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

[arrl-odv:14902] FW: PowerPoint Backgrounds Part 2
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: PowerPoint Backgrounds Part 2 Here's Part 2 -Gray Templates 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 860 594 0220 hkramer(a)arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/> ________________________________ From: Szlachetka, Diane Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Subject: PowerPoint Backgrounds

1 0

[arrl-odv:14901] Re: Resolution for Board Vote
by Harrison, Joel 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Brian, As I said in my email response to Jay Bellows it is a simple matter of trying to salvage something out of the FCC's error. This approach by far offers the best chance. We could file a petition for reconsideration to revert back to the original NPRM, and we would lose. Sadly, it is that simple. We cannot argue a sound justification to revert back to the NRPM at this point the FCC would not act upon it. As Chris stated to the EC and to Tom's question regarding 3650 -vs- 3635 KHz, (and the same applies to an attempt to revert back to the original NPRM) it reduces our argument from a reasoned proposal, on what amounts to administrative appeal, to nothing more than (re)negotiation. Reconsideration is not a means of attempting to renegotiate. It is a process of establishing that FCC was wrong about a portion of the order and needs to fix it. We can do that with 3635 but can't with something greater. I don't like the situation we're in regarding 80 meters, I don't like the way the FCC (Cross) did the 80 meter expansion and justified it, but there isn't a heck of a lot we can do about it other than to be smarter next time....much smarter, and Dave, Chris and I have an understanding of what we need to do better next time. Overall, with the exception of 80 meters, the decision is good and the FCC did in fact correct some of the other errors we brought to their attention. We got a lot of what we wanted out of this decision and I'm pleased. I'm not happy, though, that we didn't get everything we wanted. To quote the phrased from a Christmas sweatshirt my wife has "Dear Santa....I want it ALL". That is a topic for another strategy and battle. Right now, I want to be successful in salvaging what we can from the 80 meter mess rather than just file something that doesn't have any chance of reconciling a thing. The EC and the board agrees. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:24 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14898] Re: Resolution for Board Vote All -- I've been on travel and read these emails pretty quickly -- and admittedly did not read the resolution since I'm using an email viewer while on travel that doesn't handle attachments --, so my apologies if I'm asking something that's already been explained. Though a majority has already been secured, I have a question...I'm still not all that clear as to why we don't ask FCC to reconsider placing the lower SSB edge back to our original 3725-kHz mark as originally proposed. There seems to be some concern from our members regarding the loss of CW and digital elbowroom due to FCC dropping the phone subband way the heck down to 3600. So, why then, are we asking them to bump it up only to 3635 rather than reverting back to 3725 based on the justification provided our original Omnibus proposal (and, subsequently, based on some of the feedback we asked our members to provide)? Might this cause our membership to question our ability of sticking to our guns? Or, might this signal to FCC that they can exceed/make errors with certain future proposals and ARRL will simply renogotiate rather than ask them to literally reconsider based on what was presented our original proposal? Again, I'm a bit handicapped since I didn't read the original resolution and any of its justifications, so forgive me if I'm off-base here. 73, Brian, N5ZGT

1 0

[arrl-odv:14899] FW: PowerPoint Backgrounds Part 1
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

<http://www.arrl.org/> Hi, Our graphic artist, Dane Szlachetka, has created some additional PowerPoint backgrounds based on our standard ARRL PowerPoint Template. I had already sent out the color versions of these templates awhile ago for everyone's use. These are new black and white and gray templates that make it easier if you need to create PowerPoint presentations that will be printed and/or copied. I have to send this in two parts. Here's Part 1 - Black and White Templates. Thanks to Di for another great job with this. 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 860 594 0220 hkramer(a)arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/> ________________________________ From: Szlachetka, Diane Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Subject: PowerPoint Backgrounds

1 0

[arrl-odv:14898] Re: Resolution for Board Vote
by Brian Mileshosky 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

