| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The Majority
Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in
regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/7t3te It was posted Mar 12 1999, by WA6VSE. Here's a relevant quote BEGIN QUOTE: Here's a summary of how the numbers came out ... more detail will be available from the NCI website soon ... special thanks to Larry Close [Larry Klose, KC8EPO] who put in a herculean effort to read EVERY record in the ECFS database and do a very comprehensive statistical analysis of the body of comment. Code Exam Proposal Summary Position Supported # % No Code Comments 711 43% (favoring 5 wpm MAX or NO code test) Pro-Code Comments 607 37% (status quo, including rants for faster code tests) ARRL Comments 331 20% ("I support the ARRL proposal" or supporting 5/12/12) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL COMMENTS 1649 100% END QUOTE (the bit about "rants" is from the poster of the results, not KC8EPO) Larry eliminated dupes and responses that did not address the code test issue. It's clear that: 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 2 or 3 code test speeds. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12, 13 or 20 wpm for Extra. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced. 80% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm for General But only 43% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm or less code testing. 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. For the record, I supported 5 wpm for General, 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced, and 20 wpm for Extra. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com... wrote: 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. 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? -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
From: b.b. on Aug 7, 7:02 am
wrote: Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. The ARRL's "substantive" poll has come and gone. WRT98-143 has come and gone. Best of Luck making your journey to the present. Jimmie is still stuck in the PAST. He is so tense he loses his tenses...it should be "what the majority WANTED"...in the past tense. As to "what happened [with regard to] NPRM 98-143," that is all viewable on the FCC ECFS under that Docket number. In short, there are 2,367 entries there up to and including the FCC-official cut-off date of 15 January 1995. There are a total of 2,671 entries under 98-143, some of which are marked as received as late as 2005! That's indicative of lots of folks stuck in some kind of Time Warp. Report and Order 99-412, released in late December of 1999, made NPRM 98-143 a thing of the past. Once an R&O is issued, its Notice of Proposed Rule Making is NO LONGER a notice but an ORDER. NPRM 98-143 covered MANY different aspects of U.S. amateur radio regulations BESIDES the morse code test. For an excellent statistical summation on the ENTIRETY of the Comments submitted, LeRoy Klose (KC8EPO) did an excellent job in no less than 4 Exhibits to the FCC plus a Reply to Comments (15 pages) which is a text tabulation of the various Commenters, dated 25 and 26 January 1999. In those it is quite evident that the no-code-test advocates were the MAJORITY and NOT the minority as Miccolis alleges and has alleged in past postings here. FCC 99-412 was released, became LAW for U.S. radio amateurs and that is that whether morsemen like it or not. WT Docket 05-235 is about ONE specific change to U.S. amateur radio regulations: Elimination of Test Element 1 concerning the morse code test required now for a new (or "upgrade" to) General or Extra class U.S. amateur radio license. That PAST commentary, ARRL polls, or pipe-dreaming by morsemen are taken as "present day opinions" is invalid for the PRESENT. Jimmie and other rabid morsemen are in deep denial of the growing desire of those interested in amateur radio to DO AWAY with the morse code test. That growth has burgeoned into a MAJORITY, not a minority any longer. A problem with those in deep denial is that they simply cannot recognize a public desire which is opposed to their own self-centered personal desires on retaining some mythical standards and practices of past times when they "bought into" those old standards and practices. As a result we have all that spin doctoring by the morsemen doing a failing job of keeping archaic standards and practices alive. They are guilty only of necro-equine flagellation...i.e., "beating a dead horse." bet not |
Bert Craig wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. 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? one becuase they are required to by law two to see if there is something they overlooked I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
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 |
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com... Bert Craig wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. 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? one becuase they are required to by law two to see if there is something they overlooked 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 -- 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 Lol! Thanks for the honest answer, Phil. As always, it's appreciated. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
