December 2018 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:27787] Fwd: One Billion QSOs at 23:32:06 UTC 19 Dec 2018
by Tom Frenaye 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Begin forwarded message: > From: Bob Beatty <alphabobri(a)gmail.com> > Date: December 19, 2018 at 6:40:36 PM EST > To: Beaudet Bob <w1yrc(a)arrl.org> > Cc: k1ki(a)arrl.org, Fred Hopengarten <hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu> > Subject: One Billion QSOs at 23:32:06 UTC 19 Dec 2018 > > Hey Bob, > > It happened shortly after 6:30 PM tonight, One Billion QSOs > > Link to a note on my website: https://wb4son.com/wpblog/?p=3548 > > Wonderful achievement for the ARRL & LotW crew. > > 73, Bob, WB4SON > >

9 9

[arrl-odv:27771] Re: Draft petition for rule making
by k5ur＠aol.com 18 Dec '18

18 Dec '18

Hi all: I have only heard from two Directors requesting a specialboard meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat(a)comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making Hi Jim: Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states: Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted. We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat(a)comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur(a)aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making Dear Rick: As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations: 1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting. 2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January. 3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018. 4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday. 5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected. 6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40). 7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act. 8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument. 9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests. The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio. Sincerely, Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

8 8

[arrl-odv:27784] Amateur Radio Parity Act Implementation Petition for Rule Making
by Christopher Imlay 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Greetings. By authority of the Executive Committee I have just now filed electronically the attached Petition for Rule Making with FCC asking for implementation of the Parity Act's basic provisions. The Appendix that we used is not precisely the text of the Parity Act Bill language, nor was it intended to be. Instead, it was a version of the Bill language that resulted from two days of collaborative work that Mike Raisbeck, Fred Hopengarten and I spent in Massachusetts last winter. I reported on that comprehensively to the Board last July. I know that there has been a lot of controversy about the timing of this filing, to say the very least. I have explained to the Executive Committee repeatedly why the timing of this filing is critical in terms of preserving the three levels of support (Hill, White House and FCC) that we have been working on for this administrative action, given that the Bill has not passed and will not pass in this Congress. The sources of committed Hill support are Representatives Walden, Kinzinger and Courtney; and Senators Wicker, Blumenthal and Thune. We also have committed support (unprecedented in ARRL rulemaking proceedings) from David Redl, our advocate throughout the legislative process who is now the Administrator of NTIA. David understands that the White House Telecommunications staff supports this Petition and David advocates on telecom for the Administration. It doesn't get much better than that. Our prime Hill supporter, Rep. Kinzinger, has already contacted Ajit Pai and obtained Pai's favorable view of our plan. Finally, Barry Shelley and I have met with the Wireless Bureau Chief and pre-sold the petition. We have to make the rounds at FCC as soon as possible in order to leverage that support, which does not carry over all that well to the next Congress, when we in all likelihood will not have another Parity Act Bill. All of that support is the culmination of five years of work on this and it hinges on filing this before the end of this year. I will not further rehash this now, but I would like to have a dialog with any non-EC member that has residual concerns about the timing of this filing. In my view it would not be good strategy to either squander the equity that Mike Lisenco, Frank McCarthy and I have built up over five years. I specifically asked the EC back in September if we could make the commitments that we did and they approved the plan. Finally, there is a very, very strong level of support in the field for the Parity Act provisions, and the relief that it offers to tens of thousands of hams who live in deed restricted communities and who are profoundly hampered by that fact. ARRL has, since PRB-1 was first issued in 1985, repeatedly and relentlessly attempted to fix the other half of the problem. I believe that we have the single chance now, with this Petition and with the level of support that Frank McCarthy has helped us achieve, and with a lot of shoe leather burned, to accomplish this in a way that will help thousands of hams, both members and prospective members alike. The Petition as initially drafted was flawed in some respects, despite my best efforts and a few false starts in initially drafting and editing it. Thanks to important edits (some of which were provided just yesterday and today) from a few members of the Board family, most especially Greg Widin, Tom Frenaye, Jim Boehner, Bob Vallio, Jim Tiemstra and Dick Norton, it is a considerably better document now. I know that Jim Tiemstra and Dick Norton were not and are not supportive of the filing but I am very grateful to them for their helpful and good edits nevertheless. I am also especially grateful, as I mentioned to the Board last July, for the relentless and very professional work of Mike Raisbeck and Fred Hopengarten on the appendix part of the document. I will not hold either of them to supporting the final product attached, because neither of them had the opportunity (again despite my best efforts and intention to the contrary) to participate in the drafting of the Petition; but their help crafting the rule that we propose here is a good one thaniks to their efforts. That task was not a simple one. It was nuanced. On the one hand, we didn't want to propose language that was so far from the Bill language that CAI would come steaming in and oppose the Petition at FCC. But neither did we want to just transfer legislative language to FCC rulemaking. Those are two different things, and we tried to accommodate Fred's concerns about the Bill language in order to propose an FCC rule that clarified and better protected hams than does the skeletonal framework of the legislative language. Whether we accomplished that remains to be seen, but that was the intention anyway. Thanks to Fred and Mike for their help. It was appreciated. 73, Chris W3KD P.S. Howard, if you would be kind enough to forward this with the attachments to our newcomers I would be grateful. We should be as open and transparent with colleagues as possible, and perhaps find once again the level of collegiality and teamwork that ARRL's Board used to use as SOP. -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG

