July 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:15762] BOD Travel
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

Good afternoon. Just a reminder, that the deadline for hotel and travel arrangements are due today. Please advise asap. TNX Lisa

1 0

[arrl-odv:15761] FW: ARRL On-Line Auction 2007
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

This is a message that Deb sent to the HQ staff. We hope that some of the Board members will participate in the auction again this year. Any great ideas that you might have, please send them along to me or Deb. 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: Jahnke, Deb, K1DAJ Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:41 AM To: HQ Staff Subject: ARRL On-Line Auction 2007 As you know, in 2006, we hosted the first ARRL On-Line Auction. It may sound early to be thinking about the 2007 auction, but it'll be here before you know it. The dates for the 2007 auction will be October 24, commencing at 10AM ET through November 2, 2007, closing at 3PM ET. Last year many staff members had wonderful suggestions and I'm reaching out to everyone once again this year. I welcome all suggestions. In addition, if you might be interested in making a donation, please let me know. And if you should happen to know any movie stars, rock stars, celebrities-or know someone who knows someone (well you get the idea), I'd love to chat as well. We're expecting an event that, once again, will be fun for all and provide assistance, via the proceeds, for ARRL education. I hope you'll pitch in! Best 73's, Debra Jahnke, K1DAJ ARRL On-Line Auction Coordinator Business Services Manager ARRL - The national association for AMATEUR RADIO 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111-1494 Email: djahnke(a)arrl.org Phone: 860-594-0329

1 0

[arrl-odv:15760] New EmComm Manager
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

After an exhaustive and rather exhausting and search, we have finally hired a new EmComm Manager. Dennis Dura, K2DCD, has accepted the position of Emergency Communications Manager here at HQ. He will be starting the end of the month. Here is a brief summary of his qualifications prepared by Dave Patton: Harold ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- From: Patton, David NN1N Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:30 PM To: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Subject: K2DCD Dennis has over 26 years of experience in emergency management issues and is presently serving as Deputy State Emergency Coordinator, Emergency Management, DHS, State of New Jersey. Previously he worked as a planner with the Office of Emergency Management for the state of New Jersey. >From 1993 through 1997 he worked as a Disaster Preparedness Specialist for the American Red Cross. He has successful experience with obtaining grants that funded NOAA radio transmitters in under-served areas of New Jersey and statewide RACES repeaters and APRS installations at all County Emergency Operations Centers in NJ. As a volunteer he is the Assistant Director of Operations for the VoIP Hurricane Net, and also the Chairman of the National Weather Service, Skywarn Advisory Committee in Mt. Holy, NJ. He has finished EC 001 and 002, and is trained in all levels of the Incident Command System. He is active with his county's ARES operation as well as being the Assistant state RACES Officer with the State of New Jersey, OEM, since 1997. His degree is in Criminal Justice and he is a graduate of FEMA's Professional Development Series. Dave

1 0

Re: [arrl-odv:15757] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by w3kd＠aol.com 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

Tom, ARRL's reply brief is due July 31. Based on input from Dave Sumner and Ed Hare and my own analysis, I am preparing a memo for Jon Frankel at WilmerHale. Any input for that?is of course welcome.... 73, Chris W3Kd -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:29 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:15757] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent At 10:17 AM 7/3/2007, w3kd(a)aol.com wrote: >OK, folks, this requires a bit of warning. Your natural and expected response when you read the attached FCC brief in the BPL case is going to be a great deal of anger. You will be offended when you read the brief,... I couldn't stand to read too many pages of the FCC drivel, but it seems to me like they are doing their best to tell the court that the court should trust the FCC in their technical analysis. I think our response should use a lot of very simple and clear examples to give the court a chance to understand that this isn't super-technical, nor is it beyond a layman's understanding. Are oral arguments part of the process? I can imagine an oral presentation where the ARRL attorney starts his "pitch" by turning on an audio tape that offers a recording of BPL at a specific noise level - say 20db over S-9 (or about 75 db - the same as a vacuum cleaner or garbage disposal). Then see if the judge(s) understands why we worry about interference from a non-licensed service. That would make for a powerful aural argument... What's the timing of the next step (reply to the FCC comments) ? -- Tom PS: Guess it's time to send more $$ to our Spectrum Defense Fund... ===== 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 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15753] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by Jim Weaver-2 05 Jul '07

