And the award goes to...

[ky5u]

Well, the award goes to VJ Garcell, a Technician Class licensee who voted for removal of the code 18 TIMES on the FCC website. Another "vote often" winner was Tim Millburn and "friend" Terri. This NCT accounted for 11 votes with a few thrown in by other family members. Dishonorable Mention also goes to NCTs Jeffery Bauder, Rick Bernardi, and Steve Rapta who all voted more than 4 times.

The Low High Class award goes to the Extra Class Amateur who voted to keep the test 9 times named Dwyane Sparks.

[W3MIV]

Is it not astonishing that these fools would seem to actually believe that stuffing the box would make a difference.

It is a clear case of reverse Darwinism. I guess, in the interests of objectivity, we should offer alternative education in "Unintelligent Design" to account for such acts.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N8CPA]

Or, in the case of today's public schools, "unitelligence BY design."

[N7RJD]

Funny part is you know someone is sitting at home trying to figure out where they went wrong, why only 11 or 18 of their votes were counted when they cast so many more. It will be one of these that demands a recount even if the ruling goes their way. To borrow a phrase from the general (not willing to slaughter the spelling at this time) charged with maintaining order after the New Orleans disaster, "some people are just stuck on stupid."

[WB2WIK]

I wonder if any of the comments will actually be read by anyone other than us?

Charlie, sorry for losing you on 15m CW yesterday...QSB was bad, although lower frequencies were very good and ended up the day working a lot of DX on 17m and 20m -- 15 bit the bullet early. At our gray line (0130 UTC), condx to JT/BY/RU9/HL4/VR2/VU/4S were outstanding here in southern CA. Worked all of those prefixes in about 20 mins during the line. Hard to believe we're at the bottom of the cycle when that happens.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CW works.

WB2WIK/6

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Oct. 24 2005,17:06)]I wonder if any of the comments will actually be read by anyone other than us?
They are required to read them and tabulate the results, but not necessarily to follow the comments or results of the tabulation.

[n2nh]

If you do a name search on that Extra, it comes up as <span style='color:red'>"There are 0 records matching 'Dwyane Sparks'."</span>
I guess whoever he/she was might've been dumb enough to stuff the box but even worse, tried to do it under a phony name.

[kb3mng]

I am also surprised that people think that commenting repeatedly will make a difference, though I guess I should not be. I am disappointed by the quality of the comments. I sent email to the FCC webmaster suggesting that they give more detailed instuctions for submitting comments, including emphasizing the idea that we need good explanations of why you hold a position, and emphasizing that it is not a poll. I didn't get an answer, but then I didn't expect to either. If their IT group is at all typical, my comments just became #300 on a to-do-when-we-have-time list.

Oddly enough, it seems to me that these guys who post multiple no-test comments are working against their own interests. It is just that many more comments for the commission to wade through before they can finalize the decision. That means that by submitting a pile of extraneous comments, they push any changes further into the future.

I have a feeling that some admin assistant will have to sort the comments into 5 categories:

One-liners for, One-liners against: You've seen these that just say "keep the test" or "get rid of the test" without any discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody pays much attention to these two piles.

pro-code-test, anti-code-test: There are a lot of comments that have detailed reasoning for why it should go one way or another. These are the interesting ones for the code debate, and I think they will get the full attention they deserve. That is, whichever way it goes, I won't think it was because they didn't read the comments.

addressing other issues: The NPRM talks about more than just morse code, but the number of comments on the other issues is pretty small. Still, there are a few, and the commission has to consider those too.

The commission is duty bound to consider the comments before making a final decision, and I am not about to accuse them of dereliction of duty. I think there is probably already a good idea of which way they will decide, because most of the comments say about the same thing this time as the comments on the petitions that came before the NPRM. But I expect that the commission will actually look for good ideas in the comments.

I am pleased that there have been several substantive and well-reasoned comments in favor of either side. It isn't all dreck.

[k6pme]

Hmm...Just goes to show the mentality of certain folks. If they can't get it handed to them honestly they'll make sure they get it by cheating. Now I better understand why some things are such a problem.

No integrity. What a shame.

[kb3mng]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 24 2005,14:54)]If you do a name search on that Extra, it comes up as <span style='color:red'>"There are 0 records matching 'Dwyane Sparks'."</span>
I guess whoever he/she was might've been dumb enough to stuff the box but even worse, tried to do it under a phony name.
If you look in the comments, the "on behalf of" name is listed as "Dwayne J. Sparks, AK4P". The QRZ call sign lookup shows that AK4P is assigned to "Dwayne J Sparks".

