Brian, John's staff did exactly what we asked them to do. I don't think we or they could have mounted a successful effort on both fronts at the same time. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:19 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14014] Re: Outstanding news from the House Commerce Committee Dave -- Maybe too late at this point, or just not appropriate for this particular bill, but would there have been any chance of including spectrum protection language in the bill, too? 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
Joel Harrison has asked me to pass the following along to you, as he is in transit from the NAB Convention in Las Vegas and will not have a chance to email until later.
Last night (Wednesday) the House Energy and Commerce Committee (i.e., the full Committee, not just the Telecom subcommittee) completed two days of markup of the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006" (the much-talked-about Telecom rewrite bill) and voted to send the bill to the full House for consideration. You may have heard or read in this morning's news that an Internet "network neutrality" amendment to the bill was defeated. The bill does not yet have a number; one will be assigned next week.
The outstanding news for us is that the Committee, by voice vote and with the support of Chairman Barton (R-TX), included the attached amendment proposed by Rep. Ross (D-AR). The amendment adds a section to require the FCC, within 90 days of enactment, to study and report on the interference potential of BPL systems. This puts the House Energy and Commerce Committee on record as having concerns about BPL interference.
This is a major victory for the ARRL. The amendment was included after significant networking and lobbying by John Chwat's office, support from Rep. Ross and other Members, as well as the assistance in letters and contacts by the officers, Directors and members of ARRL. It wasn't easy to sell the relevance of the BPL provision to the rest of the bill. The amendment received significant opposition by the utility companies, as well as some Committee staff, and the final language that was accepted by the Chairman is not quite as extensive as what we had originally proposed. But it's enough to raise the visibility of the BPL interference issue and to get the FCC's attention.
The provision will be included in the legislation considered by the full House. There is also an opportunity for "Report Language" to be included to accompany the bill. If we are vigilant in protecting it against deletion on the House floor, assuming the bill is approved by the House the BPL language will be included in the legislation that goes on to the Senate.
In the meantime we will also be working on lining up Senate support.
73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division