Justin - I couldn't help myself in dipping (lightly) into the comments on my tablet during TV time last night. My overall conclusions about the reply types largely mirror yours.
Yep - the "anti-RF" folks did indeed weigh in hot and heavy. I'll add that there were a lot of folks who kind of missed the point of the exercise that the FCC was…
Justin - I couldn't help myself in dipping (lightly) into the comments on my tablet during TV time last night. My overall conclusions about the reply types largely mirror yours.
Yep - the "anti-RF" folks did indeed weigh in hot and heavy. I'll add that there were a lot of folks who kind of missed the point of the exercise that the FCC was asking "What can we DELETE?" and suggested all kinds of restructuring, additional regulation, etc. which I don't think will get much traction with the FCC.
I didn't communicate with anyone about what I intended to write, and no one communicated with me (other than you notifying me of ORI's filed comments), so the following is just a guess on my part.
I suspect that the vast majority of organizations (and their Washington legal representation) looked over GN Docket 25-133 soberly and decided that this wasn't a serious effort on the part of the FCC. Thus "sticking their necks out" with a formal reply, in their name, wasn't worth the repetutional risk of being associated with the... "colorful?" comments that we both read with amusement. Except for the folks that had some grievances (perceived, or real, such as the anti phone spam regulations) that they wanted to register with the FCC.
I'll go further out on a limb and guess that FCC legal firms querying their "inside contacts" at the FCC got an answer of "the DOGErs did this, not us" and thus GN Docket 25-133 will end up being mostly performance theater and have no followup at the FCC.
But there was no way to know how this would go, until we could see all the filed comments up through the deadline (and, on Monday, see what came in over the weekend). Thus I think the caution of filing comments was prudent. Although I don't agree with the "don't change Amateur Radio one smidgen" commenters, I respect their passion and dedication to Amateur Radio in going to the trouble to file comments. Most Amateur Radio comments, that I've read to date, were well composed.
I'm glad that no commercial organizations seemed to take any swipes at Amateur Radio spectrum (that I've seen, or have seen reported, to date), but there's still Reply Comments time, so we'll have to be vigilant.
This is a good take. I think it's most likely this won't lead to anything and we'll end up filing the 219 stuff as a separate NPRM. It was written with that in mind. Oh well!
Justin - I couldn't help myself in dipping (lightly) into the comments on my tablet during TV time last night. My overall conclusions about the reply types largely mirror yours.
Yep - the "anti-RF" folks did indeed weigh in hot and heavy. I'll add that there were a lot of folks who kind of missed the point of the exercise that the FCC was asking "What can we DELETE?" and suggested all kinds of restructuring, additional regulation, etc. which I don't think will get much traction with the FCC.
I didn't communicate with anyone about what I intended to write, and no one communicated with me (other than you notifying me of ORI's filed comments), so the following is just a guess on my part.
I suspect that the vast majority of organizations (and their Washington legal representation) looked over GN Docket 25-133 soberly and decided that this wasn't a serious effort on the part of the FCC. Thus "sticking their necks out" with a formal reply, in their name, wasn't worth the repetutional risk of being associated with the... "colorful?" comments that we both read with amusement. Except for the folks that had some grievances (perceived, or real, such as the anti phone spam regulations) that they wanted to register with the FCC.
I'll go further out on a limb and guess that FCC legal firms querying their "inside contacts" at the FCC got an answer of "the DOGErs did this, not us" and thus GN Docket 25-133 will end up being mostly performance theater and have no followup at the FCC.
But there was no way to know how this would go, until we could see all the filed comments up through the deadline (and, on Monday, see what came in over the weekend). Thus I think the caution of filing comments was prudent. Although I don't agree with the "don't change Amateur Radio one smidgen" commenters, I respect their passion and dedication to Amateur Radio in going to the trouble to file comments. Most Amateur Radio comments, that I've read to date, were well composed.
I'm glad that no commercial organizations seemed to take any swipes at Amateur Radio spectrum (that I've seen, or have seen reported, to date), but there's still Reply Comments time, so we'll have to be vigilant.
This is a good take. I think it's most likely this won't lead to anything and we'll end up filing the 219 stuff as a separate NPRM. It was written with that in mind. Oh well!