All -- I've been on travel and read these emails pretty quickly -- and admittedly did not read the resolution since I'm using an email viewer while on travel that doesn't handle attachments --, so my apologies if I'm asking something that's already been explained. Though a majority has already been secured, I have a question...I'm still not all that clear as to why we don't ask FCC to reconsider placing the lower SSB edge back to our original 3725-kHz mark as originally proposed. There seems to be some concern from our members regarding the loss of CW and digital elbowroom due to FCC dropping the phone subband way the heck down to 3600. So, why then, are we asking them to bump it up only to 3635 rather than reverting back to 3725 based on the justification provided our original Omnibus proposal (and, subsequently, based on some of the feedback we asked our members to provide)? Might this cause our membership to question our ability of sticking to our guns? Or, might this signal to FCC that they can exceed/make errors with certain future proposals and ARRL will simply renogotiate rather than ask them to literally reconsider based on what was presented our original proposal? Again, I'm a bit handicapped since I didn't read the original resolution and any of its justifications, so forgive me if I'm off-base here. 73, Brian, N5ZGT

1 0

[arrl-odv:14897] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider
by Tom Frenaye 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

At 11:11 AM 12/6/2006, Coy Day wrote: >Tom Frenaye wrote: >The FCC may not like the amount of input that generates though... >I sure would hate it if we did something the FCC didn't like. I hope you were being "tongue in cheek" with that. Well, the FCC can't have it both ways. If they listen to our filing and give it the weight it deserves, then fine. If they are not doing that (and they aren't), I agree with Joel that we need to compliment our proposals by encouraging supportive individual filings. I think it is healthy for us to educate members better about what we are doing and why, and to encourage them to not only tell us what they think, but to tell the FCC as well. In many ways it's like the process we're using to influence legislation through the grassroots program. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

Letter to FCC Chairman Martin
by n3llr＠earthlink.net 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Dave, Excellent letter! - Bill N3LLR -----Original Message----- From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> Subj: [arrl-odv:14889] Letter to FCC Chairman Martin Date: Wed Dec 6, 2006 10:48 am Size: 5K To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Letter to FCC Chairman Martin Last week in a presentation at Georgetown University, FCC Chairman Martin used a "BPL Deployment" map taken right off the United Power Line Council's Web site. It's the same map, incidentally, that was on display at the FCC's open meeting last August at which the BPL Memorandum Opinion and Order dispensing with the reconsideration petitions was adopted. This made me see red. After clearing it with Chris and Joel, this morning I sent the following letter to Chairman Martin. We will give it suitable publicity as well. Dave December 6, 2006 Kevin J. Martin, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Via FAX - Page 1 of 3 pages Dear Chairman Martin: In your November 30 presentation to the Georgetown University McDonough School of Businesss Center for Business and Public Policy, you included a slide purporting to show Broadband Over Power Line Deployments. This slide is taken from a biased industry source and fails to note that a large percentage of the deployments shown on the map have been shut down and no longer exist. Here are but a few examples: PPL announced in October 2005, more than a year ago, that it was terminating its trial deployment because it had been found to be uneconomic. United Illuminating announced two trial deployments, but only ever installed one and shut that one down in December 2005 after a few months of operation. SMECO announced in March 2006 that it had ended its trial in December 2005 and noted that BPL signal speeds and bandwidth are not competitive with other technologies currently available. The Idaho Power deployment was by IDACOMM, which announced in January 2006 that it was abandoning the BPL business (and has done so). RPU has no BPL deployed. I confirmed this by telephone yesterday. They had an unsuccessful Main.net trial deployment in 2004. This list is by no means comprehensive. The fact is that BPL systems are being shut down faster than they are being deployed. The ARRL respectfully requests that the FCC cease using the United Power Line Council as a source for illustrating BPL deployments. We also request that in the spirit of a level playing-field that you say is a guiding regulatory principle, you consider a more evenhanded approach to the promotion of so-called nascent broadband technologies. For example, your prepared remarks cited wireless broadband, broadband over powerline, and Fiber-to-the-Home all as new technologies that are beginning to be deployed, yet neither wireless broadband nor Fiber-to-the-Home merited a PowerPoint slide - despite the fact that the FCC Report, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2005 showed 448,196 Fiber lines and 256,538 Fixed Wireless lines compared to just 5,859 for Power Line and Other. Your prepared remarks do not even mention satellite broadband, yet the same report shows 426,928 satellite lines. As you know, the ARRLs concern is with the still-unresolved radio interference issues that uniquely plague BPL and not with BPL as such. However, it is evident that the technology does not deserve the favored treatment the FCC continues to bestow upon it, especially when its inherent shortcoming, that it is a radio spectrum polluter, escapes mention. Sincerely, David Sumner Chief Executive Officer Attachment: Broadband Over Powerline Deployments slide cc: Commissioners

