to happen?

The specific date periods on comments applies to the
Commission's activities on decision-making for a final
Memorandum Report and Order. That date period is determined
by statements made in the publishing of a docket/proceedure
in the Federal Register. Standard practice at the FCC.

Your buddy Mark claims that late filings break some law or other.
Straighten him out - if you can.

In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6
calendar weeks LATE.

How? Is there a deadline for FCC?

NPRM 05-143 was opened to the public on
19 July 2005. Publishing in the Federal Register didn't
happen until 31 August 2005.

So? Does FCC have to get NPRMs in the Federal Register
within a certain amount of time? Perhaps you should tell
them off and put them right, Len - after all, you've said you're
not afraid of authority. You could put in some of your
diminutive nicknames and catchphrases, and criticize them
for taking six long weeks.....

The date period for comments
was not specifically stated in NPRM 05-143, was specifically
stated in the Federal Register on 31 August 2005.

Which is why some of us didn't file comments right away. We
waited for the official announcement. Others had no patience and
just had to let fly before the official date.

The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere
from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it
would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that
was delayed SIX WEEKS.

So? It took them a little longer. Have you no patience?

In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public
filed 52% of all comments filed.

And the majority of those were anticodetest. The procodetest folks,
in general, waited for the official comment period.

What does that say about the two groups' understanding of the
regulations?

The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment
period beginning date.

Nonsense. Most of those who filed comments are licensed
amateurs, aren't they?

The Commission is fairly speedy on
getting proceedings published in the Federal Register.

Not this time! Why don't you complain, Len? Tell 'em
how it should be done!

The
"public" does not consist of just attorneys and beaurocrats
handling law, so they would generally be unaware of that
delay. Such a long time was unexpected.

You filed before the deadline, didn't you? ;-)
Did you file any of your 10 filings too early? Maybe the folks at
FCC are chuckling over the fact that you couldn't follow the rules...

1 comment - 8 reply comments - 1 exhibit - 146 pages if my count is
right......

While you have every right in the world to comment to FCC, Len, did
it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - your long wordy
diatribes
really don't help the nocodetest cause one bit?

why does it seem you don't care about the rul of of law when it suits
you

What "rule of law" prohibits late comments?

Jimmy Noserve only cares about the preservation of morse code,
everything from "operating skill" to the license test. He
can't bear to give up any of that.

Wrong on all counts there, Len. Completely wrong.

Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on
the subject and you got the number in a vision?

FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals,
Len. Without the internet. That's a fact.

indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was

How was it a "disaster"?

how the ARRL tired to kill the ars

How? By trying to raise the level of technical knowledge required for a

full-provileges license?

Mark, Jimmy has NOT proven his "fact."

You have not disproved it, Len.

The only way to determine
that "fact" is to visit the FCC Reading Room in DC and view all
the filings.

How do you know I haven't done that, Len?

For most of my life I've lived in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.
Washington DC is a day trip from here - done it many times. In
fact, some things I have designed are in daily use in the DC metro
area. It would be a simple thing for me to take a day or two to see
all those 6000 "filings".

Those old dockets and proceedings aren't on-line.

So? They were reported in the publications of that time (1960s).
Is something only true to you if it's online, Len? What evidence
do you have that the 6000+ comments claim is not true?

Perhaps you don't want to accept it because it disproves your
opinions.

As to "disaster," that is subjective opinion.

Yep. FCC thought it was a good idea at the time. FCC still
thinks it's a good idea, but with fewer levels.

In the long run,
"incentive licensing" only served to harden the class
distinction among licensees.

Subjective opinion.

It got too cumbersome for the
future to the Commission, so they streamlined it via FCC 99-412.

Yet the basic concept of a series of license classes, each with
increasing
test requirements and privileges, was reaffirmed by FCC. As for being
"too cumbersome", FCC refused all proposals of free (no test) upgrades,
which would have greatly simplified the license class structure and the
rules. Instead, we now have the six license classes anyway, with Novice
and Advanced no longer issued new (but renewable and modifiable
indefinitely), and Technician Plus being renewed as Technician even
though the privileges are different.

