|
Bash
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! That's a matter of copyright violation. The federal government is expressly prohibited from claiming copyright protection for materials it generates. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Doesn't apply to government documentation. You and I are free to reproduce government documentation as much as we want. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. I think it is murky on any basis. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. But we'll never know what actually happened because there is NO record of the decision process and internal analysis the FCC might have done to determine it would not pursue any legal action against Bash. Phil Kane has his own opinions, but he's not the "higher ups" that made the final decision. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! Given the liklyhood of that happening, I'll stick with my opinion that you can't go back. One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. Interesting thought. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Bash
Reposted for the interest of guys in the Pirate Radio Groups: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! That's a matter of copyright violation. The federal government is expressly prohibited from claiming copyright protection for materials it generates. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Doesn't apply to government documentation. You and I are free to reproduce government documentation as much as we want. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. I think it is murky on any basis. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. But we'll never know what actually happened because there is NO record of the decision process and internal analysis the FCC might have done to determine it would not pursue any legal action against Bash. Phil Kane has his own opinions, but he's not the "higher ups" that made the final decision. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! Given the liklyhood of that happening, I'll stick with my opinion that you can't go back. One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. Interesting thought. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY |
Experiance interval for Extra
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK That would not work, because of the rampant corruption in the FCC & ARRL. |
An English Teacher
|
An English Teacher
HEY...............
WOULD YOU PIRATE GUYS CARE TO JERK OFF WITH US? WE BEAT OUR MEATS ON CHANNEL 38 FM Community Radio wrote: The guys in the Pirate Radio groups will find the below interesting: wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Experiance interval for Extra
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? I suspect the number is relatively small. I tried and did not but then I was fousing on the General CSSE at the is time indeed a fair number of people failed the Novice and tech tests when taken together (a friend of manged to passed to tech and code test and fail the novice written she was rather depressed) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Experiance interval for Extra
|
Experiance interval for Extra
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I really have no problem with an experience criteria (e.g.a time interval between General and Extra). Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now anyone can go from any license class or no license at all to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement would mean that many hams would need at least two exam sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra. More admin work = not something FCC would like. Any idea what percent of people actually pass both the General and the Extra in one session? Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable while the number of Extras just keeps growing. Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General, there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session intending on the General and who came home with an Extra. Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed. I suspect the number is relatively small. Check the AH0A site under "new licenses". While most hams start out as Techs, every month a small but not negligible number go straight to General or Extra. That's my question, how small is that number? Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if someone went immediately from Tech to Extra at the same VE session so the ability to determine how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate It's impossible to accurately determine *upgrades* from AH0A's numbers. An upgrade is classed as a modification, same as an address or name change. But if you look at the number of new licenses, it's clear that at least some new hams bypass Tech and go straight for General or Extra. AH0A's numbers only count as "new" licenses where the licensee was not in the database at all during the previous month. Of course some "new" licenses are actually "retread" hams, who let their licenses lapse for whatever reason and now are back. Regardless of the number, I doubt FCC would bring back the experience requirement after 30 years without one. Particularly since they'd have to enforce it. What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing. Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their General. The FCC database system could automatically withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed. It could even be automatic so the person might pass their Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application reprograming as I see it. Actually the enforcement would fall upon the VEs anyway. They'd be required to only give the Extra test to those who could show a General or Advanced license that had been issued at least X amount of time previously. Form 605 could be changed so that you'd have to indicate the effective date of the General, etc. So it really wouldn't be an FCC enforcement thing at all. OTOH, it would increase FCC admin work slightly because they'd have more upgrades to process. The big hurdle would be selling FCC on the idea that an experience requirement is needed, after 30 years without one. That selling job would rival convincing them that a 5 wpm code test is still needed.......;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com