Bert Craig wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Bert Craig wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. 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? one becuase they are required to by law two to see if there is something they overlooked 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 -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"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 |
|
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 |
an_old_friend wrote: 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 "...legaly (legally) bound to ignore..." I don't think so. 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 Us or anyone else. However the FCC has demonstrated significant enforcement actions over All services in recent years. Refer to the FCC's NOV/NOUO archives. 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 Sure it was. It was called the Constitution of the Untied States. That concept has been lost in the caucophony of least-common-denominatior bar-lowerings. 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 "The "wishes" you refer to are by citizens of the United States who told the government what they wanted. The government ignored them. 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 So the wishes of the citizens were ignored. The Consitution was violated. 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 Absolutely. Watch. The FCC will simply issue it's report and order And in that R&O they will say "...the majority of respondents..." Steve, K4YZ |
wrote: From: b.b. on Aug 7, 7:02 am wrote: Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. The ARRL's "substantive" poll has come and gone. WRT98-143 has come and gone. Best of Luck making your journey to the present. Jimmie is still stuck in the PAST. He is so tense he loses his tenses...it should be "what the majority WANTED"...in the past tense. As to "what happened [with regard to] NPRM 98-143," that is all viewable on the FCC ECFS under that Docket number. In short, there are 2,367 entries there up to and including the FCC-official cut-off date of 15 January 1995. There are a total of 2,671 entries under 98-143, some of which are marked as received as late as 2005! That's indicative of lots of folks stuck in some kind of Time Warp. Report and Order 99-412, released in late December of 1999, made NPRM 98-143 a thing of the past. Once an R&O is issued, its Notice of Proposed Rule Making is NO LONGER a notice but an ORDER. NPRM 98-143 covered MANY different aspects of U.S. amateur radio regulations BESIDES the morse code test. For an excellent statistical summation on the ENTIRETY of the Comments submitted, LeRoy Klose (KC8EPO) did an excellent job in no less than 4 Exhibits to the FCC plus a Reply to Comments (15 pages) which is a text tabulation of the various Commenters, dated 25 and 26 January 1999. In those it is quite evident that the no-code-test advocates were the MAJORITY and NOT the minority as Miccolis alleges and has alleged in past postings here. FCC 99-412 was released, became LAW for U.S. radio amateurs and that is that whether morsemen like it or not. WT Docket 05-235 is about ONE specific change to U.S. amateur radio regulations: Elimination of Test Element 1 concerning the morse code test required now for a new (or "upgrade" to) General or Extra class U.S. amateur radio license. That PAST commentary, ARRL polls, or pipe-dreaming by morsemen are taken as "present day opinions" is invalid for the PRESENT. Jimmie and other rabid morsemen are in deep denial of the growing desire of those interested in amateur radio to DO AWAY with the morse code test. That growth has burgeoned into a MAJORITY, not a minority any longer. A problem with those in deep denial is that they simply cannot recognize a public desire which is opposed to their own self-centered personal desires on retaining some mythical standards and practices of past times when they "bought into" those old standards and practices. As a result we have all that spin doctoring by the morsemen doing a failing job of keeping archaic standards and practices alive. They are guilty only of necro-equine flagellation...i.e., "beating a dead horse." bet not Jim is like an archivist that plays a role before each government project collecting pop can pull-off rings, shards of glass, and campfire coals. He never affects the outcome of a project, but his presence is a necessary nuisance. |
