October 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:11376] Re: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No.04-37/03-104
by Henry R. Leggette 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Chris, Your motion is well timed and well done. Thanks! 73, Henry - WD4Q

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11375] Re: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No. 04-37/03-104
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

I made a point of sending the motion to the legal assistants of both Democratic Commissioners. They both immediately acknowledged receipt. Wish I could be a fly on the wall on the 8th floor of the FCC for the next 36 hours. Dave K1ZZ P.S. My best chuckle of the day came when someone asked me where they could get a "Republican veteran NRA member for Kerry" lawn sign. -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Tue 10/12/2004 11:05 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11372] Re: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No. 04-37/03-104 12 OCT, 2004 - 1640 CDT Hello Chris... Very well done work on very short notice. It's a virtual certainty that FCC Chairman Michael Powell will continue to disregard various rules and procedures in his unholy haste to jam ET Docket 04-37/03-104 through to a Report and Order... and the rest of the commissioners support his move, or are at least afraid to go against it because it has been ordered by the neocon-controlled White House to make it so. I fully understand your rationale for our objections and motions. The commission is not expected to accede to our request(s), but we will have a clear record providing more of the basis for possible legal action in the federal court system. I sure as hell am getting tired of these "interesting times". Perhaps the federal election next month will at least abort further schemes by the ultra right-wingers in the White House and Congress. And if anybody has to ask who they are, they have not done their political homework. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11374] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments
by Dennis Bodson 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Dave: There is one issue I don't see and that is many CW people want only CW in the lower 25kHz portion of each band. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11371] October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Approximately 530 responses containing comments (i.e., not including those that just asked questions) have been sent to the "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" email address and/or to Directors who in turn forwarded them to HQ. Dave Patton, NN1N, has tallied the responses as follows. Breakdown of responses by Division: Atlantic 31 Central 30 Dakota 7 Delta 20 Great Lakes 47 Hudson 15 Midwest 28 New England 40 Northwestern 49 Pacific 35 Roanoke 31 Rocky Mountain 17 Southeastern 41 Southwestern 35 West Gulf 46 Foreign 58 General topics (Dave's interpretations) and number of responses (total exceeds tallies above because some respondents listed multiple issues): Lack of sufficient Digital b/w on 10 MHz 168 "It ain't broke"/do nothing/withdraw petition 153 Overall OK, but... (each Winlink/30M comment can go here also, but is not included) 50 Digital interference with CW and phone 49 Nice work/support this 43 Restrict semi-auto stations to certain band segs 24 Too much catering to digital guys 24 This is overregulation 22 Too complicated/confusing 19 Disagree with eliminating automated stations 18 Not enough room for phone/SSB 13 Enforcement issues 13 222 and VHF/UHF weak signal protection 11 40 Meter issues 10 If AM gets 9 kHz then SSB gets 9 kHz 10 80 Meter issues 8 Band plans won't match DX 7 Get rid of AM 7 Use mode sub-banding instead 6 Wants narrow b/w segment on 160 M 5 Forces a speed limit on CW 5 Can't measure b/w 4 Digital b/w too small 4 Don't add modes on top of b/w 4 Create experimenters' areas 4 Let members vote and decide this 3 OOs and OO issues 3 Has problems w/ARRL and methods 3 Disagree w/no digi voice below 29 MHz 3 Move 29 MHz AM/FM lower in the band/QRM on 10 3 Disagree with 100 kHz wide b/w on 2 meters 3 Contradictory information in proposal 2 Disagree with continuous test emissions 2 "You haven't given us data" 2 RTTY issues 2 Wants just one b/w below 29 MHz 1 500 hz digital is too wide 1 SSTV issues 1 Use guard bands/channelize 1 97.309 wording 1 "The footnotes could disappear" 1 We will provide the Executive Committee with a list of issues and options for the October 16 meeting. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11373] Re: FW: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No....
by Joel Harrison 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Does that mean they do a good job of hiding their guilt, or they're guilty of things not known to mortal man ?? You opened the door, so I couldn't help but walk in !! ZN The difference is that the Quakers aren't normally guilty of anything obvious.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11372] Re: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No. 04-37/03-104
by dick＠pobox.com 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

12 OCT, 2004 - 1640 CDT Hello Chris... Very well done work on very short notice. It's a virtual certainty that FCC Chairman Michael Powell will continue to disregard various rules and procedures in his unholy haste to jam ET Docket 04-37/03-104 through to a Report and Order... and the rest of the commissioners support his move, or are at least afraid to go against it because it has been ordered by the neocon-controlled White House to make it so. I fully understand your rationale for our objections and motions. The commission is not expected to accede to our request(s), but we will have a clear record providing more of the basis for possible legal action in the federal court system. I sure as hell am getting tired of these "interesting times". Perhaps the federal election next month will at least abort further schemes by the ultra right-wingers in the White House and Congress. And if anybody has to ask who they are, they have not done their political homework. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11371] October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Approximately 530 responses containing comments (i.e., not including those that just asked questions) have been sent to the "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" email address and/or to Directors who in turn forwarded them to HQ. Dave Patton, NN1N, has tallied the responses as follows. Breakdown of responses by Division: Atlantic 31 Central 30 Dakota 7 Delta 20 Great Lakes 47 Hudson 15 Midwest 28 New England 40 Northwestern 49 Pacific 35 Roanoke 31 Rocky Mountain 17 Southeastern 41 Southwestern 35 West Gulf 46 Foreign 58 General topics (Dave's interpretations) and number of responses (total exceeds tallies above because some respondents listed multiple issues): Lack of sufficient Digital b/w on 10 MHz 168 "It ain't broke"/do nothing/withdraw petition 153 Overall OK, but... (each Winlink/30M comment can go here also, but is not included) 50 Digital interference with CW and phone 49 Nice work/support this 43 Restrict semi-auto stations to certain band segs 24 Too much catering to digital guys 24 This is overregulation 22 Too complicated/confusing 19 Disagree with eliminating automated stations 18 Not enough room for phone/SSB 13 Enforcement issues 13 222 and VHF/UHF weak signal protection 11 40 Meter issues 10 If AM gets 9 kHz then SSB gets 9 kHz 10 80 Meter issues 8 Band plans won't match DX 7 Get rid of AM 7 Use mode sub-banding instead 6 Wants narrow b/w segment on 160 M 5 Forces a speed limit on CW 5 Can't measure b/w 4 Digital b/w too small 4 Don't add modes on top of b/w 4 Create experimenters' areas 4 Let members vote and decide this 3 OOs and OO issues 3 Has problems w/ARRL and methods 3 Disagree w/no digi voice below 29 MHz 3 Move 29 MHz AM/FM lower in the band/QRM on 10 3 Disagree with 100 kHz wide b/w on 2 meters 3 Contradictory information in proposal 2 Disagree with continuous test emissions 2 "You haven't given us data" 2 RTTY issues 2 Wants just one b/w below 29 MHz 1 500 hz digital is too wide 1 SSTV issues 1 Use guard bands/channelize 1 97.309 wording 1 "The footnotes could disappear" 1 We will provide the Executive Committee with a list of issues and options for the October 16 meeting. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11369] Re: FW: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powe ll, ET Docket No....
by Huntington Howard-CADV02 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

OK, Chris. Stunning silence from the FCC, this is historic. That would indicate that you got their attention. And I know what you mean about the Quaker meeting. Howie, K9KM -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11368] Re: FW: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No.... In a message dated 10/12/2004 4:47:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, Howard.Huntington(a)motorola.com writes: Chris, This is a first in my experience, never before having seen this action. Well done again. Howie, K9KM Thanks, Howie, but don't expect Powell to bow down in our direction. This is just record building, really, depending on where we want to go later after the Report and Order.The remedies for these ex parte violations are not clearly delineated in the rules, and there is nothing that I can point to specifically that would require the Chairman to recuse himself, but neither can he cure the taint in the proceeding. We have never in my experience asked an FCC Chairman or Commissioner to recuse himself or herself. Neither, however, has there been handed to us a more glaring rule violation. The FCC people (other than one Legal Assistant to a Democratic Commissioner) have absolutely clammed up. I have never heard such stunning silence since my last Quaker meeting. The difference is that the Quakers aren't normally guilty of anything obvious. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11368] Re: FW: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No....
by W3KD＠aol.com 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/12/2004 4:47:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, Howard.Huntington(a)motorola.com writes: > > > Chris, > > This is a first in my experience, never before having seen this action. > Well done again. > > Howie, K9KM > Thanks, Howie, but don't expect Powell to bow down in our direction. This is just record building, really, depending on where we want to go later after the Report and Order.The remedies for these ex parte violations are not clearly delineated in the rules, and there is nothing that I can point to specifically that would require the Chairman to recuse himself, but neither can he cure the taint in the proceeding. We have never in my experience asked an FCC Chairman or Commissioner to recuse himself or herself. Neither, however, has there been handed to us a more glaring rule violation. The FCC people (other than one Legal Assistant to a Democratic Commissioner) have absolutely clammed up. I have never heard such stunning silence since my last Quaker meeting. The difference is that the Quakers aren't normally guilty of anything obvious. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11366] Re: Fwd: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No. 04-37/03-104
by Jim K8JE 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Go, Christopher, go! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11365] Re: Fwd: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No. 04-37/03-104 As sent today, also filed in ECFS in the docket proceeding. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11367] FW: Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell, ET Docket No. 04-37/03 -104
by Huntington Howard-CADV02 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Chris, This is a first in my experience, never before having seen this action. Well done again. Howie, K9KM

1 0