October 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9671] Re: Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States Court of ...
by Jim 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

Chris, The more I think about it, I think you should have said Mea Maxima Culpa! AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040-9660, Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9670] Minute 25 Committee
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

President Haynie has asked me to announce that he has appointed the following to the committee created at Minute 25 of the July Board Meeting: Dick Mondro, W8FQT (Chairman) Andy Oppel, N6AJO Bdale Garbee, KB0G Rick Muething, KN6KB Al Nollmeyer, W3YVQ Steve Waterman, K4CJX Pete Cecere, N2YJZ (SM of Eastern New York) Rob Griffin, K6YR (SM of Santa Barbara and Chair of NTS Pacific Area Staff) Steve Ewald, WV1X (Hq staff liaison) 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9668] Re: Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
by Dennis Bodson 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

Chris: I agree. Please make the two changes that have already been identified. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: prinaldo(a)arrl.org Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9650] Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit Greetings. On October 22, 2003, ARRL filed a Petition for Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking the Court to reverse the FCC's decision in ET Docket No. 98-156 which permitted the marketing and deployment of microwave transmitters at 24.05-24.25 GHz at field strengths up to 2500 mV/m, using directional antennas with narrow beamwidths. This filing was ordered by the Executive Committee. A copy of the as-filed Petition for Review is attached. It says very little, and is merely a notice of intention to appeal an agency rulemaking decision. The argument is only a simple statement of position. The real argument will be made in briefs filed much later on. Some discussion of this filing was had at the last Board meeting, and this proceeding was discussed in the Minute 56 Study, presented to the Board at the last meeting. You will recall that in this proceeding, the FCC has permitted, in an Amateur band (24.00-24.05 GHz is Amateur primary, and 24.05-24.25 GHz is secondary. The latter segment is shared with Industrial, Scientific and Medical devices, and we have to tolerate any interference from ISM devices. However, Part 15 devices have never been authorized in that band, or in any other band, at such a high field strength) the operation of high power microwave transmitters. FCC did not allow those devices to be operated in the 24.00-24.05 GHz segment, as it was Amateur primary. In essence, our argument will be that ARRL has exceeded its statutory authority in authorizing these high power transmitters without individual licenses. Normally, point to point microwave facilities are operated on a licensed basis under Part 101 of the FCC rules. There are detailed frequency coordination and licensing requirements for all of them. FCC has just required these same extensive coordination and licensing procedures for other radio services (broadcast auxiliary and cable auxiliary), due to the benefits that those elaborate coordination and licensing procedures provide. In this case, however, FCC is content to have non-technical consumers operating high power microwave transmitters without either coordination or licensing. Section 301 of the Communications Act requires, in essence, that all transmitters of RF require licenses issued by the Commission, and that no transmitter can operate without one. There are a few exceptions to this set forth in Section 307 of the Communications Act, for CB, aviation and marine radio. There is no exception for Part 15 devices. However, FCC claims that it has jurisdiction to authorize Part 15 devices pursuant to Section 302(a) of the Communications Act, which allows FCC to regulate the interference potential of devices. While we do not question that jurisdiction, we argue that Section 302(a) is not an exception to Section 301. We understand that FCC has regulated Part 15 in the past premised on the theory that the devices operate at such low power or duty cycle that they have no interference potential to licensed services. Our analysis of Section 301 of the Communications Act tells us that the purpose of the licensing requirement, principally, is interference avoidance and resolution. Therefore, in order that the FCC comply with Section 301, it must find that an unlicensed device has no interference potential to licensed radio services. That holding cannot be reasonably made relative to devices with field strengths of up to 2500 mV/m, albeit using directional antennas, in a reasonably popular Amateur band. The Board discussed at the last meeting