| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#22
October 17th 06, 01:20 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: Do you see the disparity, particularly for Generals? Why should it exist? What did Generals do to merit losing so much spectrum? Failed to upgrade is the trite answer. Maybe so! Absolutely so. This thing is a watered-down repeat of the 1960s "restructuring". The more things change.... The old General phone band was 3800-4000. The circle is complete. Note how, in more than one Report and Order, FCC has pointed out how little testing it takes to upgrade to Extra. FCC has repeatedly turned down all proposals that would have granted instant upgrades, like making all Advanceds into Extras. Maybe it's time to take the hint. Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other? It sets a bad precedent. In what respect? That they will reduce privileges of existing licenses. Maybe it's the result of the ARRLs pestering the FCC to publish a response to the NPRMs. So the FCC did and damn the torpedoes so this is what we got. For now. Bought the FCC more time to quietly come up with their "real" omnibus NPRM/R&O? I think we're on to the same idea. I wonder what FCC really thinks of us hams. PIAs. Their problem. Naw, it's ours, because we can't vote them out. Sure, they say certain things - because they have to. But consider what amateur radio may look like to at least some of them: We have huge amounts of spectrum set aside for us by international treaty, and we yelp at the loss of even small amounts of it to other services.We don't generate any real revenue, yet we keep asking for more enforcement. Users of other services complain about interference from us (even when it's not our fault) and we complain about interference from power lines, appliances, etc., that don't seem to bother anybody else. We raise holy heck over new technologies like BPL, even though the state-of-the-art experts who design the new technologies say we amateurs are wrong. The "relationship" between ham radio and the FCC is no different overall than the way the FAA gets pounded by the recreational aviation crowd and the Department of the Interior gets Excedrin headaches from the hiking, camping, hunting and fishing bunch. The ongoing regulatory brawls between the skimobile/ATV users vs. the preservationists make our little code test dispute look laughable in comparison. When it's all said and done the regulatory agencies have been instructed by law and funded by Congress to deal with the sometimes goofy issues we the public stick them with - since it's *us* who are paying them to do it. Sure - but the results may be very different. I doubt FCC is too worried about the amateur community as "the public". They're too busy dealing with wardrobe malfunctions and Howard Stern wannabes. And now the big one: We amateurs send in way too many petitions/proposals to FCC, and then cannot agree about what we really want. I think what FCC expects is for us hams to argue amongst ourselves and work out what rules we really want *before* sending in any petitions/proposals. Then, when a proposal is sent in and FCC gives it an RM number, the comments are overwhelmingly positive and FCC's job is easy. Look at the recent "bandwidth" proposals. ARRL sends in one, a group called CTT sends in another. Both are given RM numbers and very short comment periods. Both get a ton of comments - overwhelmingly opposed! CTT is opposed even more than ARRL (something like 7 or 8 to 1 against for both of them). Could be that the folks at FCC who have to go through all that are angry at having to deal with it? Two groups who both claim to know what's best for amateur radio sent in proposals that cost a lot of FCC resources. But neither group gets widespread amateur support *first*, so the comments are an overwhelming "NO!" to both proposals. The Morse Code test issue is even more of a mess. Treaty changes, FCC gets *18* proposals! Huh? Some are poles apart while others are virtually identical. They gotta deal with 18 RMs and comments on all of them. No sympathy. See above about who gets paid to do what. There's no modern-day equivalent of K7UGA to put a bit of a scare into 'em, though. One self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL", who isn't even a ham and doesn't intend to be one, sends them hundreds of pages of comments and reply comments, which they have to wade through. No way. The FCC staffers who deal with these things don't live in a vacuum, they're not stupid and they know bull**** when it lands in their inboxes and they know how to handle it. Agreed. By now they've long since gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado. They gotta accept 'em and read 'em. They don't have to act on them. He's not having any impact at all at the FCC and he knows it, he's trolling for folk like you who get their knickers in a twist over his nonsense. I doubt he knows it. As for knickers, it's not mine that are in a twist. FCC could have