|
Opinion:
Your Pro's and Con's
The opinions expressed on this website are solelty the opinions of those who post them and are and are not necessarily those of the webmaster.
This opinion was in response to the deregulation of the Amateur Service
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of WT Docket No. 98-143 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review RM-9148 Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's RM-9150 Amateur Service Rules. RM-9196
Adopted: December 22, 1999 Released: December 30, 1999
By the Commission:
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Weir
To: qst@arrl.org
Date: Saturday, January 01, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Congratulations
HQ Staff,
While you all must be patting yourselves on the back for pulling off the RF coup of the century, Hiram must be rolling over in his
grave. Thanks to your misguided recommendations, the FCC has taken the first bold steps towards lowering the standards of
operating that Hiram held so dear and has opened the spectrum floodgates to the whiners and crybabies.
"Incentive licensing" now takes on a new, more popular meaning: "To heck with incentive! Let's just give everyone what they
want so that our membership numbers won't suffer!"
The elimination of the three license classes and the lowering of the 13 WPM standard will correlate directly with poor operator
skills, lack of courtesy on the bands, disregard for the rules and regulations, and a loss of pride and value for a license class that
should be gained the old fashioned way....by EARNING it!
I, for one, am thankful that the FCC crimped your style just a bit and chose to wait on frequency reallocations. The CW subbands
will remain a viable resource for those of us who appreciate the art and wish to escape the SSB trash-mouths that are proliferating
the bands. If and when the FCC caves in to reallocation pressure from the League, the slow-speed newcomers will have a tough
time of it at the bottom end because we will all know that they did not pay their dues to get there.
Congratulations, once again, on a blunder well done. I welcome the new millenium as the "Eve of Destruction" for what was once
a fine tradition and look forward to the inevitable degredation of our cherished bands.
Sincerely Disgusted,
Joseph H. Weir
KB4FOS - General Class - ARRL Member since 1983
http://www.joe.firstcoastonline.com/index.htm
Permission to reprint this letter is granted.
This opinion was in response to Re:"At ABC 25, we're building our station around you"."What you want in a newscast is very important to us...."
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of WT Docket No. 98-143 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review RM-9148 Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's RM-9150 Amateur Service Rules. RM-9196
Adopted: December 22, 1999 Released: December 30, 1999
By the Commission:
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Boyd
To: WJXX<@.org>
Date: Saturday, January 01, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Congratulations
Dear News Staff @ ABC Affiliate WJXX Channel 25
I congratulate yout station on the upgrade that it is receiving. I wish you very much success with your ventures.
Although ABC affiliate WJXX, Channel 25 is receiving a physical facelift, it appears to this viewer,
that your news broadcasts are also in need of long overdue renovations.
What this viewer would like to see in a newscast is:
Straight-forward, no-nonsense newscasting.
A station that can present the news in a format that is "credible".
A newscaster with a strong presentation/representation of the current news.
What this viewer would like to see in a newscast is a straight-forward, no-nonsense newscasting. A
newscast that can report the news without resorting to the soft, heavy, breathy, overstressed, over-dramatized verbs, adverbs, adjectives, the look as if the newscaster is so "heartbroken" that he or she is about to burst out into tears, and the bobbing and shaking of the head, as if so disgusted or so appalled while decribing a very simple story. A television station that can report the news without attempts to reach in and "rip the heart out of the American public that it serves. A television station with a newscaster that can report the news without changing the mood of their face faster than a camellion.
A television station that can present the news in a format that is "credible". A newsstation that can
give a complete, truthful, and unbiased story without opinion (that's what editorials and opinion based talk shows are for). A newscast that does not fling the thick muk of suspense and drama at the public in attempts to sway or prey on public emotion. A newscast that does not, in effect, cry out "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". This is an opinion that needs to be left to the public to decide and not the news reporters, editors and/or newscasters. A newsstation that is not pretentious or presumptuous.