that there was almost inevitably a showdown looming between licensed services and Part 15. This is it, and we are using this proceeding to make our statutory argument. There is some concern about this, however, based largely on the FCC's order denying our reconsideration petition. FCC has taken some of the wind out of our sails by claiming, rather boldly, that the 24 GHz devices will NOT have any interference potential to licensed radio services, including the Amateur Service. The Court of Appeals will not substitute its judgment for the alleged expertise of the FCC, and this finding by the FCC is somewhat dangerous to our appeal. Also, as Dave Sumner noted, this band is a secondary Amateur allocation, and we must already accept interference from ISM devices there. It is not like the HF bands, where we have primary allocations. The outcome of this case could be bad in several respects. First, the Court might hold that the FCC does have jurisdiction to authorize Part 15 devices at whatever power levels they want. I think that outcome is unlikely, but it is most certainly possible. The Court might hold that our statutory argument is correct, but that in this case, as FCC will argue, there will likely be no interference because of the narrow antenna beamwidths and the frequency agility of Radio Amateurs, etc. Or, the Court might side with us, and construe Section 301 in accordance with its plain meaning, which will force FCC to go to Congress for some legislative relief. If FCC does that, it will almost certainly get that relief. Congress likes the idea of unlicensed radio operation, and encourages the "spectrum commons" idea. We could find that, in the long run, we have a worse situation than we have now, in terms of what authority FCC has to authorize Part 15 operation. However, as we discussed in July, the Part 15 concept has to end somewhere, lest other bands be devastated by Part 15 as 2.4 GHz, for example, has been. One of our arguments against BPL is that FCC cannot authorize the service on an unlicensed basis. If the 24 GHz proceeding goes unchallenged, it will be more difficult to draw the line in other bands, where perhaps more of our members typically operate. Finally, the 24 GHz devices authorized by the FCC to operate without licenses are virtually impossible to distinguish from those licensed and coordinated under Part 101. So, in the end, and recognizing the dangers in pursuing any challenge to FCC's jurisdiction to authorize unlicensed devices, this proceeding has some benefits that make it, in my view, a good vehicle for this statutory argument. If the Board, or the Executive Committee, upon further review of this matter, disagrees, we can withdraw the Petition for Review, without losing face or much else. But that opportunity does not exist for long, since others might intervene, at which point there is no turning back. We will inevitably be fighting the Part 15 industry, and I anticipate a large number of intervenors on the side of the FCC. We are hoping for a few on our side as well, but they may not be forthcoming. Let me know what questions you have. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9667] Re ODV 9666 Confidential Re ARRL v FCC etc
by John Bellows 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Joel: Thanks. I was thinking that the primary allocation in the 24 GHz band (24.00 to 24.05 GHz) met that criteria but didnt understand that was the case where we are secondary to ISM at 24.05 to 24.25 GHZ. 73, Jay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jay, If you will recall the Minute 56 Ad-Hoc Committee report, the 24 GHz band is one where we have documented in QST recently significant technological achievement by radio amateurs as well as significant activity. If someone wants to attempt to use the argument about what hams are doing here, let them do so. We're on very solid ground here in my opinion. This band is the best microwave band to use as a "test case" for us at this particular moment. Joel

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9666] FW: [ARRL-ODV:9660] Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Court , DC Circuit