05 Jul '07

Gee, Chris, technical law seems to work the same was that product liability law works - i.e. in the case of product liability it is expected that the plaintiff's attorney always alleges that the defendant's product created everything from hang nail to baldness, to pregnancy to cancer all after walking past a display of it on store shelves. The only difference is that the defendant here (FCC) is making wild claims that seem possible only after smoking some wild plant. Good job. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15753] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent Well, I don't think their brief is good at all, really. I think that the FCC's three worst arguments are that (1) there is a low interference potential; they themselves cited the NTIA report that concludes that interference is virtually 100 percent at long distances; (2) that FCC's balancing test is permissible due to the need to achieve broadband rollout as a policy matter (it has never been a test for the permissibility of Part 15 devices vs. licensed services before now); and (3) that there are interference mitigation techniques that protect us from interference. We can easily show that none of those techniques apply to Amateur Radio interference and that we don't get protection from them (arguments we have had in the record since the beginning). For those of you who may not have had a chance to read our brief BEFORE reading the FCC brief, attached is ours, as filed. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:57 am Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15751] ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent Didn't PO me. Looks like a darn good brief stating their position. Of course, that's what we disagree with! Joel _____ From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com <mailto:w3kd@aol.com?> ] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15751] ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent OK, folks, this requires a bit of warning. Your natural and expected response when you read the attached FCC brief in the BPL case is going to be a great deal of anger. You will be offended when you read the brief, because it mischaracterizes ARRL's position in numerous respects. Please fight that normal response when you read this. Let me suggest to you that which Mr. Roderick, Mr. Ahrens, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Bellows and Mr. Raisbeck are already well-aware because of their professional training; the mischaracterizations are a sign of weakness in the FCC's argument. So, the FCC's misstatements are a good thing, because (1) they indicate that they have had a hard time with our brief, and (2) we get to rebut the statements, and we can do so. I will have some analysis of this brief to offer later on, but there is no substitute for reading this yourself. It is public information, and doubtless will get some press shortly. The basic premise of the FCC is that ARRL expects no interference, and pristine band conditions, and that is an expectation that FCC has no obligation to meet. They claim that we expect absolute protection against ALL interference, and therefore expect too much. They are sticking with their technical determination that there is no significant interference potential from BPL, a determination which they believe is entitled to the Court's deference, and they urge that their balancing test between promoting broadband (a Congressional obligation) and protecting licensed services against interference was reasonable and within the scope of their jurisdiction. There is one troublesome aspect of this brief, which I will have to discuss with WilmerHale's lawyers. Most of you will recall that the FCC, in a proceeding involving 24 GHz, used the same unlawful balancing test in allowing very high powered, highly directional antennas for Part 15 transmitters which permitted path distances of many miles. We initially filed a notice of intent to appeal that decision, but later, after we re-evaluated the record and concluded that there was no good record of the interference potential, decided to abandon that court appeal, saving the argument about the limits of FCC's jurisdiction to permit interference-causing Part 15 devices for another day. FCC, having gotten away with that in that 24 GHz proceeding, now is throwing that back in our faces, saying that they already addressed the ARRL's statutory argument earlier, and we are now just dragging up old, already addressed claims. I think that there are a lot of holes in this brief, but I haven't yet conferred with the WilmerHale lawyers for their views. I will forward them to you when I get a chance to discuss this with Jon Frankel, our lead counsel there. More shortly. 73, Chris W3KD _____ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> AOL.com. _____ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> AOL.com.

1 0

[arrl-odv:15757] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by Tom Frenaye 04 Jul '07

04 Jul '07

At 10:17 AM 7/3/2007, w3kd(a)aol.com wrote: >OK, folks, this requires a bit of warning. Your natural and expected response when you read the attached FCC brief in the BPL case is going to be a great deal of anger. You will be offended when you read the brief,... I couldn't stand to read too many pages of the FCC drivel, but it seems to me like they are doing their best to tell the court that the court should trust the FCC in their technical analysis. I think our response should use a lot of very simple and clear examples to give the court a chance to understand that this isn't super-technical, nor is it beyond a layman's understanding. Are oral arguments part of the process? I can imagine an oral presentation where the ARRL attorney starts his "pitch" by turning on an audio tape that offers a recording of BPL at a specific noise level - say 20db over S-9 (or about 75 db - the same as a vacuum cleaner or garbage disposal). Then see if the judge(s) understands why we worry about interference from a non-licensed service. That would make for a powerful aural argument... What's the timing of the next step (reply to the FCC comments) ? -- Tom PS: Guess it's time to send more $$ to our Spectrum Defense Fund... ===== 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

Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by w3kd＠aol.com 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

Good points, Dick. Let me put it this way: the Court is not going to decide whether or not the Part 15 point source radiated emission limits are adequate for BPL as a technical matter. The only question is whether or not the FCC justified its decision adequately and didn't ignore material in the record that disproved or was contrary to their conclusion, and whether or not any change of prior position by FCC was justified and admitted by FCC. Technical arguments are OK, as long as the judges aren't asked to substitute their judgment for that of the agency on matters of substance. The technical material discussed is for the purpose of showing that the FCC either did or didn't adequately consider material in the record before making its decision, or whether the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Chris -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com To: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org Cc: w3kd(a)aol.com Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 3:05 pm Subject: Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent 3 JUL 2007 1405 CDT? ? Like Joel said earlier, I'm no PO'd. But I want to discuss an issue? pertaining to both our federal appellate court petition and the FCC's? Respondent Brief.? ? In previous discussions of various portions of this BPL fiasco, I was told? that we cannot make RF technical arguments to the Appeals Court, that we? could only make procedural arguments. IE. the FCC acted wrongly or failed? to act according to existing federal statutes and regulations.? ? Yet I see the FCC, in its response to our petition, making what appears to? be an RF rebuttal argument stating that Part 15 point source radiation? limits are adequate for BPL linear radiation limits because there is no? difference. The FCC states this as a fact without providing technical data? to support its statement.? ? On my first reading of this document, I see no mention of transmission time? limits. Apparently, the FCC does not want to bring this up because continuous BPL data streams have far greater interference potential than intermittent? Part 15 data pulses. Yet the FCC says that Part 15 regulations are? applicable to BPL operations.? ? In my layman's point of view, I still regard both of these issues as proof? the FCC has overreached its authority in allowing BPL to operate under current? Part 15 regulations. The Commission should not be allowed to get away with making unsupported RF technical statements that are false and/or misleading.? ? Why didn't the FCC amend Part 15 to match BPL RF emission parameters? Could? it be the Commission did not do so because it would be an open admission? that BPL emissions, and the interference potential to licensed RF spectrum users, are much greater than it says they are?? ? - Dick, W9GIG? ? ? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

[arrl-odv:15755] Re:ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by dick＠pobox.com 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

