September 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:14524] Re: Appeal
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

Hi Gang, I'm back in Newington after a productive two weeks in Geneva and a weekend excursion as second op of KA1ZD during the 10+GHz Contest. First, re: the AP article. It's an interesting read and may illuminate the culture at the FCC during the Powell administration, but it's a different bureau and I don't see much connection to our issue. RE: mandamus, none of the existing BPL enforcement cases comes anywhere close to being ripe for mandamus action. To pursue that I believe we would need a Jim Spencer situation (a regularly active fixed station that was essentially being put off the air by protracted interference) in which neither the BPL operator nor the FCC would take appropriate action to eliminate the interference in a reasonable period of time. We don't yet have that, even in Manassas -- the complaints there are all from mobile operators who do not live in the City of Manassas. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14522] Re: Appeal Tom, if we use either of the preferred firms for the BPL appeal, a separate mandamus action to compel action in an interference case using them would be extremely costly. A failure in a given mandamus action is not precedent-setting and does not relate to the next mandamus action. I don't think that either of the "big two" interference cases we have right now is ripe for a mandamus action; but even if they were, I wouldn't think ARRL would want to go to WilmerHale or Wiley, Rein for help with those kinds of things. It is a significantly different kettle of fish than the appeal of the BPL rulemaking. I would much prefer to file a mandamus action myself, having done several in the past. How the Board spends money is up to the Board, not me, but I would suggest that going to the USCA to compel FCC to act in an interference case (not how to act, just to compel it to act) is easy enough for us to do, and would be most cost-effectively done that way. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye(a)pcnet.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 6:33 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14518] Re: Appeal Thanks to Joel and Chris for following up on my message on Tuesday regarding the BPL/FCC appeal. Joel said: >Gee, Tom, your opinion sure seems to have changed since I had a conversation with you and Frank Fallon at Boxboro. Yes, when we talked I hadn't seen any details. The decision to support the recommendation, or not, takes more than a hallway conversation. >If you want a formal written motion beyond what has already been given to you in >writing I will be happy to draft one, and will go back and get a formal >EC motion in place beyond what we already have documented. I'd suggest that we reaffirm the vote by a note in the minutes of the next EC or Board meeting for two reasons - it opens the door to some substantial expenses this year (and next), and we need to document it in our Board record of policy decisions. Chris' detailed information was very helpful. >Finally, the alternative of mandamus is not a good substitute for an appeal of the R&O and MO&O, though it might be a good additional strategy. We can do those if the right factual situation comes up. I was wondering if that might be included as an related activity to a Court of Appeals lawsuit - using the same outside counsel. It sounds like it'd be worth it if we have the necessary documentation. >What is our best argument in the Court appeal? In my view, it is that which is outlined in the memo attached to my response to Dick Norton's e-mail, updated with the FCC's rather glaring attack on licensed services complaining about interference to mobile operations. If we could get APCO or another public safety entity to intervene on our behalf, that would sweeten the case considerably. The $64,000 question in several ways... I sure hope we can get some additional help - interveners or financial support. I was pleased to see this Associated Press article about the FCC today. Here's a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR200609140… Looks like the shenanigans and sleazy activity within the FCC may be more widespread than we realize. Maybe we should be talking to the lawyers involved in the case described in the article - a successful one against the FCC in 2004. Approaching Senator Boxer might be useful also. So, count me as a supporter of an appeal of the FCC's action on BPL. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org <mailto:k1ki%40arrl.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 _____ <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht…> 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:14523] Re: Fwd: flagpoles
by Kay Craigie 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