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Joel asked me to forward this. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:04 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [ARRL-ODV:9660] Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Court , DC Circuit Jay, If you will recall the Minute 56 Ad-Hoc Committee report, the 24 GHz band is one where we have documented in QST recently significant technological achievement by radio amateurs as well as significant activity. If someone wants to attempt to use the argument about what hams are doing here, let them do so. We're on very solid ground here in my opinion. This band is the best microwave band to use as a "test case" for us at this particular moment. Joel -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:24 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9660] Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Court , DC Circuit I agree with Chris that the continued expansion of Part 15 devices by FCC has to stop. I just wonder if the secondary Amateur allocation at 24.05-24.25 GHz is the place to stand our ground. As I understand the situation: 1. FCC claims that it has jurisdiction to authorize Part 15 devices pursuant to Section 302(a) of the Communications Act, which allows FCC to regulate the interference potential of devices. 2. We don't question that jurisdiction, we argue that Section 302(a) is subject to Section 301 which provides (with a few Section 307 exceptions, e.g. CB, aviation and marine radio) no RF transmitters can operate without an FCC license. 3. In the order denying our reconsideration petition FCC states (finds) that the 24 GHz devices will NOT have any interference potential to licensed radio services. 4. Even though we believe the non-interference finding by FCC is without merit it is highly unlikely the Court of Appeals will substitute its judgment for the alleged expertise of the FCC. 5. Amateurs only have a secondary allocation and as such must tolerate any interference from the primary user, Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) devices. 6. There is no indication that the ISM community is inclined to Petition for Review of this action. 7. Even if the Court holds our statutory argument is correct, it could find, based on FCC evaluation, there will likely be no interference because of the narrow antenna beamwidths and the frequency agility of Radio Amateurs. 8. If the Court sides with us and construes Section 301 in accordance with its plain meaning, FCC will likely go to Congress for some legislative relief. 9. If FCC does that, it will almost certainly get that relief because Congress likes the idea of unlicensed radio operation, and encourages the "spectrum commons" idea. We could find that, in the long run, Congress could expand FCC Part 15 authority and we may have a worse situation than at present. Here are my questions. If we don't have the firm support of the ISM industry, is this really the battlefield of choice? What is the probability we can actually win this case? It seems that unlike the problems created by mass marketed omni-directional Part 15 transmitters, the source of interference from one these radiators should be relatively easy to track down. Unless I am missing something it also appears that once located the non-interference provisions of Part 15 should apply to the transmitter and it will be up to the owner to correct the interference problem. How do we avoid the claim that Amateurs are only interested in hanging on to little used spectrum because it is "theirs" no matter how underutilized, even in the light of a compatible use? Mind you I don't believe that but the claim will be raised. Shouldn't we wait for a battlefield more to our liking? The playing field is tilted enough. Wouldn't it be to our advantage to wait for a better fact situation or at the very least one where we have a few allies? 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9665] New committee formed?
by Tom Frenaye 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

This week's In-News carried this item: >Field Organization/Public Service Team > >The ARRL's ad-hoc committee on emergency communications held its introductory teleconference. Vice Director Dick Mondro chairs the committee and Vice Director Andy Oppel is on it also, with Steve Ewald as HQ liaison. A reflector was set up for the committee, and the group is organizing ways to address tasks defined in Minute 25 of the July 2003 Board Meeting minutes. Unless I missed the message, I don't think the membership list for the new committee has been announced to the Board. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9664] Re Re Confidential re ARRLv FCC, United States District Court , District of Columbia
by John Bellows 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Chris: Good point. If it was an argument it was force of habit. Actually I was just looking to be convinced we werent looking down a large hole before proceeding. 73, Jay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a message dated 10/28/2003 2:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: 6. There is no indication that the ISM community is inclined to Petition for Review of this action. Jay, the above is the only red herring in your argument; ISM devices are in general RF emitters (e.g. RF light bulbs, arc welders, etc), and therefore not subject themselves to RFI. You won't hear from them about RFI from Part 15 devices or anything else. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9663] Re: Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Co...