[kc7jty]

Check out W0PEE's comment (must I mention he's an extra class?). As far as I know he voted once. Too bad there isn't an "edit" feature for the comments after they have been posted. Peculiar?

[W5HTW]

Does that mean he can't spell his own name? Or didn't tell his "agent" how to spell it? Not a good candidate for CW

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Oct. 24 2005,14:06)]I wonder if any of the comments will actually be read by anyone other than us?

Charlie, sorry for losing you on 15m CW yesterday...QSB was bad, although lower frequencies were very good and ended up the day working a lot of DX on 17m and 20m -- 15 bit the bullet early. At our gray line (0130 UTC), condx to JT/BY/RU9/HL4/VR2/VU/4S were outstanding here in southern CA. Worked all of those prefixes in about 20 mins during the line. Hard to believe we're at the bottom of the cycle when that happens.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CW works.

WB2WIK/6
Hey, me too on the faded QSO. You get the "Whaddidhesay?" award for reading my CW after many days without practice in New Orleans. I have a 706 in a bag but I have been putting off buying the key. Yep, jumped up and bit me on the rump when I was send down there for "summer camp" with a new rig, two new 8ah batteries, and NO KEY! LOL!! I listened alot...

On the comments, I checked out one NCT I know and found comments by his wife and 2 year old son supporting code test removal. Kid could type good....

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (kb3mng @ Oct. 24 2005,18:47)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 24 2005,14:54)]If you do a name search on that Extra, it comes up as <span style='color:red'>"There are 0 records matching 'Dwyane Sparks'."</span>
I guess whoever he/she was might've been dumb enough to stuff the box but even worse, tried to do it under a phony name.
If you look in the comments, the "on behalf of" name is listed as "Dwayne J. Sparks, AK4P". #The QRZ call sign lookup shows that AK4P is assigned to "Dwayne J Sparks".
My mistake. #I thought the database would show the call up with just the name and didn't know about the initial. #I find it hard to believe that someone who could pass the Extra would try a stunt like that.

It wouldn't surprise me if all the comments end up in the circular file...

[N8CPA]

One Technician not only has a problem learning code, but apparently has a problem with the complex mathematics of the calendar.
He claims he has been a no-coder since 1990.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 24 2005,19:40)]I find it hard to believe that someone who could pass the Extra would try a stunt like that.
What does passing the Extra have to do with anything? Have you seen an Extra test lately? It's not like it's a challenge. This is why my webpage has a photocopy of my first Extra dated 23 May 1978. At least I know I took a real test.

[ad4mg]

Search String:Quote[/b] ]There are 0 records matching 'Dwyane Sparks'."
Valid result:Quote[/b] ]If you look in the comments, the "on behalf of" name is listed as "Dwayne J. Sparks, AK4P".

Dwyane (searched)
Dwayne (found)

The middle initial didn't matter. #The first name of this amateur was mis-spelled on the name search.

Mystery solved!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[W0LC]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 24 2005,13:11)]Well, the award goes to VJ Garcell, a Technician Class licensee who voted for removal of the code 18 TIMES on the FCC website. #Another "vote often" winner was Tim Millburn and "friend" Terri. #This NCT accounted for 11 votes with a few thrown in by other family members. Dishonorable Mention also goes to NCTs Jeffery Bauder, Rick Bernardi, and Steve Rapta who all voted more than 4 times.

The Low High Class award goes to the Extra Class Amateur who voted to keep the test 9 times named Dwyane Sparks.
Must be Florida Democrats! Experience with voting!

You know the saying, "Vote and vote often!"

[KC0MIS]

Quote[/b] (W0LC @ Oct. 25 2005,05:52)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 24 2005,13:11)]Well, the award goes to VJ Garcell, a Technician Class licensee who voted for removal of the code 18 TIMES on the FCC website. #Another "vote often" winner was Tim Millburn and "friend" Terri. #This NCT accounted for 11 votes with a few thrown in by other family members. Dishonorable Mention also goes to NCTs Jeffery Bauder, Rick Bernardi, and Steve Rapta who all voted more than 4 times.

The Low High Class award goes to the Extra Class Amateur who voted to keep the test 9 times named Dwyane Sparks.
Must be Florida Democrats! #Experience with voting!

