FW: FCC lied about Gate 2
k4sb at avana.net
k4sb at avana.net
Thu Nov 14 01:30:47 EST 1996
--- On 13 Nov 1996 16:56:06 -0700 Fatchett.Mike at tci.com wrote:
From: Fatchett, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 4:39 PM
To: (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Subject: RE: FCC lied about Gate 2
I think to be fair to all involved the whole process should be re-run
properly and random as the FCC stated it would. I hope the ARRL would
investigate this further, But knowing some of the odd things that have
occurred with the ARRL and the FCC in the past I would not count on it.
I intend to inform my state Senator and Representative of this issue. I
am tired of the Government pulling these games whether it be with the FCC
or other agencies.
I would suggest to anyone that feels similarly to call the FCC
immediately. From a conversation I had today I am the only one to call
and question the random processing.
I encourage you all to look at the calls the electronic filers received.
N4CW, W4KK, W6DX, K6AM, N0DX, K0DX, K0AA, K6CQ and the list of
desirable calls goes on and on.
I would sure hold off printing my QSL's until I had my printed license in
It is unfortunate that such and easy task could be messed up so badly.
Please, don't even think of asking for a rerun! We all know we got screwed, but think of
the 4000+ happy guys out there. If in fact, the FCC did NOT process the E filings randomly,
and they certainly didn't do it by order received, but indeed processed them in REVERSE order,
thatis fraud, and stinks to high heaven of insider information. I STRONGLY suspect the random
number generator was what was crashing the software, and that the FCC did NOT process the
E filings by random. If indeed they did it in reverse order, that might be grounds for
revoking every one of the E filings.
-----------------End of Original Message-----------------
Name: Ed Sleight
E-mail: k4sb at avana.net
Time: 1:23:24 AM
>From HWDX09A at prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) Thu Nov 14 04:52:51 1996
From: HWDX09A at prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) ( ROBERT REED)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:52:51, -0500
Subject: FW: FCC lied about Gate 2
Message-ID: <199611140452.XAA10562 at mime4.prodigy.com>
I am just as annoyed as everyone else that the FCC processing of the
Gate 2 applications did not follow announced procedures. I had to
readjust my mailing to conform with the "banking day" Saturday
arrivals after Scott AA8SM announced that change rather than having
it arrive on Monday 9/23/96 when the FCC said the box would open.
Then we wait until 9/15/96 when we expect the FCC to announce the
electronic filing ablity. Do they do that, NO, we get a beta test
site announced to be online only for the week. The electronic filing
real thing gets announced on Friday too late for many of us to use as
we have already filed paper applications that are enroute to arrive
as Day One's.
Did anyone ever see a Federal Register public announcement of the
avaliablity of electronic filing ? Was it a timely announcement or
should all electronic applications be deemed invalid and set aside.
Certainly the processing of these applications FIRST when these
people filing electronily had no chance of filing a paper application
properly should be addressed.
I got choice #3 held by a long time friend who passed away 20 years
ago. It was certainly an early choice but how do I know my #1 or #2
was not taken by an electronic application that probably should never
have been accepted.
I won't even go in to the fact that the FCC suddenly violated its own
rules of doing away with an official signature. Heck we can't even
FAX an application for electronic renewal because the signature isn't
original but an electronic representation. Entering your name on a
keyboard is not less of an electronic representation.
I won't call the FCC completely wrong but my opinion is that all
electronic filed applications need to be recalled an dismissed.
73, Bob Reed, W2CE, ex WB2DIN
1991 Route 37 West - Lot 109
Toms River, New Jersey 08757
>From kg5u at hal-pc.org (Dale Martin) Thu Nov 14 06:35:07 1996
From: kg5u at hal-pc.org (Dale Martin) (Dale Martin)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:35:07 -0600
Subject: Does anyone really know what time it is?
Message-ID: <01BBD1C3.BC86CF40 at pm2-96.hal-pc.org>
I use the U.S. Naval Observatory Clock...
Check it out:
This is the how to...
More frequently, when I want to update my computer's clocks, I
simply turn on my Omni VI and put it on 10MHz.
Dale Martin, KG5U
kg5u at hal-pc.org
>From k6el at juno.com (Jon E Casamajor) Thu Nov 14 06:39:36 1996
From: k6el at juno.com (Jon E Casamajor) (Jon E Casamajor)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 01:39:36 EST
References: <0020f0704010eb6CLIENTS2 at comcastpc.com>
Message-ID: <19961114.053556.2431.18.K6EL at juno.com>
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:03:59 -0500 bsimonson at comcastpc.com (Beryl D.
Simonson K3AR) writes:
>This is not meant to flame anyone, but the few individuals who had to
>have X1XX, or X1XY, and want to litigate to get it, can sure mess the
>process up for the vast majority of us who are more than satisfied
>that we got one of our choices.
Boy, I can't agree more Beryl!!
Many weeks ago we all KNEW we were in a lottery, run by the FCC, a
questionable "branch" of our "government". So,where was all the"
litigators mentality" when that was an obvious reality that we all had
effectively "bought into" and had to deal
We all put out choices in, and took our chances. I resigned myself to
"live with it" and be happy with whatever the result was. we were all
living with the rules, the umpires and the result...at least most of us
were it appears.
I put in my 25 choices and would have been thrilled to get any one of
I submitted via FedEx which was delivered the 23rd at 10am along with a
buddy's application. I got my first choice, my buddy didn't get ANY of
(He has already shaken it off and re-submitted along with another check
and has a GREAT attitude about it! Lots of GOOD stuff still remains it
I was fortunate enough to get my first pick. I am sure it could have
been done better, but I've waited 23+ years for a 1x2 and I'm not
73 de Jon...K6EL( ex KN6EL)
K6EL at JUNO.COM
>From G.Force at flashnet.it (Giorgio Fanelli) Thu Nov 14 07:16:13 1996
From: G.Force at flashnet.it (Giorgio Fanelli) (Giorgio Fanelli)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:16:13 +0100
Subject: about band edge
Message-ID: <199611140716.IAA10156 at star.flashnet.it>
I am one ex officier of italian PT (corrispondant of american FCC) and few
year ago I work for interference control office. In Italy the law is vy
outdated (last regulation is dated 1966) but the frequency of SSB signal is
mesured by the frequency of suppressed carrier then when signal is cleary
readable this is the official frequency. I don't know if this is correct but
that is all. Any disagree. Drop me a line. George I0YQV.
>From goofy at hk.net (Tom Ewing) Thu Nov 14 08:35:22 1996
From: goofy at hk.net (Tom Ewing) (Tom Ewing)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:35:22 +0800 (HKT)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961114163249.10999D-100000 at hk.net>
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 ua3dpx at mars.arsenal.ru wrote:
> Hello Everyone!!
> Who can tell me about IC-736 Is it a good radio or not
> I mean contest characteristics???
> And what money realy worth to pay for it?
I'm sorry......this now the "Vanity" reflector, where brainless gloating ,
pissing and moaning are order of the day.
More information about the CQ-Contest