Chris, Thanks very much for your quick response. As far as I know, none of my constituents at this time have simply accepted the accuracy of VR2BG's statements. I did forward Brennan's comments to N5FG/K4JRB and told them to use their own discretion in forwarding Brennan's comments back to VR2BG. Perhaps VR2BG will have some additional comments to make on this matter. If I receive further information from VR2BG via my "constituents" (actually, K4JRB lives in the Southeastern Division), I will probably pass them along here on the ODV reflector. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: arrl-odv Cc: bprice@arrl.org Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17868] Re: Comments from VR2BG Mickey, I took the liberty of asking Brennan Price what he knows about this, since VR2BG's statements struck me as a bit questionable (as well as overly strident and vitriolic), and because this is right up Brennan's alley. Brennan offered the following in response: "I would note that by the plain terms of Circular 159, only administrations have standing to submit reports into the ITU procedure. In fact, given the information requested by the ITU, I would suspect most amateur monitoring stations aren't well equipped enough. At any rate, during my tenure in F&ES, the FCC and State preferred to handle these situations bilaterally. In this instance, I am prepared to defer to their approach. I find the suggestion that the R2 bulletins lack ARRL input funny considering that the tabulated observations come from ARRL." So, there may be very good reason to look a bit deeper into Brett's statements, rather than for your constituents to simply accept their accuracy. Always good to get the views of the staff with expertise on an issue before accepting an indictment, right? 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 1:13 am Subject: [arrl-odv:17867] Comments from VR2BG ODV, FYI. VR2BG's comments below were apparently sent to Dave K4JRB in GA who, in turn, forwarded them to Floyd N5FG in MS. Floyd forwarded VR2BG's comments to me at Dave's request. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Floyd Gerald To: Mickey Cox-K5MC Cc: David Thompson-K4JRB Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:46 PM Subject: Fw: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Mickey Dave K4JRB, asked me to pass this on to you GL 73 Floyd ----- Original Message ----- From: David Thompson To: Floyd Gerald Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Comments from VR2BG Brett in Hong Kong ----------------------------------------------- ARRL's intruder watch program is run from ARRL HQ. By ARRL's own admission, reports received are only sent to FCC: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/intruder.html FCC is the telecom authority for USA territory, but is perfectly capable of raising matters of intruders or harmful interference from outside its patch. The mechanism is in the ITU Radio Regulations. Is a bit too much work this early in the morning to dig them up for you, but after over a decade as our national society's president & dealing with our telecom authority, I'm rather familiar with them (familiar enough that when pushed, our TA has been told by the ITU that how they tried to interpret them was wrong & what we said they meant was right). For the past three years, I have compiled the IARU Region 3 Monitoring System report with VU2UR. During that time, ARRL has not shared any reports on intruders & appears to have not taken up with the FCC anything we've found with a connection to USA. I've been to two Regional conventions as a delegate, ARRL raised no intruder matters at them. In the decade that I was president of our IARU member-society, I can't recall anything being brought up or the sort of post-problem-solved PR that would be expected if ARRL had actually brought a case to the attention of anyone on the other side. And definitely nothing during the past three years that I've been very much involved with IARU R3 MS. Closer to home, for such a large country with so many hams who one might expect to be inclined to complain about intruders & harmful interference, there's no sign of ARRL involvement in published IARU Region 2 Monitoring System reports & very little involvement from amateurs in USA: http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=21#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=22#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=23#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=26#pdf And USA makes no contribution to the ITU Monitoring System, which does have the ability to pursue reported cases, which would be where something reported by ARRL would be pursued before would be raised directly state-to-state: http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/monitoring/ Ineffective is being polite. I reckon ARRL isn't doing squat. Heck, on that IW page they don't even correctly list which allocations are exclusive amateur & which are not. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. What they do seem to be good at is making folks think they're doing something. I know better. And we deserve better. 73, Brett/p. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar.