April 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:17624] Senate spectrum legislation
by Tom Frenaye 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Interesting article and the recently introduced Senate legislation: New York Times TECHNOLOGY | April 02, 2009 Bits: How Much More Spectrum Do We Need? By Saul Hansell As the F.C.C. mulls broadband policy, lobbyists for more wireless spectrum. And some want to make sure it's auctioned to the highest bidders. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/how-much-more-spectrum-do-we-need/… -- 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

RE: [arrl-odv:17622] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Joel Harrison 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

>On the Indianapolis PD story, I can understand the ARRL keeping a low profile during the "data collection" phase of the investigation. At some point, however, the ARRL should issue an objective report to the ham community on the misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis PD. Mickey, Just so we're on the same page, I agree with you on that statement. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17622] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Mickey Cox 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Tom, Thanks for your comments. Yes, I'm very concerned about the confidentiality aspects of situations like this one. I also understand that the Board wants to present a "united front" in public as much as possible and, yet, individual Directors need to be able to let their members know their own thoughts on "controversial" issues faced by the Board. On the Indianapolis PD story, I can understand the ARRL keeping a low profile during the "data collection" phase of the investigation. At some point, however, the ARRL should issue an objective report to the ham community on the misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis PD. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:36 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:17621] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? > At 02:54 PM 4/1/2009, Mickey Cox wrote: >>If somebody asks me during the ARRL Forum at the next hamfest about why >>the League has kept a very low public profile on this issue, is it OK for >>me to pass along your comments verbatim? Or do you want me to say >>something to the effect that "Federal officials requested that the ARRL >>not go public with this story because the premature publicity would (or >>has) impeded its investigation into this matter"? I don't believe that I >>can simply shrug my shoulders and then try to change the subject if this >>issue is brought up by a member in my Division. > > Hi Mickey - > > On issues like this the main thing to keep in mind is that information > presented on the ARRL OD or ODV reflectors (and Board committee > reflectors), should be treated as confidential and only used within the > Board. The info in the ARRL In-News also falls into the same category. > From time to time I've wanted to be able to say more on a topic to SMs or > members who ask - in that case I'll usually ask Dave or Joel where the > limit is if I'm unsure. > > In this specific case (Indiana PD), I think you've hit on a topic that we > haven't published any information on at all - I couldn't find anything in > the ARRL web news and haven't seen it in QST. That does make it look > like we've ignored the story or don't want to cover it - we usually do > cover any story related to FCC's ham radio enforcement because it helps to > keep hams aware there are limits. Seems like we ought to publish > something on this one. > > -- 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:17621] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Tom Frenaye 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

At 02:54 PM 4/1/2009, Mickey Cox wrote: >If somebody asks me during the ARRL Forum at the next hamfest about why the League has kept a very low public profile on this issue, is it OK for me to pass along your comments verbatim? Or do you want me to say something to the effect that "Federal officials requested that the ARRL not go public with this story because the premature publicity would (or has) impeded its investigation into this matter"? I don't believe that I can simply shrug my shoulders and then try to change the subject if this issue is brought up by a member in my Division. Hi Mickey - On issues like this the main thing to keep in mind is that information presented on the ARRL OD or ODV reflectors (and Board committee reflectors), should be treated as confidential and only used within the Board. The info in the ARRL In-News also falls into the same category. From time to time I've wanted to be able to say more on a topic to SMs or members who ask - in that case I'll usually ask Dave or Joel where the limit is if I'm unsure. In this specific case (Indiana PD), I think you've hit on a topic that we haven't published any information on at all - I couldn't find anything in the ARRL web news and haven't seen it in QST. That does make it look like we've ignored the story or don't want to cover it - we usually do cover any story related to FCC's ham radio enforcement because it helps to keep hams aware there are limits. Seems like we ought to publish something on this one. -- 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:17620] K5UZ QRV After the Ice Storm
by David A. Norris 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Hello All! I just got the last BLU controller wired in and tested this afternoon. The stacks on 10 and 20 are working like a charm and the old 40m Yagi plays better than ever! It has been a long recovery but I'm back! I'll post up some pictures when I get back home Sunday! 73 ES DX Dave K5UZ