by W3KD＠aol.com 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Jay, let me try to respond to your very well-stated and reasonable concerns about this proceeding. I believe that Dave Sumner shares some of these same concerns, and I don't necessarily believe that I have provided him satisfactory answers to date. > > > If we don’t have the firm support of the ISM industry, is this really the > battlefield of choice? There is no help from ISM device manufacturers, as they have no interference problem. See my prior message. What is the probability we can actually win this case? I think it reasonably good, when you look at the requirement of Section 301 of the communications Act. It is absolute. It requires that "no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio (intrastate or interstate or internationally) or when interference is caused by such use or operation with the transmission of such energy, communications or signals...except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act." If FCC wants to weasel its way around this, it will have to justify it by reference to Section 302(a), which I don' t believe it can do. The allowance of Part 15 by reference to a construction of Section 302(a) is likely to fail, and otherwise, the non-interference condition is merely an FCC construct. We gave FCC that in our comments and our reconsideration petition, but really, even that doesn't have a statutory underpinning. It is not only signals that have interference potential, it is all communications and emissions by radio that require a license. It seems that unlike the > problems created by mass marketed omni-directional Part 15 transmitters, > the source of interference from one these radiators should be relatively easy > to track down. Unless I am missing something it also appears that once located > the non-interference provisions of Part 15 should apply to the transmitter > and it will be up to the owner to correct the interference problem. > > You are correct. The normal Section 15.5 rule applies: the devices are supposed to shut down in the event of interference. That doesn't translate, however, to compliance with Section 301 of the Communications Act, and our argument is that the post hoc interference resolution obligation is a red herring. Maybe it is possible to DF the offending transmitter, maybe not, but the purpose of Section 301 is to avoid interference in the first place, and the FCC's normal rules for Part 101 OFS transmitters includes frequency coordination, which would provide an opportunity to avoid interference when the microwave system is first licensed. And, the FCC doesn't investigate Part 15 interference complaints typically, so the interference is not remedied as it is with licensed services, where the interference can be determined by database references, quickly and easily. > > > How do we avoid the claim that Amateurs are only interested in hanging on to > little used spectrum because it is “theirs” no matter how underutilized, > even in the light of a compatible use? Mind you I don’t believe that but the > claim will be raised. > Not a valid argument in the Court of Appeals. The FCC didn't make any specific findings on "underutilized" and that is beyond the scope of the appeal. And the argument isn't that the use is incompatible on a large scale; it is that it cannot be authorized unless the transmitters are licensed. > > > Shouldn’t we wait for a battlefield more to our liking? The playing field is > tilted enough. Wouldn’t it be to our advantage to wait for a better fact > situation or at the very least one where we have a few allies? > > What is compelling about this case, rather than BPL, or SAVI, or some other case, is that the transmitter power and permitted field strength is so great that the path lengths are many miles. This service approaches OFS microwave so closely that it is not possible to differentiate the two operationally at all. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9662] IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

IN-Newsletter Vol. 26, No. 43 October 29, 2003 Upcoming Meetings November 8th in Dallas, TX at 8:30am Volunteer Resources Committee November 9th in Dallas, TX at 8:30am Executive Committee November 21st in Newington, CT Division Election Ballot Counting Development The special Spectrum Defense campaign against BPL has exceeded its goal by reaching $301,488 from 5,505 donors. More than 140 clubs and organizations have contributed nearly $30,000 in this effort. The 2004 Spectrum Defense mail is complete and should reach homes the week of November 3. The goal of this campaign is $225,000. The fourth quarter report for CNCS is complete. Development is preparing documents for submission to Citizen Corps in support of the Statement of Affiliation signed at the National Convention in Dallas in June 2003. The documents requested by the Citizen Corps national office include a plan for supporting Citizen Corps goals at the national, state and local level. Media Relations Dave Sumner submitted a letter to the editor of the Raleigh, North Carolina News & Observer in response to an article on BPL and offered a lot of information on the negative effects it would have on the Amateur Radio Service. Also on the subject of ham radio and BPL, Dave was interviewed by a reporter in Manassas, Virginia. The story, which turned out well, ran in the Manassas Journal Messenger and its sister paper the Potomac News. Jennifer worked with a reporter from the Journal Inquirer (Manchester, CT) who is interested in pursuing a story on ham radio emergency communications, including the homeland security angle. Thanks to help from Dan Miller and Steve Ewald, she offered contact information for local interviewees, the press release on the CNCS year-two grant, and other background materials. A reporter (also a ham) with Washington, D.C.'s NBC affiliate has expressed interest in doing a story on BPL. He'd like to present all sides of the issue, and include Amateur Radio's position. Jennifer has talked with Maryland/DC Section Manager Tom Abernathy, and is working on getting an interviewee from the Manassas area. She e-mailed the reporter with much of the BPL information on the ARRL Web site, including the videos. This media relations effort is ongoing. Jennifer submitted the PR Committee's proposal for instituting section-wide speakers' bureaus to VRC chairman Director Walstrom. Jen and the committee members will stand by for further direction on this project. Jennifer assisted a life member who is putting together an Amateur Radio presentation for use during talks with non-ham groups. He was looking for statistical information, background on the history of Amateur Radio and a lead on famous hams, among other subject areas. Production/Editorial Rick Lindquist reports The ARRL Letter, Vol. 22, No. 42, circulated to 67,088 members on Oct 24. That's up by 166 subscribers from the previous week and by 503 subscribers for October. After wrapping up work on "Happenings" for the December issue of QST, Rick wrote news stories on ARRL's response to the Manassas (VA) BPL rollout; Hamvention's contract with Hara Arena for the 2004 show; the changeover from one two-ham crew aboard the ISS to another; "In Brief" (15 items); and a successful PRB-1 case in Texas. He edited and shot/edited additional photos for a report on the USTTI Class of 2003 and handled a couple of Web news briefs. He also worked with Tad Cook, K7RA, to update the propagation report that appears on the Web site. Rick voiced, produced and edited ARRL Audio News, with voiceover assistance from Jennifer Hagy, N1TDY. On Friday, October 24, trucks arrived to pick up both of the Linotronic imagesetting systems we had auctioned on eBay. The imagesetters weight 400 pounds each and require delicate handling, so getting everything into the individual trucks was an adventure. Everything went smoothly thanks to the team of Greg Kwasowski, Joe Shea, Paul Lappen, Shelly Bloom and Dave Pingree. One unit is bound for the Philippines, the other for Ohio. A special thanks to Jodi Morin for her thorough cleaning of the equipment prior to shipment. Sales & Marketing Kathy Capodicasa and Ann Marie Pinto participated in a conference call with computer consultant Alan Cohen on Thursday. This was to discuss dealer backorder fulfillment needs. Dealer backorders are still processed manually by creating a separate order or they are not processed until the item comes into stock. A system has been set in place to officially process dealer back orders in conjunction with the Controller's Department. We hope to implement this system once additional testing has been completed. Deb Jahnke is finishing up a promo to a select group of new hams offering the current edition of the ARRL Operating Manual as a premium item. Although we have tried several variations on our "sign up letter", we have not significantly changed our promotion offerings. This mailing will attempt to determine the emphasis that the recipients put on the premium. Life Member Statistics and other reports are under way for the EC meeting. December QST just left for the printer and we are already commencing work on the January 2004 advertising section. Our page count goal was exceeded for the December issue and we hope to do the same for January. Backorders for all versions of The ARRL Handbook (soft cover, hardcover, CD Rom) and The ARRL Antenna Book have been released. This includes all dealer and individual customers. Individual customers will start receiving their shipments on the worldwide release date of October 20, 2003. Orders of the new editions of these titles have most likely exceeded sales targets planned for their debut month. The aggressive roll-out of these titles began in early September with announcements and sales calls to publication dealers. Individual orders have been brisk, amplified by display advertising and direct marketing promotions. The new publications also garnered attention in ARRL news outlets. Substantial orders have been placed by the Ingram Book Group, a wholesale distributor of publications to booksellers, librarians and specialty retailers. The Sales and Marketing team have been pulling together