August 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9280] (no subject)
by W5JBP＠aol.com 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

http://outlook4mobility.com/commentary2003/aug1303.htm

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9279] More BPL
by W5JBP＠aol.com 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

Hi Jim, Thanks again for helping with the BPL story. Here's a link to the article as in appears today in PwC's Telecom Direct.: <A HREF="http://www.telecomdirect.pwcglobal.com/telecom/direct:TIH/Telecom_Technolog…"> http://www.telecomdirect.pwcglobal.com/telecom/direct:TIH/Telecom_Technolog… chnology/HardwareSoftware/0000001198.?& dp=PWC.GENERALINFO.TITLE:Shocking+News%3a+Broadband+over+Power+Lines</A> This link is very long. If it doesn't work, go to <A HREF="http://www.telecomdirect.pwcglobal.com/"> http://www.telecomdirect.pwcglobal.com</A> and select the Hardware & Software section in the left column.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9278] Powell: "I'm going to stick around. Absolutely."
by Tom Frenaye 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

FCC Chairman Warns of More Regulation By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 12:55 p.m. ET ASPEN, Colo. (AP) -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell said Monday the threat of terrorism and the ``despicable activity'' of some companies has led to a shift toward more regulation that could harm innovation and the economy. ``I do see a mood swing in Washington. I see a mood swing in the country,'' Powell said at the Aspen Summit, a technology and telecommunications summit held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Washington think tank. Powell said he worries about the rising belief that regulations do a better job than free markets because ``the telecommunications sector and the high-tech sector are at a point in history where they can ill afford to be lined up with that kind of thinking.'' He also said industry bears much of the blame. The litany of corporate fraud cases has undermined the public's trust and generated support for more regulations. ``The despicable activity engaged in by Enron and MCI and Adelphia -- and the list is long -- violates the trust of their employees, violates the trust of the market, violates the trust of consumers and people cry out to be protected,'' he said. Powell said the government must respond, but should avoid going too far. Powell also said again that despite recent criticism, he won't quit his job. ``I'm going to stick around. Absolutely,'' he said. Rumors and reports that Powell would resign have proliferated recently under intense criticism in Congress and elsewhere over the FCC's decision to roll back media ownership rules. Led by Powell, the Republican-dominated FCC voted 3-2 on June 2 to ease decades-old restrictions on ownership of newspapers and television and radio stations. The changes, which go into effect on Sept. 4, allow a single company to own TV stations reaching nearly half the nation's viewers and combinations of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the same area. Lawmakers from both parties are pushing to roll back some or all the FCC changes, a fight expected to heat up when Congress returns from its August recess. ===== 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:9277] Re: Ham Radio PAC?
by dick＠pobox.com 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

18 AUG, 2003 - 1210 CDT Hello Dave... Thanks for the brief review of the differences between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) organization in terms of political lobbying activity. The question that keeps popping up in my mind is whether or not "insubstantial" lobbying will be sufficient for our goals considering the political and regulatory climate in "The City of Truth & Light". 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9276] Re: FW: Notification of candidates, ARRL elections
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

Further to my earlier message, I can also advise you that the Election Committee has declared the following to be eligible: Central Division Director: Isely Hudson Division Director: Fallon and Mendelsohn Hudson Division Vice Director: Birmingham New England Division Director: Frenaye New England Division Vice Director: Raisbeck Northwestern Division Director: Milnes Northwestern Division Vice Director: Fenstermaker Roanoke Division Director: Bodson Roanoke Division Vice Director: Shattuck Still pending are decisions concerning Hensley (as reported earlier) and Huntington (petition received the day before the deadline). Congratulations to those who have been re-elected (not yet including Les Shattuck, pending the decision on Patricia Hensley's eligibility) and to Joyce Birmingham. David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9275] FW: Notification of candidates, ARRL elections
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

