"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

If you only knew how wrong you are... hihi

intersting ask a question get 2 answers that are basicaly the same rude
to polite the other


Mark, (KB9RQZ?)

The difference between your reply and Phil's is your addition of the
statement above. Phil answered the question with the insight of a fmr. FCC
employee. He made no sarcastic quips based on a guess re. my
approach to "the LAW."

In essence, it is you who closed with a rude statement. BTW, I did not mean
to be rude to you. hihi is meant as a friendly chuckle, similar to :-)

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Wow! Howdy, Phil!

Kim W5TIT

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. One very
good comment can trump many "me toos". 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.

Then why ask in the first place?


one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked


Exactly. A comment that points out something that
was overlooked will have much impact. Not so for
many comments that say "This should be, because it
is "right and good"...

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. One very
good comment can trump many "me toos". 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.

the most that the majority position will count for is about the same as
a "good comment"

but so far looks like No Code will even carry that count

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.


I can just imagine the bureaucrat at the FCC who gets stuck
wading thru all the filed comments searching for the one
that might actually point out something of substance that was
overlooked and would matter. I made my comment short and
to the point: "I agree, do it, drop the code test". So
whoever at the FCC doesn't have to waste much time on
my comment.

robert casey wrote:




A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.


I can just imagine the bureaucrat at the FCC who gets stuck
wading thru all the filed comments searching for the one
that might actually point out something of substance that was
overlooked and would matter. I made my comment short and
to the point: "I agree, do it, drop the code test". So
whoever at the FCC doesn't have to waste much time on
my comment.

I thought you had to point out how the other respondants are misguided,
or whatever..... ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
robert casey wrote:
A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to
HQ.

I can just imagine the bureaucrat at the FCC who gets stuck
wading thru all the filed comments searching for the one
that might actually point out something of substance that was
overlooked and would matter. I made my comment short and
to the point: "I agree, do it, drop the code test". So
whoever at the FCC doesn't have to waste much time on
my comment.

I thought you had to point out how the other respondants are misguided, or
whatever..... ;^)
- Mike KB3EIA -

You always have the chance to point out those misquided
comments during the 15 day reply comments period. :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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.

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...

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).

FCC ignored the majority opinion back then and reduced code
testing to 5 wpm. The majority opinion was *not* acted upon
by FCC.

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.

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.


73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

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

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


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


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

The FCC will simply issue it's report and order



73 de Jim, N2EY