In fact, a case could be made that there are at least 9 different
license
categories (for those who hold current licenses) if you
count differences in operating privileges and test element credit:

1) Novice
2) Technician without code test
3) Tech Plus or Technician renewed from Tech Plus, pre-March 21, 1987
4) Tech Plus or Technician renewed from Tech Plus, post-March 21, 1987
5) Technician with code test CSCE less than 365 days old
6) Technician with code test CSCE more than 365 days old
7) General
8) Advanced
9) Extra

There's even more if the test credits for certain expired licenses
are considered)

Doesn't seem to faze the FCC.

The League lobbied for, and got "incentive licensing."

But not just the League. There were no less than 10 other proposals
in favor of the concept. They differed in details but not in the basic
idea. There was widespread support for the idea both inside and
outside the League. Also widespread opposition. The support won.

It's odd that all the other proposals, and the features they suggested,
are so often forgotten, and the League gets all the blame.

Old-timers
of the League loved radiotelegraphy,

Is that a bad thing?

following the "tradition"
established by its first president, St. Hiram.

Maxim was a genius. You're not, Len.

And then why did ARRL *oppose* the creation of the Extra
class license in 1951? And why did ARRL's 1963 proposal
not include any additional code testing for full privileges?

And why did ARRL oppose FCC's 16 wpm code test proposal
and "Amateur First Grade" license class in 1965?

Old-timers
wanted to prove Their radiotelegraphy skill was the "highest"
attribute of amateurism.

How? By increasing the written tests? That's what ARRL proposed.

They got it, complete with rank-
status-privilege.

Class A, Class B, Class C.

Especially the privileges. They were better
than anyone...in their minds.

Not better. Just more qualified. You're Not Qualified (to operate
an amateur radio station).

The beginning of the solid-state era had begun.

The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len.

bad jimmie Stevie job is to play speling cop

Not spelling. Bad writing.

You weren't a ham then and you're not one now. Morse Code is one
form of excellence in radio, btw - then and now.

only in your opinion and that of others

Up to mid-2000, the highest-rate telegraphy skill was
NECESSARY to achieve the "highest" class license.

Incorrect. Since 1990, there were medical waivers for the
13 and 20 wpm code tests. The criteria for a waiver were so
vague and general that anyone who really wanted one could
get one. You could have easily gotten one, Len. But you didn't.

IMO it has been one of the banes of the ARS for decades

True enough.

Not at all. After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect
in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to
grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of
the 1970s continued into the 1980s.

If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much
growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in
place?

In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either.

"Nothing?!?" Mais non!

Nothing. You didn't work for FCC, didn't have anything to do with
FCC rules for the Amateur Radio Service.

a flat out lie Jim he has had something to do with making the FCC rules
as has Myself Bil Sohl yourself and a couple of thousand others

Exactly.

The FCC has had commentary periods for nearly all the major
issues affecting U.S. radio amateurs since its creation in
1934. [exceptions are federal orders to cease transmission
on Presidential orders and the "housekeeping" changes to
Parts of Title 47 which regarded legal clarification of some
regulations corrections]

The Constitution of the United States gives all its citizens
the Right to address their government...on anything. The
comment period of dockets and proceedings at the FCC is one
way to do that on specific radio regulatory issues.

Jimmy seems very territorial. He regards federal amateur radio
regulations as "private turf" which can ONLY be discussed by
licensed radio operators to their government.

No, I don't. You try to pass off that false statement on various
people, but it's simply not true. Of course logic isn't your strong
suit, Len.

Pointing out that you are not a radio amateur is not the same thing
as saying you are not allowed to "discuss" or comment. (What you
do is not really discussion - it's mostly long boring wordy lectures
repeating the same tired old mantras and insults as if they are
sacred.)

That is wrong.

Yep - you got it wrong again, Len.

The FCC must listen to ALL...including English teachers who
haven't the foggiest notion of what "radio" is, let alone
amateur radio (she had to research the subject through
WikiPedia). :-)

Haven't the foggiest notion of what radio is?

Both Bill Sohl and Carl Stevenson have appeared in-person
before the FCC in regards to the code-test/no-code-test
issue.

