May 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-odv:17715] HR 2160 web staory......
by Bill Edgar 08 May '09

08 May '09

Frank, I have to admit, I'm disappointed that we didn't get that part right. We ought to at least get the story right. - Bill N3LLR > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:13 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:17715] HR 2160 web staory...... > > Hey, I didn't know we still had this committee?????????? > > "ARRL Grassroots Legislative Action Committee Solicits Member Support > for HR 2160" according to the web lead on our site this morning. > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/05/08/10809/?nc=1 > > I must also note that I have not been cced anything from Henderson to > the DLAC's and others. I am not at all clear as to what is being done > or > expected of the division. I wonder if other directors have been sent > that info. I do not know if we have any targets in the division and > what, if anything, has been sent to them. >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington......
by K8JE 08 May '09

08 May '09

Joel, Frank, all, The last I recall is that the Committee report was adopted and at its own recommendation the Committee was disbanded having accomplished its objectives. I'm sure Dan did not actually mean "Committee." To my knowledge changing this word to "Program" would be accurate. I also believe that any director interested in remaining in the loop on communication with his DLAC can do so by asking Dan to be added to the DLAC reflector. I would actually encourage that all directors be added automatically, but have the ability to opt out if desired. The director as I understand is still responsible for how the legislative program is managed in the division. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this. Tnx, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:47 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington...... Neither did I !!!! Joel -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:23 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington...... Hey, I didn't know we still had this committee?????????? "ARRL Grassroots Legislative Action Committee Solicits Member Support for HR 2160"

1 0

[arrl-odv:17723] Re:HR-2160 Story
by dick＠pobox.com 08 May '09

08 May '09

8 MAY 2009 - 1344 CDT Hello Frank... At the current level of this campaign, you may not have been CC'd on the letters from Dan Henderson unless you are the DLAC for the Hudson Division and you have U.S. Representatives on the currently targeted House committee. I'm still the DLAC for the Central Division and I have four representatives (2 in Indiana and 2 in Illinois) on this committee. I have used Dan Henderson's sample letters to launch a letter campaign by ARRL members in these four congressional districts. So far, the known letter count is 26 and growing. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington......
by Joel Harrison 08 May '09

08 May '09

Frank, I got the exact OPPOSITE opinion from some of David Woolweaver's people who are active EC's and DEC's there in the Houston area about the Congresswoman's concerns and desires over homeland security, emergency communications and her very positive impression of the hams there. She became familiar with amateur radio capabilities at the Houston emmcom center during the recent hurricanes. To suggest the intent of her bill is to "register" ham radio operators is the most wild fetched BS I've heard in some time....heck we're already registered at the FCC and we're in a government database! You don't need federal legislation to find out who we are. I don't know who this guy is, but obviously his political agenda speaks for itself in his email. Dr. Woolweaver may, of course, want to comment further on the comments from our field org folks in Texas, but that is what I recall from our conversation. Dave, of course, can address your questions directed to him when he returns to the office Monday. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:23 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington...... I thought I had sent this message an hour ago but it did not show up on the reflector.... Hey, I didn't know we still had this committee?????????? "ARRL Grassroots Legislative Action Committee Solicits Member Support for HR 2160" according to the web lead on our site this morning. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/05/08/10809/?nc=1 I must also note that I have not been cced anything from Henderson to the DLAC's and others. I am not at all clear as to what is being done or expected of the division. I wonder if other directors have been sent that info. I do not know if we have any targets in the division and what, if anything, has been sent to them. BUT..... what, if anything have we about establishing a relationship with Congressman Larson who represents Newington, CT. Has the "red herring" of our sacred 501 c 3 status finally died? For those unaware, Larson is the number four guy in the Democratic caucus. Many o9f our HQ staff are in his district. Years ago we should have invited him and his staff out to Newington and we have not. Even John Chwat has recommended that. Dave, do it, please, ASAP. There is no excuse. Nice quiet talks in your office over the last three years have all lead to nothing. Also, I think we should all be aware of the negative reaction that the sponsor of HR 2160 generates. My local political junkies here in the metro area and friends in Texas do not have good things to say about her. A NY ham who happens to be a BIG contributor to ARRL fund raising efforts sent me the following from Tower Talk this morning. I am almost certain the signer is NOT an ARRL member, but what this shows is that a lot of Texas folk do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the congresswoman, and it's probably not because she graduated from Jamaica High School in Queens, NY where I taught evening school for many years in my former life. arrl------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BILL in the HOUSE Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 22:26:45 -0500 From: chas <chasm(a)texas.net> To: Lawrence Melby <lemii(a)sbcglobal.net> References: <46932.15202.qm(a)web83407.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Lawrence Melby wrote: > Be very careful of what they actually do and say. A few years ago the Dallas City Council modified thier antenna ordinance. We were assured that it was just to prevent someone from putting a tower in thier front yard. We took them at face vavlue. The problem is that the way it's worded and the way Dallas defines front yards actually prohibits towers in many locations in the city of Dallas. The city has taken the position that PRB-1 and Texas 250.002 (Texas PRB-1 statue) don't come into play. My recent application for a new tower has been rejected, If I want to file an appeal I have to pay $900 for the appeal and buy two signs @ $10 apiece. With the attitude I have encountered at the building dept and city attorney's office it's doubtful I would win the appeal and may have to turn to the courts. So we need to watch this very closely. It could be benifical or it could a nightmare. > I have lived in this woman's gerrymandered district (about 5 miles wide and some 30 miles+ long stretching across North and down East side of Harris County) for almost 30 yrs and have fought to have her replaced because of her politics and racism. She does nothing if not for herself or her leftist party affiliates. There MUST be another reason for this proposed law. I expect it is to register ALL ham stations since the ARRL represents a small portion of the population. Be very leery of anything Sheila Jackson Lee proposes. and remember, the most innocuous law can and will, probably be extended to be used against the public instead of for it. If Ted Poe or some other Conservative proposed this, I would support it but I expect it would not read the same. 73 chas hamilton Houston, TX _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk(a)contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk Think, Larson, please. > 73 de Frank.....N2FF...... >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington......
by Joel Harrison 08 May '09