1 0

[arrl-odv:27782] The Time For Private Land Use Antenna Relief Is Now
by n2cop＠ec.rr.com 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Dear ODV Members: At the risk of appearing impudent as a back row member, I agree with Riley, Art and Bonnie - ARRL needs to go forward with private land use antenna relief. Otherwise, we run the risk of losing faith from current and prospective members, as well as federal officials. Over the past three years representing the Roanoke Division, I have run across three groups of Hams seeking HOA antenna relief. I call these Hams, who currently have no recourse or voice, the "Disenfranchised". Broadly they can be classified as: 1. WORKING HAMS - those with careers where frequent transfers or assignments make convenient HOA housing most expedient. The latest sub-group in this category to contact me are active military. They have shared there is a nationwide shortage of on-base housing, especially for those with families. They are relegated to off-base housing, much of which has HOA restrictions. 2. SENIOR HAMS DOWNSIZING - Among this group are some venerable 1X2 calls with established legacies. No longer able to maintain a large home or yard, they move to patio homes, town houses, condominiums or independent/assisted living facilities. Many of these older Hams have told me they don't want to get involved or become reliant upon remote operation. 3. YOUTH - In conversations I have had with parents, teachers and Boy Scout leaders, children exposed to Amateur Radio become excited about getting a license, but they enthusiasm is dampened when they find out they cannot erect an antenna. I helped a 12 year old year get his Technician license, only to be told by his parents' HOA architectural committee to take down his 4 foot tall 2 meter PVC encased antenna. The threat of fines discouraged him and his parents so much he abandoned Ham Radio altogether. At the West Virginia Section Convention this year, ARRL headquarters representative Steve Ewald, in speaking about the Entry Level License (ELL) initiative, told those at the ARRL forum that an estimated 87% of all ARESR HF nets take place between 3.9 and 4.0 MHz, frequencies which have been put in the ELL petition for Technician Class access. As someone adversely impacted myself by Hurricane Florence this year (my shack flooded and is still offline), I learned of numerous repeaters in the path of the hurricane which became nonoperational during and after the storm, thereby increasing reliance on HF. In widespread disasters where cell service and internet are compromised, we need Amateur Radio operators of all classes capable of emergency response, across a large spectrum of frequencies with an effective outdoor antenna. For every Ham with a large lot in a non HOA area, I suspect there are dozens of Hams - the Disenfranchised - who long for the ability to operate from their own home. The number of federal Amateur Radio licensees has been growing at 1% per year for the past few years, but ARRL membership is declining. Technicians make up 50% of all licensees, but I believe only 10% of League membership. If ARRL does not want to wither into a glorified DX/Contest club, we need to proceed forward with private land use antenna relief - and soon. The time is ripe. Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 73 de Bill Morine, N2COP Vice Director - Roanoke Division Representing ARRL members in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia www.arrl-roanoke.org <http://www.arrl-roanoke.org> Facebook Page: ARRL Roanoke Division ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT

1 0

[arrl-odv:27777] ARPA Discussion
by James Pace 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Rick I DO NOT request or support a special board meeting on this matter. This petition is a continuation of a process that should move forward as planned, and is well within the charter of the Executive Committee. I would like to echo Vice Director Altus and others who offer support for the ARPA and this petition. Indeed, it matters not which club meeting or hamfest I attend, I am always asked "where the ARPA stands, when will we prevail and how can one person hold up a process that has substantial congressional support"? Of course, there is some opposition to the ARPA in the Northwestern Division, but my experience is that there is much more support than opposition. Some of those in the Division who oppose the ARPA really have no skin in the game; they are folks who have the freedom to erect any antenna or antenna support structure desired. That does not mean that those who oppose should have no say in the matter nor should we consider that they don’t care about the needs of the supporters; but I believe their opposition is based on a lack of information, or misinterpretation of information, and, again, their numbers are far fewer than the majority of those who support the administrative or congressional conclusion of our efforts. The recognition of the ARRL and its contributions to the Nation by congressional offices in DC, has gained us new friends and supporters, over the past few years. The US House passed the ARPA with a resounding endorsement. Support in the Senate was very strong, but the Bill was held up by a single member of a committee. Other avenues were pursued by Mr. Imlay and Mr. Lisenco et al, that eventually provided us with a positive path through the FCC. This path seems to be an appropriate move, when considering all the member and professional support the ARRL has gained. There is a movement, within the current board, to ignore all this support and stop the forward motion, saying that the 2018 elections put forth a 'clear' position. That makes no sense! What we would be saying, is ‘your support means nothing to us’. Do we honestly believe our membership doesn't care about the support we have gained? If we stop now, I fear it will be a very long time before we can obtain this level of support for any future congressional or administrative effort. Let’s make certain that the cost of losing our congressional and administrative support isn’t overshadowed by the ‘not invented here syndrome’. 73 Jim Pace, K7CEX Northwestern Division Director

3 2

[arrl-odv:27773] Factually False and Misleading Statements in the Draft ARPA Petition
by Richard J. Norton 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

There are many flaws in the ARPA petition draft that need significant discussion before proceeding with any filings. Here a a few of the most serious. 1) Paragraph 8 reads: “The specific language for the single rule change proposed in the attached Appendix represents a full and complete accommodation reached . . . between ARRL and the Community Associations Institute (CAI), the only national association representing HOAs. That accommodation resulted in CAI’s and ARRL’s written expressions of support for Federal legislation containing the provisions proposed herein in Appendix A.” The text in Appendix A is not the same as what was in the legislation in at least four respects. a) The compromise legislation did not specify “all Amateur Radio Frequency bands." b) There was no grandfathering of pre-enactment antennas already installed. c) The rules-and-requirements provisions were not subject to the minimum practicable restriction” provisions. d) The “lawful purposes” did not have to be specifically articulated in the declaration of covenants. Therefore, saying or suggesting that CAI agreed with the proposed language in Appendix A is false and misleading, and CAI will not hesitate to point that out in its comments on any NPRM that may result from this effort. That could damage or destroy whatever credibility we might currently have with the FCC. 2) In Paragraph 65, Imlay further refers to “The rule in the attached Appendix, taken from the Parity Act legislation . . ." In fact the language was taken from the Parity Act and then modified to better suit ARRL. The text in Appendix A is not an accurate reflection of what the legislature was asked to pass. I am not saying we shouldn’t try to make the language more favorable (setting aside the question as to whether it can ever be worthy of passage without a complete rewrite); I’m saying the petition should not make false and misleading statements to the effect that either Congress or CAI already approved the language of our proposal. That will surely catch up with us, and probably in a bad way. 3) Imlay uses the adverb “invariably” at least six times with no perceivable basis for doing so. In Paragraph 6 on page 5, for example, he says, “ In ARRL’s extensive experience, the answer to a request made by a landowner of an HOA for approval of any antenna is invariably in the negative.” All it takes is one example of an Amateur getting approval, and that statement will be proven false and misleading. It is highly likely that CAI will be able to produce multiple examples that disprove Imlay’s statement. I personally know of a good number of these examples. In fact, I don't believe getting permission is even uncommon. For something as important as this draft filing to be so seriously flawed at this point shouts out that we need to pause and refine. I hope the incoming Board is not left with the somewhat embarrassing task of asking for a filed petition to be withdrawn. 73, Dick Norton,. N6AA