Yes - pretty SERIOUS and INTENSE, huh?

That's about as close as ANY in here have been to
the regulation-decision-makers without actually working
there (as Phil Kane did).

How do you know others haven't done similar things and kept
quiet about it?

Do you think those 18 proposals to FCC after July 2003 just
wrote themselves?

The Staff and Commissioners at the FCC decide what is to be
changed and how to change radio regulations...DEPENDING on
input from the "public." [a "researching" of Parts 0 and 1
of Title 47 C.F.R. will explain that, also the Communicaitons
Act of 1934, a Law passed by Congress]

Well how about that!

Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long
Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro
harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no
test, never was a test for them).

Did FCC ever turn anybody down for a cb permit?

Are you still on cb, Len?

why should he not be on CB

Citizens Band Radio Service had "permits?" :-) Strange, my
forms said they were LICENSES. No tests at all required.

Were any "turned down?" I don't really know. I've heard of those
but never met anyone who was "turned down."

Says a lot.

I opt NOT to bother with CB radio since it is not to my needs
in communicating anything by radio.

Gee....

The little two-way radio
terminal called a "cell phone" serves both me and my wife very
adequately in mobile communications needs.

Not by itself. Needs a whole network to do the job.

If the cell phone serves your radio needs, why are you so
obsessed with changing the rules of the Amateur Radio Service?

My old Johnson Viking Messenger CB radio still works, is still
operating within FCC regulations.

How do you know?

It is a relatively easy
task to connect it up to an antenna (mag-mount) in the car,
plug it into the car's 12 VDC system, and operate.

But you don't.

If the
vibrator high-voltage supply will continue working, it is as
reliable as any old tube radio. [vibrator supplies were NEVER
considered reliable, but they were terribly cheap in consumer
grade tube equipments]

Gee, Len, you never modified it to a solid-state inverter supply?
Those supplies were common 40+ years ago. You can get all
the details in any ARRL Handbook of that era.

Living within a mile of I-5 passing
through has shown that a few channels for CB are way too few
for the hundreds of thousands of CB users...years ago.

Why aren't 40 channels enough? Actually, if SSB is used, there
are effectively 80 channels.

Why isn't that enough? Could it be because cb users didn't follow
the rules for that radio service?

Cbers seem by and large politeir than hams with folks they disagree
with they can be a bit vulgar for my taste on the air, but there are 40
channels to choose from

Irrelevant to Jimmy's remarks. All Jimmy wants to do is show
contempt for CB.

What should my attitude towards cb be, Len? Do you think I should
praise it and say it's a model of what a radio service should be?

Since he was living in 1958 when that service
(on the 27 MHz band) was created, he feels contemptuous of all
who have not taken a federal test to "qualify" for radio
transmission below 30 MHz. :-)

Not true at all, Len. Of course you express contempt for all who
*have* passed such tests....

[I think he was born an amateur...:-) ]

Marconi described himself as an amateur.

CB communications are "Too vulgar?"

I didn't say that - Mark did.

I've heard much, much
greater vulgarity in the military service (which Jimmy was
never a part of nor will he ever be). I've heard greater
vulgarity on shop floors from union members. I've heard
greater vulgarity in the black sections of Los Angeles. I need
to brush up on my Spanish to find out if the language there in
the barrios is "too vulgar." :-)

You seem proud of that, Len. Why?

Like I said - you had nothing to do with amateur radio policy
back then, nor with FCC's regulation of amateur radio...

Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse
code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago.

Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and
well in radio today.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmy's working receiver can't pick up anything but
the "low end" of the HF amateur bands

Not true! Most of my "working receivers" are general coverage.
I also have several transceivers. You're not qualified to operate
any of them, Len.

...and he thinks that
radiotelegraphy is still a big mode in radio? Incredible!

It's still a very popular mode in amateur radio. It's alive and well.

Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then?

Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in
amateur radio, anyway.

not what I hear

You have to give Jimmy some slack, Mark. Since his receiver
can't pick up anything outside the "low end" of HF ham bands,
he thinks HF is still "alive with the sounds of morse code"
(as if Julie Andrews were singing it on top of a hill).