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: 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 cuting speling cop I don't think so. of course you don't that is one of the problems you don't bother learning what the turth is 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 Us or anyone else. However the FCC has demonstrated significant enforcement actions over All services in recent years. Refer to the FCC's NOV/NOUO archives. your point? 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 break Sure it was. BUZZZ wrong answer It was called the Constitution of the Untied States. nope an other Stevie lie That important document say nothing of the sort It says nothing about govening rules by direct public referendum Indeed it says nothing giving the FCC any power at all, except the socalled supremacy clasue declaering itself and any TREATIES we sign the supreme law of the land, that and the neccasary and proper clause are all that allow the FCC exist to exist as a legal body, neither says anything about governing the reags by referendum That concept has been lost in the caucophony of least-common-denominatior bar-lowerings. not at all what has been lost by you is the notion that Radio rules and regs are there to serve the PUBLIC interest not you narrow cliquish whims 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 "The "wishes" you refer to are by citizens of the United States who told the government what they wanted. and they come last by law, and very properly, nor of course are all of them citizens The government ignored them. another Stevie Lie, the Govt heard them, and found other things more pressing 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 So the wishes of the citizens were ignored. happen all the time The Consitution was violated. nope 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 Absolutely. Watch. the FCC is very unlikely to do so because it would esteablish for the first time an expectation that it was bound to follow the will f the majority of the folks that comented The FCC will simply issue it's report and order And in that R&O they will say "...the majority of respondents..." It might note that fact but that is unlikely to attribute that any weight and if it does one the lawyers that reviews it before release should be fired Steve, K4YZ |
Bill Sohl wrote: "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 I looked at a large sample of the comments filed and they are an embarassment to the Amateur Radio Service. It appears that a simple literacy test is a more urgent need than a 5 wpm code test. A first course in English grammar and basic writing wouldn't hurt either. I prefer not to comment on the logic (or lack thereof) displayed in all too many of the comments. However I did note quite a number of comments whose authors were clearly unaware of the last 15 years worth of regulatory changes or had no idea of what modes were allowed where. John |
John wrote: I looked at a large sample of the comments filed and they are an embarassment to the Amateur Radio Service. It appears that a simple literacy test is a more urgent need than a 5 wpm code test. A first course in English grammar and basic writing wouldn't hurt either. I prefer not to comment on the logic (or lack thereof) displayed in all too many of the comments. However I did note quite a number of comments whose authors were clearly unaware of the last 15 years worth of regulatory changes or had no idea of what modes were allowed where. John John, Extra Bruce/WA8ULX is somehow simultaneously a brilliant test taker and a functional illiterate. The comments posted here earlier look like a page out of his playbook. I'm sure he's not alone in his Extraness and stupidity, and willingness to sabotage the U.S. amateur radio service. $0.02. bb |
On 9 Aug 2005 20:35:08 -0700, "b.b." wrote:
John, Extra Bruce/WA8ULX is somehow simultaneously a brilliant test taker and a functional illiterate. The comments posted here earlier look like a page out of his playbook. I'm sure he's not alone in his Extraness and stupidity, and willingness to sabotage the U.S. amateur radio service. $0.02. bb At my company, there was a maintenance supervisor who was as stubborn and illiterate as Bruce. You either did things his way, or he would write you up for insubordination. Often times, his way would involve unsafe acts that violated safety practices and OSHA regulations. For whatever reason, he didn't think such rules applied to the people working under him. (Fortunately, he was put in his place for this before someone got hurt, and started abiding by safety procedures.) The best part about this guy was the shift reports that he'd write. These were e-mailed to an intranet list server, and many people, including company executives, received them. The reports were full of spelling errors, terrible grammar, and looked like they were written by a second grader. Yet, no one cared or did anything about this because the man had been with the company for so long. It was more of a joke than anything else. Even though the shift reports were internal, I had often wondered what would have happened if a customer would have seen some of these reports. Would they still shrug it off easily if they knew such an ignoramus was costing them money? Would they think it was such a big joke when they started losing orders? It's the same with Bruce. Do the newcomers to amateur radio see Bruce's rants, and think, "If this is what amateur radio has among its ranks, I want no part of it." Most of us ignore Bruce, or see him as a joke. However, his incomprehensible ramblings and insults against "CB Plussers" brand him as a hypocrite and a disgrace far beyond the people he derides, and that certainly is no joke. |
Uncle Ted:
Your point is well taken, and I do believe a variety of "tools" have been used to discourage new membership, and in subversive ways. Strange it has worked so well for so long. But in the end, when the pathetic end of all this is examined, it is hard not to see what has been occurring. John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:53:31 -0400, Uncle Ted wrote: On 9 Aug 2005 20:35:08 -0700, "b.b." wrote: John, Extra Bruce/WA8ULX is somehow simultaneously a brilliant test taker and a functional illiterate. The comments posted here earlier look like a page out of his playbook. I'm sure he's not alone in his Extraness and stupidity, and willingness to sabotage the U.S. amateur radio service. $0.02. bb At my company, there was a maintenance supervisor who was as stubborn and illiterate as Bruce. You either did things his way, or he would write you up for insubordination. Often times, his way would involve unsafe acts that violated safety practices and OSHA regulations. For whatever reason, he didn't think such rules applied to the people working under him. (Fortunately, he was put in his place for this before someone got hurt, and started abiding by safety procedures.) The best part about this guy was the shift reports that he'd write. These were e-mailed to an intranet list server, and many people, including company executives, received them. The reports were full of spelling errors, terrible grammar, and looked like they were written by a second grader. Yet, no one cared or did anything about this because the man had been with the company for so long. It was more of a joke than anything else. Even though the shift reports were internal, I had often wondered what would have happened if a customer would have seen some of these reports. Would they still shrug it off easily if they knew such an ignoramus was costing them money? Would they think it was such a big joke when they started losing orders? It's the same with Bruce. Do the newcomers to amateur radio see Bruce's rants, and think, "If this is what amateur radio has among its ranks, I want no part of it." Most of us ignore Bruce, or see him as a joke. However, his incomprehensible ramblings and insults against "CB Plussers" brand him as a hypocrite and a disgrace far beyond the people he derides, and that certainly is no joke. |
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote: 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 "...legaly (legally) bound to ignore..." I don't think so. In this case, the truth is in the middle. FCC is not required to follow majority opinion, but neither are they supposed to ignore it. The main point is that the majority opinion on 98-143 wanted more code testing than 5 wpm. But that opinion was ignored by FCC. The majoriy wanted 5 wpm for General but *not* for all code-tested licenses. KC8EPO's analysis proves it. 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 Us or anyone else. However the FCC has demonstrated significant enforcement actions over All services in recent years. Refer to the FCC's NOV/NOUO archives. Sure. 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 Sure it was. It was called the Constitution of the Untied States. That's not what the Constitution promises. What the Constitution does is to set the structure of our govt. and limit its power. What that means in specific cases is what keeps the Supremes busy. Note that the Constitution is particularly concerned with protecting the rights of the individual and the minority against those of the mob and the majority. That's why we have trial-by-jury instead of trial-by-public-opinion-poll. And it takes a 2/3 vote to amend the constitution, not just a majority. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA - remember that?) failed to be enacted because of the lack of a 2/3 majority, even after a time extension. That concept has been lost in the caucophony of least-common-denominatior bar-lowerings. It's called checks and balances. The wishes of the majority are balanced against the rights of the individual. 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 "The "wishes" you refer to are by citizens of the United States who told the government what they wanted. The government ignored them. Yep, they did. Actually, the only time the govt. is required to submit to the will of the majority of the people is in certain elections and referenda. (In a presidential election, the candidate with the majority of votes can still lose - it's already happened). 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 So the wishes of the citizens were ignored. Yup. The Consitution was violated. Nope. There's no requirement for FCC to do what the majority of commenters want. 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 Absolutely. Watch. Of course! The FCC will simply issue it's report and order And in that R&O they will say "...the majority of respondents..." Because FCC has to include verbiage justifying its actions. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