details to support another ARRL membership recruitment program with ICOM. Our experience from the cooperative membership promotion launched in Dayton and continuing through August helped shape this new initiative. The first initiative resulted in 139 new members, many of them newer hams, Technicians and others that we do not reach well through traditional offers. Rather than depend on dealers handing out special coupons, the new program calls for a special ARRL membership promotion sticker to be attached to the outside of the box for radios sold by ICOM dealers for a limited time. The stickers will direct customers to an ARRL web page to join using a $15 membership voucher issued by ICOM. Remaining program details are still being defined, but ICOM is featuring the new initiative in December advertising. Di produced her first web banner this week. The banner advertises the Tropical Hamboree, and is now included in the ad rotation on the ARRLWeb. The money saving "ARRL Library Book Set" has been updated to include the latest editions of popular ARRL publications. The set is intended for clubs or individuals that wish to make a gift to a local library or school. Details can be found online at http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/club/libookset.html We will soon carry the new book, Instruments of Amplification, by Peter Friedrichs. The book was suggested for resale consideration by Steve Ford. It includes instructions on how to build amplifying components including homebrew tubes and point-contact transistors. Watch for it as it soon becomes available on the ARRLWeb Catalog, http://www.arrl.org/shop A handful of requests for the new membership brochures have been received, prompted by the recent attention the flyer received in November's issue of QST (page 12). Volunteers are handing them out at classes and exams. One respondent requested copies to distribute at a waterway and cruising club event. A publication email solicitation was distributed to over 46,000 members on Friday afternoon. A current promotion offers a free ARRL Repeater Directory for online orders of $50 or more, placed through October 31. Over 200 Web orders were placed over the weekend following the emailing. Membership Services We wish to express our condolences on the passing of DXCC's Ann Figat's mother last week. Our thoughts and prayers are with Ann and her family at this time. Awards Branch WAS Ends. (50 QSLs ES/C) 1 WAS Ends. (100 QSLs F/C) 2 Extra Class Certs. 48 LTMA Inquiries 2 A-1 Op. Noms. 1 VUCC Initial Apps. 8 Grids 561 VUCC End. Apps. 10 Grids 545 Awards Mailed 17 HF Awards Manager Appt.: Bill Barr, N4NX, Atlanta, GA. Ordered the 5BWAS engraved plates for the plaques. Processing Status: Current or up to three weeks. For the coming week-WAS and WAC QSL card checking, (foreign) WAC awards, process and mail VUCC certificates and endorsements, mail out the Extra Class certificates, and try again to complete the filing chores associated with the LTMAs issued earlier this year. Contest Branch The On-Line Field Day write-up was finalized and opened to the Member's Only Section. Corrections and problems for the Field Day results were handled. The June VHF QSO Party results were sent to Production and the web version was begun. Data entry for the 10 GHz and Up Contest and September VHF QSO party continued. Scores for the August UHF event were received and work began on the QST and web write-ups. We are pleased to add K2TXB to our list of authors. Russ will be doing the 2003 EME Contest write-up. DXCC Branch For the week of: October 26, 2003 Beginning Cards 186,961 Cards Received 3,733 Cards Processed 14,007 Ending Cards 176,687 Applications Pending 1,596 Processing Time 7.7 Weeks Year-to-date (2003) Cards Received 548,894 Cards Returned 586,676 DXCC is currently mailing applications received on September 2, 2003. DXCC is currently entering cards received on September 16, 2003. Heather Dzamba conducted six tours through HQ this week. W1AW Thanks to Dan Henderson, N1ND for his operating W1AW in the CQ World Wide DX SSB Contest. Despite the less-than-stellar operating conditions during the time he was on (due to solar activity), he managed to make 267 QSOs on 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters, for a claimed score of 129,592. The Elecraft K2 QRP transceiver has been returned from its trip to an Elecraft service tech. (It was sent out for some Elecraft TLC.) The radio now resides in the station's main room. Joe updated the web code practice files. He also spent some time repairing two PCs with faulty network cards and problems with Windows 98. He also upgraded the PC used for local station printing/scanning to a Pentium-class machine. Scott worked on slow and fast code practice files for the latter part of the month of October and early November. He also handled some evening phone sales calls in the 5 PM to 8 PM time slot. W1AW Telephone Sales year to date (2003): $28,557. Field & Educational Services Rosalie worked with ARISS school mentors on finishing NASA's required school evaluations. The result: all but 2 (a Russian and a