2 1

[arrl-odv:27770] Fwd: DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act
by Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) 15 Dec '18

15 Dec '18

Forwarded per Fred's request Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA<x-apple-data-detectors://14> Telephone: +1 860-594-0404<tel:+1%20860-594-0404> email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> Begin forwarded message: From: Fred Hopengarten <Fred(a)antennazoning.com<mailto:Fred@antennazoning.com>> Date: December 15, 2018 at 4:52:07 PM EST To: 'G Widin' <gpwidin(a)comcast.net<mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net>> Cc: "'Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx'" <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>>, 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>>, 'Ria Jairam' <rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>>, <W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>>, 'Mike Ritz' <w7vo(a)comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act Reply-To: <hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>> Greg, Good exchange. See comments interspersed. Thanks. -Fred K1VR From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:40 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx; arrl-odv; Ria Jairam; W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>; Mike Ritz Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act Fred, With regard to existing antennas, please note the language in the second paragraph of the proposed 97.15 c) which indicates it is not retroactive — “…with respect to antennas first installed after the effective date hereof,…” It sounds to me like existing installations are exempted. K1VR: Yes, existing installations are exempted in the PROPOSED NRPM. This saving grace was not included in the original ARPA. The proposed ARRL Request for Rule Making claims that “The specific language for the single rule change proposed in the attached Appendix represents a full and complete accommodation reached (at the urging of House and Senate members of the respective committees of jurisdiction) between ARRL and the Community Associations Institute (CAI), the only national association representing HOAs.” Yet the specific language proposed includes tweaks like the one you’ve caught above--to which CAI did not agree. And there are others. Of course, the real import of the new language is to give currently HOA-restricted amateurs a new legal tool to prevent their HOA from responding to a request with an automatic “no.” I agree that ARRL should not encourage behavior outside what is described; that part of the FAQ needs adjustment. Far from being “an end run” around Congress, seeking administrative instruction to the Commission is exactly what they asked us to do, in order for them to justify enacting appropriate language. K1VR: I don’t understand. In seeking the passage of ARPA, ARRL was “(f)ollowing the Commission’s directive to seek Congressional guidance.” W3KD Proposed Petition for Rule Making at para. 55. But the Congress has not spoken. Many have spoken, but not the Congress. The Congress only acts as a body when both houses vote affirmatively and a law is forwarded to the President for his signature. That has not happened. Congress having failed to act, seeking a Rule Making is indeed an end run. The FCC did not seek instruction from the administration, it sought “a statutory directive.” See below. If there’s an “end run” at all, it is around (soon to be ex-) Senator Nelson. All other members of the House and Senate have voted in favor of the ARPA, multiple times. K1VR: Yes, this is an end run around Sen. Nelson. As he has prevented the Senate from acting as a body, I am unaware that, excepting Sen. Nelson, “all members of the . . . Senate have voted in favor of ARPA, multiple times.” Perhaps you can point me to those 99 votes, multiple times, as I just don’t know that this has happened. As an example, is there one instance when Sen. McConnell, the Majority Leader of the Senate, has voted in favor of ARPA? This Petition is no different than the approach used when we asked for relief from local government restrictions that resulted in PRB1. K1VR: True. But we tried this before and the FCC said no, get a law passed first. See below for the FCC’s exact words. Worse, on its face, this