Bruce,
Allow me to add a little more background.
As a matter of personal style, Ross is persistent and detail-oriented.
With benefit of many hours talking with him, it's my view that he is
trying to create a "win-win" situation for amateur radio and
DHS. He commented that our 5 MHz petition didn't stress "What's in
it for the government?" He believes the answer to that question is
that these 5 MHz channels offer a unique opportunity for
amateur-government interoperability. Nowadays inside the Beltway and in
emergency communications generally, you shouldn't say a bad word
about interoperability.
We're talking about technical interoperability, not operational, as
amateur-government QSOs would be permitted only in emergencies. Ross's
additions to what we asked for were intended to facilitate
interoperability. Behind the scenes, the US Coast Guard (now part of DHS)
has been authorized to use all five channels.
Paul
At 09:07 AM 07/11/2007, w3kd@aol.com wrote:
Bruce, good question. To answer
it requires some background on Ross as an individual. Suffice it to say
for now that his tweaks, and they really can't be considered to be more
than that, follow on the heels of (1) Paul's presentation to the IRAC
about what we wanted at 5 MHz, a meeting which Ross attended and said
nothing; (2) a letter exchange with the IRAC administrator that Paul had
been working with, who set up the meeting, to which Ross was privy, and
said nothing; and (3) a long period of time before and after the filing
of our Petition during which Ross said nothing. Then, when the FCC rep
goes to the IRAC with what should have been (at the IRAC) an uncontested
(because it was pre-sold) petition for rulemaking, Ross puts a hold on
it, and comes up with a whole series of tweaks. Yes, in general, they are
liberalizations, and yes, we don't object to them and didn't. But the
IRAC is in a sensitive posture now, and the tweaks risked reopening
wounds. Ross' initial proposal was to have the data emissions in a
separate segment outside the five channels, something that the IRAC
bristled at and said it could not support. Furthermore, what Paul asked
the IRAC to approve initially, and what we asked for at FCC, was
surgical. The idea was to pursue the liberalizations that we could get
without triggering opposition from the Justice Department, the Coast
Guard, or the Navy. The 5 MHz allocation is very very sensitive with
them. Paul's effort was surgical. Ross' is like an effort to get on a New
York Subway train. It was the opposite of Paul's approach.
We have been pushing at WRC-07 and in preparation documents for that
which NTIA opposes: a contiguous allocation of between 50 and 150 kHz.
This is unpopular with certain IRAC members, and they have let Paul know
that. So in that environment, Ross' tweaks, though not inherently
objectionable, are poorly timed, overly detailed, and had the potential
to reopen what had already been agreed to by the IRAC. I was being nice
calling the effort not particularly worthwhile, because they are not
necessary to achieve our immediate goal and were dangerous to our ability
to achieve that goal.
73, Chris W3KD
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Frahm K0BJ <brucefrahmk0bj@gmail.com>
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; w3kd@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:55 pm
Subject: 5 mHz -- Report of the General Counsel to the Board of Directors
-- Document 13
Chris,
In item I B 3, page 11 you discuss Ross Merlin's 5 mHz items
and characterize them in part as "not particularly
worthwhile". They appear to me to all be liberalizations over
ARRL's proposal. Is your concern with this action solely that it
serves to slow final adjudication, or do you view any of his
liberalizations as having inherent negatives attached?
Tnx Bruce K0BJ
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at
AOL.com
.