08 May '09

Neither did I !!!! Joel -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:23 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington...... Hey, I didn't know we still had this committee?????????? "ARRL Grassroots Legislative Action Committee Solicits Member Support for HR 2160"

1 0

BPL Redacted Info via FOIA
by Joel Harrison 08 May '09

08 May '09

Last Friday we received a response to our FOIA request to the FCC for the redacted material from the BPL proceeding. Dave and the staff have been reviewing the material and there are some very interesting details contained in it. I sent out some some tidbits earlier today along with the actual material released from the FCC to you via ODV. I have not yet seen it come through so I'm guessing it is because the file sizes of the attachments were larger than our email system will forward, unfortunately! So, while we wait for it to come through or whatever I'll tell you it contains some interesting things. In one place a report is discussing the fact that the measured emissions from a Main.net device exceeded the Part 15 limit. In the redacted report the statement reads: "If distance scaling were based on distance to the pole ground wire rather than the nearest part of the BPL system [portion deleted] measurements would have passed with 1 dB margin at the selected quasi-peak measurement location" What was deleted? The following parenthetical comment: "(a suggestion made by Main.Net's CTO, but which we consider to be invalid)," In other words, the statement was retained but the fact that the FCC staff thought it was invalid was deleted. We now know - and can show the world - why Judge Tatel stated in his concurring opinion, ".there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to exclude from the record evidence adverse to its position." You can certainly see why the FCC didn't rely on the information contained in this slide. The staff is preparing a story for ARRLWeb and we obviously will publicize this widely! To quote Riley Hollingsworth from a few weeks ago "The ARRL held the FCC's feet to the fire on the science, and proved they let politics override sound engineering!" Hopefully the files will come through today.....sometime. If not we'll bet it to you via some means. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17719] Grassroots at Dayton but not at Newington......
by Frank Fallon 08 May '09