1 0

[arrl-odv:14895] Re: Letter to FCC Chairman Martin
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Thanks, Coy. By the way, when I sent a copy to Commissioner Copps (the senior Democratic Commissioner) I included a more strongly worded cover note -- not directed against him, of course. I said: "Here is a letter I have just sent to Chairman Martin protesting his use of inaccurate information supplied by a biased BPL industry source in a recent presentation, and his excessive emphasis on BPL as a "new" technology when other new technologies, according to the Commission's own reports, are vastly more successful and promising. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> "The ARRL remains highly dissatisfied with the Commission's handling of the BPL radio interference issue. There is nothing evenhanded about the Commission's continuing favoritism of BPL over other broadband technologies that do not share its unique shortcoming of causing radio spectrum pollution." Dave -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:13 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14894] Re: Letter to FCC Chairman Martin Dave, I second Jay's comments. Great job! Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > Last week in a presentation at Georgetown University, FCC Chairman Martin > used a "BPL Deployment" map taken right off the United Power Line > Council's Web site. It's the same map, incidentally, that was on display > at the FCC's open meeting last August at which the BPL Memorandum Opinion > and Order dispensing with the reconsideration petitions was adopted. > > This made me see red. After clearing it with Chris and Joel, this morning > I sent the following letter to Chairman Martin. We will give it suitable > publicity as well. > > Dave > > > December 6, 2006 > > > Kevin J. Martin, Chairman > Federal Communications Commission > 445 Twelfth Street, SW > Washington, DC 20554 > > Via FAX - Page 1 of 3 pages > > Dear Chairman Martin: > > In your November 30 presentation to the Georgetown University McDonough > School of Business's Center for Business and Public Policy, you included a > slide purporting to show "Broadband Over Power Line Deployments." This > slide is taken from a biased industry source and fails to note that a > large percentage of the deployments shown on the map have been shut down > and no longer exist. > > Here are but a few examples: > * PPL announced in October 2005, more than a year ago, that it was > terminating its trial deployment because it had been found to be > uneconomic. > * United Illuminating announced two trial deployments, but only ever > installed one and shut that one down in December 2005 after a few months > of operation. > * SMECO announced in March 2006 that it had ended its trial in December > 2005 and noted that "BPL signal speeds and bandwidth are not competitive > with other technologies currently available." > * The Idaho Power deployment was by IDACOMM, which announced in January > 2006 that it was abandoning the BPL business (and has done so). > * RPU has no BPL deployed. I confirmed this by telephone yesterday. They > had an unsuccessful Main.net trial deployment in 2004. > > This list is by no means comprehensive. The fact is that BPL systems are > being shut down faster than they are being deployed. The ARRL respectfully > requests that the FCC cease using the United Power Line Council as a > source for illustrating BPL deployments. > > We also request that in the spirit of a level playing-field that you say > is a guiding regulatory principle, you consider a more evenhanded approach > to the promotion of so-called nascent broadband technologies. For example, > your prepared remarks cited "wireless broadband, broadband over powerline, > and Fiber-to-the-Home" all as "new technologies that are beginning to be > deployed," yet neither wireless broadband nor Fiber-to-the-Home merited a > PowerPoint slide - despite the fact that the FCC Report, High-Speed > Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2005 showed > 448,196 Fiber lines and 256,538 Fixed Wireless "lines" compared to just > 5,859 for "Power Line and Other." Your prepared remarks do not even > mention satellite broadband, yet the same report shows 426,928 satellite > "lines." > > As you know, the ARRL's concern is with the still-unresolved radio > interference issues that uniquely plague BPL and not with BPL as such. > However, it is evident that the technology does not deserve the favored > treatment the FCC continues to bestow upon it, especially when its > inherent shortcoming, that it is a radio spectrum polluter, escapes > mention. > > Sincerely, > > > > David Sumner > Chief Executive Officer > > Attachment: "Broadband Over Powerline Deployments" slide > > cc: Commissioners > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14894] Re: Letter to FCC Chairman Martin