b.b. wrote: John wrote: I looked at a large sample of the comments filed and they are an embarassment to the Amateur Radio Service. It appears that a simple literacy test is a more urgent need than a 5 wpm code test. A first course in English grammar and basic writing wouldn't hurt either. I prefer not to comment on the logic (or lack thereof) displayed in all too many of the comments. However I did note quite a number of comments whose authors were clearly unaware of the last 15 years worth of regulatory changes or had no idea of what modes were allowed where. John John, Extra Bruce/WA8ULX is somehow simultaneously a brilliant test taker and a functional illiterate. The comments posted here earlier look like a page out of his playbook. I'm sure he's not alone in his Extraness and stupidity, and willingness to sabotage the U.S. amateur radio service. $0.02. bb I was very careful NOT to say to which side of the argument I was referring to since it clearly refers to both. So the first reply immediately attacks a poster from one side - I guess it is no more than I expected. Whether or not you agree with the comments I filed, I hope you agree that at least they are in English. 73 John K4BNC |
"K4YZ" wrote So the wishes of the citizens were ignored. The Consitution(sic) was violated. OK folks, you read it right here! FCC Docket 98-143 is unconstitutional! The FCC proceeding has been struck down by the County Court of Franklin County Tennessee, the Honorable Judge Steven J Robeson presiding. Hope the VEC's didn't throw away their 13 and 20WPM testing materials. Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep de Hans, K0HB |
.... interesting, now county courts are going to start ruling of federal regulations? John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:49:08 +0000, KØHB wrote: "K4YZ" wrote So the wishes of the citizens were ignored. The Consitution(sic) was violated. OK folks, you read it right here! FCC Docket 98-143 is unconstitutional! The FCC proceeding has been struck down by the County Court of Franklin County Tennessee, the Honorable Judge Steven J Robeson presiding. Hope the VEC's didn't throw away their 13 and 20WPM testing materials. Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep de Hans, K0HB |
After years and years and years of tolerance, Jim/N2EY was finally
cornered and he rendered the opinion that Bruce was an embarassment to the ARS. You go Jim! John Smith wrote: Uncle Ted: Your point is well taken, and I do believe a variety of "tools" have been used to discourage new membership, and in subversive ways. Strange it has worked so well for so long. But in the end, when the pathetic end of all this is examined, it is hard not to see what has been occurring. John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:53:31 -0400, Uncle Ted wrote: On 9 Aug 2005 20:35:08 -0700, "b.b." wrote: John, Extra Bruce/WA8ULX is somehow simultaneously a brilliant test taker and a functional illiterate. The comments posted here earlier look like a page out of his playbook. I'm sure he's not alone in his Extraness and stupidity, and willingness to sabotage the U.S. amateur radio service. $0.02. bb At my company, there was a maintenance supervisor who was as stubborn and illiterate as Bruce. You either did things his way, or he would write you up for insubordination. Often times, his way would involve unsafe acts that violated safety practices and OSHA regulations. For whatever reason, he didn't think such rules applied to the people working under him. (Fortunately, he was put in his place for this before someone got hurt, and started abiding by safety procedures.) The best part about this guy was the shift reports that he'd write. These were e-mailed to an intranet list server, and many people, including company executives, received them. The reports were full of spelling errors, terrible grammar, and looked like they were written by a second grader. Yet, no one cared or did anything about this because the man had been with the company for so long. It was more of a joke than anything else. Even though the shift reports were internal, I had often wondered what would have happened if a customer would have seen some of these reports. Would they still shrug it off easily if they knew such an ignoramus was costing them money? Would they think it was such a big joke when they started losing orders? It's the same with Bruce. Do the newcomers to amateur radio see Bruce's rants, and think, "If this is what amateur radio has among its ranks, I want no part of it." Most of us ignore Bruce, or see him as a joke. However, his incomprehensible ramblings and insults against "CB Plussers" brand him as a hypocrite and a disgrace far beyond the people he derides, and that certainly is no joke. |
"John Smith" wrote ... interesting, now county courts are going to start ruling of federal regulations? Seems that way. Judge Steven J. Robeson (aka "K4YZ/K4CAP") has ruled FCC Docket 98-143 was crafted in violation of the Consitution (sic). You could look it up on Google! Beep Beep de Hans, K0HB |
