Alun wrote:


If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of
that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click
your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though.

Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in
t:

Alun wrote:


If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure
of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where
you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem,
though.

Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf?

- Mike KB3EIA -



No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me!

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Rupert" wrote in message

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To give
those
"yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the process.) and send a
ballot out to all those licensed "of record." Makes too much sense and
requires some effort. IOW, against the contemporary trend.

Regulatory matters are not decided by ballot or popularity polls.

In some cases, they are. And in most cases the popularity of an issue has at
least some influence.

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in 1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and sunset
clause" idea?

They are
decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what is in the public
interest.

Ideally, yes. In practice, that's rare. For example, is the homogenization of
broadcast radio brought about by "deregulation" of ownership in the public
interest? How about BPL and the prophecy of 'broadband nirvana" - is that in
the public interest?

If such matters "are decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what is in
the public interest", why do so commenters/petitioners give a biography of
their education and experience in their commentary? Shouldn't the facts speak
for themselves, and not depend on who is saying them?

Thus the *quantity* of comments on the petitions is of no
consequence --- all that matters are the facts and arguments presented.

I disagree. Of course, popularity alone is not the deciding factor. Nor should
it be. But popularity does have an effect in most regulatory decisions.

Most
of the comments I have read are noticeably short on persuasive arguments for
either side of the issue.

Agreed!

Even if it were decided by "vote", the vote would be by the entire
citizenry, not only those few already favored with a license.

Anyone can petition to or comment to the FCC, but in amateur license matters
there are very few outside of licensed amateurs, amateur organizations and
manufacturers of amater equipment who bother to comment.

Almost *anyone* can pass the Technician test and get a license - that's been
proven by the licensing of young children. So almost anyone who is really
interested in being included in such a poll can get a license, just as almost
any citizen over 18 who is interested in voting can register to vote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
t:


Alun wrote:



If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure
of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where
you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem,
though.

Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf?

- Mike KB3EIA -




No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me!

A couple years back, People Magazine ran an online vote for "Most
Beautiful Person of the Year" on their website. This was shortly after
the movie "Titanic" was released. People's "choice " was for Leonardo
DeCaprio to run away with the honors (go figure!)

Well the word got around in the newsgroups that this was going on, and
the suggestion was made to all newsgroupies to go to the page and do a
write-in vote for "Hank, the angry drunken dwarf"

http://www.hankthedwarf.com/plain/frameset.html

Hank was definitely NOT one of the "beautiful people", and was a
perfect foil for the shallow business of celebrity worship as practiced
by the likes of People magazine. Unfortunately, Hank's "lifestyle"
caught up with him at an amazingly early age, and he is no longer with us.

But he and hundreds of thousands of newsgroupies spanked People
magazine a good one:

http://www.hankthedwarf.com/flash_dynamic/news.html


Quote:

PEOPLE ONLINE
MAY 1998
Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf wins People Online's Most Beautiful Person
in the World Poll receiving 230,169 votes dwarfing runner up Leonardo
DiCaprio and Rick Flair by over 200,000 votes.

People Online's articles after the spectacle said: "Though we're hardly
novices at handling online polls--this was out sixth--nothing could have
prepared us for the agony, the ecstacy…and well, the angry, drunken dwarf."



But my point in all this is:

Internet polls mean absolutely nothing whatsoever! I voted for Hank
three times in that poll, and if it happened today, I could vote for him
five times without trying. If I tried, I suppose I could give him around
300 votes or so.

This is the internet, and online voting won't work.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
t:


Alun wrote:



If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure
of that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where
you click your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem,
though.

Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf?

- Mike KB3EIA -




No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me!

A couple years back, People Magazine ran an online vote for "Most
Beautiful Person of the Year" on their website. This was shortly after
the movie "Titanic" was released. People's "choice " was for Leonardo
DeCaprio to run away with the honors (go figure!)

Well the word got around in the newsgroups that this was going on,
and
the suggestion was made to all newsgroupies to go to the page and do a
write-in vote for "Hank, the angry drunken dwarf"

http://www.hankthedwarf.com/plain/frameset.html

Hank was definitely NOT one of the "beautiful people", and was a
perfect foil for the shallow business of celebrity worship as practiced
by the likes of People magazine. Unfortunately, Hank's "lifestyle"
caught up with him at an amazingly early age, and he is no longer with
us.

But he and hundreds of thousands of newsgroupies spanked People
magazine a good one:

http://www.hankthedwarf.com/flash_dynamic/news.html


Quote:

PEOPLE ONLINE
MAY 1998
Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf wins People Online's Most Beautiful Person
in the World Poll receiving 230,169 votes dwarfing runner up Leonardo
DiCaprio and Rick Flair by over 200,000 votes.

People Online's articles after the spectacle said: "Though we're hardly
novices at handling online polls--this was out sixth--nothing could
have prepared us for the agony, the ecstacy…and well, the angry,
drunken dwarf."