just dropped Element 1 in August 2003. Memorandum Report and Order, coupla paragraphs and done. All they'd have to do is say that the issue was thoroughly discussed before the 2000 restructuring, and the treaty was the only reason they kept Element 1. But they didn't, and now it's almost 3-1/2 years later. Now look at what Industry Canada dealt with. The national society worked out a compromise on the issue, got consensus from its members and the general Canadian amateur radio community, *then* made a proposal - complete with detailed poll results. Proposal was supported in comments and sailed right through. RAC made IC's work easy. When's the last time *any* proposal sent to FCC by hams (not just ARRL) got widespread support in the comments? Back when I worked in Canada for a number of months and it was a real eye-opener. One big lesson I learned is that Yanks in general don't understand that in many respects Canada is culturally quite different from the U.S. even though the language is functionally identical and the border is wide open by international standards. In a nutshell my take has been that Canadians are far more likely to come to a consensus than we are by their general nature. So are most of the Europeans. We're the global odd jobs, we're notorious all over the planet for preferring food fights to regulatory peace and quiet. We is what we is, the old "herding cats" syndrome in play. Yup. But that makes no difference when it comes to getting what we want out of FCC. I think we'd do a lot better to get a consensus *before* deluging them with proposals and comments, that's all. But that's a lot of work. You think an outfit like NCI is going to do all the legwork and compromising to get consensus? Don't hold yer breath. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#23
October 17th 06, 02:40 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
Phil Wheeler wrote in
: Slow Code wrote: "Iitoi" wrote in ink.net: 80M and 40M phone band expansion http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc I don't know if we'll get Mad right away but it's clear the FCC and the ARRL want to drive all good hams out of the service. Little by little they'll take away the non-phone portions of the bands and hand it over to the phone users. Nonsense. The CW bands are not exactly overcrowded (or have you been listening there). 73, Phil w7ox You can thank the ITU and Nickle licenses for that. SC |
|
#24
October 17th 06, 08:01 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote: wrote: wrote: Absolutely so. This thing is a watered-down repeat of the 1960s "restructuring". The more things change.... The old General phone band was 3800-4000. The circle is complete. I was there the first night we were allowed to operate below 3800, worked an EA. Lotta ticked off VEs, Helluva mess. Lotta fun. Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other? It sets a bad precedent. In what respect? That they will reduce privileges of existing licenses. You're almost 40 years late. The precedent was carved in stone as a result of the Incentive Licensing R&Os of the late 1960s and they just did it again. I'm not familiar with the 'wayback history of it but maybe there were similar occurrences before 1950. I wonder what FCC really thinks of us hams. PIAs. Their problem. Naw, it's ours, because we can't vote them out. Which, in the final analysis, is probably in our best interests. The "relationship" between ham radio and the FCC is no different overall than the way the FAA gets pounded by the recreational aviation crowd and the Department of the Interior gets Excedrin headaches from the hiking, camping, hunting and fishing bunch. The ongoing regulatory brawls between the skimobile/ATV users vs. the preservationists make our little code test dispute look laughable in comparison. When it's all said and done the regulatory agencies have been instructed by law and funded by Congress to deal with the sometimes goofy issues we the public stick them with - since it's *us* who are paying them to do it. Sure - but the results may be very different. I doubt FCC is too worried about the amateur community as "the public". They're too busy dealing with wardrobe malfunctions and Howard Stern wannabes. That sort of stuff is handled by the upper-level politically sensitive types at the FCC, our fates are crafted by the OET jorneymen. The BPL flap excepted. The Morse Code test issue is even more of a mess. Treaty changes, FCC gets *18* proposals! Huh? Some are poles apart while others are virtually identical. They gotta deal with 18 RMs and comments on all of them. No sympathy. See above about who gets paid to do what. There's no modern-day equivalent of K7UGA to put a bit of a scare into 'em, though. Sen. Goldwater, Art Collins, Gen. LeMay, hams in high places within the FCC . . Golden days . . heh. By now they've long since gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado. They gotta accept 'em and read 'em. They don't have to act