You know the saying, "Vote and vote often!"
Actually, the "vote often" quotation came from Chicago.
It was: Vote early, Vote often. It doesn't matter if you are alive or dead.

73,
Chuck

[WA9SVD]

Too bad there wasn't the following disclaimer:

".... Multiple entries will be disqualified."

Not that it makes much real difference; I'm sure the FCC had already made up it's mind, and doesn't want to be bothered by facts or opinions. Just making us (and them) go through the legal hoops to makes things look right.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 25 2005,07:10)]Too bad there wasn't the following disclaimer:

".... Multiple entries will be disqualified."

Not that it makes much real difference; I'm sure the FCC had already made up it's mind, and doesn't want to be bothered by facts or opinions. Just making us (and them) go through the legal hoops to makes things look right.
Going to be real hard for them to do that if over 50% turn out in favor of keeping the test in some form.

[KD6NIG]

Heh, I think some people thought the most submissions was probably some kind of contest.

And your prize is: A personal visit from Mr Riley Hollingsworth?

Perhaps they figured with that many submissions they would get a personal reply?

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (KC0MIS @ Oct. 25 2005,09:38)]You know the saying, "Vote and vote often!"
Actually, the "vote often" quotation came from Chicago.
It was: Vote early, Vote often. It doesn't matter if you are alive or dead.[/QUOTE]
One election day years ago I got to the babysitter's to pick up my son. I had seen the sitter at the polling place earlier that morning but I decided to yank her chain. As I left her house with my son, I told her I was off to vote.

When she realised what I'd said I told her "hey, my grandmother was from Chicago. I learned the family way early."

My grandmother was indeed born and raised in Chicago, on the west side. But I still only vote once.

[WA9SVD]

I was taught it was your patriotic duty to vote often (in Chicago...)

AG4YO:

You ASSUME that the FCC really cares about the comments. Either you are naive, or I'm cynical (or all of the above) but I think the FCC has already made up it's mind, and will do WHAT IT WANTS, and what is easiest to administer from their standpoint.
(Even with the comments, there's no law saying the FCC would have to make a ruling in favor of the majority of comments filed.)
I may be wrong, (and in a way, I hope I may well be) but I'm not convinced the comments make any real difference to the final outcome of the rule changes. But I guess they don't hurt, if done in an honest way.
But the comments received are hardly a representative sampling of over a half million (active, inactive, etc.) Amateur Radio Operators in the U.S.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 25 2005,12:41)]I was taught it was your patriotic duty to vote often (in Chicago...)

AG4YO:

You ASSUME that the FCC really cares about the comments. Either you are naive, or I'm cynical (or all of the above) but I think the FCC has already made up it's mind, and will do WHAT IT WANTS, and what is easiest to administer from their standpoint.
(Even with the comments, there's no law saying the FCC would have to make a ruling in favor of the majority of comments filed.)
I may be wrong, (and in a way, I hope I may well be) but I'm not convinced the comments make any real difference to the final outcome of the rule changes. But I guess they don't hurt, if done in an honest way.
But the comments received are hardly a representative sampling of over a half million (active, inactive, etc.) Amateur Radio Operators in the U.S.
I may be naive, but I can at least read. From the NPRM:

Quote[/b] ]2. In response to the petitions, over 6,200 comments were filed. Because some of the petitions have presented sufficient evidence to warrant proposing changing our rules, and in the interest of administrative efficiency, we have consolidated our treatment of these petitions in this NPRM.
3. Based upon the petitions and comments, we propose to amend our amateur service rules to eliminate the requirement that individuals pass a telegraphy examination in order to qualify for any amateur radio operator license. We believe that this proposal, if adopted, would (1) encourage individuals who are interested in communications technology, or who are able to contribute to the advancement of the radio art, to become amateur radio operators; (2) eliminate a requirement that we believe is now unnecessary and that may discourage amateur service licensees from advancing their skills in the communications and technical phases of amateur radio; and (3) promote more efficient use of the radio spectrum currently allocated to the amateur radio service. We solicit comments on our tentative conclusions.

There is no evidence they did anything but simply view the comments as "votes". According to their own words, they read them as the NPRM was partially based on them. Supposedly. Anyway, I notice you did not comment to the FCC on the NPRM. Is it easier to sit on your rump, do nothing, and be cynical? LOL!! Perhaps you could enlighten me on that concept...

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 25 2005,07:21)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 25 2005,07:10)]Too bad there wasn't the following disclaimer:

".... Multiple entries will be disqualified."

