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

RE: [arrl-odv:14889] Letter to FCC Chairman Martin
by John Bellows 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Yea Dave!!! Jay -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:47 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14889] 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 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:14891] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider
by Tom Frenaye 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

At 10:17 AM 12/6/2006, Harrison, Joel wrote: >One thing that is clear is that we have to be smarter in our filings and generating individual comments in support of our petitions and positions. The fact that the FCC will take a handful of comments over an organization representing many is not unique to the FCC. Professionally I�m involved with a utility group through EPRI that deals with the NRC. The NRC recently made a decision in a matter similar to an FCC NPRM and that decision had some parallel aspects to this in that the final decision was quite different in some aspects than what was proposed in their equivalent NRPM. The utility/EPRI organization decided to file comments, however, it was made very clear in addition to the organization filing comments on behalf of all of the industry that the utilities should also file individual comments in support of the organization because the NRC doesn�t consider a representative organization�s comments as carrying any more weight than one individual. > >So, that is really step one in a strategy to work up that will contain many steps and is something I want to concentrate on in the coming weeks. That's hitting the nail on the head. Completely agree. If we aren't being taken seriously enough we have to get our members involved to support us. The FCC may not like the amount of input that generates though... -- 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

[arrl-odv:14889] Letter to FCC Chairman Martin
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

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

RE: [arrl-odv:14886] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider
by John Bellows 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Joel: I understand your point. It just seemed that the failure of the Commission to provide meaningful comment on a Rule that substantially deviates from the proposal in the NPRM defeats the purpose of a comment period and runs contrary to any claim that comment are a meaningful part of the process. My concern is that if we dont point out that inconsistency it encourages similar action in the future. It is good to be reassured similar concerns are part of the strategy of our leadership going forward. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel [mailto:Joel.Harrison@wgint.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14886] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider Jay, While I dont disagree with your position, I view this matter as two separate issues. The first is filing a recon petition that has some possibility of succeeding that will help lessen the impact of the FCCs mistake. I believe what has been put fourth by the EC is just that. We will not be successful in attempting to change the FCC back to what was contained in the NPRM and we would not be able to salvage anything from this. The second, more important matter to me personally, is developing a strategy that will prevent this from happening in the future. I dont see Cross going anywhere in the near future. I think he is about 52 and although he has been a government employee for many years I personally dont see him going anywhere. So that leaves us with the task to get smarter in dealing with him. Something weve talked about doing for many years but have yet to be successful. Sucking up to him is not the right approach. One thing that is clear is that we have to be smarter in our filings and generating individual comments in support of our petitions and positions. The fact that the FCC will take a handful of comments over an organization representing many is not unique to the FCC. Professionally Im involved with a utility group through EPRI that deals with the NRC. The NRC recently made a decision in a matter similar to an FCC NPRM and that decision had some parallel aspects to this in that the final decision was quite different in some aspects than what was proposed in their equivalent NRPM. The utility/EPRI organization decided to file comments, however, it was made very clear in addition to the organization filing comments on behalf of all of the industry that the utilities should also file individual comments in support of the organization because the NRC doesnt consider a representative organizations comments as carrying any more weight than one individual. So, that is really step one in a strategy to work up that will contain many steps and is something I want to concentrate on in the coming weeks. Im very pleased that the FCC finally acted on WT 04-140, however Im not at all pleased that they deviated significantly from their NPRM on the 80 meter issue. Fortunately, they only took this approach on 80 meters. As always, your comments are appreciated. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider I am voting to approve the Recommendation of the EC because I believe it is important for the Board to present a united front when making a filing with the FCC. Perhaps the FCC was correct and a more extensive reallocation of 75/80 meters was in order. If so the question should have been put forth in the NPRM where there was an opportunity to discuss the question freely and openly before issuing an order. Essentially FCC propounded one question in the NPRM and answered another in the subsequent Report and Order. The FCC appears to ignore its own Rulemaking process in favor of action and Order that is little more than a sleight of hand game with amateur allocations. Our Petition for Reconsideration should point out that disturbing fact. My preference would have been to stick with something closer to our original Petition to Refarm the Novice allocations. It seems to me the strength of our initial request was the thoughtful, deliberate, inclusive process we as the ARRL Board undertook prior to filing the petition. The Report and Order issued by FCC was the antithesis of an orderly, focused process. Iit is true that no matter what action we take regarding Reconsideration a number of ARRL members will be unhappy. That being the case I would have preferred a Petition for Reconsideration that strives for a more substantial objective than restoration of 35 kHz to CW/Data/RTTY. I recognize the challenge presented to the EC on short notice and the desirability for a united front, so I vote Aye. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:14885] Vote So Far
by Harrison, Joel 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

So far, we have received "Aye" votes from 13 directors. Frahm and Norton have not yet voted. Based on this majority, Chris has been instructed to proceed with a DRAFT petition for reconsideration based on the EC's resolution. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:14884] Re: Resolution for Board Vote
by w3kd＠aol.com 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Tom, the Executive Committee had this same discussion. The problem with 3650 is that 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. I can do that with 3635. I can't do that with 3650. 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. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye(a)pcnet.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 8:55 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:14882] Re: Resolution for Board Vote I support the EC motion to file a Petition for Reconsideration. I strongly suggest we use references to and from the nearly 900 comments we received about the changes - some of them were quite well written. My preference would also be for the dividing line at 3650. Perhaps the discussion in the Petition can at least suggest that would be OK with us (if it is), but that we are asking for the least change (3635) in hopes that will be accepted. -- 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.