on them. Who audits this process to make sure they all get "equal reads" and consideration? Where's the published policies on the topic? Answer: There ain't neither. You can fill in the rest. You're the local manager of the FCC group which totes up the comments on ham radio NPRMs, you also have a budget and a calander to manage and you know you gotta plow through the piles of comments in as efficient a maner as you can. Ordinary common sense and business smarts indicate that you'll pass out some informal set of criteria or another about who's comments to spend serious time on and who's to just give a quick scan and toss into the "agree"or "disagree" stacks with all sorts of variations in between. Considering the fact that Anderson's only inputs to the process have been a stream of workload for them from a non-ham bush-leaguer it wouldn't surprise me if they also had a stack for his drivel marked "cranks". Ten second scan, done, flick, into the stack it goes. He's not having any impact at all at the FCC and he knows it, he's trolling for folk like you who get their knickers in a twist over his nonsense. I doubt he knows it. Then he's even more off the wall than I've given him credit for. As for knickers, it's not mine that are in a twist. Then howcum you brought him up? Or were you trolling ME?! FCC could have just dropped Element 1 in August 2003. Memorandum Report and Order, coupla paragraphs and done. All they'd have to do is say that the issue was thoroughly discussed before the 2000 restructuring, and the treaty was the only reason they kept Element 1. But they didn't, and now it's almost 3-1/2 years later. (a) They're toying with us for jollies. (b) They know it doesn't matter one way or another. (c) They're internally deadlocked on the subject just like we are. (d) It'll show up in Omnibus II. We're the global odd jobs, we're notorious all over the planet for preferring food fights to regulatory peace and quiet. We is what we is, the old "herding cats" syndrome in play. Yup. But that makes no difference when it comes to getting what we want out of FCC. I think we'd do a lot better to get a consensus *before* deluging them with proposals and comments, that's all. Idealism and standard motherhood get you nowhere. But that's a lot of work. You think an outfit like NCI is going to do all the legwork and compromising to get consensus? Don't hold yer breath. Not in our lifetimes. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
#25
October 18th 06, 03:36 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Absolutely so. This thing is a watered-down repeat of the 1960s "restructuring". The more things change.... The old General phone band was 3800-4000. The circle is complete. I was there the first night we were allowed to operate below 3800, worked an EA. Lotta ticked off VEs, Helluva mess. Lotta fun. Indeed! Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other? It sets a bad precedent. In what respect? That they will reduce privileges of existing licenses. You're almost 40 years late. The precedent was carved in stone as a result of the Incentive Licensing R&Os of the late 1960s and they just did it again. The point is that since 1969 they haven't. I'm not familiar with the 'wayback history of it but maybe there were similar occurrences before 1950. Not one that I know of since the inception of the ABC system. I wonder what FCC really thinks of us hams. PIAs. Their problem. Naw, it's ours, because we can't vote them out. Which, in the final analysis, is probably in our best interests. Consider how qualified the head of FEMA was to handle Katrina... The "relationship" between ham radio and the FCC is no different overall than the way the FAA gets pounded by the recreational aviation crowd and the Department of the Interior gets Excedrin headaches from the hiking, camping, hunting and fishing bunch. The ongoing regulatory brawls between the skimobile/ATV users vs. the preservationists make our little code test dispute look laughable in comparison. When it's all said and done the regulatory agencies have been instructed by law and funded by Congress to deal with the sometimes goofy issues we the public stick them with - since it's *us* who are paying them to do it. Sure - but the results may be very different. I doubt FCC is too worried about the amateur community as "the public". They're too busy dealing with wardrobe malfunctions and Howard Stern wannabes. That sort of stuff is handled by the upper-level politically sensitive types at the FCC, our fates are crafted by the OET jorneymen. The BPL flap excepted. Maybe. If ya think BPL isn't political, ya haven't been paying attention. The Morse Code test issue is even more of a mess. Treaty changes, FCC gets *18* proposals! Huh? Some are poles apart while others are virtually identical. They gotta deal with 18 RMs and comments on all of them. No sympathy. See above about who gets paid to do what. There's no modern-day equivalent of K7UGA to put a bit of a scare