The legislation was HR 42, "Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005," and the President signed it on July 24 as Public Law 109-243. The text is on line several places, including www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-42. The new law does not say that anybody who wants to can put up a flagpole. In fact, it seems like what the legislation gives with one hand it takes away with the other. The "Limitations" section of HR 42 says: "Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with-- (1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association." Since homeowner associations are allowed to impose "reasonable" restrictions as to the manner of display, associations may be able to place restrictions on flag poles high enough to be useful as stealth antenna supports and not run afoul of the new law. But it might open *some* possibilities. It'll be interesting to see what happens. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:14522] Re: Appeal
by w3kd＠aol.com 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Tom, if we use either of the preferred firms for the BPL appeal, a separate mandamus action to compel action in an interference case using them would be extremely costly. A failure in a given mandamus action is not precedent-setting and does not relate to the next mandamus action. I don't think that either of the "big two" interference cases we have right now is ripe for a mandamus action; but even if they were, I wouldn't think ARRL would want to go to WilmerHale or Wiley, Rein for help with those kinds of things. It is a significantly different kettle of fish than the appeal of the BPL rulemaking. I would much prefer to file a mandamus action myself, having done several in the past. How the Board spends money is up to the Board, not me, but I would suggest that going to the USCA to compel FCC to act in an interference case (not how to act, just to compel it to act) is easy enough for us to do, and would be most cost-effectively done that way. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye(a)pcnet.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 6:33 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14518] Re: Appeal Thanks to Joel and Chris for following up on my message on Tuesday regarding the BPL/FCC appeal. Joel said: >Gee, Tom, your opinion sure seems to have changed since I had a conversation with you and Frank Fallon at Boxboro. Yes, when we talked I hadn't seen any details. The decision to support the recommendation, or not, takes more than a hallway conversation. >If you want a formal written motion beyond what has already been given to you in >writing I will be happy to draft one, and will go back and get a formal >EC motion in place beyond what we already have documented. I'd suggest that we reaffirm the vote by a note in the minutes of the next EC or Board meeting for two reasons - it opens the door to some substantial expenses this year (and next), and we need to document it in our Board record of policy decisions. Chris' detailed information was very helpful. >Finally, the alternative of mandamus is not a good substitute for an appeal of the R&O and MO&O, though it might be a good additional strategy. We can do those if the right factual situation comes up. I was wondering if that might be included as an related activity to a Court of Appeals lawsuit - using the same outside counsel. It sounds like it'd be worth it if we have the necessary documentation. >What is our best argument in the Court appeal? In my view, it is that which is outlined in the memo attached to my response to Dick Norton's e-mail, updated with the FCC's rather glaring attack on licensed services complaining about interference to mobile operations. If we could get APCO or another public safety entity to intervene on our behalf, that would sweeten the case considerably. The $64,000 question in several ways... I sure hope we can get some additional help - interveners or financial support. I was pleased to see this Associated Press article about the FCC today. Here's a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR200609140… Looks like the shenanigans and sleazy activity within the FCC may be more widespread than we realize. Maybe we should be talking to the lawyers involved in the case described in the article - a successful one against the FCC in 2004. Approaching Senator Boxer might be useful also. So, count me as a supporter of an appeal of the FCC's action on BPL. -- 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

[arrl-odv:14521] Fwd: flagpoles
by Tom Frenaye 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

This was posted on a VHF reflector. Is it true? >Also, new federal legislation, as of July, restricts HOAs from preventing >the display of the US Flag -- many are having to rewrite rules to allow >flagpoles -- which, of course, can become stealth antennas. Hadn't heard about it in any of our internal or external communications. We ought to make some noise about it. Why don't we promote dual use flagpole-antennas? Didn't find much looking through the ARRL website. Nothing in QST for the last six years either. Some of our vendors have them in their catalogs (Force-12, SGC). -- 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:14520] FW: FCC BPL RULING!!!
by Jim Weaver 16 Sep '06

16 Sep '06

I sent one of my infamous Weavers Words newsletters to GLD members last night. It was delivered this morning. I briefly discussed the FCCs BPL ruling and stated the Board was considering what options there were still available. I closed the BPL discussion by asking if anyone had suggestions on what we should do. I thought you might be interested in a response that typifies the initial reaction to my inquiry. Please note that I did not mention lawsuit, appeal or any other form of action. There certainly has been no equivocation in the relatively few responses Ive received so far. 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! Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:48 PM To: k8je(a)arrl.org Subject: FCC BPL RULING!!! I think the ARRL should fight this unbelievable FCC ruling on BPL. Our current government has shown time and again that the only interests they will protect are business interests not our individual rights. I am sure the BPL companies have sent a lot of money via lobbyists. That's all that counts these days. GREED.!! File a lawsuit !! Bruce Miller KG8GU

1 0

[arrl-odv:14519] Re: Appeal
by Jim Weaver 16 Sep '06

16 Sep '06

Tom et al, The thought that we may be able to join forces with others in some way to try to hold the Commission's collective feet to the fire they started sounds like a good tactic provided we don't become associated with forces that could do more damage to us than to the Commission. Frankly, I'm a little concerned over being saddled with Barbara B. (this is not because of any difference I may or may not have with her party affiliation). I also like Tom's suggestion of recording our vote somehow. If we are all together on this at this time, would it be appropriate to have the Board Secretary to conduct a more formalized vote by E-mail or by US Mail and recording the results of this vote? The purpose would be to show a clear-cut expression of support of the appeal by the Directors. There will definitely be some among as well as outside our membership who will second guess the appeal action which means among other things that we do not want to appear to have somehow "slid" into the action informally. Jim 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14518] Re: Appeal Thanks to Joel and Chris for following up on my message on Tuesday regarding the BPL/FCC appeal. Joel said: >Gee, Tom, your opinion sure seems to have changed since I had a conversation with you and Frank Fallon at Boxboro. Yes, when we talked I hadn't seen any details. The decision to support the recommendation, or not, takes more than a hallway conversation. >If you want a formal written motion beyond what has already been given to you in >writing I will be happy to draft one, and will go back and get a formal >EC motion in place beyond what we already have documented. I'd suggest that we reaffirm the vote by a note in the minutes of the next EC or Board meeting for two reasons - it opens the door to some substantial expenses this year (and next), and we need to document it in our Board record of policy decisions. Chris' detailed information was very helpful. >Finally, the alternative of mandamus is not a good substitute for an appeal of the R&O and MO&O, though it might be a good additional strategy. We can do those if the right factual situation comes up. I was wondering if that might be included as an related activity to a Court of Appeals lawsuit - using the same outside counsel. It sounds like it'd be worth it if we have the necessary documentation. >What is our best argument in the Court appeal? In my view, it is that which is outlined in the memo attached to my response to Dick Norton's e-mail, updated with the FCC's rather glaring attack on licensed services complaining about interference to mobile operations. If we could get APCO or another public safety entity to intervene on our behalf, that would sweeten the case considerably. The $64,000 question in several ways... I sure hope we can get some additional help - interveners or financial support. I was pleased to see this Associated Press article about the FCC today. Here's a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR200 6091400905.html Looks like the shenanigans and sleazy activity within the FCC may be more widespread than we realize. Maybe we should be talking to the lawyers involved in the case described in the article - a successful one against the FCC in 2004. Approaching Senator Boxer might be useful also. So, count me as a supporter of an appeal of the FCC's action on BPL. -- 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:14518] Re: Appeal
by Tom Frenaye 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Thanks to Joel and Chris for following up on my message on Tuesday regarding the BPL/FCC appeal. Joel said: >Gee, Tom, your opinion sure seems to have changed since I had a conversation with you and Frank Fallon at Boxboro. Yes, when we talked I hadn't seen any details. The decision to support the recommendation, or not, takes more than a hallway conversation. >If you want a formal written motion beyond what has already been given to you in >writing I will be happy to draft one, and will go back and get a formal >EC motion in place beyond what we already have documented. I'd suggest that we reaffirm the vote by a note in the minutes of the next EC or Board meeting for two reasons - it opens the door to some substantial expenses this year (and next), and we need to document it in our Board record of policy decisions. Chris' detailed information was very helpful. >Finally, the alternative of mandamus is not a good substitute for an appeal of the R&O and MO&O, though it might be a good additional strategy. We can do those if the right factual situation comes up. I was wondering if that might be included as an related activity to a Court of Appeals lawsuit - using the same outside counsel. It sounds like it'd be worth it if we have the necessary documentation. >What is our best argument in the Court appeal? In my view, it is that which is outlined in the memo attached to my response to Dick Norton's e-mail, updated with the FCC's rather glaring attack on licensed services complaining about interference to mobile operations. If we could get APCO or another public safety entity to intervene on our behalf, that would sweeten the case considerably. The $64,000 question in several ways... I sure hope we can get some additional help - interveners or financial support. I was pleased to see this Associated Press article about the FCC today. Here's a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR200609140… Looks like the shenanigans and sleazy activity within the FCC may be more widespread than we realize. Maybe we should be talking to the lawyers involved in the case described in the article - a successful one against the FCC in 2004. Approaching Senator Boxer might be useful also. So, count me as a supporter of an appeal of the FCC's action on BPL. -- 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:14517] Prominent broadcaster honored
by Kay Craigie 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