Canadian school) of the 43 schools that had ARISS QSOs the past year, submitted evaluations. Rosalie worked with Johnson Space Center to plan a training QSO for astronaut Barb Morgan, with a school. ESA Astronaut Pedro Duque had a good QSO with Colegio Ceip Seixalvo in Spain. Field & Education Support Team Margie Bourgoin reports one set of new club affiliation papers sent for Director approval, and one SSC renewal. She notified the next schools in line for an ARISS contact by the Expedition 8 crew about lesson plans and support material. She is helping Jean Wolfgang with JOTA survey results. Jean Wolfgang has received 46 JOTA survey/logs. In one week, we have recorded that 2,098 scouts and 410 visitors have participated in JOTA 2003. Jean is also reviewing the awards she handles in an effort to make them more streamlined and possibly "Web friendly." Linda Mullally updated 66 club records with 2 reactivations. She registered 11 Instructors and 3 Teachers and sent 1 Exhibit kit. Linda compiled results of the Club Gazette Survey/comments and put together a findings report. She continued with edits to the beta -Online Instructors Primer, checking spelling and hyperlink functions, with revisions sent to Tom Hogerty. Gail Iannone sent 8 hamfest approval letters and 2 convention approval letters to the sponsoring committees confirming the Division Director's approval of the events as ARRL-sanctioned, processed 6 door prize orders, and sent 12 handout packages for upcoming events. She also coordinated travel for Dan Miller to be the HQ rep at the Florida State Convention, February 7-8, 2004 in Miami. Mary Lau related how, with the help of Merrill Lynch personnel and Foundation Treasurer Roger Franke, K9AYK, we were able to help a Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute student complete his class registration after RPI misplaced his Foundation scholarship check. The student was ecstatic we could get this resolved so quickly! Regulatory Information John Hennessee assisted an amateur with local government zoning problem in Bristol, VA (WE4T), and with covenant problems in Alma, KS (W0MAF) and Williamsburg, VA (N4ARI). He processed the appointment of a new Volunteer Counsel (Richard Goldman, KG4NBS). He also created a regulatory Web page on commonly asked licensing questions for the FAQ page. Field Organization/Public Service Team The ARRL's ad-hoc committee on emergency communications held its introductory teleconference. Vice Director Dick Mondro chairs the committee and Vice Director Andy Oppel is on it also, with Steve Ewald as HQ liaison. A reflector was set up for the committee, and the group is organizing ways to address tasks defined in Minute 25 of the July 2003 Board Meeting minutes. Chuck Skolaut received and forwarded a 75-meter FCC monitoring request to SMs and OOCs in two ARRL Sections. He compiled and also sent the monthly ARRL Monitoring System Report to the IARU Region 2 Coordinator. Chuck forwarded to the FCC a report of illegal operation on 10 meters with truck-trailer identification. Leona prepared next year's SM Election Cycle calendar and shared it with pertinent HQ staff. EmComm Grants Dan Miller prepared materials for his seminar he was to lead at Hamfest Minnesota, this weekend. He has a new PowerPoint presentation to debut. He's doing planning for seminars to be held in 2004. The Level II updated manual went to the printer. Amateur Radio Education and Technology Project Mark Spencer reports that the two QST items on Big Project activities are receiving additional press on the Parallax Inc Web page that teachers peruse. He continues to receive applications for school grants. He worked on a survey of how Big Project schools are doing thus far. 73, Sincerely, Mark Wilson, K1RO Chief Operating Officer MW:lk Staff Absentee List All Staff 11/27-11/28 Holiday Mark Wilson 10/31 Vacation Mary Hobart 10/31-11/3 Vacation Jennifer Hagy 11/3 Vacation Dennis Motschenbacher 11/6-11/7 Training Rick Lindquist 10/30-11/7 Vacation Mark Spencer 10/30-10/31 ARRL GA Section Convention/Big Project School visit Rosalie White 10/28-10/31 Vacation/ARRL Michigan State convention Wayne Mills 10/29-11/04 RSGB Margie Bourgoin 11/14 ARRL Louisiana State Convention Fatima LoRusso 11/3 Jury Duty Zoe Belliveau 11/7 Vacation `` 12/29-12/31 Vacation Danny Sayad 11/7 Vacation Kathy Capodicasa 12/2 Jury Duty Mark Dzamba 12/1-12/5 Vacation Pam Dzamba 12/1-12/5 Vacation Lisa Tardette 12/29-12/31 Vacation

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9661] Re: Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Co...
by W3KD＠aol.com 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

In a message dated 10/28/2003 2:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: > 6. There is no indication that the ISM community is inclined to > Petition for Review of this action. > > Jay, the above is the only red herring in your argument; ISM devices are in general RF emitters (e.g. RF light bulbs, arc welders, etc), and therefore not subject themselves to RFI. You won't hear from them about RFI from Part 15 devices or anything else. Chris

1 0