into 'em, though. Sen. Goldwater, Art Collins, Gen. LeMay, hams in high places within the FCC . . Golden days . . heh. Yup. By now they've long since gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado. They gotta accept 'em and read 'em. They don't have to act on them. Who audits this process to make sure they all get "equal reads" and consideration? Where's the published policies on the topic? Answer: There ain't neither. You can fill in the rest. They do read all of the comments. What they conclude is another matter. You're the local manager of the FCC group which totes up the comments on ham radio NPRMs, you also have a budget and a calander to manage and you know you gotta plow through the piles of comments in as efficient a maner as you can. Ordinary common sense and business smarts indicate that you'll pass out some informal set of criteria or another about who's comments to spend serious time on and who's to just give a quick scan and toss into the "agree"or "disagree" stacks with all sorts of variations in between. Bingo. Particularly if there's nothing new in the 200+ pages of comments and reply comments from one person! Considering the fact that Anderson's only inputs to the process have been a stream of workload for them from a non-ham bush-leaguer it wouldn't surprise me if they also had a stack for his drivel marked "cranks". Ten second scan, done, flick, into the stack it goes. They gotta read 'em. Doesn't mean they gotta agree with 'em or act on 'em. He's not having any impact at all at the FCC and he knows it, he's trolling for folk like you who get their knickers in a twist over his nonsense. I doubt he knows it. Then he's even more off the wall than I've given him credit for. Not my problem. Not yours, either. As for knickers, it's not mine that are in a twist. Then howcum you brought him up? Just to show what FCC has to put up with and why they *might* be a little ticked... Or were you trolling ME?! Not trolling anybody. Besides, have you submitted hundreds of pages? FCC could have just dropped Element 1 in August 2003. Memorandum Report and Order, coupla paragraphs and done. All they'd have to do is say that the issue was thoroughly discussed before the 2000 restructuring, and the treaty was the only reason they kept Element 1. But they didn't, and now it's almost 3-1/2 years later. (a) They're toying with us for jollies. (b) They know it doesn't matter one way or another. (c) They're internally deadlocked on the subject just like we are. (d) It'll show up in Omnibus II. I'd say (a) and (b), plus a bit of (e) They are ticked off at the 18 petitions, lack of consensus and mountains of commentary. We're the global odd jobs, we're notorious all over the planet for preferring food fights to regulatory peace and quiet. We is what we is, the old "herding cats" syndrome in play. Yup. But that makes no difference when it comes to getting what we want out of FCC. I think we'd do a lot better to get a consensus *before* deluging them with proposals and comments, that's all. Idealism and standard motherhood get you nowhere. I'm not saying it'll ever happen, just that it explains why it takes so long to get anything from FCC and why the result is so unlike what is proposed. But that's a lot of work. You think an outfit like NCI is going to do all the legwork and compromising to get consensus? Don't hold yer breath. Not in our lifetimes. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#26
October 18th 06, 06:33 PM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote: wrote: wrote: Sure - but the results may be very different. I doubt FCC is too worried about the amateur community as "the public". They're too busy dealing with wardrobe malfunctions and Howard Stern wannabes. That sort of stuff is handled by the upper-level politically sensitive types at the FCC, our fates are crafted by the OET jorneymen. The BPL flap excepted. Maybe. If ya think BPL isn't political, ya haven't been paying attention. ?? . . that's why I stated "the BPL flap excepted". By now they've long since gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado. They gotta accept 'em and read 'em. They don't have to act on them. Who audits this process to make sure they all get "equal reads" and consideration? Where's the published policies on the topic? Answer: There ain't neither. You can fill in the rest. They do read all of the comments. Highly unlikely particulary in cases like Anderson's nonsense *and* I'll only believe it when I see it. Unless you gots documentation to the contrary or you've been there yourself. What they conclude is another matter. Yeah, they conclude on sight that they're not gonna actually read his crap . . Then he's even more off the wall than I've given him credit for. Not my problem. Not yours, either. That I agree with. FCC could have just dropped Element 1 in August 2003. Memorandum Report and Order, coupla paragraphs and done. All they'd have to do is say that the issue was thoroughly discussed