Not that it makes much real difference; I'm sure the FCC had already made up it's mind, and doesn't want to be bothered by facts or opinions. Just making us (and them) go through the legal hoops to makes things look right.
Going to be real hard for them to do that if over 50% turn out in favor of keeping the test in some form.
If it comes down to a matter of a democratic vote, the commission may assume that even if all 6,000 comments came from hams who passed a code test and think it should be retained, the other 200,000,000+ Americans who haven't passed one think otherwise. I'm afraid that's what they've done here, based on their commentary that it's not in the 'public interest' to keep the code tests.

Again, my comments were something along the line of "GET IT OVER WITH AND STOP TORTURING US!".

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Oct. 25 2005,13:53)]If it comes down to a matter of a democratic vote, the commission may assume that even if all 6,000 comments came from hams who passed a code test and think it should be retained, the other 200,000,000+ Americans who haven't passed one think otherwise. #I'm afraid that's what they've done here, based on their commentary that it's not in the 'public interest' to keep the code tests.
What about the other 6 billion world inhabitants, who might not be American citizens but might visit here someday, and who never heard of code or ham radio? Possibly we should include them in the stats.

The FCC has had its head up its butt for many years, I don't know why we'd expect this to change.

Their comment regarding the elimination of the lower 2 MHz of the 135cm amateur band was, "Based on our research, we found this part of the spectrum was not being used." They later said their research was looking at the ARRL Repeater Directory, which listed no repeaters active below 223 MHz...

...a classic case of the blind leading the ignorant.

Same reason I'll vote for California Proposition 74, 75, 76 and 77: No matter how bad these changes might be, they've got to be better than the status quo in Sacramento.

WB2WIK/6

[WA9SVD]

AG4YO:

I meant no insult by the "naive" remark. And if MY comment to the NPRM got lost in the shuffle of electronic filing, I'm truly sorry; and NO, I didn't read 6K + comments, and never checked to see if my comment actually got recorded.

My point is that the FCC (and any other Government) entity follows a simple rule: We do what we want, regardless of what we say we will do or how we'll do it...

That's not necessarily simple cynicism; some would say it's merely an observation of the way the government actually works.

I like Steve's (WB2WIK) comment:

"...Their comment regarding the elimination of the lower 2 MHz of the 135cm amateur band was, "Based on our research, we found this part of the spectrum was not being used." They later said their research was looking at the ARRL Repeater Directory, which listed no repeaters active below 223 MHz...

...a classic case of the blind leading the ignorant."

========

I would be less kind in my terms for the "blind" and "ignorant," but the idea still holds. Remember, the Commission is now a bunch of lawyers, and have no particular interest in Amateur Radio. To them, it's just another Service they have to administer. They will make decisions on what's easiest for them, not necessarily what's in the best interest of Amateur Radio the way you, I, or anyone else sees it, expects it, or wants it to be.

Let's not get too personal here. You certainly have your own opinions and I have mine; that's your right, and whether we agree or disagree, we should be able to do so in a civil manner.

[w0tdh]

The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
Thomas F. Fischel
…and Thank You for Your Comments

Your Confirmation Number is: '20051025815702 '
Date Received: Oct 25 2005
Docket: 05-235

Number of Files Transmitted: 1


DISCLOSURE

This confirmation verifies that ECFS has received and accepted your filing. However, your filing will be rejected by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining, read-only formatting, a virus or automated links to source documents that is not included with your filing.
Filers are encouraged to retrieve and view their filing within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. For any problems contact the Help Desk at 202-418-0193.


Initiate a Submission | Search ECFS | Return to ECFS Home Page




updated 12/11/03

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 25 2005,15:54)]AG4YO:

I meant no insult by the "naive" remark. And if MY comment to the NPRM got lost in the shuffle of electronic filing, I'm truly sorry; and NO, I didn't read 6K + comments, and never checked to see if my comment actually got recorded.

My point is that the FCC (and any other Government) entity follows a simple rule: We do what we want, regardless of what we say we will do or how we'll do it...

That's not necessarily simple cynicism; some would say it's merely an observation of the way the government actually works.

I like Steve's (WB2WIK) comment:

"...Their comment regarding the elimination of the lower 2 MHz of the 135cm amateur band was, "Based on our research, we found this part of the spectrum was not being used." They later said their research was looking at the ARRL Repeater Directory, which listed no repeaters active below 223 MHz...

...a classic case of the blind leading the ignorant."

