Don't know about the emails, but you can send a letter to the commisioner or
others in the FCC. I am sure a mailing address would be listed somewhere on
their website, as well as maybe even the email addy's you mentioned.

Also, write a letter or email to you senators and congresspersons, as well
as other ones not necessarily in your district. You would be pleasantly
surprised as to what has been achieved by others over the years as far as
concerns and interests, and this without a "big-brotherish, mafioso-like"
organization taking your money and not showing where it goes but saying they
are there to support you.


I currently write (or bug) my governmental representatives on somewhat of a
regular basis. Hell, they may actually learn something as well. (both
amateur radio related and other concerns as well.)



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs
would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bill Sohl wrote:


And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Whoa there Bill! Are you saying that as of this moment, we are not part
of the treaty?


- Mike KB3EIA -=

Right ... "little LEOs" are Mobile Satellite Service systems with small
constellations of satellites in low earth orbits ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


snippage

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that
they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'll show my ignorance here What is a LEO? Low Earth Orbiter?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?


FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes. It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

Sometimes the US does the right thing even though the rest of the
world makes another choice. Lemmings march into the sea. Are they
right?

/ rant off

73, Wes, kc8spr
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has the USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

And since "concensus" is a term totally foreign to ham radio, Bill Cross himself,
the big stick at FCC for ham radio, the guy who makes all the rules that are
rubberstamped by the other otherwise-occupied staff, will make the new rules for
us, himself. He said so at Dayton a couple years ago.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite. Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.
The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Whoa there Bill! Are you saying that as of this moment, we are not part
of the treaty?
- Mike KB3EIA -=

You could say that to a certain degree. The old treaty is dead
as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The USA process
of ratification is a unique post WRC approval process for
the USA only. The rest of the world isn't
waiting for USA approval.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:
And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Surely you know more about how treaties work than to believe that. No
treaty-
-nor the recension of one-is effective until ratified by the governments
involved.

So tell us Dick, if the USA doesn't ratify does the WRC-03
become null and void? Ratification is a USA process that
may or may not have similar process in other administrations.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:51:24 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?

Nope.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify

Not gonna happen. It's an agenda item for The Congress. Too many other radio
services involved.

or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Which, to my knowledge, has never happened before.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite. Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, some lawyers somewhere will argue it.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.

Which simply means they have a different ratification process than the USA.
They choose their delegates and empower the delegates to ratify at the
convention, rather than afterwards.

The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Exactly. And until that process is carried out, the USA will abide by the old
treaty.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

Allow me to rephrase:

.....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in force
in the USA. That's my point.

73 de Jim, N2EY