The news story on our web site headlined "Broadcaster-radio amateur to receive national radio award (Sep 15, 2006)" led me to look up this gent in the ARRL membership database. Alas, there's no record of his ever having been a League member. He lives in York, PA, according to QRZ.com. Sure would be nice to have someone so well regarded in the broadcast industry as a member of the ARRL. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:14516] Need anythng more?
by Jim Weaver 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Fellow Directors, By now youve probably had the opportunity at least to skim through the three documents President Harrison forwarded to you concerning the Boards Legislative Action Program (LAP). Specifically, the documents are the Legislative Action Assistant (LAA) Handbook, the LAP Volunteer Qualifications and the LAP FAQ. Please note that the LAA Handbook has been revised considerably since the draft you received at the July meeting. The ad hoc Legislative Action Committee prepared the three documents in response to comments, questions and suggestions the Board family directed to us. We thank you for these ideas. We hope that the availability of the documents will prove useful to you and your staffs in fleshing out the LAP organizations in your Divisions. As Congress reconvenes in 2007, I believe you can foresee the potential value that a going LAP will offer to ARRL and Amateur Radio. We on the Committee realize there is no magic switch to throw that will make a fully staffed, fine-tuned Program appear overnight. Developing the total Program may require months and even years. Even so, one will never reach ultimate success unless one begins . . . at the beginning. Paraphrasing the comment made by my fellow Purdue Bands trombonist Neil Armstrong as he stepped onto the moon, I am confident that what we are beginning as One small step for ARRL soon will become One giant leap for Amateur Radio. In addition to the documents youve received, the Committee plans to work with our HQ staff to upgrade the Grassroots area of our web sites Members Only section so that it will become still more useful to our LAP volunteers. In addition, weve vastly improved the skit that was presented Thursday evening before the July meeting and that depicted a lobby visit by Legislative Action Assistants Bill and David with Sen. Chwat. Thanks to the excellent assistance of Harold Kramer and support of President Harrison and CEO Sumner, a professional production team is shooting the improved skit in early October. We expect it to be edited for release for your use before the end of the year. The skit should prove very useful in showing candidates for appointment in the Program that typical hams can successfully conduct lobby visits with Congressmen and just what can be expected to occur when these visits take place. One final thought that comes to mind is that you may have identified additional tools you would like the Committee to develop to assist you in developing the Program in your Divisions. If you think of any such tools, please E-mail or telephone me or another member of the Committee. Well be happy to see what we can do. Let us know if you have any questions about the documents youve recently received. These were developed after much thought by the Committee, several fellow Directors, a couple of officers and a staff member here and there. Regardless of the breadth of the input, I am sure that none of us on the Committee believe there is no room for improvement. Therefore, your continuing input is solicited. Tnx for your help, 73, Jim Weaver, Chair For the ad hoc Legislative Action Committee Bill Edgar, N3LLR Frank Fallon, N2FF Jim Fenstermaker, K9JF David Woolweaver, K5RAV 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!

1 0

[arrl-odv:14515] Re: Hill Update - Update
by Jim Weaver 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Joel, Great effort. Hope it pays off. 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: Harrison, Joel [mailto:Joel.Harrison@wgint.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14514] Hill Update - Update Last night I forgot to attach the Ross letter to my "Hill Update". Here it is. Joel

1 0