petition is no different than the approach used when we asked for relief from CC&Rs the last few times. The only difference is that this time we followed direct guidance from FCC as to the approach it wanted us to take to expand its rules to include HOA’s. Namely, seek substantial support from Congress to “encourage” FCC to use its jurisdiction to impose restrictions on HOA’s ability to limit/prohibit amateur antennas. K1VR: I have not understood that the FCC’s request was for “substantial support from Congress.” Instead of “substantial support,” or “guidance,” what the FCC actually wrote was: “[S]hould Congress see fit to enact a statutory directive mandating the expansion of our reasonable accommodation policy, the Commission would expeditiously act to fulfill its obligation thereunder.” (Emphasis added.) https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-rad…, para. 8 Finally, nothing in the Petition prevents a future request for Rule-making if necessary. K1VR: This raises the question: Is the reason for submitting the petition now because (1) the Congress has had elections and there will be different players in the Congress before January is over? Or, (2) the ARRL has had elections and there will be different players on the Board before January is over? If we can submit a “future request for rule-making,” why not – in the future? I really don’t want to get turned down by the FCC again. (Is it fair to say that the FCC ruled against a move on CC&Rs in 1985, 1999 and 2001? Are we “0 for 3” at the FCC? I’ve lost track of how many times we’ve lost this bid.) NOTE TO WB2ITX: Please forward this response to ODV, as I am not on the Board, having declined to sign the NDA. – Fred, K1VR 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:30 PM Fred Hopengarten <Fred(a)antennazoning.com<mailto:Fred@antennazoning.com>> wrote: Mr. Widin: I have made several comments that are interspersed in the FAQ. I am puzzled to learn that it could be possible, according to the FAQ, to willfully violate a federal regulation with a potential monetary forfeiture and not be an outlaw. Similarly, I am disheartened to learn that the ARRL might take a position that violations may be acceptable because “there would be no enforcement.” That doesn’t show much respect for law, does it? To be clear, I do not favor an end-run around the Congress with the NPRM I participated in drafting, when the drafting was done on the assumption that ARPA had passed and fixed the limits of FCC discretion. I do not favor the route now proposed. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 antennazoning.com<http://antennazoning.com> 781.259.0088 From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net<mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net>] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:21 PM To: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx Cc: arrl-odv; rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>; W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>; Mike Ritz; hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) There is obviously some history behind what is in the petition, and how it got to be the way it is. Because not everyone may be aware of this background, I thought it would be helpful to prepare a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document providing some of this information. This might also become a good basis for communication to members. I've attached the FAQ as a Word document. I'm sure there will be suggestions for change, and I invite these, as they will help improve the document. 73, Greg, K0GW On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> wrote: During its electronic meeting on 12/12/18, the Executive Committee approved the filing on the Amateur Radio Parity Act petition for rule making with the FCC, which had been previously authorized by the Board, before December 31, 2018. Meeting minutes are being prepared and will be made available shortly. The Committee authorized sharing the petition with the 2018 and 2019 Board. It is attached. Please note that this petition has not yet been made public, and it should not be shared outside this group. Please share any comments about the petition with Atty Imlay as soon as practical. 73, Howard, WB2ITX -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…>

1 0

[arrl-odv:27768] Re: DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act
by G Widin 15 Dec '18

15 Dec '18

Fred, With regard to existing antennas, please note the language in the second paragraph of the proposed 97.15 c) which indicates it is not retroactive — “…with respect to antennas first installed after the effective date hereof,…” It sounds to me like existing installations are exempted. Of course, the real import of the new language is to give currently HOA-restricted amateurs a new legal tool to prevent their HOA from responding to a request with an automatic “no.” I agree that ARRL should not encourage behavior outside what is described; that part of the FAQ needs adjustment. Far from being “an end run” around Congress, seeking administrative instruction to the Commission is exactly what they asked us to do, in order for them to justify enacting appropriate language. If there’s an “end run” at all, it is around (soon to be ex-) Senator Nelson. All other members of the House and Senate have voted in favor of the ARPA, multiple times. This Petition is no different than the approach used when we asked for relief from local government restrictions that resulted in PRB1. The only difference is that this time we followed direct guidance from FCC as to the approach it wanted us to take to expand its rules to include HOA’s. Namely, seek substantial support from Congress to “encourage” FCC to use its jurisdiction to impose restrictions on HOA’s ability to limit/prohibit amateur antennas. Finally, nothing in the Petition prevents a future request for Rule-making if necessary. 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:30 PM Fred Hopengarten <Fred(a)antennazoning.com> wrote: > Mr. Widin: > > > > I have made several comments that are interspersed in the FAQ. > > > > I am puzzled to learn that it could be possible, according to the FAQ, to > willfully violate a federal regulation with a potential monetary forfeiture > and not be an outlaw. Similarly, I am disheartened to learn that the ARRL > might take a position that violations may be acceptable because “there > would be no enforcement.” That doesn’t show much respect for law, does it? > > > > To be clear, I do not favor an end-run around the Congress with the NPRM I > participated in drafting, when the drafting was done on the assumption that > ARPA had passed and fixed the limits of FCC discretion. I do not favor the > route now proposed. > > > > *Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu > <hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu>* > > *Six Willarch Road* > > *Lincoln, MA 01773 antennazoning.com > <http://antennazoning.com>* > > *781.259.0088* > > > > *From:* G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:21 PM > *To:* Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx > *Cc:* arrl-odv; rjairam(a)gmail.com; W2RU(a)b2xonline.com; Mike Ritz; > hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu > *Subject:* Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur > Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) > > > > There is obviously some history behind what is in the petition, and how it > got to be the way it is. Because not everyone may be aware of this > background, I thought it would be helpful to prepare a "Frequently Asked > Questions" (FAQ) document providing some of this information. This might > also become a good basis for communication to members. > > > > I've attached the FAQ as a Word document. I'm sure there will be > suggestions for change, and I invite these, as they will help improve the > document. > > 73, > > Greg, K0GW > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) < > wb2itx(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > During its electronic meeting on 12/12/18, the Executive Committee > approved the filing on the Amateur Radio Parity Act petition for rule > making with the FCC, which had been previously authorized by the Board, > before December 31, 2018. Meeting minutes are being prepared and will > be made available shortly. > > The Committee authorized sharing the petition with the 2018 and 2019 > Board. It is attached. Please note that this petition has not yet > been made public, and it should not be shared outside this group. > > Please share any comments about the petition with Atty Imlay as soon as > practical. > > 73, Howard, WB2ITX > > -- > Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX > Chief Executive Officer > ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® > 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA > Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 > email: hmichel(a)arrl.org > > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. > www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> > <#m_8617844534707735751_m_-7289268507144126826_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >

2 1

[arrl-odv:27767] Fwd: DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation)
by Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) 15 Dec '18

15 Dec '18

Hi Fred, because I believe your intent was to CC the ODV list, and the Executive Committee's intent was to engage the new Directors in this discussion, I have forwarded your email to ODV. (I'm not sure the attachment was included in my earlier forwarding) Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA<x-apple-data-detectors://14> Telephone: +1 860-594-0404<tel:+1%20860-594-0404> email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> Begin forwarded message: From: Fred Hopengarten <Fred(a)antennazoning.com<mailto:Fred@antennazoning.com>> Date: December 15, 2018 at 12:30:55 AM EST To: 'G Widin' <gpwidin(a)comcast.net<mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net>>, "'Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx'" <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> Cc: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>>, <rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>>, <W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>>, 'Mike Ritz' <w7vo(a)comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>>, <hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) Reply-To: <hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>> Mr. Widin: I have made several comments that are interspersed in the FAQ. I am puzzled to learn that it could be possible, according to the FAQ, to willfully violate a federal regulation with a potential monetary forfeiture and not be an outlaw. Similarly, I am disheartened to learn that the ARRL might take a position that violations may be acceptable because “there would be no enforcement.” That doesn’t show much respect for law, does it? To be clear, I do not favor an end-run around the Congress with the NPRM I participated in drafting, when the drafting was done on the assumption that ARPA had passed and fixed the limits of FCC discretion. I do not favor the route now proposed. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 antennazoning.com<http://antennazoning.com> 781.259.0088 From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:21 PM To: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx Cc: arrl-odv; rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>; W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>; Mike Ritz; hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) There is obviously some history behind what is in the petition, and how it got to be the way it is. Because not everyone may be aware of this background, I thought it would be helpful to prepare a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document providing some of this information. This might also become a good basis for communication to members. I've attached the FAQ as a Word document. I'm sure there will be suggestions for change, and I invite these, as they will help improve the document. 73, Greg, K0GW On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> wrote: During its electronic meeting on 12/12/18, the Executive Committee approved the filing on the Amateur Radio Parity Act petition for rule making with the FCC, which had been previously authorized by the Board, before December 31, 2018. Meeting minutes are being prepared and will be made available shortly. The Committee authorized sharing the petition with the 2018 and 2019 Board. It is attached. Please note that this petition has not yet been made public, and it should not be shared outside this group. Please share any comments about the petition with Atty Imlay as soon as practical. 73, Howard, WB2ITX -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…>