2 1

[arrl-odv:14886] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider
by Harrison, Joel 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Jay, While I don't disagree with your position, I view this matter as two separate issues. The first is filing a recon petition that has some possibility of succeeding that will help lessen the impact of the FCC's mistake. I believe what has been put fourth by the EC is just that. We will not be successful in attempting to change the FCC back to what was contained in the NPRM and we would not be able to salvage anything from this. The second, more important matter to me personally, is developing a strategy that will prevent this from happening in the future. I don't see Cross going anywhere in the near future. I think he is about 52 and although he has been a government employee for many years I personally don't see him going anywhere. So that leaves us with the task to get smarter in dealing with him. Something we've talked about doing for many years but have yet to be successful. Sucking up to him is not the right approach. One thing that is clear is that we have to be smarter in our filings and generating individual comments in support of our petitions and positions. The fact that the FCC will take a handful of comments over an organization representing many is not unique to the FCC. Professionally I'm involved with a utility group through EPRI that deals with the NRC. The NRC recently made a decision in a matter similar to an FCC NPRM and that decision had some parallel aspects to this in that the final decision was quite different in some aspects than what was proposed in their equivalent NRPM. The utility/EPRI organization decided to file comments, however, it was made very clear in addition to the organization filing comments on behalf of all of the industry that the utilities should also file individual comments in support of the organization because the NRC doesn't consider a representative organization's comments as carrying any more weight than one individual. So, that is really step one in a strategy to work up that will contain many steps and is something I want to concentrate on in the coming weeks. I'm very pleased that the FCC finally acted on WT 04-140, however I'm not at all pleased that they deviated significantly from their NPRM on the 80 meter issue. Fortunately, they only took this approach on 80 meters. As always, your comments are appreciated. 73 Joel W5ZN ________________________________ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider I am voting to approve the Recommendation of the EC because I believe it is important for the Board to present a "united front" when making a filing with the FCC. Perhaps the FCC was correct and a more extensive reallocation of 75/80 meters was in order. If so the question should have been put forth in the NPRM where there was an opportunity to discuss the question freely and openly before issuing an order. Essentially FCC propounded one question in the NPRM and answered another in the subsequent Report and Order. The FCC appears to ignore its own Rulemaking process in favor of action and Order that is little more than a sleight of hand game with amateur allocations. Our Petition for Reconsideration should point out that disturbing fact. My preference would have been to stick with something closer to our original Petition to Refarm the Novice allocations. It seems to me the strength of our initial request was the thoughtful, deliberate, inclusive process we as the ARRL Board undertook prior to filing the petition. The Report and Order issued by FCC was the antithesis of an orderly, focused process. Iit is true that no matter what action we take regarding Reconsideration a number of ARRL members will be unhappy. That being the case I would have preferred a Petition for Reconsideration that strives for a more substantial objective than restoration of 35 kHz to CW/Data/RTTY. I recognize the challenge presented to the EC on short notice and the desirability for a united front, so I vote Aye. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider
by John Bellows 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

I am voting to approve the Recommendation of the EC because I believe it is important for the Board to present a united front when making a filing with the FCC. Perhaps the FCC was correct and a more extensive reallocation of 75/80 meters was in order. If so the question should have been put forth in the NPRM where there was an opportunity to discuss the question freely and openly before issuing an order. Essentially FCC propounded one question in the NPRM and answered another in the subsequent Report and Order. The FCC appears to ignore its own Rulemaking process in favor of action and Order that is little more than a sleight of hand game with amateur allocations. Our Petition for Reconsideration should point out that disturbing fact. My preference would have been to stick with something closer to our original Petition to Refarm the Novice allocations. It seems to me the strength of our initial request was the thoughtful, deliberate, inclusive process we as the ARRL Board undertook prior to filing the petition. The Report and Order issued by FCC was the antithesis of an orderly, focused process. Iit is true that no matter what action we take regarding Reconsideration a number of ARRL members will be unhappy. That being the case I would have preferred a Petition for Reconsideration that strives for a more substantial objective than restoration of 35 kHz to CW/Data/RTTY. I recognize the challenge presented to the EC on short notice and the desirability for a united front, so I vote Aye. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:14882] Re: Resolution for Board Vote
by Tom Frenaye 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

I support the EC motion to file a Petition for Reconsideration. I strongly suggest we use references to and from the nearly 900 comments we received about the changes - some of them were quite well written. My preference would also be for the dividing line at 3650. Perhaps the discussion in the Petition can at least suggest that would be OK with us (if it is), but that we are asking for the least change (3635) in hopes that will be accepted. -- 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

[arrl-odv:14881] Re: Resolution for Board Vote
by warren morton 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

I vote in favor of the resolution. Rev WS7W On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:11:13 -0500 "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote:

1 0