This doesn’t seem to be in line with the motion. A mere mention to suggest a future filing may happen doesn’t seem sufficient. There needs to be a plan for this filing and it needs to happen in a timely manner. Otherwise what we voted on in July becomes utterly meaningless. Using words like “may” indicate uncertainty and hesitance. And when all of the approved resolution isn’t followed in a timely manner, in my opinion this becomes a governance crisis. Ria N2RJ On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:01 PM david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
Hi Ria,
Ria,
The timing is because the parties did not reach a compromise agreement, pure and simple. An agreement might have been – and an option I preserved with the pause – an agreement that would include the symbol rate and bandwidth issues. HAD there been a compromise agreement that the parties were willing to put forward to the FCC, and had that agreement included the symbol rate issues (as I thought most likely), the FCC would have been asked to expedite a notice on the other issues and to decide them together. The FCC more likely than not would have done so if we convinced them that we were bringing a viable option to the table to settle the issues in this manner. We requested the pause to preserve this option as a possibility precisely because we thought that if the FCC opted to go forward separately with their decision (which already had been drafted and was in the review chain), there would be less flexibility to reach an overall compromise. The pause was requested to preserve all options and improve the chances for a compromise. The fact that the FCC agreed to the pause indicated that they also were interested in seeing a compromise proposal.
Without that compromise, however, there is no basis for the FCC to continue a pause on the symbol rate proceeding. We have nothing to offer them in return. The benefit to them was to have proposed a viable resolution on some (if not all) issues being raised and supported by some of the principal parties. We didn’t get there. It wasn’t for lack of trying. But the FCC staff has been clear throughout. They were willing to countenance a reasonable delay if it could present a resolution to some of the issues for them to consider. Otherwise they would go forward on their own time line.
I wrote about the timing in my report to the Directors on July 15, the same day as the Interim Report was sent to the FCC and well before I knew that there was thought of a resolution on any related issue.
*“Notably, the above-listed issues are mostly outside the scope of Docket 16-239. This docket addresses removal of the 300 baud symbol rate limit and whether a maximum bandwidth for RTTY/data signals should be adopted in their sub bands. If the FCC staff decides to consider changes related to the plethora of other issues raised in the comments, the Administrative Procedure Act likely requires issuance of an add-on or new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Several rounds of additional public comment then would be required before a final FCC decision.”*
In Connecticut at Thursday night’s session I again was clear about what I saw as the timing going forward.
I hope this clarifies it some.
73, Dave
*From: *"rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, September 20, 2019 at 3:30 PM *To: *"david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> *Cc: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> *Subject: *Re: [arrl-odv:28789] ARRL Filing re Board Resolution
While what you said seems to make sense, why even have a pause at all? We could have just hammered this out independent of it. The 90 day pause now seems like window dressing and a dog and pony show.
I’m already getting the angry emails saying that the ARRL essentially duped them and we are going ahead with RM-11708 after a similar petition was defeated (RM-11306) several years ago. One Vice Director years ago even quipped that interference is a good thing because it means the bands are being used.
Either way my confidence in all involved in this including (and especially) the members of the current executive committee is now greatly diminished. It seems as though we (the other directors not in the EC) asked for and voted for one thing and this critical detail re timing was left out. A lot of this negotiation was non-transparent, and this seems to be why.
Good luck!
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 3:09 PM david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
Hi Ria (and all on the cc),
Timing is driven by procedural requirements. The FCC issued a Notice in 2016 addressing the 300 baud limit and the related 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit, then accepted public comment thereon. The symbol rate / bandwidth issue is positioned for final action by the Commission whenever they decide to move on it, as soon as later tis fall. The other issues are not within the 2016 Notice, and therefore cannot be resolved before the Commission issues a notice and receives public comment. The FCC will determine whether to do so, and if so, when. I would expect it to be with the baud rate decision, or within a short time of it.
Our reiteration of support on the symbol rate issue increases the chances for favorable action to delete the symbol rate with inclusion of a 2.8 kHz limit, even though the FCC’s initial cut was that no bandwidth limit is needed. Such a decision (1) would resolve the 300 baud limit problem that nearly everyone recognizes should be deleted, while *(2) the 2.8 kHz limit would have the effect of preserving the status quo with regard to potential interference and other related concerns with digital signals.* As a practical matter, nothing is likely to change insofar as data usage band occupancy and such so long as the 2.8 kHz limit is included in the FCC’s actions. That bandwidth limit is roughly equivalent to the original bandwidth limit intended by adoption of 300 baud rate limit.
The other issues have not been subject to the required FCC Notice and public comment. The FCC has not agreed even to consider any of the other issues. But I do expect that the steps in the ARRL Board resolution will go forward to be considered in an FCC proceeding along with other suggestions that have been made, such as in the Kolarik petition (RM-11831). Under this scenario no one is worse off than before deletion of the baud rate, and the prospects for the FCC moving on the related suggestions in a timely fashion are improved because there are fewer issues and conflicting claims with which to deal.
The state of play right now is that I have hopes for (1) a decision on the symbol rate / bandwidth issue this fall, no later than early winter. (The decision must go to all five Commissioners for voting, it is not a staff-level item, so timing is difficult to predict.) (2) The other issues, such as ACDS band changes, require the FCC to issue a Notice and accept public comment. This could be done as a completely new proceeding, or it could be in the form of a “Further Notice” issued with the baud rate / bandwidth limit decision.
FCC consideration of things like whether to put all ACDS stations within ACDS bands – and whether and how those bands should be changed to accommodate additional signals – is not “tomorrow” but not years in the future either. In the meantime, it seems to me that nothing changes except the baud rate limit goes away. There should be no change except maybe that repeal of 300 baud limit, which has across-the-board support, no longer could be held hostage to try to force through other changes. Those changes will have to be considered on their own merits.
Hope this is clear. If not, please try again.
73, Dave K3ZJ
*From: *"rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 10:08 AM *To: *"david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> *Cc: *arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> *Subject: *Re: [arrl-odv:28789] ARRL Filing re Board Resolution
Hi David,
One thing is unclear to me. What happens now? From this filing it appears as though we are recommending to immediately remove the 300 baud limit, institute a 2.8kHz bandwidth limit, and then possibly consider the rest of stuff (all automatic in ACDS segments, and all wideband automatic or not in ACDS segments) for an undetermined future filing? When? 5, 10 years down the road?
That doesn’t seem correct to me.
Thanks
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:03 PM david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
Attached is the ARRL filing submitted to the FCC pursuant to the July Board Resolution concerning the symbol rate, digital/ACDS/encryption, WInlink, etc. issue(s). It will be cross-filed in the other dockets that the commenters have been copying – amateur technician class, 80 meter band reformulation, etc. Pursuant to item (6) of the resolution, a letter is being drafted to the Enforcement Bureau Chief. Given that a software release this weekend from SCS is reported to enable monitoring Winlink messages OTA in plain language, maybe this issue will calm down, who knows?
73,
Dave K3ZJ
*David R. Siddall*
*Managing Partner*
*DS Law, PLLC*
*1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20006?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*Washington, DC 20006 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20006?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*direct: +1 202 559 4690*
[image: Default Line]
*Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited.* This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
