Dick, just so all the information is on the table about Andy Seybold and his assurances with respect to H.R. 607, the following e-mail went to Dan Henderson when we first heard about H.R. 607. His assurances were not particularly reassuring then, and they still are not. His remarks that Section 207(d) is "for scoring purposes only" and that it "will not be in the final bill" are simply not true. It also appears from what he says that the choice of the frequency bands may have come from Andy directly. I am well-aware of Andy; he is rather self-promotional relative to his land mobile consulting business and is a regular at NPSTC. While I am sure he is a faithful ham, his involvement in Section 207(d) of the King Bill, whatever it was, was ill-advised. We were told by Ed Parkinson on the House Homeland Security Committee staff that the "public safety D-Block advocates" were asked to provide a frequency range that was "commercially attractive" for auction, and that the recommendation of 420-440 MHz and 450-470 MHz came from the public safety community. To the extent that Andy came up with that suggestion (which he seems to suggest that he did), he should be ashamed of himself. It was a completely off-base recommendation. Your view of the likelihood of passage of this Bill is what it is, and you are probably right about that, but the Bill is certainly not something that the Amateur Radio community can afford to be sanguine about. 73, Chris W3KD From: Andrew Seybold [mailto:aseybold@andrewseybold.com] Sent: Thu 2/10/2011 3:17 PM To: reginfo Cc: Bill Talanian (w1uuq@cox.net) Subject: Pending House bill Don, I called the ARRL yesterday and was told that you were on vacation, and I spoke to Clark (last name?) And give him this message: Today, Feb. 10th, Rep Peter King (HR 607 attached) If you review section 207 you will see that there is a “give back” for spectrum between 420 and 512 MHz by public safety AND what some may not realize is that this includes the Fed spectrum in the 420-440 band. HOWEVER—this part of the legislation is for “scoring” purposes only and it will not be in the final bill, the staffers insisted on a public safety “give back” in order to offset the $3 billion loss to the treasury by re-allocating the 700 MHz D block to public safety instead of auctioning it. This is ONLY one of many bills in both the house and the Senate on this issue And it is the ONLY one that carries this “give back” section. If you read further you will find that there are so many conditions placed ont eh give back in 8 years that even if it remained in the bill it would never be implemented. Just wanted to give you a heads up, you will also be hearing from Rep. King’s staffer Ed Parkinson who will explain the same thing to you. Not to worry I have been a ham and member of the ARRL for over 40 years and only helped develop this wording once I knew it would not end up in the final bil. Best regards Andy W6AMS 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: Richard J Norton <richardjnorton@dslextreme.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 10:30 am Subject: [arrl-odv:19797] HR 607 Background Infromation Last Friday night, I spoke with Andy Seybold, W6AMS, about HR 607, the ill introduced by New York's Representative King. Andy apparently ctually wrote part of the text of the bill that presently exists. He s a well-known player in public safety communications, and much nformation about him can be found at his website, ww.andrewseybold.com . He gave me a background presentation on the bill, and invited me to hare it with relevant ARRL people. I have posted it at ttp://kkn.net/n6aa/w6ams , where you can download and view it, should t interest you. It is a 781k PDF file. There are a few typos that you ill easily decipher. I cannot edit PDF files. I told Andy that my view of the HR 607 bill is that presently it isn't serious threat, and I haven't rallied support for sending letters to ongresspeople yet, a position that he concurred with. This is not a uggestion that any of you currently involved in letter-writing romotion should cease or modify your efforts. Andy has spoken to someone at ARRL, but didn't remember who. Possibly ome of you, who interface with the Washington establishment, might lready know of him. Although his initial interest in the bill is with ublic safety communications, he is a strong supporter of Amateur adio, and has offered to help in any way he can. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ______________________________________________ rrl-odv mailing list rrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org ttp://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv