June 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [ARRL-ODV:7300] Re: Unlicensed Part 15 Devices; Oppositions t o Recon Petitions
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

>I suppose the next thing we'll hear is that amateur radio >transmissions interfere with these keys... In the case of keys that operate near 433.92 MHz, they do. There have been reports of cars being parked near repeaters in Europe that couldn't be unlocked after the repeater keyed up. Dave

2 1

RE: [ARRL-ODV:7301] Re: Unlicensed Part 15 Devices; Oppositions t
by Mendelsohn, Stephen A. 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

>>In the case of keys that operate near 433.92 MHz, they do. The keys, however, were coordinated with the local repeater council. -73- Steve, W2ML

1 0

Unlicensed Part 15 Devices; Oppositions to Recon Petitions
by W3KD＠aol.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

It appears that I have spoken too soon about the Part 15 war we seem to have started. The rest of the industry has come out of the woodwork. There are three other oppositions besides the one referred to in my last over on this subject. The first is from the IEEE Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Standards Committee (IEEE 802). The second is the Information Technology Industry Council. The third is a consolidated filing by Microsoft, Apple Computer, Agere Systems, Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Cisco Systems, and VoiceStream Wireless. They tend to argue generally that ARRL is attempting to undo all Part 15 operation, which is of course not so. But, since they don't have much to rebut our statutory argument, they are using this ploy to talk about the fact that licensing every garage door opener and cordless phone is not possible, which misses our point entirely. One is tempted to give Scott Harris, former FCC International Bureau Chief, and now private lawyer, a blunderbuss and point him in the direction of the broad side of a barn, and see if he can hit it. You can read these for yourself at the FCC web site, under the Electronic Comment Filing System page, search by ET Docket 98-156. 73, Chris W3KD

2 1

Re: Unlicensed Part 15 Devices; Oppositions to Recon Petitions
by dick＠pobox.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

3 JUN, 2002 - 1130 CDT Looks to me like these industry groups can't present an honest argument so they are resorting to the old muddy the water tactic - or to more bluntly put it - dazzle 'em with BS. And speaking of "licensing every Part 15 device", I'm surprised they left out automobile ignition keys. Both cars we just purchased have "high-security electronic" ignition keys. The key head has a very tiny Part-15 transponder that when queried by the car, identifies itself as being a "genuine owner's" key. Replacement keys cost $45 a pop and can only be obtained (so far) at a new car dealership. I suppose the next thing we'll hear is that amateur radio transmissions interfere with these keys... 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

RE: [ARRL-ODV:7297] Re: Newsline item on RM-8763 (FCC CC&R Preemp tion proceeding)
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

I've filled in Rick Lindquist. Dave -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:35 AM To: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7297] Re: Newsline item on RM-8763 (FCC CC&R Preemption proceeding) 3 JUN, 2002 - 1025 CDT With the exception of Chris Imlay's prognostication on when W. Lee McVey's petition will be dismissed, I think his information on this petition should be edited and published on our web site - perhaps even issued as a bulletin? I have alreay had a few inquiries from members asking why we are now going to congress when the issue is "still before the FCC". 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

Re: Newsline item on RM-8763 (FCC CC&R Preemption proceeding)
by dick＠pobox.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

3 JUN, 2002 - 1025 CDT With the exception of Chris Imlay's prognostication on when W. Lee McVey's petition will be dismissed, I think his information on this petition should be edited and published on our web site - perhaps even issued as a bulletin? I have alreay had a few inquiries from members asking why we are now going to congress when the issue is "still before the FCC". 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

Newsline item on RM-8763 (FCC CC&R Preemption proceeding)
by W3KD＠aol.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

Greetings. Dave Sumner asked me to clarify the following for you. It is somewhat confusing as a procedural matter. Here's the story: We filed our petition regarding PRB-1 clarifications, (principally CC&R applicability) and as you well know, it was denied. We filed a petition for reconsideration of only two portions of the petition, and the Wireless Bureau denied them both. We then filed an Application for Review, asking the full Commission to reverse the WTB. Of course, you recall they did not, and off we went to Congress, as FCC had suggested in a masterful effort at buck passing. Mr. McVey, W6EM, filed a pleading that was technically proper, but substantively hopeless. He asked the Commissioners to reconsider their own denial of the Application for Review. Due to a comedy of errors, McVey filed his petition for Reconsideration December 31, 2001, but it was lost by FCC, or it never arrived, and he refiled it on January 7, 2002. The Petition was placed on public notice by FCC on May 6, 2002, but the FCC notice erroneously stated that it was filed by "W. Lee McVey for American Radio Relay League, Inc. on 01/07/02." We complained to the Secretary's office that the PN was wrong, that Mr. McVey was not filing on behalf of ARRL, and on May 10, 2002, the FCC corrected the error with a new corrected PN. The FCC has never in my experience reconsidered and reversed their own denial of an Application for Review (absent being reversed by a Court or by subsequent act of Congress), and any favorable action on McVey's petition is, I believe, extremely unlikely (though I would love to be horribly wrong here). McVey presents cogent, though unpersuasive arguments, and admits that he was not a party to the proceeding before his Petition was filed. In all likelihood, the Petition will be summarily denied at some time later this year. So, we didn't miss a procedural opportunity, and the McVey filing is not of any real consequence. 73, Chris W3KD RADIO RULES: FCC WILL HEAR PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CC&R"S Lee McVey, W6EM, tells Amateur Radio Newsline that the FCC has decided to consider his Petition for Review of the Dismissal of the ARRL Application for Review of RM-8763 which he filed in January. The Bradenton, Florida ham says that this will offer the Commission to take another look at the CC&R issue now that preemption has also been extended to two-way Internet services. This, because many such services cannot function effectively without an outside antenna.