========

I would be less kind in my terms for the "blind" and "ignorant," but the idea still holds. Remember, the Commission is now a bunch of lawyers, and have no particular interest in Amateur Radio. To them, it's just another Service they have to administer. They will make decisions on what's easiest for them, not necessarily what's in the best interest of Amateur Radio the way you, I, or anyone else sees it, expects it, or wants it to be.

Let's not get too personal here. You certainly have your own opinions and I have mine; that's your right, and whether we agree or disagree, we should be able to do so in a civil manner.
Sorry I even mentioned your rump now.... LOL!

[WA9SVD]

AG4YO:

I guess I should have waited for a confirmation on my comment, as someone else (above) pointed out. But the FCC site isn't always fast or friendly. My error.
But that's now beside the point. I HOPE the FCC will have a stroke of intelligence, and perhaps make a decent decision. For the record, I at least support retaining a Morse requirement for the Extra Class License; but that, too will mosty likely go away in the future.
What I would rather see is an exam structure with a bit more emmphasis on actual technical knowledge, rather than a memorization test. And some questions on the exam about operating procedures, and perhaps more emphasis on the rules and regs. (This might decrease the multitude of questions about "how do I mod my H-T to work on Fire, Police, etc. frequencies???) and eliminate the question from Extra Class licensees asking "how do I calculate the length of a dipole? How do I build it?"
73, and good operating.

Larry WA9SVD

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 24 2005,13:11)]Well, the award goes to VJ Garcell, a Technician Class licensee who voted for removal of the code 18 TIMES on the FCC website. Another "vote often" winner was Tim Millburn and "friend" Terri. This NCT accounted for 11 votes with a few thrown in by other family members. Dishonorable Mention also goes to NCTs Jeffery Bauder, Rick Bernardi, and Steve Rapta who all voted more than 4 times.

The Low High Class award goes to the Extra Class Amateur who voted to keep the test 9 times named Dwyane Sparks.
Checking the EFS site, appears Dwayne Sparks filed ANOTHER comment. He may take over the lead as "comment king" if he keeps going...

[KC9ECI]

Ol' Dwayne oughtta get hisself a $500 NAL for every comment filed after the first one.

[K9STH]

Actually, the NPRM was 05-143. The replies on the NPRM are being made to WT Docket 05-235. That has caused some confusion in that some people have tried to upload their comments to 05-143. If you do that (and I did before finding out the "true" filing number) you get a notice that filings are not being accepted on the NPRM.

I am not sure why the FCC changed the filing numbers from 05-143 to 05-235 since the actual NPRM document has the 05-143 number on it. But, once you get the "proper" file number then the electronic filing system works fine.

Glen, K9STH

[kb2vxa]

Hi dits and dahs,

Some just don't understand the FCC is NOT a democracy, a comment is NOT a vote. Like the Electoral Coledge popular
"vote" doesn't determinte the outcome of an "election". DUH!

Another code/no code debate, oh whoopee wow. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Oct. 28 2005,09:49)]Hi dits and dahs,

Some just don't understand the FCC is NOT a democracy, a comment is NOT a vote. Like the Electoral Coledge popular
"vote" doesn't determinte the outcome of an "election". DUH!

Another code/no code debate, oh whoopee wow. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
It's amazing how people comment on a message chain without reading the comments thus far.

From the NPRM 05-235(143 so Glen is happy):

Quote[/b] ]2. In response to the petitions, over 6,200 comments were filed. Because some of the petitions have presented sufficient evidence to warrant proposing changing our rules, and in the interest of administrative efficiency, we have consolidated our treatment of these petitions in this NPRM.
3. Based upon the petitions and comments, we propose to amend our amateur service rules to eliminate the requirement that individuals pass a telegraphy examination in order to qualify for any amateur radio operator license. We believe that this proposal, if adopted, would (1) encourage individuals who are interested in communications technology, or who are able to contribute to the advancement of the radio art, to become amateur radio operators; (2) eliminate a requirement that we believe is now unnecessary and that may discourage amateur service licensees from advancing their skills in the communications and technical phases of amateur radio; and (3) promote more efficient use of the radio spectrum currently allocated to the amateur radio service. We solicit comments on our tentative conclusions.

There is no evidence they did anything but simply view the comments as "votes". According to their own words, they read them and the NPRM we're commenting on now was partially based on them. Not that I agree with this "voting" idea, but based on history that is exactly what our comments seem to be to the Commission.