before the 2000 restructuring, and the treaty was the only reason they kept Element 1. But they didn't, and now it's almost 3-1/2 years later. (a) They're toying with us for jollies. (b) They know it doesn't matter one way or another. (c) They're internally deadlocked on the subject just like we are. (d) It'll show up in Omnibus II. I'd say (a) and (b), plus a bit of (e) They are ticked off at the 18 petitions, lack of consensus and mountains of commentary. I doubt that there's much (e) involved, they've been patrolling up and down our back road in the RF wilderness for decades and they're quite used to it. Used to us and our level of noisy BS. In any event thee and me are bulletproof, we're 20WPM Extras so I could care less when they bite the bullet and do whatever they're gonna do about the code test. 'Course I thought I was bulletproof in 1967 too when I had a General . .. . But that makes no difference when it comes to getting what we want out of FCC. I think we'd do a lot better to get a consensus *before* deluging them with proposals and comments, that's all. Idealism and standard motherhood get you nowhere. I'm not saying it'll ever happen, just that it explains why it takes so long to get anything from FCC. Eternity is not a particulary long time in gummint buracracies like the FCC. Been there, been part of it. and why the result is so unlike what is proposed. .. . . "Mother knows best" . . . Somebody wrote in a post in QRZ.com that they'd been in direct e-mail contact with the FCC about the anomalies and confusion in the R&O and the FCC agreed that the R&O needs more work before it goes to the Register. That'll push implemetation of a cleaned-up version out until God knows when. Reset: Game started over. I noticed in another of your posts that you didn't understand why the 80M CW band and 75M phone band are called what they are. Or something akin to that. It's an ancient convention which is conceptually useful in a number of ways and is not even close to "numerically rigorous". It's a simplistic way of identifying the ham bands and nothing more. The real numbers go like this: 3.5 Mhz = 86M 3.75 Mhz = 80M 3.8M hz = 79M 4.0 Mhz = 75M 7.0 Mhz = 42.8M 7.5 Mhz = 40M 14 Mhz = 21.4M 15 Mhz = 20M .. . all I care about is that when I punch the button which sez "80" I hear a lotta beeping going on and when I hit the button marked "75" it's the motormouths at play . . 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
#27
October 19th 06, 03:21 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: By now they've long since gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado. They gotta accept 'em and read 'em. They don't have to act on them. Who audits this process to make sure they all get "equal reads" and consideration? Where's the published policies on the topic? Answer: There ain't neither. You can fill in the rest. They do read all of the comments. Highly unlikely particulary in cases like Anderson's nonsense *and* I'll only believe it when I see it. Unless you gots documentation to the contrary or you've been there yourself. Yer missing the point. *Somebody* at FCC reads 'em. That's all. My guess is that the FCC doesn't even start reading the comments until after the comments close. Then they sort them by commenter, because some folks send multiple copies and there's no point reading the same thing more than once. Then, I think, somebody goes through them weeding out the obvious cranks and fakes, as well as the dupes. Also, they probably pile up the simple "rubber stamp" ones ("I agree with ARRl/NCI/NCVEC"). What's left are the ones that need a bit of serious reading. Much smaller pile. You think Len's stuff makes it to that pile? What they conclude is another matter. Yeah, they conclude on sight that they're not gonna actually read his crap . . All I'm saying is that they read it. Taking it seriously is another thing... Then he's even more off the wall than I've given him credit for. Not my problem. Not yours, either. That I agree with. Ya broke da code. FCC could have just dropped Element 1 in August 2003. Memorandum Report and Order, coupla paragraphs and done. All they'd have to do is say that the issue was thoroughly discussed before the 2000 restructuring, and the treaty was the only reason they kept Element 1. But they didn't, and now it's almost 3-1/2 years later. (a) They're toying with us for jollies. (b) They know it doesn't matter one way or another. (c) They're internally deadlocked on the subject just like we are. (d) It'll show up in Omnibus II. I'd say (a) and (b), plus a bit of (e) They are ticked off at the 18 petitions, lack of consensus and mountains of commentary. I doubt that there's much (e) involved, they've been patrolling up and down our back road in the RF wilderness for decades and they're quite used to it. Used to us and our level of noisy BS. Today's FCC isn't the FCC of 20-30-40 years ago. In any event thee and me are bulletproof, we're 20WPM Extras so I could care less when they bite the bullet and do whatever they're gonna do about the code test. Code test is a completely different issue. I used to think the code test thing was a slam dunk. Maybe it still is. But the fact that FCC has taken so long so far makes me wonder. For all we know, they could keep it just because. Or they could do what Canada did. Or something else. 