March 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10294] May QST editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

May QST goes to the printer today. The attached editorial deals, of course, with BPL and the FCC's NPRM. The editorial follows the strategy laid out in my memo to the Executive Committee that I sent to ODV on March 18. It is fairly specific, within the space limitations of page 9 (we had to use a pretty small font this month), as to what we will be seeking in our comments on the NPRM. Because the editorial offers guidance on what members should say in their own comments, I plan to make it available on the Web sometime tomorrow. There is one aspect of our planned filing on which we'll need to make a decision, but the decision point isn't imminent. President Haynie and I have kicked it around a bit, and I think it's appropriate to raise the subject here so you can begin to think about it if you haven't already. When we have the radiated emission limit that is required in order to protect mobiles, we will need to decide whether to seek this limit for the entire spectrum or just for the ham bands. According to Jim and Chris, Ed Thomas is at least somewhat receptive to notching the ham bands. On the other hand, if we actively seek that we're more or less abandoning our potential coalition partners. Leaving aside the federal government HF interests, who presumably are capable of fending for themselves, about the only potential coalition partners who come to mind as having been much heard from are shortwave listeners and broadcasters, some public safety folks with low-band VHF interests, and RC modelers (the Academy of Model Aeronautics). ARINC's reply comments were very supportive of our position, but at present they are under a cloud because the FCC Enforcement Bureau says ARINC's description of a specific interference incident is at odds with the facts; we've sought clarification from ARINC. NAB's position was essentially "not in our back yard" (i.e., not in the lower TV channels) which wasn't especially helpful to us. If we're not going to get more help from non-amateur sources than we have up to now, there is a strong temptation to go for notching. On the other hand, if we could sell the idea of a stricter limit across the whole spectrum it would make BPL a less attractive venture. The problem is, it probably would be much more difficult to sell to the FCC. We have called another meeting of the "coalition" for Friday, April 2. After that meeting I hope to have more information about what sort of non-amateur support we can expect to receive, so we will be in a better position to make an informed decision. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<qs0405.doc>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10293] Re: RM-10867 assigned to ARRL restructuring petition
by W3KD＠aol.com 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

In a message dated 3/24/04 5:16:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, k8je(a)arrl.org writes: > > Chris, > > > > Don’t be such a killjoy! I’ll have to call my friends in the IRA and the > Mafia off, now, and they were really beginning to warm up to some real action. > Hi! > > > > > Actually, Jim, I think the problem is with the Teamster's Union, but I don't dare say anything. I look bad in concrete. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10292] Re: RM-10867 assigned to ARRL restructuring petition
by James Weaver 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Chris, Don't be such a killjoy! I'll have to call my friends in the IRA and the Mafia off, now, and they were really beginning to warm up to some real action. Hi! 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:10291] Re: RM-10867 assigned to ARRL restructuring petition
by W3KD＠aol.com 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Folks, please don't read anything more into the "date change" by the FCC Secretary's office than there really was; it is apparent to me what happened. The cover sheet of our petition indicates that it was for the attention of the Chief, WTB. There was no cover letter with the petition. When it arrived at the Mass Avenue filing location outside FCC, some moron working there sent it to the Wireless Bureau, which lost it, and the copies filed with it. It should have been delivered to the Secretary's office at FCC. When Cross took a copy down showing our date stamp (which read "bureau" on it rather than "Office of the Secretary" the Secretary's office realized that they had never had it before, and they couldn't process the petition in their normal course unless they had it stamped in as of some date in that office. So, they considered the day that Cross brought it to them as the date received by them, hence the date change. There isn't anything worthy of a Congressional hearing about this; it was just normal FCC screwing up. Occam's Razor applies: the simplest explanation is the best. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10290] Re: RM-10867 assigned to ARRL restructuring petition
by James Weaver 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Henry, Thanks. The procedure you described is the one with which I'm familiar. I was just a little surprised to see the initial date stamp on our petition marked out with an "X" rather than a single, straight line as a matter of fact. 73, Jim 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:10289] RM-10867 on public notice
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Today the FCC put our restructuring petition, RM-10867, on public notice along with three others (RM-10868 through RM-10870). So the 30-day window for public comments is now open. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10288] WSJ Article
by Andy Oppel 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Here is a short link to the Wall Street Journal article that can be sent to your constituents. No need to worry about copyright claims as it links directly to the WSJ site. There is a "fair use" clause in the copyright laws that does allow some copying of copyrighted material, but not being an attorney, I don't want to attempt interpreting it. http://tinyurl.com/357ye Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)earthlink.net andy_oppel(a)comcast.net

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10287] W9GIG Off-Line 2 Hours On 23 March
by dick＠pobox.com 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

24 MAR, 2004 - 1050 CST If anybody reading this message sent me a direct email yesterday afternoon, between 1430 and 1630 CST and got a bounce message... my DSL circuit was mistakenly disabled during line testing being done by my ISP. Please resend your message. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10286] Re: RM-10867 assigned to ARRL restructuring petition
by dick＠pobox.com 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

24 MAR, 2004 - 1040 CST My wife has often accused me of being a bit too suspicious. However, I consider it to be part of my survival instinct going back to when I was first a Navy and then an airline pilot. I was suspicious of anything I did not understand, or that was an unexpected last minute change in aircraft configuration or mission. Same principle applies to politics. So we are back to who is WFC who crossed out our original filing date? And for what reason? And Kay, I have had my coffee this morning. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10285] Re: RM-10867 assigned to ARRL restructuring petition
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Make it a double espresso, Kay. As Chris has said, it's just one of life's little mysteries. The RM-numbers are in the right order. By the way, Bill Cross's initials are WTC. Dave K1ZZ

1 0