|
An English Teacher
Bill Sohl wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm (SNIP) Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. Analogy: When a government agency puts out a project proposal and requests bids, there's always a deadline. Submitting a bid after the deadline isn't a violation of any law, but the bid will rarely if ever be considered. (An exception might be made if there were no bids or no responsive bids before the deadline). Ham Radio analogy: Contests usually have deadlines for log submissions. Sending in a late submission doesn't break the contest rules, but a late log submission probably won't make the writeup or qualify for any awards. (SNIP) FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was Not at all. The comments were split about even, for and against. how the ARRL tired to kill the ars Shows how little you know of the subject. The original 1963 ARRL proposal to FCC was simple: Return to the pre-1953 rule that required a ham to have an Advanced or Extra to work 'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz. Reopen the Advanced to new issues. No other changes. Existing Advanceds and Extras would have lost nothing. Existing Generals and Conditionals needed only to pass a written test to get the Advanced and they'd have full privileges again. Simple and effective. That proposal generated other proposals - at least 10 of them got RM numbers. The complexity of incentive licensing comes from those other proposals. THE only reason comment volume ( 6000 ) on incentive licensing was so high is because every General and every Advanced was going to LOSE privileges. That's not exactly the case, Bill, as seen above, but it's of little consequence to your point. Regardless of which version or proposal we look at, large numbers of hams stood to either lose privileges or have the upgrade requirements for them raised. Human nature is such that when threatened with a lose, people speak up... but if the changes don't truly alter their current status then most don't care and say nothing. Agreed - particularly when so many considered their license privileges to be theirs for life. But that was all beside my point. What I was and am pointing out is that even back in 1964, when there was no internet, no email, no ECFS and the US ham population was less than 40% of what it is now, FCC received 6000+ comments on a major ham radio rules change proposal. Alternative proposals, too - without word processors, websites, newsgroups or online organizations. IOW, Len's contention that the internet has somehow changed the ability of amateurs to contact FCC is not true. All ECFS has really done is make it faster and more convenient. But even in the bad old days thousands of hams were commenting directly to FCC. (SNIP) Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and well in radio today. For the price of a little study and a few tests, Len could have gotten his ham license 41 years ago. But he wasn't willing to expend the time or effort, and so he's missed out on 41 years of fun in amateur radio. No wonder he's so bitter.... It has a following in amateur radio, but that's like saying that archery is not dead as a weapon of choice because a group of people like and do it. Yep - the archery analogy is a good one. Archery isn't "dying" or a "dead end" just because guns exist. In fact, IIRC, here in PA the use of archery for deer hunting is on the rise. Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then? Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear Gee, Mark, do you ever actually listen to the HF amateur bands? Particularly the parts where amateurs commonly use Morse Code? Maybe not dying, but taking a smaller role as each year moves forward. As there are more modes added, all of the existing ones are used a little less on a percentage basis. Back in 1964, a ham on HF had the following mode choices: Morse Code/CW SSB voice AM voice NFM voice (very rare) 60 wpm Baudot-encoded RTTY (no other variety allowed) Fax (very rare) SSTV (very rare) And that was about it. All those still exist today, plus a long list of newer modes like PSK31, PACTOR, etc. Are there absolute proofs that is so? No, but reality on the ham bands seems to me to indicate so. Your mileage may vary :-) which is a very different thing from a "dying technique". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What Law is Broken?
wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm (SNIP) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? OK, I'll bite: What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form consdiering it That's not the same as breaking a law. (SNIP) FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was Not at all. The comments were split about even, for and against. yes totaly which way the coment ran shows very little and was another OT coment Not at all. It shows the incentive licensing concept had lots of support and lots of opposition - 40+ years ago. how the ARRL tired to kill the ars Shows how little you know of the subject. cuting your lecture Because it proves you're wrong. the ARRL wanted to restrict the number that is recorded from many sources Show me one. that the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highscool radio clubs? |
What Law is Broken?
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: (SNIP) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Jim is right. Anyone can send the FCC comments, messages, etc at anytime. The sending or submission of a comment outside the comment period is NOT a violation of the law. The only violation of law that could be in play then is IF and only IF the FCC accepted and integrated the comment into the FCC proceedings...BUT, even then I suspect if anyone complained that the courts would take a less than hard-line stand regarding post deadline comments. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form considering it That's not the same as breaking a law. Of course the FCC could read a post deadline comment and consider it in their braod internal review process and never make reference to it in a follow-up R&O. Who outside the FCC would even know? (SNIP) the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highschool radio clubs? I'm curious about that conclusion/result too. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
What Law is Broken?