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17618] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Joel Harrison 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

QSL Mickey.....understand. I'll be at HQ on Friday and at the PSC meeting Saturday so lets discuss it then in-person. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:03 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17618] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Joel, My immediate concern is if I'm asked by somebody about the ARRL's very low public profile to date on this issue, how much information provided by Dave and you am I free to pass along? (You apparently are saying that I'm free to say anything I want. If I do say anything concerning this situation, I want it to be as truthful as possible.) Once the FCC investigation is completed, I hope the League will inform the ham community about how we assisted the FCC with its investigation. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison <mailto:w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Mickey, Do you think it is ethical for the ARRL to thwart an FCC investigation by going public with information that would hamper that investigation? As Dave pointed out, which I forgot to in my haste to respond to your email, the investigation was on going in order to nab all of the guilty parties. That is why the FCC wanted to keep a lid on it for a while, not to withhold information, but to make sure all involved were identified during the investigation. What actually happened is when the disgruntled ham who had an unrelated beef with the Indianapolis PD (only one, I might add, out of the many hams in the Indianapolis area that assisted with this investigation) contacted the news media and the story broke it allowed some of the violators to get rid of evidence (radios in their patrol cars) before they could all be identified. We obviously disagree in our view of the matter. We were clearly assisting the FCC with their investigation, not withholding news and information. You are wrong when you claim we are ignoring the misuse of spectrum....quite the opposite. By working with the FCC to act in this situation rather than publishing a big grand stand story our actions promote and support spectrum defense. Laura brought this subject up during our meeting and she praised ARRL for working with the FCC in this matter and she was not pleased with the others, including Newsline, who ignored the FCC's request to allow them to complete their investigation and take action. Do we always agree with and do what the FCC wants? Absolutely not! But when in comes to enforcement and protection of the amateur spectrum we have a very long and very successful history of working with the FCC to accomplish that mission and our board policy is that we continue to do so. You are free, of course, to tell members what you want but this is absolutely NOT a case of ARRL trying to withhold, hide or just ignore something that occurred relating to the amateur radio service. It was a cooperative investigation between the FCC, ARRL's local Amateur Auxiliary and ARRL HQ that was successful in shutting this illegal operation down. When left with the decision of whether I want to splash a big news story in front of everyone to try to look good or work with the FCC to actually get results by shutting down activity of this nature I prefer to get results. I haven't received any complaints or questions at all about this from anywhere and I can assure you if it was an issue I would have. The only comments I have seen anywhere have been on qrz.com from the two people that always complain about everything and tie ARRL to whatever the topic is, even topics that have nothing to do with amateur radio. And just for the record, it is not my intent, purpose or practice to withhold any public information from ARRL members, even though I have been accused of doing so. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Joel and Dave, Thanks for the quick feedback. However, I do have some serious questions and comments regarding this situation. If somebody asks me during the ARRL Forum at the next hamfest about why the League has kept a very low public profile on this issue, is it OK for me to pass along your comments verbatim? Or do you want me to say something to the effect that "Federal officials requested that the ARRL not go public with this story because the premature publicity would (or has) impeded its investigation into this matter"? I don't believe that I can simply shrug my shoulders and then try to change the subject if this issue is brought up by a member in my Division. Furthermore, if a similar situation is exposed next month within the Police or Fire (or whatever) Department in Podunk, will the ARRL behave in the same fashion if requested to do so by the FCC or some other authority? Is it standard operating procedure for the ARRL to acquiesce in these types of situations or is each case duly considered on its own merits? As you have probably already guessed by now, it is my opinion that the ARRL's credibility as seen by many of its members (and former members) is not enhanced when it functions in the fashion that it apparently has in this specific situation. The fact that the League asks its members to make donations for spectrum defense, and then for the League to publicly ignore the misuse of that spectrum (by our own government officials no less!), is both sad and ironic in my view. In closing here, would it be considered unethical in my official role as Delta Division Director if I admit to my members that I do not think the ARRL showed the best judgment in publicly ignoring the story of the Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison <mailto:w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17613] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Hi Mickey, I'll tell you what I know which came from Laura Smith at the FCC. I haven't finished my trip report from Washington late last week but on Friday Chris and I did meet with Laura at the FCC's Gettysburg office. When this issue was reported to the FCC they began working on it and immediately opened a dialog with the Chief of Police in Indianapolis, who told the FCC he was unaware of the matter would resolved immediately, the radios removed and the officers who broke laws would be disciplined. We were ready to report the matter but at Laura's request she asked that we give the Chief a few days to take action in this matter, and we honored the FCC's request. According to Laura one of the local hams, who has a history of issues with the Indianapolis Police Dept, was not satisfied to allow the Police Department to take action and called the local TV station, Newsline, etc. So, we did honor the FCC's request to not make a big public story out of this. Why? Laura says the Police Department took immediate action when it was brought to their attention and in no way was the FCC going to action against the Indianpolis Police Department's commercial radio license since it is a public safety matter. That's all I know. I don't think it is as big of a story as some are trying to make it out to be. Yes, there was illegal operation occurring but the hams tracked it down, reported it and it was stopped and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. Dave may have additional info he wants to add. 73 Joel W5ZN On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: ARRL ODV, Has the ARRL publicly avoided the issue concerning the apparent misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis Police Department or have I simply missed reading about it on the League site or in the ARRL Letter? Apparently this issue was first brought to light to the ham community by "Amateur Radio Newsline" about six weeks ago. 73, K5MC Delta Division Director