3 JUL 2007 1405 CDT Like Joel said earlier, I'm no PO'd. But I want to discuss an issue pertaining to both our federal appellate court petition and the FCC's Respondent Brief. In previous discussions of various portions of this BPL fiasco, I was told that we cannot make RF technical arguments to the Appeals Court, that we could only make procedural arguments. IE. the FCC acted wrongly or failed to act according to existing federal statutes and regulations. Yet I see the FCC, in its response to our petition, making what appears to be an RF rebuttal argument stating that Part 15 point source radiation limits are adequate for BPL linear radiation limits because there is no difference. The FCC states this as a fact without providing technical data to support its statement. On my first reading of this document, I see no mention of transmission time limits. Apparently, the FCC does not want to bring this up because continuous BPL data streams have far greater interference potential than intermittent Part 15 data pulses. Yet the FCC says that Part 15 regulations are applicable to BPL operations. In my layman's point of view, I still regard both of these issues as proof the FCC has overreached its authority in allowing BPL to operate under current Part 15 regulations. The Commission should not be allowed to get away with making unsupported RF technical statements that are false and/or misleading. Why didn't the FCC amend Part 15 to match BPL RF emission parameters? Could it be the Commission did not do so because it would be an open admission that BPL emissions, and the interference potential to licensed RF spectrum users, are much greater than it says they are? - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15753] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by Joel Harrison 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

That's why we pay you to beat up on them!! Well, I don't think their brief is good at all, really.

1 0

[arrl-odv:15753] Re: ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent
by w3kd＠aol.com 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

Well, I don't think their brief is good at all, really. I think that the FCC's three worst arguments are that (1) there is a low interference potential; they themselves cited the NTIA report that concludes that interference is virtually 100 percent at long distances; (2) that FCC's balancing test is permissible due to the need to achieve broadband rollout as a policy matter (it has never been a test for the permissibility of Part 15 devices vs. licensed services before now); and (3) that there are interference mitigation techniques that protect us from interference. We can easily show that none of those techniques apply to Amateur Radio interference and that we don't get protection from them (arguments we have had in the record since the beginning). For those of you who may not have had a chance to read our brief BEFORE reading the FCC brief, attached is ours, as filed. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:57 am Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15751] ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent Didn’t PO me. Looks like a darn good brief stating their position. Of course, that’s what we disagree with! Joel From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15751] ARRL v. FCC, Brief of Respondent OK, folks, this requires a bit of warning. Your natural and expected response when you read the attached FCC brief in the BPL case is going to be a great deal of anger. You will be offended when you read the brief, because it mischaracterizes ARRL's position in numerous respects. Please fight that normal response when you read this. Let me suggest to you that which Mr. Roderick, Mr. Ahrens, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Bellows and Mr. Raisbeck are already well-aware because of their professional training; the mischaracterizations are a sign of weakness in the FCC's argument. So, the FCC's misstatements are a good thing, because (1) they indicate that they have had a hard time with our brief, and (2) we get to rebut the statements, and we can do so. I will have some analysis of this brief to offer later on, but there is no substitute for reading this yourself. It is public information, and doubtless will get some press shortly. The basic premise of the FCC is that ARRL expects no interference, and pristine band conditions, and that is an expectation that FCC has no obligation to meet. They claim that we expect absolute protection against ALL interference, and therefore expect too much. They are sticking with their technical determination that there is no significant interference potential from BPL, a determination which they believe is entitled to the Court's deference, and they urge that their balancing test between promoting broadband (a Congressional obligation) and protecting licensed services against interference was reasonable and within the scope of their jurisdiction. There is one troublesome aspect of this brief, which I will have to discuss with WilmerHale's lawyers. Most of you will recall that the FCC, in a proceeding involving 24 GHz, used the same unlawful balancing test in allowing very high powered, highly directional antennas for Part 15 transmitters which permitted path distances of many miles. We initially filed a notice of intent to appeal that decision, but later, after we re-evaluated the record and concluded that there was no good record of the interference potential, decided to abandon that court appeal, saving the argument about the limits of FCC's jurisdiction to permit interference-causing Part 15 devices for another day. FCC, having gotten away with that in that 24 GHz proceeding, now is throwing that back in our faces, saying that they already addressed the ARRL's statutory argument earlier, and we are now just dragging up old, already addressed claims. I think that there are a lot of holes in this brief, but I haven't yet conferred with the WilmerHale lawyers for their views. I will forward them to you when I get a chance to discuss this with Jon Frankel, our lead counsel there. More shortly. 73, Chris W3KD AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0