July 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10961] Re: FW: Complaint Progress Energy Part 15 Devices
by Andy Oppel 24 Jul '04

24 Jul '04

I'm more reminded of JFK's threat to break them (a different agency) into a thousand pieces. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 06:02 AM 7/23/2004, you wrote: >I'm reminded of one of my favorite lines from the Movie "Airplane!". > >Chris knows which one I'm referring to. > >73 Joel W5ZN > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:31 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10942] Re: FW: Complaint Progress Energy Part 15 Devices > >The FCC has sent the attached letter describing its findings in the North >Carolina interference case. > >Obviously we will not let it go unchallenged. > >Dave K1ZZ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Stillwell [mailto:Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov] >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:20 AM >To: n4tab(a)earthlink.net >Cc: Len.S.Anthony(a)pgnmail.com; matt.oja(a)pgnmail.com; >bill.godwin(a)pgnmail.com; Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; Imlay, Chris; George Dillon; >Riley Hollingsworth >Subject: Complaint re: Progress Energy Part 15 Devices > >Dear Mr. Brown, > >The attached letter responds to your complaint of April 27, 2004 regarding >the operations of Progress Energy Corporation's BPL trials in Southern >Wake County, North Carolina. A signed copy of this letter is being mailed >to your address as provided in your complaint. > >Alan Stillwell >Senior Associate Chief, >Office of Engineering and Technology, >Federal Communications Commission

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10954] Re: Bandwidth petition status
by Jim K8JE 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Dave, Great editorial! Obviously, some hams will dislike this idea, simply because it represents change. The same happened with the move to CW vs. spark and other advances, of course. Provided answers to the anticipated questions surrounding how "we" are to measure bandwidth and what will happen to "my" favorite mode are answered in the FAQ or prologue to the overview, I don't think any serious lynch parties will arise and storm HQ and our homes. The final paragraph and the follow-up to it is a real clincher and will be a well-received offer in the mind of GLD members at least. 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 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: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<qs0409.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10960] Re: Re: Re: Bandwidth petition status
by K5ur＠aol.com 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Rgr, Dave. Tnx. 73, K5UR In a message dated 7/23/2004 4:35:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> writes: >That's the idea, Rick. Depending on the nature of the question, Paul may need to answer. Or, it may be someone else. Some of the questions we already know the answer to -- such as, why we're not proposing segmentation of the 160-meter band. > >Will we be overwhelmed with questions? I really don't think so. That would be a high-class problem -- it would indicate there's greater interest in the subject. If we do get overwhelmed it will just slow the process down. That would be OK, although we want to get the petition filed so it can be considered by the FCC at the same time as the restructuring petitions. > >Dave > >-----Original Message----- >From: Roderick, Rick (aol.com) >Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:08 PM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10957] Re: Re: Bandwidth petition status > > >Dave: > >So, is someone at HQ going to answer all the questions and address the comments that come in? > >73, >K5UR > >In a message dated 7/23/2004 3:55:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> writes: > >>Jay, bear in mind that we're not determining Board policy. The Board did that in July 2002. We're implementing existing policy. Jim Haynie cautioned the Board last Saturday, I think quite appropriately, against doing surveys. Certainly we're not planning a national survey. We're just trying to provide an organized way to collect questions and comments. >> >>We're not asking members whether they think defining subbands by bandwidth is a good idea. We're explaining to them why it IS a good idea. We need to explain what we're doing and why, before we do it. Also, we need to give them a chance to ask questions and point out mistakes we might otherwise make in implementing the policy. >> >>What constitutes a mistake will, of course, be a matter of opinion. We're introducing the concept of intermediate bandwidths for digital modes in newly established subbands. There's bound to be some disagreement as to detail. We're following most, but not all, of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. >> >>Giving members a single email address to which to address questions and comments is, I think, an appropriate way to implement Minute 9 of the March 13 EC meeting. As they are received they can be forwarded to individual Directors if that is your desire. But if we invite questions to be posed to 15 Directors they are going to be answered 15 different ways. If we tell members to make suggestions for changes to Directors we're placing a responsibility on Directors to be sure to pass along any that may have some merit. >> >>What I suggest is the following. >> >>Let us get the final draft petition out to ODV as early as possible next week. Let everyone look it over (everyone saw an earlier version in January, but significant changes have been made since then) and ask whatever questions or offer whatever comments you wish. After everyone on ODV has had a crack at it, we'll post the synopsis/explanation and get member feedback. The member feedback may well point out some changes that we should consider before filing; if so, we can do that and the EC either can make the final determination at its October 16 meeting, or ask the Board to do so by mail. >> >>If we do all this and no proposed changes emerge, the Board already has given us authority to file and there's no further decision to be made. But I don't expect that. What I hope is that we'll get some suggestions for fine-tuning. If instead we get an overwhelming "this is a terrible idea, drop the whole thing" then we'll certainly have failed to explain what it's all about -- and we can stop and try to figure out how we could have gotten it so wrong two years ago. >> >>73, >>Dave K1ZZ >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) >>Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:54 PM >>To: arrl-odv >>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10955] Re: Bandwidth petition status >> >> >>Dave: >> >>I note your September "It Seems to Us" editorial provides a HQ email address, for questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved. >> >>Though the invitation in the editorial is not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will likely want to know the results. I question whether a "yes I like it" or "no, I don't like it" response is very helpful to the board in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X% nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it really doesn't help me in "taking the temperature" of members in the Dakota Division. >> >>My intention is to seek input from the Dakota Division through a division wide email and (Yes, I'm going to use the "P" word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to support that view. >> >>I've been told I am process oriented. That's probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members' control of the organization is exercised through electing Division representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address. >> >>73, >>Jay, KØQB >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >>Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:30 AM >>To: arrl-odv >>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status >> >>This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. >>July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." >>Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. >>Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. >>First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. >>Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. >>73, >>Dave Sumner, K1ZZ >><<qs0409.pdf>> >> > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10959] Re: Bandwidth petition status
by John Bellows 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Dave: For most members this will be an issue of first impression. When they are asked in It Seems to Us to comment on whether or not they like a PROPOSAL the distinction as to whether this is a vote is subtle at best. Im in favor of asking members to make suggestions for changes directly to Directors. After all there has to be a reason our names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses appear in the front of every issue of QST. 73, Jay, K1ZZ ps. Dave, it is an excellent editorial. jbb -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10956] Re: Bandwidth petition status Jay, bear in mind that we're not determining Board policy. The Board did that in July 2002. We're implementing existing policy. Jim Haynie cautioned the Board last Saturday, I think quite appropriately, against doing surveys. Certainly we're not planning a national survey. We're just trying to provide an organized way to collect questions and comments. We're not asking members whether they think defining subbands by bandwidth is a good idea. We're explaining to them why it IS a good idea. We need to explain what we're doing and why, before we do it. Also, we need to give them a chance to ask questions and point out mistakes we might otherwise make in implementing the policy. What constitutes a mistake will, of course, be a matter of opinion. We're introducing the concept of intermediate bandwidths for digital modes in newly established subbands. There's bound to be some disagreement as to detail. We're following most, but not all, of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. Giving members a single email address to which to address questions and comments is, I think, an appropriate way to implement Minute 9 of the March 13 EC meeting. As they are received they can be forwarded to individual Directors if that is your desire. But if we invite questions to be posed to 15 Directors they are going to be answered 15 different ways. If we tell members to make suggestions for changes to Directors we're placing a responsibility on Directors to be sure to pass along any that may have some merit. What I suggest is the following. Let us get the final draft petition out to ODV as early as possible next week. Let everyone look it over (everyone saw an earlier version in January, but significant changes have been made since then) and ask whatever questions or offer whatever comments you wish. After everyone on ODV has had a crack at it, we'll post the synopsis/explanation and get member feedback. The member feedback may well point out some changes that we should consider before filing; if so, we can do that and the EC either can make the final determination at its October 16 meeting, or ask the Board to do so by mail. If we do all this and no proposed changes emerge, the Board already has given us authority to file and there's no further decision to be made. But I don't expect that. What I hope is that we'll get some suggestions for fine-tuning. If instead we get an overwhelming "this is a terrible idea, drop the whole thing" then we'll certainly have failed to explain what it's all about -- and we can stop and try to figure out how we could have gotten it so wrong two years ago. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:54 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10955] Re: Bandwidth petition status Dave: I note your September It Seems to Us editorial provides a HQ email address, for questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved. Though the invitation in the editorial is not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will likely want to know the results. I question whether a yes I like it or no, I dont like it response is very helpful to the board in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X% nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it really doesnt help me in taking the temperature of members in the Dakota Division. My intention is to seek input from the Dakota Division through a division wide email and (Yes, Im going to use the P word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to support that view. Ive been told I am process oriented. Thats probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members control of the organization is exercised through electing Division representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<qs0409.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10958] RE: [ARRL-ODV:10957] Re: Re: Bandwidth petition status
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

That's the idea, Rick. Depending on the nature of the question, Paul may need to answer. Or, it may be someone else. Some of the questions we already know the answer to -- such as, why we're not proposing segmentation of the 160-meter band. Will we be overwhelmed with questions? I really don't think so. That would be a high-class problem -- it would indicate there's greater interest in the subject. If we do get overwhelmed it will just slow the process down. That would be OK, although we want to get the petition filed so it can be considered by the FCC at the same time as the restructuring petitions. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick (aol.com) Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:08 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10957] Re: Re: Bandwidth petition status Dave: So, is someone at HQ going to answer all the questions and address the comments that come in? 73, K5UR In a message dated 7/23/2004 3:55:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> writes: >Jay, bear in mind that we're not determining Board policy. The Board did that in July 2002. We're implementing existing policy. Jim Haynie cautioned the Board last Saturday, I think quite appropriately, against doing surveys. Certainly we're not planning a national survey. We're just trying to provide an organized way to collect questions and comments. > >We're not asking members whether they think defining subbands by bandwidth is a good idea. We're explaining to them why it IS a good idea. We need to explain what we're doing and why, before we do it. Also, we need to give them a chance to ask questions and point out mistakes we might otherwise make in implementing the policy. > >What constitutes a mistake will, of course, be a matter of opinion. We're introducing the concept of intermediate bandwidths for digital modes in newly established subbands. There's bound to be some disagreement as to detail. We're following most, but not all, of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. > >Giving members a single email address to which to address questions and comments is, I think, an appropriate way to implement Minute 9 of the March 13 EC meeting. As they are received they can be forwarded to individual Directors if that is your desire. But if we invite questions to be posed to 15 Directors they are going to be answered 15 different ways. If we tell members to make suggestions for changes to Directors we're placing a responsibility on Directors to be sure to pass along any that may have some merit. > >What I suggest is the following. > >Let us get the final draft petition out to ODV as early as possible next week. Let everyone look it over (everyone saw an earlier version in January, but significant changes have been made since then) and ask whatever questions or offer whatever comments you wish. After everyone on ODV has had a crack at it, we'll post the synopsis/explanation and get member feedback. The member feedback may well point out some changes that we should consider before filing; if so, we can do that and the EC either can make the final determination at its October 16 meeting, or ask the Board to do so by mail. > >If we do all this and no proposed changes emerge, the Board already has given us authority to file and there's no further decision to be made. But I don't expect that. What I hope is that we'll get some suggestions for fine-tuning. If instead we get an overwhelming "this is a terrible idea, drop the whole thing" then we'll certainly have failed to explain what it's all about -- and we can stop and try to figure out how we could have gotten it so wrong two years ago. > >73, >Dave K1ZZ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) >Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:54 PM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10955] Re: Bandwidth petition status > > >Dave: > >I note your September "It Seems to Us" editorial provides a HQ email address, for questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved. > >Though the invitation in the editorial is not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will likely want to know the results. I question whether a "yes I like it" or "no, I don't like it" response is very helpful to the board in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X% nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it really doesn't help me in "taking the temperature" of members in the Dakota Division. > >My intention is to seek input from the Dakota Division through a division wide email and (Yes, I'm going to use the "P" word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to support that view. > >I've been told I am process oriented. That's probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members' control of the organization is exercised through electing Division representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address. > >73, >Jay, KØQB > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:30 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status > >This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. >July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." >Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. >Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. >First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. >Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. >73, >Dave Sumner, K1ZZ ><<qs0409.pdf>> >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10957] Re: Re: Bandwidth petition status
by K5ur＠aol.com 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Dave: So, is someone at HQ going to answer all the questions and address the comments that come in? 73, K5UR In a message dated 7/23/2004 3:55:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> writes: >Jay, bear in mind that we're not determining Board policy. The Board did that in July 2002. We're implementing existing policy. Jim Haynie cautioned the Board last Saturday, I think quite appropriately, against doing surveys. Certainly we're not planning a national survey. We're just trying to provide an organized way to collect questions and comments. > >We're not asking members whether they think defining subbands by bandwidth is a good idea. We're explaining to them why it IS a good idea. We need to explain what we're doing and why, before we do it. Also, we need to give them a chance to ask questions and point out mistakes we might otherwise make in implementing the policy. > >What constitutes a mistake will, of course, be a matter of opinion. We're introducing the concept of intermediate bandwidths for digital modes in newly established subbands. There's bound to be some disagreement as to detail. We're following most, but not all, of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. > >Giving members a single email address to which to address questions and comments is, I think, an appropriate way to implement Minute 9 of the March 13 EC meeting. As they are received they can be forwarded to individual Directors if that is your desire. But if we invite questions to be posed to 15 Directors they are going to be answered 15 different ways. If we tell members to make suggestions for changes to Directors we're placing a responsibility on Directors to be sure to pass along any that may have some merit. > >What I suggest is the following. > >Let us get the final draft petition out to ODV as early as possible next week. Let everyone look it over (everyone saw an earlier version in January, but significant changes have been made since then) and ask whatever questions or offer whatever comments you wish. After everyone on ODV has had a crack at it, we'll post the synopsis/explanation and get member feedback. The member feedback may well point out some changes that we should consider before filing; if so, we can do that and the EC either can make the final determination at its October 16 meeting, or ask the Board to do so by mail. > >If we do all this and no proposed changes emerge, the Board already has given us authority to file and there's no further decision to be made. But I don't expect that. What I hope is that we'll get some suggestions for fine-tuning. If instead we get an overwhelming "this is a terrible idea, drop the whole thing" then we'll certainly have failed to explain what it's all about -- and we can stop and try to figure out how we could have gotten it so wrong two years ago. > >73, >Dave K1ZZ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) >Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:54 PM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10955] Re: Bandwidth petition status > > >Dave: > >I note your September "It Seems to Us" editorial provides a HQ email address, for questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved. > >Though the invitation in the editorial is not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will likely want to know the results. I question whether a "yes I like it" or "no, I don't like it" response is very helpful to the board in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X% nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it really doesn't help me in "taking the temperature" of members in the Dakota Division. > >My intention is to seek input from the Dakota Division through a division wide email and (Yes, I'm going to use the "P" word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to support that view. > >I've been told I am process oriented. That's probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members' control of the organization is exercised through electing Division representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address. > >73, >Jay, KØQB > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:30 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status > >This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. >July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." >Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. >Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. >First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. >Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. >73, >Dave Sumner, K1ZZ ><<qs0409.pdf>> >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10956] Re: Bandwidth petition status
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Jay, bear in mind that we're not determining Board policy. The Board did that in July 2002. We're implementing existing policy. Jim Haynie cautioned the Board last Saturday, I think quite appropriately, against doing surveys. Certainly we're not planning a national survey. We're just trying to provide an organized way to collect questions and comments. We're not asking members whether they think defining subbands by bandwidth is a good idea. We're explaining to them why it IS a good idea. We need to explain what we're doing and why, before we do it. Also, we need to give them a chance to ask questions and point out mistakes we might otherwise make in implementing the policy. What constitutes a mistake will, of course, be a matter of opinion. We're introducing the concept of intermediate bandwidths for digital modes in newly established subbands. There's bound to be some disagreement as to detail. We're following most, but not all, of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. Giving members a single email address to which to address questions and comments is, I think, an appropriate way to implement Minute 9 of the March 13 EC meeting. As they are received they can be forwarded to individual Directors if that is your desire. But if we invite questions to be posed to 15 Directors they are going to be answered 15 different ways. If we tell members to make suggestions for changes to Directors we're placing a responsibility on Directors to be sure to pass along any that may have some merit. What I suggest is the following. Let us get the final draft petition out to ODV as early as possible next week. Let everyone look it over (everyone saw an earlier version in January, but significant changes have been made since then) and ask whatever questions or offer whatever comments you wish. After everyone on ODV has had a crack at it, we'll post the synopsis/explanation and get member feedback. The member feedback may well point out some changes that we should consider before filing; if so, we can do that and the EC either can make the final determination at its October 16 meeting, or ask the Board to do so by mail. If we do all this and no proposed changes emerge, the Board already has given us authority to file and there's no further decision to be made. But I don't expect that. What I hope is that we'll get some suggestions for fine-tuning. If instead we get an overwhelming "this is a terrible idea, drop the whole thing" then we'll certainly have failed to explain what it's all about -- and we can stop and try to figure out how we could have gotten it so wrong two years ago. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:54 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10955] Re: Bandwidth petition status Dave: I note your September "It Seems to Us" editorial provides a HQ email address, for questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved. Though the invitation in the editorial is not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will likely want to know the results. I question whether a "yes I like it" or "no, I don't like it" response is very helpful to the board in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X% nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it really doesn't help me in "taking the temperature" of members in the Dakota Division. My intention is to seek input from the Dakota Division through a division wide email and (Yes, I'm going to use the "P" word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to support that view. I've been told I am process oriented. That's probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members' control of the organization is exercised through electing Division representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<qs0409.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10955] Re: Bandwidth petition status
by John Bellows 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Dave: I note your September It Seems to Us editorial provides a HQ email address, for questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved. Though the invitation in the editorial is not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will likely want to know the results. I question whether a yes I like it or no, I dont like it response is very helpful to the board in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X% nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it really doesnt help me in taking the temperature of members in the Dakota Division. My intention is to seek input from the Dakota Division through a division wide email and (Yes, Im going to use the P word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to support that view. Ive been told I am process oriented. Thats probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members control of the organization is exercised through electing Division representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<qs0409.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

This will bring you up to date on the petition to regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap. July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says: "64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." Turning that principle into a practical draft petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing; that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications. However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in 2002. Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred. First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he goes on vacation at the end of the day. Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then, while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" will be established to collect comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later than the October 16 EC Meeting. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<qs0409.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10952] Re: FW: Complaint Progress Energy Part 15 Devices
by Art Goddard 23 Jul '04

23 Jul '04

Personally, I favor the very "professional" viewpoint of the GAO, where they would investigate the FCC for possible violations of federal and criminal codes precluding public officials from giving public property to private entities. Chris says the FCC folks are "immune". Apparently, Sen Lautenberg (D-NJ) doesn't agree... 73, Art -------------------------------------------------------------------- 800 MHz Lands On FCC Agenda By Mark Rockwell July 2, 2004 news@2 direct WASHINGTON -- As the FCC prepares to issue its decision concerning how to clear public safety radio interference in the 800 MHz band, an investigation and bitter feelings among the participants loom. The commission is set to issue its decision at its meeting next Thursday. The agency yesterday put the item on its official July 8 agenda. Its appearance there indicates a firm decision has been made on the issue among commissioners, although it could be pulled off the agenda up until the last minute if complications ensue. The commission is widely expected to back Nextel's so-called Consensus Plan awarding spectrum to the company at 1.9 GHz in exchange for moving out of the 800 MHz band. In spite of the item's scheduling for the meeting next week, rumors circulating here this morning on Capitol Hill say an announcement on the issue will come as soon as late this afternoon as that the nation's thoughts turn to the long holiday weekend. In the meantime, Sen. Frank Lautenberg's, D-N.J., staff has said the General Accounting Office (GAO) will act on the senator's request for an investigation into possible criminal action by the FCC if it decides to go with a plan that would cede 1.9 GHz spectrum to Nextel Communications. In the last several days, the senator and Nextel nemesis Verizon Wireless have said that such a decision could violate several federal and criminal codes precluding public officials from giving public property to private entities. In a letter from former U.S. attorney general William Barr, now Verizon Communications' executive vice president and general counsel, the company warned the FCC about the possible violations on Monday. The day after in a letter to the GAO, citing press reports of Verizon's concerns, Lautenberg requested the agency investigate the issue by today. Last night, Nextel ponied up its own former high-powered Justice Department official to argue any assignment of 1.9 GHz spectrum to Nextel wouldn't violate the statutes cited by Verizon. Former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburg, now working for Washington law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart and hired by Nextel, said the 800 MHz "consensus plan will not obligate the Federal Communications Commission to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. Nor will the FCC 'receive' money by a third party to spend as it sees fit." Verizon's "arguments are diversions intended to provide cover to the weaknesses in Verizon's challenge to the commission's authority to adopt the Consensus Plan," Thornburg said. © 2004 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1 0