Boy, are you wrong!

How many techniques did you pursue back then which are
long gone - dead - now? Does anybody use 100 wpm teletypewriters
anymore? Do broadcast stations have FCC licensed engineers
on duty while they're on the air anymore? Etc.

Actually, those electromechanical teletypewriters with 100
WPM throughput are still in use in a few places...

Where?

but they
are waaayyyyyy down in numbers.

So they're a dying technique. Imagine - Morse Code is probably used far
more
than those old 100 wpm teleprinters....

Teletype Corporation went
defunct some years ago...they couldn't produce a product
inexpensive enough to handle written communications needs.
Even TDDs have dropped electromechanical teletypewriters in
favor of smaller, easier to use solid-state terminals.

So they're all dead or dying technologies, while Morse Code lives on
and flourishes.

The requirements for licensed COMMERCIAL radio operators at
radio broadcasting stations is down but I haven't checked
to see if broadcasting regulations changed to allow ALL.

ALL what?

Once upon a time, there were a great variety of commercial FCC
operator licenses. Having one usually guaranteed the licensee
a fairly decent job, protected by FCC regulations. That era is long
gone. That's why I pursued an engineering degree rather than a
First Class 'Phone or 'Telegraph license.

An amateur radio license was NEVER a "qualification" to
operate anything but an amateur radio on amateur frequencies.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that an amateur radio license was
anything other than a qualification to operate an amateur radio
station. Can you show us where someone claimed otherwise, Len?

Vacuum tube design and use in designs is almost kaput.

What has that got to do with amateur radio license requirements?

he
solid-state devices made most of them obsolete. Tubes remain
only as very high-power transmitter final amplifiers, as
wideband (one octave plus) amplifiers in microwaves, as
magnetrons in microwave ovens, as assorted klystrons in
microwave radios. CRTs are going bye-bye, replaced by solid-
state displays in TV sets (to press a ****y point, "liquid-
state" in LCD screens). A very few optical detection
devices use multi-stage photomultipliers. NODs (Night
Observation Devices) still depend on a special photodetector
and photon multiplier tube set. Oh, and high-power radars
still use pulsed maggies for those transmitters.

Also in a bunch of other applications like high-end audio equipment.
There's even a computer motherboard with a tube audio section.

Tubes are
now used only as REPLACEMENTS...

Not true!

except by those who can't
hack engineering of solid-state circuits...or long for days
of yore, when they were born (or before).

Totally false, Len. Your electropolitical correctness is showing.

Your value system is very clear, Len - if something in radio
took some of your time or effort but didn't pay back in dollars,
you avoided it.

if your statement is accurate (not comenting on that yea or nea) so
what you value nothing without involing Morse Code

Poor Jimmy is verging on a breakdown.

HAW! Len, that's almost funny!

He is picking up on the
old socialist or communist sloganeering against evil, filthy
capitalists who have obtained money the old fashioned way...
they EARNED it!

Boy are *you* off base on that, Len!

Jimmy sounds like he doesn't have much money.

What does it matter? I may have more than you, Len. Or less.

Tsk, tsk. I entered electronics and radio in the vacuum tube
era and learned how to design circuits using tubes. Had to
put aside everything but the basics of those circuits in order
to work with transistors, then ICs. Took lots of learning
AND relearning to do all that and I did it on my own time.

The Army never gave you any training, Len? Nor any of your
employers?

It was worth it in the knowledge acquired, the experience
gained in making successful designs, eminently satisfactory
to me.

Do you want a merit badge?

Lots and lots of new things were learned out of sheer
interest in learning more about NEW areas, things that were
NOT of personal monetary gain.

Funny - you always talk about your jobs and such, but not
about things you've designed purely for fun, with your own
resources.

Jimmy can't shift out of his League-conditioned thinking about
morsemanship being the ultimate skill in radio.

Totally untrue on all counts.

He doesn't
understand how it is to BEGIN in HF communications WITHOUT
any morse code mode needs.

Sure I do. That's not the point.

He must really resent others
who've entered the bigger world of radio communications without
being required in any way to be morsemen.

Not me, Len. You must be looking in the mirror again.