Filing Comments with the FCC

[ae4fa]

I've been perusing the comments on the various petitions currently up for comment. The majority of folks are in danger of having their comments ignored because they have not followed instructions.

Particularly, there is this from the ECFS FAQ page:



Is a signature required when filing electronically?

No. But the name of the author and/or filer must be indicated at the conclusion of the document.



I note that the majority of commenters have failed to do this.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif apparently some folks dont want to sign their names...they want to remain ANONYMOUS so no one can contact them. It is something similer to "calling the police to report a drunk driver, but dont let the drunk driver know who told on him/her ", or am I totally wrong ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[ae4fa]

Nah, I think they just didn't take a minute to read the instructions.

[N8CPA]

Follow directions? #If the Commission assesses the credibility of responses on the basis of spelling and grammar, I'd say the pro-10807 forces are winning.

If you're going to comment for or against, please bother to check your spelling and grammar. #Opinions on both sides appear better thought out if they're spelled correctly. It's easier than learning Morse, after all. #And it's not even technical.

Just a hamly recommendation.

!!

[w5alt]

I dunno, I learned Morse in a few weeks. I'm still trying to use English spelling and grammar correctly. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif use C W ? shucks, sum days I kant evun spel englich verie well, musch les do th murse cold. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif sum folks told me earlire abut sum glue to wurk on pl-259 cunictoirs instead of sowder, and buy it wurks reel good ! Of cource I inhald sum fumes from the glue ####ainer, but th cunnectors are glued reel good, and dont look two bad either. see yew fowlkes later... 73 # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KD7WHQ]

FA, I'm presuming that they will discount my comment entirely if I go back in and do it again, putting my name at the bottom. If so, it'll have to ride.
If I'm wrong in this presumption, I'll go back in..

[ae4fa]

I could be wrong (imagine that . . .), but my understanding is that multiple comments are kosher if there's value added - new material, or an expanded discussion of some of the original points presented.

[DanK6DN]

OK

[N3TTN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, I think they just didn't take a minute to read the instructions.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


I tend to agree, but it is worth noting that the only reason the FCC takes petitions on issues like the code/no code thing is because they are required to by law, and for little other reason. They could really care less what a group of &quot;hobbyists&quot; thinks or wants. Anyone who is under the illusion that the FCC is really concerned about what hams want, is sadly mistaken. That is unfortunate for us, but it's the stark reality of where we stand in the eyes of the FCC. If we can somehow stave off BPL, and spectrum loss, those will be major victories for the amateur community in my opinion, and the code/ no code issue is a minor issue at best in comparison.



73, N3TTN