1 0

Fwd: Comm. Daily Noteworthy News
by BFITPC＠aol.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

This was just received from our friends in the UWB coalition. The war is on with respect to the statutory necessity of licensing Part 15 devices that have a significant interference potential to licensed services. We have their opposition, and will prepare a reply by the (extended) due date of June 28. The following was apparently in Comm Daily. Based on a quick read, our perennial opponent, Mitch Lazarus, seems to be arguing that our position is tantamount to undoing Part 15 operation generally, which is not the case. The trick is where to draw the line between licensed and unlicensed devices, a task which we believe FCC has failed, and in doing so, violated the Communications Act. 73, Chris W3KD TELECOM Group of companies that develop devices for Part 15 spectrum, including ultra-wideband developer XtremeSpectrum, opposed petition to FCC for reconsideration by amateur radio group that they said "seems to call into question the lawfulness of unlicensed devices in general." National Assn. for Amateur Radio (ARRL) filed petition for reconsideration in April concerning order that would allow operation of unlicensed fixed, point-to-point transmitters in 24.0-24.25 GHz band using narrow-beamwidth antennas. ARRL petition raised broad Part 15 issues, asking that Commission reverse part of order that addressed its jurisdiction to authorized unlicensed operation of radio frequency devices "which have significant potential for interference to unlicensed radio services." ARRL argued that FCC had no jurisdiction under Communications Act to authorize through rulemaking operations unlicensed devices that had "significant potential" to interfere with licensed radio services. ARRL contended: "The Commission has expanded the concept of unlicensed devices far beyond what its original concept allowed and far beyond what is permissible pursuant to Section 301" of Communications Act. ARRL also said certain statutory provisions barred unlicensed operations, with limited exceptions. In opposition filed late Fri. at FCC, group of technology companies said ARRL's arguments were tantamount to asking FCC to remove computers, cordless phones and "all other radio-based consumer devices" from market. Besides XtremeSpectrum, opposition was filed by Intersil, Symbol Technologies and Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance. "On its face, ARRL's objection reaches much farther than the 24 GHz rule adopted in this proceeding," filing said. "Given that nearly all unlicensed operation in non-government spectrum uses the same frequencies as do licensed radio services, ARRL's petition seems to call into question the lawfulness of unlicensed devices in general." Companies said FCC had backing to implement Part 15 rules as result of: (1) "Great deference" to which Commission's statutory interpretation is entitled. (2) Deference given to agency when it acts in line of its technical expertise. (3) Independent authority of FCC to fill in gaps in Communications Act, "particularly in a fast-moving technological environment." (4) Repeated ratification by Congress of unlicensed operations as evidenced by lawmakers' leaving rules intact for 60 years "while routinely amending other parts of the statute." Opposition filing also said Congress included language in 1997 Balanced Budget Act that excluded from auction bands allocated for unlicensed use under Part 15. "ARRL thus has the difficult task of arguing that Part 15 exceeds the Commission's statutory authority, in the face of a statute that specifically protects Part 15 operations," filing said. - MG

1 0

Fwd: [ARRL-OD:974] Dr. David Woolweaver, K5RAV
by W5JBP＠aol.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

I made an error in hit the "send to officers and directors" instead of the "officers, directors and vice directors. My apologies. I have since found out that Dr. Woolweaver will be moved from the hospital to a re-hab center either today or tomorrow. As soon as I know the address I will put that out as well. He will also have his lap top with him when he is moved so he will be able to get e-mails. As a matter of information, David took a fall from his roof after adjusting his Direct TV dish. Jim Haynie

1 0

Re: [ARRL-ODV:7289] Fwd: Covenants, Pre-emption, and League Policy
by W3KD＠aol.com 03 Jun '02

03 Jun '02

I consider John Swartz a good friend, and maintain contact with him outside Amateur Radio circles. He makes some good points. I won't of course comment on the relative merits of various legislative efforts, but I did want to address one aspect of his correspondence. We have heard a lot about the "powerful interests" that we are opposing in the CC&R legislation. So far, they haven't materialized. Individual HOAs filed in opposition to PRB-1 in 1985, but so far, we haven't been able to smoke out much interest. The only association of HOAs told us they really aren't interested in us; they are concerned more with mandatory access by internet providers to internal wiring of multi-unit dwellings, for example. Of course there will be opposition to this legislation, but there is precedent for it (based on other justifications) and I don't see any large-scale effort to oppose it. I tend to think it is small potatoes to most organized folks. Derek has spoken with the National Association of Realtors and Steve Mansfield and I determined that there is no opposition by the National Association of Home Builders. I don't see much concern on the part of the Community Associations Institute after three meetings with them. The point is that I think John and many others on the Ham-law reflector for example just assume that there will be organized opposition to the legislation. Perhaps counter-intuitively, I don't think there will be such. Chris

1 0