1 0

[arrl-odv:17618] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Mickey Cox 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

Joel, My immediate concern is if I'm asked by somebody about the ARRL's very low public profile to date on this issue, how much information provided by Dave and you am I free to pass along? (You apparently are saying that I'm free to say anything I want. If I do say anything concerning this situation, I want it to be as truthful as possible.) Once the FCC investigation is completed, I hope the League will inform the ham community about how we assisted the FCC with its investigation. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Mickey, Do you think it is ethical for the ARRL to thwart an FCC investigation by going public with information that would hamper that investigation? As Dave pointed out, which I forgot to in my haste to respond to your email, the investigation was on going in order to nab all of the guilty parties. That is why the FCC wanted to keep a lid on it for a while, not to withhold information, but to make sure all involved were identified during the investigation. What actually happened is when the disgruntled ham who had an unrelated beef with the Indianapolis PD (only one, I might add, out of the many hams in the Indianapolis area that assisted with this investigation) contacted the news media and the story broke it allowed some of the violators to get rid of evidence (radios in their patrol cars) before they could all be identified. We obviously disagree in our view of the matter. We were clearly assisting the FCC with their investigation, not withholding news and information. You are wrong when you claim we are ignoring the misuse of spectrum....quite the opposite. By working with the FCC to act in this situation rather than publishing a big grand stand story our actions promote and support spectrum defense. Laura brought this subject up during our meeting and she praised ARRL for working with the FCC in this matter and she was not pleased with the others, including Newsline, who ignored the FCC's request to allow them to complete their investigation and take action. Do we always agree with and do what the FCC wants? Absolutely not! But when in comes to enforcement and protection of the amateur spectrum we have a very long and very successful history of working with the FCC to accomplish that mission and our board policy is that we continue to do so. You are free, of course, to tell members what you want but this is absolutely NOT a case of ARRL trying to withhold, hide or just ignore something that occurred relating to the amateur radio service. It was a cooperative investigation between the FCC, ARRL's local Amateur Auxiliary and ARRL HQ that was successful in shutting this illegal operation down. When left with the decision of whether I want to splash a big news story in front of everyone to try to look good or work with the FCC to actually get results by shutting down activity of this nature I prefer to get results. I haven't received any complaints or questions at all about this from anywhere and I can assure you if it was an issue I would have. The only comments I have seen anywhere have been on qrz.com from the two people that always complain about everything and tie ARRL to whatever the topic is, even topics that have nothing to do with amateur radio. And just for the record, it is not my intent, purpose or practice to withhold any public information from ARRL members, even though I have been accused of doing so. 73 Joel W5ZN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Joel and Dave, Thanks for the quick feedback. However, I do have some serious questions and comments regarding this situation. If somebody asks me during the ARRL Forum at the next hamfest about why the League has kept a very low public profile on this issue, is it OK for me to pass along your comments verbatim? Or do you want me to say something to the effect that "Federal officials requested that the ARRL not go public with this story because the premature publicity would (or has) impeded its investigation into this matter"? I don't believe that I can simply shrug my shoulders and then try to change the subject if this issue is brought up by a member in my Division. Furthermore, if a similar situation is exposed next month within the Police or Fire (or whatever) Department in Podunk, will the ARRL behave in the same fashion if requested to do so by the FCC or some other authority? Is it standard operating procedure for the ARRL to acquiesce in these types of situations or is each case duly considered on its own merits? As you have probably already guessed by now, it is my opinion that the ARRL's credibility as seen by many of its members (and former members) is not enhanced when it functions in the fashion that it apparently has in this specific situation. The fact that the League asks its members to make donations for spectrum defense, and then for the League to publicly ignore the misuse of that spectrum (by our own government officials no less!), is both sad and ironic in my view. In closing here, would it be considered unethical in my official role as Delta Division Director if I admit to my members that I do not think the ARRL showed the best judgment in publicly ignoring the story of the Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17613] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Hi Mickey, I'll tell you what I know which came from Laura Smith at the FCC. I haven't finished my trip report from Washington late last week but on Friday Chris and I did meet with Laura at the FCC's Gettysburg office. When this issue was reported to the FCC they began working on it and immediately opened a dialog with the Chief of Police in Indianapolis, who told the FCC he was unaware of the matter would resolved immediately, the radios removed and the officers who broke laws would be disciplined. We were ready to report the matter but at Laura's request she asked that we give the Chief a few days to take action in this matter, and we honored the FCC's request. According to Laura one of the local hams, who has a history of issues with the Indianapolis Police Dept, was not satisfied to allow the Police Department to take action and called the local TV station, Newsline, etc. So, we did honor the FCC's request to not make a big public story out of this. Why? Laura says the Police Department took immediate action when it was brought to their attention and in no way was the FCC going to action against the Indianpolis Police Department's commercial radio license since it is a public safety matter. That's all I know. I don't think it is as big of a story as some are trying to make it out to be. Yes, there was illegal operation occurring but the hams tracked it down, reported it and it was stopped and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. Dave may have additional info he wants to add. 73 Joel W5ZN On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: ARRL ODV, Has the ARRL publicly avoided the issue concerning the apparent misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis Police Department or have I simply missed reading about it on the League site or in the ARRL Letter? Apparently this issue was first brought to light to the ham community by "Amateur Radio Newsline" about six weeks ago. 73, K5MC Delta Division Director

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Joel Harrison 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