'Course I thought I was bulletproof in 1967 too when I had a General . . . Heck I was just a Novice and I saw it coming. I wondered what all the fuss was about. I still do. But that makes no difference when it comes to getting what we want out of FCC. I think we'd do a lot better to get a consensus *before* deluging them with proposals and comments, that's all. Idealism and standard motherhood get you nowhere. I'm not saying it'll ever happen, just that it explains why it takes so long to get anything from FCC. Eternity is not a particulary long time in gummint buracracies like the FCC. Been there, been part of it. Good point. Why should they hurry? and why the result is so unlike what is proposed. . . . "Mother knows best" . . . Somebody wrote in a post in QRZ.com that they'd been in direct e-mail contact with the FCC about the anomalies and confusion in the R&O and the FCC agreed that the R&O needs more work before it goes to the Register. That'll push implemetation of a cleaned-up version out until God knows when. Reset: Game started over. Roger that! The whole thing may have been a bit of a mind-game. ARRL gripes, so they put out a messy R&O that makes ARRL look bad. I noticed in another of your posts that you didn't understand why the 80M CW band and 75M phone band are called what they are. Or something akin to that. I was asking why FCC treats them as two separate bands in Part 97, that's all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#28
October 19th 06, 06:32 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: They do read all of the comments. Highly unlikely particulary in cases like Anderson's nonsense *and* I'll only believe it when I see it. Unless you gots documentation to the contrary or you've been there yourself. Yer missing the point. *Somebody* at FCC reads 'em. That's all. Some of course but like I sed I'll believe it when I see it in many cases. My guess is that the FCC doesn't even start reading the comments until after the comments close. Then they sort them by commenter, because some folks send multiple copies and there's no point reading the same thing more than once. Then, I think, somebody goes through them weeding out the obvious cranks and fakes, as well as the dupes. Also, they probably pile up the simple "rubber stamp" ones ("I agree with ARRl/NCI/NCVEC"). What's left are the ones that need a bit of serious reading. Seems probable. Much smaller pile. You think Len's stuff makes it to that pile? Scan, identify commenter, flick his garbage on sight . . Then he's even more off the wall than I've given him credit for. Not my problem. Not yours, either. That I agree with. Ya broke da code. You'd think he wouldn't bend over so far backward to make such an ass of himself in public but nah . . (e) They are ticked off at the 18 petitions, lack of consensus and mountains of commentary. I doubt that there's much (e) involved, they've been patrolling up and down our back road in the RF wilderness for decades and they're quite used to it. Used to us and our level of noisy BS. Today's FCC isn't the FCC of 20-30-40 years ago. Neither are we and neither is ham radio. But don't underestimate their grasp on history and current realities and the relationships between the two. In any event thee and me are bulletproof, we're 20WPM Extras so I could care less when they bite the bullet and do whatever they're gonna do about the code test. Code test is a completely different issue. Not when it comes to the likelihood of ever having to take another code test to upgrade in order to retain our operating privleges. I used to think the code test thing was a slam dunk. Maybe it still is. But the fact that FCC has taken so long so far makes me wonder. For all we know, they could keep it just because. Or they could do what Canada did. Or something else. Or they could simply sit on it forever which would be the really easy way out of that swamp. 