Understood, but she did say exactly what I said in a previous filing. Now, I do ask - did we do everything enumerated that was passed in the July motion? If not, why not? Ria N2RJ On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 11:01, david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
Ria,
That is not the issue address by these parties in this pleading. These parties filed the substantive portion of the ARRL’s band planning committee’s report with the FCC and mis-represent that it is an ARRL Board-approved document being withheld from the FCC. The fact is that it is not Board-approved. The Board had before it a version at the January Board meeting and opted to obtain membership input. I repeat the quote from these parties’ FCC filing:
“The ARRL’s own Board of Directors and its ARRL HF Band Planning Committee even recommends such an approach in a chart [fn omitted] which should be taken up for consideration by the FCC in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) immediately. Since the ARRL Board of Directors seems powerless to compel their agents to present this chart to the FCC I (as an ARRL member for over 40 years) am doing so on their behalf in the attached appendix.” Complete filing is here: https://tinyurl.com/rclxcly.)
The band plan has not been submitted to the FCC because it has not yet been adopted by the Board.
Insofar as the earlier resolution that you quote, at the July Board meeting during the debate on that resolution you brought up band planning. I understood Rick’s response to you to be in general agreement with your remarks and he said that there was a standing committee that “would” or “should” look at it. I’m aware of the later debate, but my understanding is that the genesis of the referral to the band planning committee was the commitment made to you in response to your expressed concern before the full board vote on the resolution.
As for the other question, yes, the FCC has been so advised multiple times, in writing and during meetings. They also have been advised that the ARRL is working on a band plan to recommend.
For example, “the ARRL has concluded that using subbands for all ACDS plus non-ACDS data signals greater than 500 kHz would help alleviate friction between users of traditional modes and those employing the newer digital modes.” The ARRL in its pleadings and after discussion with the FCC staff about timing also advised the Commission that the ARRL “determined that there is sufficient time for the League and others to consider the full panoply of factors that would go into establishing new subband limits and related matters should the Commission find merit to these recommendations. The League therefore referred subband reformulation to its HF Band Planning Committee for its consideration.” In November, after this filing, and with EC directors present, I again asked the FCC’s official in charge of Part 97 about timing with specific reference to the ARRL completing its the band planning activity. (A few weeks later the FCC announced an early retirement opportunity and the two officials most concerned with Part 97 in that meeting both retired at the end of December, so there has been unexpected delay on consideration of these matters at the FCC.)
So yes, the FCC has been well-advised multiple times what the ARRL supports and advised that in addition it is working on a band plan recommendation on how to accomplish these objectives.
In the past, the staff indicated that they would address these issues in a Further Notice or a new Notice. We have always represented that they should issue a Notice to address the issues not already within a Notice in a complete and comprehensive fashion.
Where the ARRL did not agree with these parties was not about band segmentation and limits on digital signals, but on whether removal of the symbol rate – which has been fully briefed and pending for over seven years – should be held up additional years while these other issues are put out in a Notice, the record compiled, and decided. The ARRL’s proposal to replace the symbol rate limit with a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit would preserve the bandwidth status quo, no more and no less. (When the FCC adopted the 300 baud symbol rate limit, it estimated that the 300 baud rate bandwidth limit for digital signals that was equivalent to an SSB signal. Obviously higher symbol rates in less bandwidth were not foreseen in the early 1980’s.)
73, Dave
*From: *"rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 9:11 PM *To: *"david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> *Cc: *ODV <arrl-odv@arrl.org> *Subject: *Re: [arrl-odv:30048] Update on FCC Matters
Hi David,
The motion passed last July:
"IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules: *(1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b); (2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;"*
Has thes enumerated changes been filed with or otherwise requested from the FCC? If not, then from what I see the motion was not followed. This is apparently what Janis et al have a problem with.
This does not mention nor has anything to do with the Band planning committee. The committee was only re-activated AFTER several groups complained that we were "squeezing" them into smaller bandwidth. It wasn't the result of that motion. It was formed by the President at his discretion, after I and others suggested that we study an expansion of these bands.
But as of now, the motion passed by the full Board says that we obtain the Commission's approval for the above enumerated changes.
Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 20:31, david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
ODV,
I want to provide an update on the latest at the FCC. The FCC staff is working from home and work appears to be proceeding pretty well, all considered.
At the January Board meeting we discussed abrupt changes in the FCC staff that oversees amateur radio matters. At the end of that Friday’s session I was able to announce that the FCC had just designated Tom Derenge as the new lead person for amateur radio matters within the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and that I would be seeking to brief him on pending matters and the League’s views.
Last week I conducted the briefing by webinar. I asked Rick to join and explain what ARRL is and how it operates. We asked Dan Henderson also to join because he is the League’s Regulatory Affairs manager and was in direct touch with Tom’s predecessor when needed. I wanted to introduce Dan to Tom so that Tom would know who he is and what he does in relation to FCC matters.
Most of the session was generic – what ham radio is, what we do, why it is in the public interest type of thing. At the staff’s request, we addressed what is being done about ham examinations during this shut-down time. (Tom and other FCC officials have been fielding questions from the public, including people asking the Chairman on Twitter.) We ended by discussing the pending proceedings for which the record is complete and we think should be acted upon.
The last part – pending proceedings ready for the next step – requires the filing of a letter for the public file describing the conversation and including any materials used. I made such a filing after our teleconference. There is nothing new in them – they list the pending proceedings and include a synopsis of the ARRL positions based on our earlier filings.
Today one group of parties that were part of last spring’s negotiations on the symbol rate proceeding – Janis Carson, Ron Kolarik, Lee McVey and Dan White (McVey et al) – filed a response. I also am aware that in an email Lee McVey has accused Rick of going outside Board decisions. I want to note, however, that this directly contradicts what McVey and his colleagues themselves told the FCC. On p.1, they state: *“The ARRL ex parte adds nothing to the ongoing discussions in the above FCC rule makings …”* That part is correct, we were briefing new staff on our long-existing positions.
It appears that the part about “going around the Board” relates to the Band Planning Committee’s work. This is of concern because McVey et al submitted to the FCC a copy of the recent ARRL Band Plan Committee’s recommendations to the Board and misrepresented them. The group states that “The ARRL’s own Board of Directors and its ARRL HF Band Planning Committee even recommends such an approach in a chart [fn omitted] which should be taken up for consideration by the FCC in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) immediately. Since the ARRL Board of Directors seems powerless to compel their agents to present this chart to the FCC I (as an ARRL member for over 40 years) am doing so on their behalf in the attached appendix.”
- It is not clear who the “I” is above. The letter signed by four people: Janis Carson, AB2RA, Ron Kolarik K0IDT, Lee McVey W6EM and Dan White, W5DNT.
In fact, the chart that they submitted has *not* been considered or adopted by the full ARRL Board, as you all know. The band plan requires full Board approval and further guidance. Of course the Board may adopt it as is, decline to adopt it, or amend it.
Context is important. You will remember that when this work was initiated last summer, the FCC had indicated that the staff’s tentative decision was to adopt a Report and Order resolving the symbol rate issue and to address band segmentation and possibly other issues in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Band Planning effort was in response to that advice.
However, significant changes occurred at the FCC in the fall that resulted in amateur matters being delayed. The Report and Order on the symbol rate proceeding was never sent forward in the Commission, nor was a Further Notice. Then a new team taking over amateur matters. There is no word whether or not they intend to take up other issues. They are just beginning to review these issues and consider how to proceed.
I will be discussing with the EC whether to make a brief filing at the FCC clarifying that the Band Planning Committee’s recommendations filed at the FCC by these parties have not been considered or adopted by the full Board of Directors and therefore do not represent the ARRL’s position. The report is in the public domain only for the purpose of the League consulting directly with its members on various options.
I note that repeatedly these parties have criticized the ARRL at the FCC for not consulting with its members. It is ironic that these same parties now file an ARRL working document and misrepresent it as constituting adopted ARRL policy.
I would be glad to discuss with any of you if you have concerns, individually or on ODV.
Regards and stay safe,
Dave
*David R. Siddall*
*Managing Partner*
*DS Law, PLLC*
*1629 K St. NW, Ste 300*
*Washington, DC 20006*
*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