Mickey, Do you think it is ethical for the ARRL to thwart an FCC investigation by going public with information that would hamper that investigation? As Dave pointed out, which I forgot to in my haste to respond to your email, the investigation was on going in order to nab all of the guilty parties. That is why the FCC wanted to keep a lid on it for a while, not to withhold information, but to make sure all involved were identified during the investigation. What actually happened is when the disgruntled ham who had an unrelated beef with the Indianapolis PD (only one, I might add, out of the many hams in the Indianapolis area that assisted with this investigation) contacted the news media and the story broke it allowed some of the violators to get rid of evidence (radios in their patrol cars) before they could all be identified. We obviously disagree in our view of the matter. We were clearly assisting the FCC with their investigation, not withholding news and information. You are wrong when you claim we are ignoring the misuse of spectrum....quite the opposite. By working with the FCC to act in this situation rather than publishing a big grand stand story our actions promote and support spectrum defense. Laura brought this subject up during our meeting and she praised ARRL for working with the FCC in this matter and she was not pleased with the others, including Newsline, who ignored the FCC's request to allow them to complete their investigation and take action. Do we always agree with and do what the FCC wants? Absolutely not! But when in comes to enforcement and protection of the amateur spectrum we have a very long and very successful history of working with the FCC to accomplish that mission and our board policy is that we continue to do so. You are free, of course, to tell members what you want but this is absolutely NOT a case of ARRL trying to withhold, hide or just ignore something that occurred relating to the amateur radio service. It was a cooperative investigation between the FCC, ARRL's local Amateur Auxiliary and ARRL HQ that was successful in shutting this illegal operation down. When left with the decision of whether I want to splash a big news story in front of everyone to try to look good or work with the FCC to actually get results by shutting down activity of this nature I prefer to get results. I haven't received any complaints or questions at all about this from anywhere and I can assure you if it was an issue I would have. The only comments I have seen anywhere have been on qrz.com from the two people that always complain about everything and tie ARRL to whatever the topic is, even topics that have nothing to do with amateur radio. And just for the record, it is not my intent, purpose or practice to withhold any public information from ARRL members, even though I have been accused of doing so. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Joel and Dave, Thanks for the quick feedback. However, I do have some serious questions and comments regarding this situation. If somebody asks me during the ARRL Forum at the next hamfest about why the League has kept a very low public profile on this issue, is it OK for me to pass along your comments verbatim? Or do you want me to say something to the effect that "Federal officials requested that the ARRL not go public with this story because the premature publicity would (or has) impeded its investigation into this matter"? I don't believe that I can simply shrug my shoulders and then try to change the subject if this issue is brought up by a member in my Division. Furthermore, if a similar situation is exposed next month within the Police or Fire (or whatever) Department in Podunk, will the ARRL behave in the same fashion if requested to do so by the FCC or some other authority? Is it standard operating procedure for the ARRL to acquiesce in these types of situations or is each case duly considered on its own merits? As you have probably already guessed by now, it is my opinion that the ARRL's credibility as seen by many of its members (and former members) is not enhanced when it functions in the fashion that it apparently has in this specific situation. The fact that the League asks its members to make donations for spectrum defense, and then for the League to publicly ignore the misuse of that spectrum (by our own government officials no less!), is both sad and ironic in my view. In closing here, would it be considered unethical in my official role as Delta Division Director if I admit to my members that I do not think the ARRL showed the best judgment in publicly ignoring the story of the Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison <mailto:w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17613] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Hi Mickey, I'll tell you what I know which came from Laura Smith at the FCC. I haven't finished my trip report from Washington late last week but on Friday Chris and I did meet with Laura at the FCC's Gettysburg office. When this issue was reported to the FCC they began working on it and immediately opened a dialog with the Chief of Police in Indianapolis, who told the FCC he was unaware of the matter would resolved immediately, the radios removed and the officers who broke laws would be disciplined. We were ready to report the matter but at Laura's request she asked that we give the Chief a few days to take action in this matter, and we honored the FCC's request. According to Laura one of the local hams, who has a history of issues with the Indianapolis Police Dept, was not satisfied to allow the Police Department to take action and called the local TV station, Newsline, etc. So, we did honor the FCC's request to not make a big public story out of this. Why? Laura says the Police Department took immediate action when it was brought to their attention and in no way was the FCC going to action against the Indianpolis Police Department's commercial radio license since it is a public safety matter. That's all I know. I don't think it is as big of a story as some are trying to make it out to be. Yes, there was illegal operation occurring but the hams tracked it down, reported it and it was stopped and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. Dave may have additional info he wants to add. 73 Joel W5ZN On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: ARRL ODV, Has the ARRL publicly avoided the issue concerning the apparent misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis Police Department or have I simply missed reading about it on the League site or in the ARRL Letter? Apparently this issue was first brought to light to the ham community by "Amateur Radio Newsline" about six weeks ago. 73, K5MC Delta Division Director

1 0

[arrl-odv:17616] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Mickey Cox 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