1 0

[arrl-odv:27766] Fwd: DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation)
by Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) 15 Dec '18

15 Dec '18

Forwarded for Ria, N2RJ Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA<x-apple-data-detectors://14> Telephone: +1 860-594-0404<tel:+1%20860-594-0404> email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> Begin forwarded message: From: "rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>" <rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>> Date: December 15, 2018 at 10:44:29 AM EST To: "Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO)" <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> Cc: G Widin <gpwidin(a)comcast.net<mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net>>, "Ritz, Mike, W7VO, (Dir, NW)" <w7vo(a)comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>>, "W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>" <W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>>, arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>>, "hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>" <hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) Hi Howard, I concur with Fred. 73 Ria N2RJ On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 10:33 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> wrote: Hi Fred, because I believe your intent was to CC the ODV list, and the Executive Committee's intent was to engage the new Directors in this discussion, I have forwarded your email to ODV. 73, Howard, WB2ITX Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404<tel:+1%20860-594-0404> email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> On Dec 15, 2018, at 12:30 AM, Hopengarten, Fred, K1VR, (Dir, NE) <fred(a)antennazoning.com<mailto:fred@antennazoning.com>> wrote: Mr. Widin: I have made several comments that are interspersed in the FAQ. I am puzzled to learn that it could be possible, according to the FAQ, to willfully violate a federal regulation with a potential monetary forfeiture and not be an outlaw. Similarly, I am disheartened to learn that the ARRL might take a position that violations may be acceptable because “there would be no enforcement.” That doesn’t show much respect for law, does it? To be clear, I do not favor an end-run around the Congress with the NPRM I participated in drafting, when the drafting was done on the assumption that ARPA had passed and fixed the limits of FCC discretion. I do not favor the route now proposed. <https://maps.google.com/?q=Willarch+Road+%0D%0A+Lincoln,+MA+01773&entry=gma…> Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Six Willarch Road<https://maps.google.com/?q=Willarch+Road+%0D%0A+Lincoln,+MA+01773&entry=gma…> Lincoln, MA 01773<https://maps.google.com/?q=Willarch+Road+%0D%0A+Lincoln,+MA+01773&entry=gma…> antennazoning.com<http://antennazoning.com> 781.259.0088 From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:21 PM To: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx Cc: arrl-odv; rjairam(a)gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>; W2RU(a)b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>; Mike Ritz; hopengarten(a)post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) There is obviously some history behind what is in the petition, and how it got to be the way it is. Because not everyone may be aware of this background, I thought it would be helpful to prepare a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document providing some of this information. This might also become a good basis for communication to members. I've attached the FAQ as a Word document. I'm sure there will be suggestions for change, and I invite these, as they will help improve the document. 73, Greg, K0GW On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx(a)arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> wrote: During its electronic meeting on 12/12/18, the Executive Committee approved the filing on the Amateur Radio Parity Act petition for rule making with the FCC, which had been previously authorized by the Board, before December 31, 2018. Meeting minutes are being prepared and will be made available shortly. The Committee authorized sharing the petition with the 2018 and 2019 Board. It is attached. Please note that this petition has not yet been made public, and it should not be shared outside this group. Please share any comments about the petition with Atty Imlay as soon as practical. 73, Howard, WB2ITX -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111<https://maps.google.com/?q=225+Main+Street,+Newington,+CT+06111&entry=gmail…>-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel(a)arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <FAQs on ARPA 20181212 draft QA v2 by K1VR.doc>

1 0