.... obviously a joke I am barely aware of ... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:07:15 +0000, KØHB wrote: "John Smith" wrote ... interesting, now county courts are going to start ruling of federal regulations? Seems that way. Judge Steven J. Robeson (aka "K4YZ/K4CAP") has ruled FCC Docket 98-143 was crafted in violation of the Consitution (sic). You could look it up on Google! Beep Beep de Hans, K0HB |
Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in
regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/7t3te It was posted Mar 12 1999, by WA6VSE. Here's a relevant quote BEGIN QUOTE: Here's a summary of how the numbers came out ... more detail will be available from the NCI website soon ... special thanks to Larry Close [Larry Klose, KC8EPO] who put in a herculean effort to read EVERY record in the ECFS database and do a very comprehensive statistical analysis of the body of comment. Code Exam Proposal Summary Position Supported # % No Code Comments 711 43% (favoring 5 wpm MAX or NO code test) Pro-Code Comments 607 37% (status quo, including rants for faster code tests) ARRL Comments 331 20% ("I support the ARRL proposal" or supporting 5/12/12) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL COMMENTS 1649 100% END QUOTE (the bit about "rants" is from the poster of the results, not KC8EPO) Larry eliminated dupes and responses that did not address the code test issue. It's clear that: 43% is not a majority, yet they got what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 2 or 3 code test speeds. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12, 13 or 20 wpm for Extra. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced. That majority did not get what they wanted. 80% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm for General That majority did get what they wanted. But only 43% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm or less code testing. That's a minorty, but that's what FCC did. 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. If someone thinks 43% is a majority, they're either lying or they don't understand what the words mean. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
more abusing of poor dead equines Jim
wrote: Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/7t3te It was posted Mar 12 1999, by WA6VSE. Here's a relevant quote BEGIN QUOTE: Here's a summary of how the numbers came out ... more detail will be available from the NCI website soon ... special thanks to Larry Close [Larry Klose, KC8EPO] who put in a herculean effort to read EVERY record in the ECFS database and do a very comprehensive statistical analysis of the body of comment. Code Exam Proposal Summary Position Supported # % No Code Comments 711 43% (favoring 5 wpm MAX or NO code test) Pro-Code Comments 607 37% (status quo, including rants for faster code tests) ARRL Comments 331 20% ("I support the ARRL proposal" or supporting 5/12/12) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL COMMENTS 1649 100% END QUOTE (the bit about "rants" is from the poster of the results, not KC8EPO) Larry eliminated dupes and responses that did not address the code test issue. It's clear that: 43% is not a majority, yet they got what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 2 or 3 code test speeds. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12, 13 or 20 wpm for Extra. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced. That majority did not get what they wanted. 80% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm for General That majority did get what they wanted. But only 43% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 5 wpm or less code testing. That's a minorty, but that's what FCC did. 57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all license classes requiring a code test. If someone thinks 43% is a majority, they're either lying or they don't understand what the words mean. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/7t3te It was posted Mar 12 1999, by WA6VSE. Here's a relevant quote BEGIN QUOTE: Here's a summary of how the numbers came out ... more detail will be available from the NCI website soon ... special thanks to Larry Close [Larry Klose, KC8EPO] who put in a herculean effort to read EVERY record in the ECFS database and do a very comprehensive statistical analysis of the body of comment. Code Exam Proposal Summary Position Supported # % No Code Comments 711 43% (favoring 5 wpm MAX or NO code test) Pro-Code Comments 607 37% (status quo, including rants for faster code tests) ARRL Comments 331 20% ("I support the ARRL proposal" or supporting 5/12/12) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL COMMENTS 1649 100% END QUOTE (the bit about "rants" is from the poster of the results, not KC8EPO) Larry eliminated dupes and responses that did not address the code test issue. It's clear that: 43% is not a majority, yet they got what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 2 or 3 code test speeds. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12, 13 or 20 wpm for Extra. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced. That majority did not get what they wanted. Lessee, 57% + 57% + 57% = 171%, a clear majority. |