'Course I thought I was bulletproof in 1967 too when I had a General . . . Heck I was just a Novice and I saw it coming. I wondered what all the fuss was about. I still do. I'd probably see Incentive Licensing the same way if I was a kid in your shoes. However you came into ham radio when it was already old news and were something like 14 years late to the Novice game I played in in all it's nooks and crannies. You can read about it and talk about early '50s ham radio it but since you didn't actually live it I wouldn't expect you to fully appreciate what a huge deal Incentive Licensing was to my Novice class. It was even more of a kick in the butt for for the old-timers of those days. Somebody wrote in a post in QRZ.com that they'd been in direct e-mail contact with the FCC about the anomalies and confusion in the R&O and the FCC agreed that the R&O needs more work before it goes to the Register. That'll push implemetation of a cleaned-up version out until God knows when. Reset: Game started over. Roger that! The whole thing may have been a bit of a mind-game. ARRL gripes, so they put out a messy R&O that makes ARRL look bad. The FCC doesn't play silly games like that. If the guy in QRZ.com has it right they screwed up a bit and need to tweak the R&O. No relections on the ARRL one way or the other but the FCC will come out of it a bit of egg on it's face. I noticed in another of your posts that you didn't understand why the 80M CW band and 75M phone band are called what they are. Or something akin to that. I was asking why FCC treats them as two separate bands in Part 97, that's all. Because historically we've also been treating 80 & 75 as two separate bands. Convenient ancient custom. Time to bail away from the trashheads, I'm outta here and back to the paint, varnish and antenna work. poof:gone 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
#29
October 19th 06, 04:34 PM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote: On 18 Oct 2006 21:32:48 -0700, wrote: Much smaller pile. You think Len's stuff makes it to that pile? Scan, identify commenter, flick his garbage on sight . . why do you presume to think they don't read len ader particualrly Because he's a non-stakeholder who has been blatantly abusing his right to comment on matters before the FCC involving the amateur service for years. A presumption based on applied common sense and experience. I used to think the code test thing was a slam dunk. Maybe it still is. But the fact that FCC has taken so long so far makes me wonder. For all we know, they could keep it just because. Or they could do what Canada did. Or something else. Or they could simply sit on it forever which would be the really easy way out of that swamp. nope they know full well they wait long and someone will mount a legal chalenge to code testing and that will be that Could be but until somebody actually lays down the cash it takes to mount the challenge you're waiting for y'all behave yourself Colonel and stay above 30 Mhz. w3rv |
|
#30
October 20th 06, 04:36 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
|
|||
|
|||
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote:
On 19 Oct 2006 07:34:27 -0700, wrote: why do you presume to think they don't read len ader particualrly Because he's a non-stakeholder who has been blatantly abusing his right to comment on matters before the FCC involving the amateur service for years. A presumption based on applied common sense and experience. where has he iditeifed himself as a no stakeholder as far as I know he is a citizen? We can all toss comments at all NPRMs, that's not the point. The topic under discussion is Anderson's behavior during ham NPRM commenting periods and the way the FCC probably handles his "comments". As far as stakes go Anderson himself made it transparently clear years ago that he has no stake whatsoever in the regulation of the amateur radio service when he stated that he is not a ham and does not have any intention of becoming a ham in the future. and what abuse? Flooding the FCC with 200 comments on one ham radio NPRM is juvenile and abusive behavior every way you look at it. And it's not in the direction of supporting the cause of you NCTAs. did you read a different constituions than I Again that's not the point, the point is how his submissions are regarded and dealt with after the FCC has processed them in accordance with all the laws under which they operate. You gotta be as naive as a newborn if you think the FCC attaches as much value to any of Anderson's nonsense as they do, for instance, to the inputs submitted by the ARRL. nope they know full well they wait long and someone will mount a legal chalenge to code testing and that will be that Could be but until somebody actually lays down the cash it takes to mount the challenge you're waiting for y'all behave yourself Colonel and stay above 30 Mhz. indeed the cash is problem I was well on the way leading to the NPRM then the backer back out thinking the FCC is finaly goign to take care it Usta be's, shoulda done's and could've beens are a dime a dozen, you either walk the walk or you don't. the longer thay wait the more likely the challange become but they (the ffc ) are on record as saying it will be out after the onibus and before the end of the years Don't let the suspense keep you awake at night. w3rv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic! | Policy | |||
| CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic! | Antenna | |||
| i confess | CB | |||
| THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP NEEDS MACHO MEN AND TOUGH GUYS | Shortwave | |||
| WHERE ARE ALL THE TOUGH GUYS IN THIS SHORTWAVE NEWSGROUP? | General | |||
Linear Mode