Joel and Dave, Thanks for the quick feedback. However, I do have some serious questions and comments regarding this situation. If somebody asks me during the ARRL Forum at the next hamfest about why the League has kept a very low public profile on this issue, is it OK for me to pass along your comments verbatim? Or do you want me to say something to the effect that "Federal officials requested that the ARRL not go public with this story because the premature publicity would (or has) impeded its investigation into this matter"? I don't believe that I can simply shrug my shoulders and then try to change the subject if this issue is brought up by a member in my Division. Furthermore, if a similar situation is exposed next month within the Police or Fire (or whatever) Department in Podunk, will the ARRL behave in the same fashion if requested to do so by the FCC or some other authority? Is it standard operating procedure for the ARRL to acquiesce in these types of situations or is each case duly considered on its own merits? As you have probably already guessed by now, it is my opinion that the ARRL's credibility as seen by many of its members (and former members) is not enhanced when it functions in the fashion that it apparently has in this specific situation. The fact that the League asks its members to make donations for spectrum defense, and then for the League to publicly ignore the misuse of that spectrum (by our own government officials no less!), is both sad and ironic in my view. In closing here, would it be considered unethical in my official role as Delta Division Director if I admit to my members that I do not think the ARRL showed the best judgment in publicly ignoring the story of the Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17613] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Hi Mickey, I'll tell you what I know which came from Laura Smith at the FCC. I haven't finished my trip report from Washington late last week but on Friday Chris and I did meet with Laura at the FCC's Gettysburg office. When this issue was reported to the FCC they began working on it and immediately opened a dialog with the Chief of Police in Indianapolis, who told the FCC he was unaware of the matter would resolved immediately, the radios removed and the officers who broke laws would be disciplined. We were ready to report the matter but at Laura's request she asked that we give the Chief a few days to take action in this matter, and we honored the FCC's request. According to Laura one of the local hams, who has a history of issues with the Indianapolis Police Dept, was not satisfied to allow the Police Department to take action and called the local TV station, Newsline, etc. So, we did honor the FCC's request to not make a big public story out of this. Why? Laura says the Police Department took immediate action when it was brought to their attention and in no way was the FCC going to action against the Indianpolis Police Department's commercial radio license since it is a public safety matter. That's all I know. I don't think it is as big of a story as some are trying to make it out to be. Yes, there was illegal operation occurring but the hams tracked it down, reported it and it was stopped and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. Dave may have additional info he wants to add. 73 Joel W5ZN On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: ARRL ODV, Has the ARRL publicly avoided the issue concerning the apparent misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis Police Department or have I simply missed reading about it on the League site or in the ARRL Letter? Apparently this issue was first brought to light to the ham community by "Amateur Radio Newsline" about six weeks ago. 73, K5MC Delta Division Director

1 0

[arrl-odv:17615] Re:RE: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear?
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

When Laura was at HQ she said the same thing and added that the premature publicity had impeded their investigation. Dave ________________________________ From: Bill Edgar [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Tue 3/31/2009 11:38 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17613] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Joel, That's cool. The system worked. Thanks for the update. - Bill N3LLR From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17613] Re: Indianapolis PD misuse of ham gear? Hi Mickey, I'll tell you what I know which came from Laura Smith at the FCC. I haven't finished my trip report from Washington late last week but on Friday Chris and I did meet with Laura at the FCC's Gettysburg office. When this issue was reported to the FCC they began working on it and immediately opened a dialog with the Chief of Police in Indianapolis, who told the FCC he was unaware of the matter would resolved immediately, the radios removed and the officers who broke laws would be disciplined. We were ready to report the matter but at Laura's request she asked that we give the Chief a few days to take action in this matter, and we honored the FCC's request. According to Laura one of the local hams, who has a history of issues with the Indianapolis Police Dept, was not satisfied to allow the Police Department to take action and called the local TV station, Newsline, etc. So, we did honor the FCC's request to not make a big public story out of this. Why? Laura says the Police Department took immediate action when it was brought to their attention and in no way was the FCC going to action against the Indianpolis Police Department's commercial radio license since it is a public safety matter. That's all I know. I don't think it is as big of a story as some are trying to make it out to be. Yes, there was illegal operation occurring but the hams tracked it down, reported it and it was stopped and disciplinary action taken against those responsible. Dave may have additional info he wants to add. 73 Joel W5ZN On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: ARRL ODV, Has the ARRL publicly avoided the issue concerning the apparent misuse of ham gear by some officers in the Indianapolis Police Department or have I simply missed reading about it on the League site or in the ARRL Letter? Apparently this issue was first brought to light to the ham community by "Amateur Radio Newsline" about six weeks ago. 73, K5MC Delta Division Director

1 0