Havingread in detail the FCC’s “Report” that is being submitted to Congress, whatstrikes me about it is its remarkably superficial content from beginning to end.There is nary a shred of FCC analysis in this. I had thought that reports aboutthe draft document sent over to DHS were perhaps overly critical, not havingseen this at the time. But the gist of those early reports was entirelyaccurate: the report contains no analysis at all. It merely reports on certainof the comments and summarizes, rather than analyzes, the comments received.There is zero original input into the document. It skews toward the CAI input(and that of one individual HOA representative) because that input isconsistent with the FCC’s prior decisions refusing to preempt CC&Rs itself. Itis to be expected that the FCC won’t want to make a recommendation to Congressthat makes its prior decisions look as though they were in error when made.However, in order to avoid that, the Report ignores ARRL’s argument about thepervasiveness of covenants and the severity of the language of covenants. Ourcomments, if seriously analyzed by a responsible government employee reviewingthe record, would have justified a finding that there is not in many cases anopportunity for an Amateur Radio operator to operate a station from his or herresidence. But the Report, without citation to any part of the record at all, concludesin paragraph 39 that “Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land userestrictions have become more common, our review of the record does notindicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subjectto such restrictions.” That is a completely irresponsible conclusion, and itindicates that it was somehow the commenters’ obligation to prove a negative,rather than the FCC’s obligation to investigate this by doing more than justreading the comments filed. How completely unimaginative and irresponsible. Thereare some helpful, quotable portions of the report pertaining to the value ofAmateur Radio in emergencies and in disaster relief. However, with respect to the impediments toenhanced Amateur Radio emergency communications, and specifically relative tothe need to preempt CC&Rs, the report simply says, in effect, that “well,one group says this and another group says that, so we can’t conclude that ourprior decisions refusing to preempt CC&Rs were wrong.” No one is asking theCommission to admit that it was wrong, in 1985 or even in the 1990s when ARRLasked FCC to review the matter. But unanimity in comments received is not aprerequisite for, nor is it a substitute for, independent analysis. Congresshad every reason to expect much more from this report than the exceptionallypoor response of the agency. Defensively,FCC states in footnote 14 that drafts of the Public Notice and the report were “sharedwith OEC prior to release, and OEC provided substantive comments andsuggestions throughout the process.” What the footnote does not say, however,is that those OEC comments were not incorporated in the final version of theReport. How collegial is that? The DHS input, (we are told on very goodauthority) made reference to FCC’s OTARD decision to preempt CC&Rs, findingthat they were a significant impediment to video delivery to residences. FCC conveniently excised that from the final versionof the Report because it would have justified a recommendation that Congressinstruct FCC to preempt CC&Rs. Like the BPL proceeding, FCC simply sweepsunder the rug that which does not fit well with its preconceived outcomes. It seems to me thatARRL should consider submitting a critique of this Report to Congress, with acopy to the Chiefs of WTB and PSHSB, who should be ashamed to submit toCongress such a superficial and insubstantial Report. 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: Niswander, Rick <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 4:04 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21036] Re: FCC Report to Congress Classic verbiage that appears to say one thing but actually has virtually no information content at all. If 1,000 homes are for sale, and 990 of them have restrictions, the statement is factually correct – “the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” In fact, that statement is factually correct as long as there are at least two homes not subject to restrictions. Dr. Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Spilman 106 East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 252-328-6975 252-328-4835 (FAX) From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org]On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:21033] FCC Report to Congress Attached is the FCC Report to CongressPursuant to Section 6414 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. I have not yet read the entire document carefully but the following sentence jumped out at me from paragraph 39: “Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common,86 our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” They must be looking at a different record. Dave _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv