December 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

N5ZGT's new mailing address
by Brian Mileshosky 13 Dec '06

13 Dec '06

All -- Please note my new mailing address: Brian Mileshosky N5ZGT 7313 Ottawa NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Please update your records accordingly. I need to update my license, but it will point to a PO Box rather than the above street address. FYI to anyone at HQ: I don't care for the above address to appear on the Directors contact page...I'll update the old address once I secure a PO Box. The old address should forward. 73, Brian, N5ZGT ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division

1 0

[arrl-odv:14923] Re: Petition for Reconsideration Docket 04-140
by w3kd＠aol.com 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

Good questions, all, Jay. Typical timing on an FCC rulemaking Petition for Reconsideration used to be a year. Now, who knows? To give you some idea of the unpredictability, it took FCC from November 30 or so, 2004 until August 7, 2006, a total of 20 months, to deal with the BPL Petitions for Reconsideration from the time they were filed. That proceeding was one which FCC wanted to move forward aggressively. On the other hand, AMSAT filed a Petition for Reconsideration dealing with the orbital debris rules. They filed on October 12, 2004, over two years ago; It is still pending. The time to resolution is clearly issue-dependent, but this Chairman in particular has dragged his feet on virtually everything that comes before the Commission. Post-Michael Powell, all bets are off on timing on anything from FCC. What we are addressing in this proceeding isn't easily categorized; nor it it outcome-predictable by means of prior precedent in reconsideration petitions dealing with rulemaking. FCC has all the right in the world to come up with a different outcome than it proposed in the NPRM. All they have to do, really, is to give notice of the general concept. Phone band expansion was proposed in the NPRM. They can depart from the proposed quantity of expansion proposed in the Notice with impunity. So that isn't a good metric to use in trying to predict outcome. The optimism I have about the outcome of the recon here is based on the fact that clearly, the elimination of the narrowband automatic control data segment was not intended by FCC. Cross admitted to me that he missed that. Had he realized it, it is most likely that the FCC would have cut off the phone band higher up than 3635 kHz, perhaps 3650, if you look at their rationale for the larger than expected phone band expansion. In this case, it isn't head-in-the-sand, like it was with BPL. I think they see a problem, though there is some defensiveness on Cross' part as to the magnitude of the problem. He said something to the effect that "gee, this really only affects a handful of boaters doing marine e-mail." I told him that it was far more than that, but it is difficult to know whether he really believed that, or whether he was just being defensive about a stupid mistake he made and no one at FCC corrected in the drafting of the rules and during the 2 year editing process. I don't think they will dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration. They don't like taking privileges from people who have them. I think that will rule the day, ultimately. But I don't think the FCC as a whole will see this as a pressing matter, and therefore I don't think they will address our Petition for Stay on a timely enough basis to toll the new rules pending reconsideration. However, it won't be that way for lack of trying between yesterday and Friday, when the new rules go into effect. FCC does, and always has, to some extent or another, (1) avoid admitting stupid editing errors on their part, and (2) tend to sit on problematic matters until they are so cold, old and dead that no one cares anymore. Cynics are easy to come by among FCC followers. It seems to be getting worse, but my former partner, Freret, used to say that in the 1980s and early 1990s, too. Chris -----Original Message----- From: jbellows(a)skypoint.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:18 PM Subject: Petition for Reconsideration Docket 04-140 Chris: Thanks to you, Paul, Dave and anyone else who had a hand in the Petition for Reconsideration and Petition to Stay with regard to Docket 04-140; they are well crafted, measured arguments to correct one of the unintended consequences of Report & Order. Please refresh my recollection as to the typical time frame for FCC action on reconsideration requests. It has been suggested that we shouldn’t be too optimistic. Is there any history to guides us as to FCC’s response time or likely action where the petition seeks redress of an FCC action that not only goes beyond the scope of the NPRM but results in an internally inconsistent and contradictory order? If the most likely response is a “head in the sand – we don’t see a problem” response rather than an effort to address the concern, do you have any feel as to whether such as result would be occasioned by an unwillingness to acknowledge a mistake; dismissal because this is “just a trivial Amateur Service issue; or some third possibility? >From my perspective, FCC seems to be developing a pattern of sitting on Petitions for what seems an interminable time and then rushing to a decision that looks for the cheapest, easiest result, without much thought. On a cynicism scale of 1 to 10, where does that view fall? Again, thanks for your good efforts. 73, Jay, KØQB ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14922] 2006 Development Contributions
by Joel Harrison 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

I want to once again urge each of you to make a monetary contribution to our development program for this year, 2006, before the end of the year. There is only one Director that has not yet contributed but there are a number of Vice Directors. The importance of this has been explained many, many times but if you are still unclear as to the necessity, drop me a note and I'll be happy to explain it again. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

Petition for Reconsideration Docket 04-140
by John Bellows 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

Chris: Thanks to you, Paul, Dave and anyone else who had a hand in the Petition for Reconsideration and Petition to Stay with regard to Docket 04-140; they are well crafted, measured arguments to correct one of the unintended consequences of Report & Order. Please refresh my recollection as to the typical time frame for FCC action on reconsideration requests. It has been suggested that we shouldnt be too optimistic. Is there any history to guides us as to FCCs response time or likely action where the petition seeks redress of an FCC action that not only goes beyond the scope of the NPRM but results in an internally inconsistent and contradictory order? If the most likely response is a head in the sand we dont see a problem response rather than an effort to address the concern, do you have any feel as to whether such as result would be occasioned by an unwillingness to acknowledge a mistake; dismissal because this is just a trivial Amateur Service issue; or some third possibility? >From my perspective, FCC seems to be developing a pattern of sitting on Petitions for what seems an interminable time and then rushing to a decision that looks for the cheapest, easiest result, without much thought. On a cynicism scale of 1 to 10, where does that view fall? Again, thanks for your good efforts. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

Docket 04-140, Petition for Partial Reconsideration and Petition for Partial Stay of Effective Date
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

Chris, I really appreciate the work you did on the Partial Recon. While strongly putting forth our case to move to 3635, you give ample table talk suggesting that a nice round number like 3650, or even something with a Lucky 7 in it would be an even better correction. I'll be less than shocked, and certainly pleased, if they overshoot the 3635 request. Of course, dismissal wouldn't shock me either..... Bruce K0BJ

2 1

RE: [arrl-odv:14916] Lobbying DVD
by Kay Craigie 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

I just played the video and want to compliment the production quality. Some of the actors we've used in the past spoke in that phony way they do on infomercials, and it was hard not to giggle. The guys in this video were much more natural and did nothing to distract me from the message. Nice work. 73 -Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:14917] Docket 04-140, Petition for Partial Reconsideration and Petition for Partial Stay of Effective Date
by w3kd＠aol.com 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

Greetings. Pursuant to the Board's majority decision, and the Executive Committee's oversight, the attached Petition for Partial Reconsideration and Petition for Partial Stay were filed electronically just now. They are also to be filed by courier today on paper, due to the language of the FCC rules which seems to still require paper filings of Petitions for Reconsideration. I have sent Bill Cross at FCC a copy of each, and we will lobby this hard for the next few days. I am not optimistic that the FCC will, prior to the 15th, stay the portion of the one rule that we are asking be stayed so as to protect existing narrowband automatically controlled links, but I do believe that we made the case justifying the stay. I am more optimistic about the ultimate fix for this in our Petition for Reconsideration. 73, Chris W3KD ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14916] Lobbying DVD
by Jim Weaver 09 Dec '06

09 Dec '06

Ladies & Gentlemen, Yesterday I mailed a new DVD to each Director, the President and Vice Presidents. This DVD was developed by the Legislative Action Committee with the assistance of John Chwat. It a professionally-produced, polished variation of the training skit the Legislative Action Committee and John Chwat presented to the Board the evening before the July meeting. Three copies of the DVD were sent to each Director and one copy to each of the officers I mentioned. These were mailed First Class so I expect most of you will receive them on Monday . . . Tuesday at the latest. This new training video should prove very useful in showing new Legislative Action volunteers just what they can expect and how they should conduct themselves during a typical lobbying visit to a US Representative or US Senator in his home office. It could also be useful in showing potential volunteers that the true prerequisites for lobbying are rather simple: the ability to converse coherently and the desire to protect Amateur Radio. We have had only a limited number of the DVDs made; therefore, please feel free to make copies of the video for further distribution as you believe appropriate. I don't believe it would be in the best interest of ARRL to post the video on the web for uncontrolled downloading by anyone who comes across it, but we are exploring the practicality of placing it on the Grassroots section of Members Only where there is controlled access. Because of the size of the video, any such access may need to be read-only and not downloadable. If you have any questions concerning the video and its potential uses, please contact any member of the Legislative Action Committee. A few "thanks a lot for your help" are in order: Harold Kramer obtained the Producer who worked very easily with the Committee and John Chwat. The video was shot in an elegant old house in Bridgetown, CT. Harold also obtained the pro bono services of Mike Lisenco, N2YBB, who portrayed one of the Legislative Action Assistants in the video. Mike is an accomplished professional actor. He jumped at the opportunity to support this ARRL effort. Allen Pitts obtained the services of his wife, Donna, who copied the master to the disks that are being distributed. Allen printed the labels for the disks. Rick Lindquist read the before and after script that set the tone for the video and ended the presentation. Rick also edited this scripting that had been written by the Committee. Sue Fagan did the opening and closing graphics. Although they stayed in the background, President Harrison and CEO Sumner assisted by reviewing our plans before the cameras rolled. The Committee greatly appreciates the contributions each of these people made toward the video. We also hope its availability will prove helpful in the further development of the Legislative Action Program in your Divisions. Thanks, Jim Weaver, K8JE, Chairman For the Legislative Action Committee Bill Edgar, N3LLR Frank Fallon, N2FF Jim Fenstermaker, K9JF David Woolweaver, K5RAV Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142

1 0

[arrl-odv:14915] Operational Flow Chart
by Jim Weaver 07 Dec '06

07 Dec '06

Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the Legislative Action Committee, I'm pleased to forward a chart that depicts the flow of business in the ARRL Legislative Action Program. We believe this chart will help visualize how the Program is managed and, among other things, can be useful as a recruiting tool. Please feel free to contact any member of the Committee with questions and suggestions. 73, Jim Weaver, K8JE, Chairman Bill Edgar, N3LLR Frank Fallon, N2FF Jim Fenstermaker, K9JF David Woolweaver, K5RAV Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142

1 0

[arrl-odv:14914] Re: Reconsideration Petition Considerations
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 07 Dec '06

07 Dec '06

Thanks, Dick. With your abstention I can announce the vote officially as 14 in favor, one abstention. There are several examples of automatically controlled digital stations being impacted, culled from the comments submitted to bandplan(a)www.arrl.org, that Chris will include in the petition. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:54 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Reconsideration Petition Considerations Please excuse me for not rapidly jumping aboard the reconsideration petition bandwagon. I'm still of the belief that there is a better way to handle this, and I'm not even convinced that filing the petition with the proposed justifications is in our best interests. I've spent a little time looking at this, and have even talked to a few of you on the telephone to clarify facts and assess opinion. My conclusions follow. RECONSIDERATION PHILOSOPHY - 97.221 FOOT IN THE DOOR As I understand it, the justification for requesting reconsideration is the allegation that the FCC "made a mistake" in not allowing part 97.221 automatically controlled digital stations to continue to operate between 3620 and 3635 kHz. The corrective action proposed is is to both move the general/advanced-class CW and digital band-edge up to 3635, and also move the lower end of the extra class phone band to 3635. In addition to permitting the automatically controlled digital stations to continue operation, CW and other digital users would then also have access to 3600 - 3635. There are things that might convince me that there was a real problem that needed correction. One of these would be the actual existence of any "automatically controlled digital stations" that presently use 3620 - 3635. I personally do not know of any, and in the comments from ARRL members I've read, have yet to see a, "My automatically controlled digital station on 80 meters will be impacted." AN ALTERNATIVE PHILOSOPHY I had earlier suggested proposing leaving the lower-edge of the extra-class phone band at 3600, and allowing general/advanced CW and digital to share the entire extra-class phone segment. The ODV-reflector was told that, "procedurally there's no way to get there from here via reconsideration." Further research shows that this could indeed be proposed as being a fix, but it might seem more "fix-related" to propose that only 3600 - 3635 be shared. Note that we could even propose sharing only 3620 - 3635, or even reassigning only 3620 - 3635 to automatic stations, as a fix in a reconsideration petition. For the sharing concept, it has been pointed out to me that some additional language would have to developed for parts 97.305 and 97.307, in addition to the four simple changes that appear to be needed in part 97.301 for the EC's proposal. Whereas minimization of text-changes might be an objective, and in the professional judgement of some might even facilitate acceptance, a text-change minimization objective is quite different from "procedurally no way." Philosophically I support minimization of detailed FCC regulation of our amateur bands, in matters such as mode and or bandwidth. I believe flexibility permits more efficient use of our allocated frequencies. This is how amateur frequencies are allocated in essentially every other country in the world other than the USA. In the USA sharing frequencies between modes works on 160 meters and even 40 meters. I am aware that some of you do not share my view. SUMMARY I believe that there is a better fix available than the one proposed by the EC, the sharing of phone and digital-CW. In addition to the more efficient occupancy, note that sharing phone and digital would permit basic communication on voice, with the possibility of exchanging data on the same frequency. I remain unconvinced that proposing the EC's recommended plan is even desirable. If we are saying automatically controlled digital stations are going to be harmed, I hope we have some specific examples of these stations that will actually be harmed in case the FCC requests them. Otherwise it might appear that the petition is simply a disagreement over what the phone band lower limit should be. Being unsure if the proposed reconsideration proposal is in the League's best interests, I think I'll simply abstain from voting. I'm of course open to listening to other points of view. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0