08 May '09

I thought I had sent this message an hour ago but it did not show up on the reflector.... Hey, I didn't know we still had this committee?????????? "ARRL Grassroots Legislative Action Committee Solicits Member Support for HR 2160" according to the web lead on our site this morning. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/05/08/10809/?nc=1 I must also note that I have not been cced anything from Henderson to the DLAC's and others. I am not at all clear as to what is being done or expected of the division. I wonder if other directors have been sent that info. I do not know if we have any targets in the division and what, if anything, has been sent to them. BUT..... what, if anything have we about establishing a relationship with Congressman Larson who represents Newington, CT. Has the "red herring" of our sacred 501 c 3 status finally died? For those unaware, Larson is the number four guy in the Democratic caucus. Many o9f our HQ staff are in his district. Years ago we should have invited him and his staff out to Newington and we have not. Even John Chwat has recommended that. Dave, do it, please, ASAP. There is no excuse. Nice quiet talks in your office over the last three years have all lead to nothing. Also, I think we should all be aware of the negative reaction that the sponsor of HR 2160 generates. My local political junkies here in the metro area and friends in Texas do not have good things to say about her. A NY ham who happens to be a BIG contributor to ARRL fund raising efforts sent me the following from Tower Talk this morning. I am almost certain the signer is NOT an ARRL member, but what this shows is that a lot of Texas folk do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the congresswoman, and it's probably not because she graduated from Jamaica High School in Queens, NY where I taught evening school for many years in my former life. arrl------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BILL in the HOUSE Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 22:26:45 -0500 From: chas <chasm(a)texas.net> To: Lawrence Melby <lemii(a)sbcglobal.net> References: <46932.15202.qm(a)web83407.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Lawrence Melby wrote: > Be very careful of what they actually do and say. A few years ago the Dallas City Council modified thier antenna ordinance. We were assured that it was just to prevent someone from putting a tower in thier front yard. We took them at face vavlue. The problem is that the way it's worded and the way Dallas defines front yards actually prohibits towers in many locations in the city of Dallas. The city has taken the position that PRB-1 and Texas 250.002 (Texas PRB-1 statue) don't come into play. My recent application for a new tower has been rejected, If I want to file an appeal I have to pay $900 for the appeal and buy two signs @ $10 apiece. With the attitude I have encountered at the building dept and city attorney's office it's doubtful I would win the appeal and may have to turn to the courts. So we need to watch this very closely. It could be benifical or it could a nightmare. > I have lived in this woman's gerrymandered district (about 5 miles wide and some 30 miles+ long stretching across North and down East side of Harris County) for almost 30 yrs and have fought to have her replaced because of her politics and racism. She does nothing if not for herself or her leftist party affiliates. There MUST be another reason for this proposed law. I expect it is to register ALL ham stations since the ARRL represents a small portion of the population. Be very leery of anything Sheila Jackson Lee proposes. and remember, the most innocuous law can and will, probably be extended to be used against the public instead of for it. If Ted Poe or some other Conservative proposed this, I would support it but I expect it would not read the same. 73 chas hamilton Houston, TX _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk(a)contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk Think, Larson, please. > 73 de Frank.....N2FF...... >

1 0

BPL Redacted Info via FOIA #3
by Joel Harrison 08 May '09

08 May '09

1 0

BPL Redacted Info via FOIA #2
by Joel Harrison 08 May '09

08 May '09

1 0

BPL Redacted Info via FOIA
by Joel Harrison 08 May '09

08 May '09

Last Friday we received a response to our FOIA request to the FCC for the redacted material from the BPL proceeding. Dave and the staff have been reviewing the material and there are some very interesting details contained in it. Attached are some tidbits. In one place a report is discussing the fact that the measured emissions from a Main.net device exceeded the Part 15 limit. In the redacted report the statement reads: "If distance scaling were based on distance to the pole ground wire rather than the nearest part of the BPL system [portion deleted] measurements would have passed with 1 dB margin at the selected quasi-peak measurement location" What was deleted? The following parenthetical comment: "(a suggestion made by Main.Net's CTO, but which we consider to be invalid)," In other words, the statement was retained but the fact that the FCC staff thought it was invalid was deleted. We now know - and can show the world - why Judge Tatel stated in his concurring opinion, ".there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to exclude from the record evidence adverse to its position." You can certainly see why the FCC didn't rely on the information contained in this slide. Also attached are the documents that the FCC uploaded to the ECFS on their web site. This is now all public. Interestingly, the cover sheets identifying each test were NOT scanned in, so it is very confusing which test is which. This was obviously intentional. These are the bulk of the studies that we got on paper, however. File #1 is just Chris's cover letter. The staff is preparing a story for ARRLWeb and we obviously will publicize this widely! To quote Riley Hollingsworth from a few weeks ago "The ARRL held the FCC's feet to the fire on the science, and proved they let politics override sound engineering!" I am sending info in two files since some of the attachments are large. First set attached. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0