Tom, if we use either of the preferred firms for the BPL appeal, a separate mandamus action to compel action in an interference case using them would be extremely costly. A failure in a given mandamus action is not precedent-setting and does not relate to the next mandamus action. I don't think that either of the "big two" interference cases we have right now is ripe for a mandamus action; but even if they were, I wouldn't think ARRL would want to go to WilmerHale or Wiley, Rein for help with those kinds of things. It is a significantly different kettle of fish than the appeal of the BPL rulemaking. I would much prefer to file a mandamus action myself, having done several in the past. How the Board spends money is up to the Board, not me, but I would suggest that going to the USCA to compel FCC to act in an interference case (not how to act, just to compel it to act) is easy enough for us to do, and would be most cost-effectively done that way. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye@pcnet.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 6:33 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14518] Re: Appeal Thanks to Joel and Chris for following up on my message on Tuesday regarding the BPL/FCC appeal. Joel said:
Gee, Tom, your opinion sure seems to have changed since I had a conversation with you and Frank Fallon at Boxboro.
Yes, when we talked I hadn't seen any details. The decision to support the recommendation, or not, takes more than a hallway conversation.
If you want a formal written motion beyond what has already been given to you in writing I will be happy to draft one, and will go back and get a formal EC motion in place beyond what we already have documented.
I'd suggest that we reaffirm the vote by a note in the minutes of the next EC or Board meeting for two reasons - it opens the door to some substantial expenses this year (and next), and we need to document it in our Board record of policy decisions. Chris' detailed information was very helpful.
Finally, the alternative of mandamus is not a good substitute for an appeal of the R&O and MO&O, though it might be a good additional strategy. We can do those if the right factual situation comes up.
I was wondering if that might be included as an related activity to a Court of Appeals lawsuit - using the same outside counsel. It sounds like it'd be worth it if we have the necessary documentation.
What is our best argument in the Court appeal? In my view, it is that which is outlined in the memo attached to my response to Dick Norton's e-mail, updated with the FCC's rather glaring attack on licensed services complaining about interference to mobile operations. If we could get APCO or another public safety entity to intervene on our behalf, that would sweeten the case considerably.
The $64,000 question in several ways... I sure hope we can get some additional help - interveners or financial support. I was pleased to see this Associated Press article about the FCC today. Here's a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091400... Looks like the shenanigans and sleazy activity within the FCC may be more widespread than we realize. Maybe we should be talking to the lawyers involved in the case described in the article - a successful one against the FCC in 2004. Approaching Senator Boxer might be useful also. So, count me as a supporter of an appeal of the FCC's action on BPL. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.