But my point in all this is:

Internet polls mean absolutely nothing whatsoever! I voted for Hank
three times in that poll, and if it happened today, I could vote for
him five times without trying. If I tried, I suppose I could give him
around 300 votes or so.

This is the internet, and online voting won't work.


- Mike KB3EIA -



That's why I mentionned 'Chicago voters'. With apologies to anyone reading
this in Chicago, the town is famous for voting fraud. The term 'Chicago
voter' has been used to mean someone casting a vote on behalf of a dead
person. As you point out, in most Internet polls that isn't even
necessary, as no ID is submitted. That doesn't mean that there is no
solution, though. Some form of pre-registration process would be needed.

"N2EY" wrote

If such matters "are decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what
is in
the public interest", why do so commenters/petitioners give a biography of
their education and experience in their commentary?

Because it gives them a sense of self-importance, I suppose.

So almost anyone who is really interested in being included
in such a poll can get a license, ......

Ah yes, "I got mine, now you get yours; then you can comment"!!!! (Just
when I was looking for a good example of a "sense of self-importance"!)

73, de Hans, K0HB

On 14 Nov 2003 03:39:11 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article . net, Rupert
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS
documents on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change,
and how many want to keep the code.

There are only 4,600 documents in the ECFS as of the end of the
day on the east coast, this Thursday. If you have a large hard disk
and lots of time, feel free to collect ALL of them and view them, or
categorize them as you want. They are all in PDF and most
browsers will automatically invoke at least an Acrobat Reader (free
download from Adobe) if you click on the lower left underline of each
listing box.

Disregarding the RM-10811 comments, I'd say that the opinions are
roughly split evenly as to retention or elimination, based on spot-
checking the short (1-page) comments and reading all of the comments
over 1 page.

RM-10811 was submitted by FISTS and their website encourages
affirmative one-liners by all members. Over half of the FISTS petition
comments are such one or two sentence "support" statements.
According to the latest ARRL news blog, RM-10811 is the only one
that counts (FISTS is solidly pro-code) and Joe Speroni (a decided
PCTA) is the only acknowledged "petition statistician" in the ARRL
biased viewpoint.

Oddly enough, Speroni, AH0A, is responsible for RM-10808 which
gathered only 191 comments. The FISTS petition comment total
stands at 959.

The official Comment period for all petitions ended last week.

LHA


Element 1 will be gone next year. Face it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Sanford

"N2EY" wrote

So almost anyone who is really interested in being included
in such a poll can get a license, ......

Ah yes, "I got mine, now you get yours; then you can comment"!!!! (Just
when I was looking for a good example of a "sense of self-importance"!)


Not at all.

More like "I'm interested enough in the ARS to join".

Do you place much credence in the political opinions of someone who could
legally vote, but won't even take the time to register?

73 de Jim, N2EY

First off, your analogy is flaccid at best. In order to register to vote, I
generally need only to reveal my place of residence (with evidence like an
ID card, or be vouched for by another person registered to vote in the
jurisdiction). I need not take any written or skills test, nor pay any
examination fee, nor demonstrate any particular knowledge of the issues.
(In fact such impediments to registering/voting used to exist in some
jurisdictions, notably in the south, and are deemed unconstitutional.) It
speaks volumes that you'd suggest such impediments to comment on something
as mundane as regulations regarding a hobby radio service.

Second off, regardless of the applicability of your analogy, I do not judge
a persons political opinion based on whether he/she has taken the time to
register to vote. (I don't even raise that question, because it is
irrelevant to the value I place on their opinion.) I attach credence to
their opinion based on their ability to make well constructed arguments, to
succinctly state their views without resort to emotion or cliché, and
evidence that they may have considered alternate or opposing views.

The fact that you have an amateur license suggests that you will have an
opinion about amateur radio regulation, but it gives no credence in and of
itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration. Similarly
a non-licensed individual may have an opinion but lack of a license
similarly gives no credence in and of itself whether that opinion is or is
not worthy of consideration.

Thus your "almost anyone who is really interested in being included in such
a poll can get a license" strikes me as just another version of the
discredited practice of 'poll taxes' by which privileged persons attempted
to limit the influence of 'lesser' (in their pecking order) persons in
political affairs.

I don't see how your mileage can vary.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Gary Sanford
writes:

Element 1 will be gone next year. Face it.

Maybe. It's been almost half a year since WRC 2003 removed the treaty
requirement, yet less than a dozen countries have dropped or have announced the
dropping of code tests. The US isn't one of them.

Some say FCC could announce the suspension of Element 1 tomorrow. Others say it
takes a full NPRM process. Typical NPRM cycle in the ARS takes so long that
we're talking 2005.....just look at 98-143. The NPRM appeared somewhere in the
middle of 1998 but the changes that resulted weren't effective until April of
2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Oddly enough, Speroni, AH0A, is responsible for RM-10808 which
gathered only 191 comments. The FISTS petition comment total
stands at 959.



The FCC doesn't go by the number of "votes" on a petition. One well
reasoned
comment can out-rule many "me too" comments.