From: on Fri 19 Aug 2005 12:58
wrote: Recently there have been some claims about "what the majority wants" in regards to FCC NPRMs. Here's what happened wrt 98-143, the last big restructuring NPRM, and commenters' views on code testing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.policy/msg/bd661a50825a37f3?dmode=source&hl=en http://tinyurl.com/7t3te It was posted Mar 12 1999, by WA6VSE. Here's a relevant quote Ackshully, one ought to go to the SOURCE which is easily accessible by anyone with Internet access. Just go to the FCC ECFS and for WT Docket 98-143, look under 25 and 26 January 1999 for postings by LeRoy Klose III. Include the attachment links. That gets one into Larry Klose's remarkable summary of ALL Comments on 98-143 up to 25 January 1999 (the official cut-off date was 15 January 1999). Brian, Jimmie wants to have everyone look at "second-hand" information, an encapsulated form. It is better to look at the REAL stuff, FIRST-HAND, which is readily available. Larry eliminated dupes and responses that did not address the code test issue. It's clear that: 43% is not a majority, yet they got what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 2 or 3 code test speeds. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12, 13 or 20 wpm for Extra. That majority did not get what they wanted. 57% of those who commented on 98-143 wanted 12 or 13 wpm for Advanced. That majority did not get what they wanted. Lessee, 57% + 57% + 57% = 171%, a clear majority. Jimmie has a wonderful way with numbers... :-) Jimmie is also stuck firmly in the PAST. 1998 was SEVEN YEARS AGO and the Internet was in its 7th public year. FCC 99-412, ordered in December, 1999, established the "Amateur Restructuring" which took place in mid-2000. AT THE TIME (1998-1999), it was IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the morse code test for ANY U.S. amateur radio license having privileges of operating below 30 MHz. The barrier was S25.5 of the ITU-R...colloquially known (or mis-known) as "the treaty." [there is NO specific treaty on morse code, only the honor system whereby all administrations are supposed to adhere to ITU decisions on standards and allocations] Conveniently missing is that the FCC's reasons for 90-53, of 1990, 15 years ago, was that it did not feel that any manual morse code skill test was any sort of qualifier for the Commission to grant an applicant a license. That established the reason-for-being of creation of the no-code- test Technician class license. Also conventiently omitted is EIGHTEEN Petitions, nearly all varying in general "re-re-structuring" having none-some-all code testing. Absolutely NO CONSENSUS could be gained from reviewing all 18 Pentitions...even though the Commission had stated publicly several times that it wanted a consensus. The "amateur community" is highly polarized on the subject of code testing and remains so seven years after 1998. This year, 2005, is SEVEN years from the 98-143 Docket. It is also the 14th year of public access to the Internet (it went public in 1991). Far more citizens have access to the Internet in 2005 than they did in 1998. In 2003 the Census Bureau reported that one in five Americans had some form of Internet access then. Nearly all the Comments on WT Docket 05-235 are electronic rather than written on paper. So far, in the 23rd day of Comments on WT Docket 05-235, there are 1720 documents on file, about 75 a day on the average! Compare that to the 2300+ Comments of WT Docket 98-143 whose commentary period was extended for nearly six months after release. There's far more "traffic" on 05-235 than there was on 98-143. At time NOW, in 2005, the MAJORITY are very adamantly showing they ARE a majority. Unambiguous opinions (95.3% of all filings) show a 4:2:1 ratio of For:Against:Extra-Only on elimination of the code test. There is easily a 2:1 ratio of those favoring NPRM 05-143 versus those opposing it. The IARU, helped/nudged/influenced by international membership of NCI, was the main operator in wanting S25 of the ITU Radio Regulations re-written. [it was more than just S25.5 covering code testing] It was done in mid-July, 2003, over two years ago. Since then TWENTY-THREE other countries have dropped morse code testing for their radio amateurs licenses having below-30-MHz operating privileges. Summary: The FCC wants to drop code testing, the IARU wants to drop code testing, 23 nations already have done so, and a CLEAR MAJORITY of WT Docket 05-235 Commenters want it dropped. That CLEAR MAJORUTY is 2:1 for dropping it versus those wanting it retained. That CLEAR MAJORITY is 58% of those who have unambiguously commented. Jimmie wants to crawl back seven years and live there... :-( sin die |
"There is little in the world
more stupid than a majority." Alexander Hamilton |
Funny, Saddam Husein might have said those very words... John On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:28:59 +0000, David Stinson wrote: "There is little in the world more stupid than a majority." Alexander Hamilton |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com