RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 2nd 05, 04:53 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
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?

grow up old man

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?

yes whn it result in them demanding that all must do as they did

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?

strawmen

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

never said there was either

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

Was any law broken by such late filings?

was it a late filing or merely the posting of some mail that was sent
in timely fashion by US mail

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 FCC in writing te rules as required by the Congress

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.

no I don't I calim it violates "the rule of law" the respect of
procedure

it vilates the regs to consider them

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

How? Is there a deadline for FCC?

yes

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?

they are suposed to do in a timely manner

it certainly looks improper

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?

no pat with defiling the rule of law

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?

sluing people for assuming the FCC had moved in the manner they are
supposed to

a low blow down in the stevie range

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?

your coment was nonsense all right

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!

I thought he did as point of fact

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...

no rule said he had to wait for the pulication?

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

so?

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?

given the quality (or lack of it) from the ProCode side I don't think
his coments helped the No Code side at all, but only because the rsult
was something the Procoders had the clear burden to make the case or
esle the FCC would go with the NoCode Position

indeed I don't think any of the NoCode coments will play much role in
the final outcome. I hope my coment my affect some issues on the
margin of the NPRM but it is a slim hope

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?

one should avoid being late one should meet dealines

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.

then what have yo been fighting over

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"?

by being one and something hams are whining over

how the ARRL tired to kill the ars

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

full-provileges license?

yes

Mark, Jimmy has NOT proven his "fact."

You have not disproved it, Len.

yours is the burden you are maikng the assertion

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?

did you?

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.

do they on what basis do you say that

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

Subjective opinion.

something had to do it

what else do you sugest?

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?

yes
everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account