Here is the notification sent to candidates for Director and Vice Director. I have informed Patricia Hensley, N4ROS, by telephone that her petition appears to contain only nine valid signatures. Her petition had only ten signatures and one of the signers is not currently a member. However, the Election Committee has not yet formally ruled on her eligibility. David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:16 PM > To: Hensley Patricia; Shattuck, Leslie, (Vice Dir, Roanoke); Bodson, Dennis (Dir, Roanoke); Fenstermaker, James (Vice Dir, NW); Milnes, Greg (Dir, NW); Raisbeck, Mike (Vice Dir, NE); Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE); 'ka2anf(a)arrl.net'; Mendelsohn, Steve (Vice Dir, Hudson); Fallon, Frank (Dir, Hudson ); Huntington, Howard (Vice Dir, Central); Isely, Dick (Dir, Central) > Subject: Notification of candidates, ARRL elections > > The ARRL election schedule calls for the Secretary to notify each candidate of the names and call signs of other candidates on Monday, August 18. Here is the list of petitions and candidate's questionnaires that were received as of Friday's noon deadline. As yet, not all of the candidates have been certified to be eligible by the Election Committee. > > In the case of candidates that do not have opposition, once they are certified to be eligible they will be declared elected or re-elected, as the case may be. > > David Sumner, K1ZZ > Secretary, ARRL > > > Central > > Director uncontested: George R. Isely, W9GIG > > Vice Director uncontested: Howard Huntington, K9KM > > > Hudson > > Director: Frank Fallon, N2FF - Stephen Mendelsohn, W2ML > > Vice Director uncontested: Joyce Birmingham, KA2ANF > > > New England > > Director uncontested: Thomas Frenaye, K1KI > > Vice Director uncontested: Michael Raisbeck, K1TWF > > > Northwestern > > Director uncontested: Greg Milnes, W7OZ > > Vice Director uncontested: James Fenstermaker, K9JF > > > Roanoke > > Director uncontested: Charles D. Bodson, W4PWF > > Vice Director: Leslie Shattuck, K4NK -- Patricia Hensley, N4ROS > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9274] Re: Ham Radio PAC?
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

Briefly, 501(c)(3)s may only engage in public education and insubstantial lobbying. They may engage in nonpartisan voter registration, voter education, and GOTV (get-out-the-vote). In conducting "issue advocacy" a 501(c)(3) may not promote or criticize particular candidates. Campaign intervention is strictly prohibited. Article 12 of the ARRL Articles of Association is written in order to conform to this. We could form an affiliated 501(c)(4), which is a social welfare organization. Contributions to a 501(c)(4) are not tax deductible and there are other tax limitations. In turn, the 501(c)(4) could form a PAC. The rules governing all of this are quite complicated and are intended to prevent any of the resources of the 501(c)(3) being used to fund political activity, as well as to ensure that there is public disclosure of the sources and uses of the PAC's funds. There is a discussion of the relationship between 501(c)(3)s and affiliated 501(c)(4)s at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/topici02.pdf, pages 32-35. Other than to form a PAC there isn't any particular benefit to us from having a 501(c)(4) since the amount of lobbying we are required to do falls within the "insubstantial" definition. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL) Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9272] Re: Ham Radio PAC? Chris, Thanks. I interpret what you have said relates only to ARRL as a 501c3 organization, only. Thinking more broadly (clearly not in terms of ARRL as defined by statutes) we ought to be able, if we wish, to set up a separate PAC organization (is it 501.c.4?) and indirectly (even directly?) control it, though, couldn't we? Another question I have is: Just how far can we go toward PACism without jeopardizing our 501.c.3? Handing out money would not be possible, but what is? 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9273] "When all else fails"
by Kay Craigie 18 Aug '03

18 Aug '03

This article about wireless phones during the blackout, taken in the context of ARRL's web story about ham radio emergency comm that went on despite the outage, is yet another example of how our slogan is more than just words. http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/15/technology/landlines/index.htm?cnn=yes 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9272] Re: Ham Radio PAC?
by Jim Weaver 17 Aug '03

17 Aug '03

Chris, Thanks. I interpret what you have said relates only to ARRL as a 501c3 organization, only. Thinking more broadly (clearly not in terms of ARRL as defined by statutes) we ought to be able, if we wish, to set up a separate PAC organization (is it 501.c.4?) and indirectly (even directly?) control it, though, couldn't we? Another question I have is: Just how far can we go toward PACism without jeopardizing our 501.c.3? Handing out money would not be possible, but what is? 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9271] Re: Ham Radio PAC?
by W3KD＠aol.com 17 Aug '03

17 Aug '03

In a message dated 8/11/2003 6:45:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE(a)ARRL.org writes: > We > cannot do this until we determine what we can, cannot, should and should > not do. > > Why NOT look into this? > Actually, we did a rather thorough job of that a handful of years ago, when the Board instructed Dave to do so. We consulted with a law firm in Georgetown (believe it or not, a free, but rather extensive, consultation, arranged by John Chwat's office) that specializes in this sort of corporate organization issue. Their concern, as Dave noted earlier, was that ARRL, as a 501(c)(3), could not have anything to do with the PAC corporation, and could not have interlocking Boards or staff, if I recall correctly. There were other limitations, which we can resurrect from notes taken at the time, which made the formation of a PAC rather difficult, and the funding arrangements even more so. Perhaps it is worth another look, but I don't believe anything has changed that would make forming a PAC any more feasible than it was. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0