A newsstation and newscasters that can report the whole story... a STRONG story... reported with
a great feeling of confidence... not just a header, and possibly a tickle with a few weak lines and stating "We just dont have anymore information at this time" or "We will have news about a story as soon as we get there". Hmmmm. Either you have the story or you do not. No sob stories about why you are on the air with no story. A newsstation the public can trust.
It is the firm belief of this viewer that the public viewer would like to see, not oscar winning acting
in front of the news camera, but outstanding journalism.
Ultimately, it is also the belief of this viewer, that award winning journalism, comes not from the dramatic acting of the newscaster, but the superb journalistic skills and hard work put forth by all.
Thank you and I wish you all well.
Sincerely,
Dave Boyd
**********************************************
Dave Boyd
bicyclenomad@hotmail.com
Http://bicyclenomad.tripod.com
**********************************************
This is an E-mail letter in response to a news story broadcast on Monday, March 23,1998 by the newscasters at WTLV, Jacksonville, Florida.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Boyd
To: WJXX<@.org>
Date: Saturday, January 01, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Congratulations
Dear News Staff @ ABC Affiliate WJXX Channel 25
Dear News Editors @ WTLV CH.12
A real tragedy points to this....(showing a damaged motor vehicle on the screen and telling another story of a bicyclist run over by a motorist).
While I commend WTLV newsroom for advocating the use of helmets for children, I found the news reported was blatently one-sided.
On Monday, March 23,1998, on the five o'clock and six o'clock segments, news anchors Jeanie Blalock and Albert Zipp reported a motor vehicle vs. bicycle crash on the Northside. An eight yr old boy was critically injured and was not wearing a helmet. There were no citations issued.
Certainly, my heart goes out to this child, and any other victim of a cycle crash, motorized or not. This collision, as with any motor vehicle vs. bicycle crash is a tragic reminder to all cyclists that we are a so vulnerable and really at the mercy of the mindset of the motorist behind us. I can testify to this fact as I, one who has made bicycling my life, who has logged over fifty thousand miles on several Human Powered Vehicles, has been hit twelve times.
The REAL question should not be focused on whether or not one is wearing a helmet or not (though I highly recommend it), but should be directed at the motorist, who whether off in a dream world, oblivious to what is going on around their vehicles, or one who is engaged in activities(cellphones,radios, slappin' kids in the back seat or 3.2/BAC(Blood Alcohol Content) other than giving full and undivided attention to the roadway, or even those who think bicyclists are a nusiance to the roadway, rated at the same level as all of the animals that litter our streets as "roadkill".
Still other motorists consider bicyclists as target practice. Verbal lashing, eggs, tomatoes, paintballs, and worse are only a few of the many projectiles that we as cyclists endure every minute of every day.
The REAL tragedy is that the law as written, conflicts, and provides very little, if any, support or protection, or safe passage for bicyclist upon our streets and highways. The bicycle is not taken as a serious form of transportation. In any situation. Penalties for the sacrificing of human life should be severe and in cases of "hit and run", double severe, including suspension or revocation of ones driving privledges. As of July '97, a judge levied a mere fine of $150.00 to a driver who hit and ran from the scene of my injury vehicle vs. bicycle. That is a felony in the state of Florida. When the police had caught him, he lied and claimed he was a witness.
Does the SYSTEM really work?
It certainly does, if you pay enough ransom.
We as cyclists, do not want the rhedoric, the bandaids, the kisses on the forehead and telling us everything is going to be allright. It is time to stop the killing and maming of cyclist by these dangerous motorists.
The REAL tragedy is not about is not about helmets. The best helmet man has devised, will not help one who suffers from the massive internal bleeding that fills ones lungs and abdomen, sustained from a blow that a motor vehicle can deliver.
This in no way is to shrug off the importance of protecting your gourde. The idea projected here is that we, as cyclist, motorized or not, need legislation to make the streets safer for all.
Thank you and I wish you all well.
Sincerely,
Dave Boyd
**********************************************
Dave Boyd
bicyclenomad@hotmail.com
Http://bicyclenomad.tripod.com
**********************************************
Your amateur radio related opinions are most certainly welcome. - Dave
|