by Coy Day 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Dave, I second Jay's comments. Great job! Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > Last week in a presentation at Georgetown University, FCC Chairman Martin > used a "BPL Deployment" map taken right off the United Power Line > Council's Web site. It's the same map, incidentally, that was on display > at the FCC's open meeting last August at which the BPL Memorandum Opinion > and Order dispensing with the reconsideration petitions was adopted. > > This made me see red. After clearing it with Chris and Joel, this morning > I sent the following letter to Chairman Martin. We will give it suitable > publicity as well. > > Dave > > > December 6, 2006 > > > Kevin J. Martin, Chairman > Federal Communications Commission > 445 Twelfth Street, SW > Washington, DC 20554 > > Via FAX - Page 1 of 3 pages > > Dear Chairman Martin: > > In your November 30 presentation to the Georgetown University McDonough > School of Business's Center for Business and Public Policy, you included a > slide purporting to show "Broadband Over Power Line Deployments." This > slide is taken from a biased industry source and fails to note that a > large percentage of the deployments shown on the map have been shut down > and no longer exist. > > Here are but a few examples: > * PPL announced in October 2005, more than a year ago, that it was > terminating its trial deployment because it had been found to be > uneconomic. > * United Illuminating announced two trial deployments, but only ever > installed one and shut that one down in December 2005 after a few months > of operation. > * SMECO announced in March 2006 that it had ended its trial in December > 2005 and noted that "BPL signal speeds and bandwidth are not competitive > with other technologies currently available." > * The Idaho Power deployment was by IDACOMM, which announced in January > 2006 that it was abandoning the BPL business (and has done so). > * RPU has no BPL deployed. I confirmed this by telephone yesterday. They > had an unsuccessful Main.net trial deployment in 2004. > > This list is by no means comprehensive. The fact is that BPL systems are > being shut down faster than they are being deployed. The ARRL respectfully > requests that the FCC cease using the United Power Line Council as a > source for illustrating BPL deployments. > > We also request that in the spirit of a level playing-field that you say > is a guiding regulatory principle, you consider a more evenhanded approach > to the promotion of so-called nascent broadband technologies. For example, > your prepared remarks cited "wireless broadband, broadband over powerline, > and Fiber-to-the-Home" all as "new technologies that are beginning to be > deployed," yet neither wireless broadband nor Fiber-to-the-Home merited a > PowerPoint slide - despite the fact that the FCC Report, High-Speed > Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2005 showed > 448,196 Fiber lines and 256,538 Fixed Wireless "lines" compared to just > 5,859 for "Power Line and Other." Your prepared remarks do not even > mention satellite broadband, yet the same report shows 426,928 satellite > "lines." > > As you know, the ARRL's concern is with the still-unresolved radio > interference issues that uniquely plague BPL and not with BPL as such. > However, it is evident that the technology does not deserve the favored > treatment the FCC continues to bestow upon it, especially when its > inherent shortcoming, that it is a radio spectrum polluter, escapes > mention. > > Sincerely, > > > > David Sumner > Chief Executive Officer > > Attachment: "Broadband Over Powerline Deployments" slide > > cc: Commissioners > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14893] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider
by Coy Day 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Tom Frenaye wrote: The FCC may not like the amount of input that generates > though... > > -- Tom I sure would hate it if we did something the FCC didn't like. I hope you were being "tongue in cheek" with that. Coy

1 0

[arrl-odv:14892] Re: Resolution for Board Vote
by w3kd＠aol.com 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Absolutely, Tom, the premise of the petition is that FCC created this problem that they need to fix by virtue of the fact that they diverged from the ARRL Petition and their own NPRM proposal, for no good reason. It is a good argument, and our main one. Chris -----Original Message----- From: frenaye(a)pcnet.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:19 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:14887] Re: Resolution for Board Vote At 10:02 AM 12/6/2006, w3kd(a)aol.com wrote: >Is there some objective reason why 3650 is a good dividing line? If there is, why didn't we advocate it in our Petition or our comments in the docket proceeding? You see the draftsman's conundrum here. We really can't as a practical matter be wishy-washy at this stage of the proceeding. QSL, makes sense. Guess I'm reacting to the other bands where splitting at a 35 khz point is unusual, and I'm still lobbying for more I guess! I guess I'm in agreement with Jay that we really need to comment on the changes between the NPRM and the R&O, especially since they didn't raise the issue of expanding 80m phone/image further (nor deletion of auto-control, though I guess that's an oversight). After all, they're the ones that originally declined to do any of this until there was broad input from amateurs - which we did gather, summarize and act upon... -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 ________________________________________________________________________ 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