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: (SNIP) By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Jim is right. Anyone can send the FCC comments, messages, etc at anytime. The sending or submission of a comment outside the comment period is NOT a violation of the law. strawman never said the sending of a late coment is crime I said for the FCC to consider to violate the concept of the rule of law it flouts the intent of the craetion fot he legal framwork that is supposed to guide these proceedings It is part of the road to chaos The only violation of law that could be in play then is IF and only IF the FCC accepted and integrated the comment into the FCC proceedings...BUT, even then I suspect if anyone complained that the courts would take a less than hard-line stand regarding post deadline comments. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form considering it That's not the same as breaking a law. Of course the FCC could read a post deadline comment and consider it in their braod internal review process and never make reference to it in a follow-up R&O. Who outside the FCC would even know? (SNIP) the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highschool radio clubs? I'm curious about that conclusion/result too. obvious realy something killed them about the same time also the restriction of HF that result make them obviously unattractive even today the presense of the morse code test has made the efforts of a gruop of teachers to gte a new club off the ground (with uqipement left the schoool by a late ham ) the kids simply aren't interested Morse Code as entry requirement Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
What Law is Broken?
From: Bill Sohl on Nov 30, 5:35 am
wrote in message wrote: On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message wrote: wrote: By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? It serves to indicate that there are some (allegedly "qualified") radio amateurs who cannot keep up with basic law and regulations. FCC 99-412 R&O (Memorandum Report and Order) was issued in late December 1999 establishing the "Restructuring" of U. S. radio amateur regulations to take effect in mid-2000. Comments on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Docket 98-143 are superfluous to both the public and the Commission AFTER an R&O has established the NEW regulations. There can be no question that "comments" made in August 2005 on any issue that was settled 5 years prior are superfluous and irrelevant to the Docket subject. becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all suposed to have been mailed before the deadline why does it seem you don't care about the rule of of law when it suits you There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment. sure is There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment?? What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the deadline? Jim is right. No, only disingenuous. Phil Kane ought to jump in here and explain the process on proceedings, "sunschine laws" and the like. Some Dockets visible on the ECFS have rather bold red notices included about what the Commission staff can CONSIDER insofar as reaching a decision on any Docket subject. That is law insofar as the Commission has decided for itself. Anyone can send the FCC comments, messages, etc at anytime. True, but only because the Commission leaves the ECFS and Secretary's incoming correspondence desk OPEN for several reasons: Viewing by the public as an archive, most convenient to the public unable to access the FCC Reading Room thousands of miles away; supplemental information on the Docket subject such as opening up a new Petition for change or revision by the Commission of some part of a Docket subject at a later date. The sending or submission of a comment outside the comment period is NOT a violation of the law. The one "charging" this "violation" first was Miccolis. There is NO explicit "law" or regulation forbidding such filing after a comment deadline date. However, as explained above, the Commission staff is obliged to act on ITS OWN REGULATIONS which have stated the "official" dates of comment filings. The use of specific comment period dates serves as a convenience for both the public and Commission. The Commission is required to regulate many civil radio services and as a result has a large number of tasks required by both Congressional Law and its own regulations. Comment periods cannot be open-ended and have any reasonable conclusion. The only violation of law that could be in play then is IF and only IF the FCC accepted and integrated the comment into the FCC proceedings...BUT, even then I suspect if anyone complained that the courts would take a less than hard-line stand regarding post deadline comments. See Part 0, Title 47 C.F.R. See Communications Act of 1934. See Telecommunications Act of 1996. Comment period statements by the Commission are not "illegal" but PROCEDURAL. Since the Commission has stated a Notice of PROPOSED Rulemaking, it must - at some point - make a DECISION on this proposed rulemaking. Ergo, it establishes a deadline for comments from the public to give the Commission sufficient time to reach a decision on this proposed rulemaking. That is reasonable and logical for the Commission's purpose and task. Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider the comment. it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form considering it That's not the same as breaking a law. There is NO SPECIFIC LAW in regards to comment date periods being stated by the Commission. There IS its own regulation (see Part 0) and the "sunshine law" precedents in regards to what the Commission allows ITSELF to "see." Of course the FCC could read a post deadline comment and consider it in their braod internal review process and never make reference to it in a follow-up R&O. Who outside the FCC would even know? The "barracks lawyers" who will endlessly "debate" some decision/action by any agency, long past any reasonable time of argument. :-) There are some in here who "know" what the FCC is doing even though they've never worked there. the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch the ARRl was even then How did incentive licensing affect highschool radio clubs? I'm curious about that conclusion/result too. There are over 9.700 club licenses in the FCC database right now. Maybe they all graduated high school? :-) |
What Law is Broken?
|
What Law is Broken?
wrote Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB |
What Law is Broken?
From: K0HB on Nov 30, 4:46 pm
wrote Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. Try Part 0 and/or Part 1 of Title 47 C.F.R. It is NOT in BUPERSINST 1900.8B. Have a nice day, |
An English Teacher
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com