To achieve something like this requires that all the pieces fall into place. Joel definitely nudged some of the pieces right where they needed to be, including the NPSTC newsletter that he personally delivered to Mike Ross's office four weeks ago. By the way, here's what UTC is saying about the telecom bill to its members. I love it that they view a study as a threat! Of course, an objective study WOULD be a threat. 73, Dave K1ZZ House Commerce Committee Protects Muni Broadband; Threatens Pole Attachments and BPL ________________________________ Three issues of importance to utilities - municipal broadband, pole attachments and BPL - were considered during mark-up of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday. Section 401 of the COPE Act preempts state and local laws that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting municipal broadband. Yesterday, an amendment was introduced that would have grandfathered state laws already in place. Fortunately, the amendment was defeated by voice vote. Additionally, the COPE Act proposes to reform cable television franchise regulation to encourage telco's to compete with incumbent cable operators; but the new definition of "cable services" is written so broadly that utilities are concerned that telco's - including ILECs - could claim that they are entitled to the pole attachment rate for cable services, if they offer cable service as well as telecommunications. The Committee resisted including language in the definition that would clarify that telco's must continue to pay the rate for telecommunications attachments, but grudgingly agreed to take up the language as a "manager's amendment" in a rules committee meeting next week. Finally with regard to BPL, the Committee accepted an amendment that requires the FCC to conduct a study of potential BPL interference within 90 days after the COPE Act becomes law. Chairman Barton accepted the amendment despite widespread opposition from utilities and BPL companies. UTC urges members to contact members of Congress concerning the pole attachment and BPL amendments. For more information, contact <mailto:brett.kilbourne@utc.org?subject=pole attachment and BPL amendments> the UTC Legal/Regulatory Department. ________________________________ From: k5ur@aol.com [mailto:k5ur@aol.com] Sent: Fri 4/28/2006 12:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14023] Re: Update Good job to you, too, President Harrison! You had a strong hand in all of this. Thanks, Joel. 73, K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison <w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:15:50 -0500 Subject: [arrl-odv:14022] Update Greetings, Since my last report to you just after our March 30 Washington visit, things have been moving waaaay fast and almost at warp speed. This past weekend I attended the International DX Convention in Visalia, CA and am currently leaving the NAB conference in Las Vegas (I'm on the plane as I write this) on my way to speak at the opening luncheon of the Southeast VHF Society Conference tomorrow, then on to Newington for the A&F Committee meeting on Saturday. Individual reports on these trips will be forthcoming. What I want to report to you now is some outstanding work on the part of Sumner, Chwat & Co.and Imlay. This morning, Dave sent you an email about the House Telecom Bill, I would like to give you a more detailed report of the work that went into the result we achieved. On each of my trips to Washington since January, I have reported to you that we had a detailed plan we were working, objectives for each meeting we arranged and attended had been met, but I had nothing to "bring home" to you yet. I am ecstatic to tell you I can no longer say that, we now have something for you. Thanks not to me, but to the extremely diligent and focused effort in working our plan by Sumner, Chwat & Co., and Imlay we have been successful in getting H.Res.230 language into the Telecom Bill in Committee. Now, this is only one victory and we have by no means won a war here, but this is an extremely significant victory for amateur radio. I want to personally thank each of you for your support of this effort, and for your patience while we worked our plan. Now, some historical details for you. On March 31 at the conclusion of our last D.C. visit reported to you in ODV 13981, Chwat reported that that the House Telecom Subcommittee had scheduled opening remarks on a telecom bill for 5pm Tuesday, April 4th, and consideration of the Bill all day on Wednesday, April 5th. Chwat saw an opportunity for us to possibly get H.Res.230 language into the bill. Dave and I discussed the matter and told Chwat to GO. Our position was based on the fact that if we were not successful it would not kill H.Res.230, however if we were successful in getting the language into the bill, then our purpose with H.Res.230 would be accomplished. Further, if we were able to get language into the bill and it somehow did not survive a full Congressional vote, we still had H.Res.230 active. Frankly, a no-lose scenario. Chris and Eric scheduled a critical meeting with Chairman Barton's staff contact at which time they requested that portions of the H.Res.230 be included in the Title II, Broadband section. Eric arranged a very important visit with one of the key Counsel's to Chairman Joe Barton(R-TX),House Energy and Commerce Committee, on the BPL issue. Eric was accompanied by Chris Imlay. This was during the Congressional Recess-in time for impacting perhaps, the full Committee's consideration of the telecom bill. Chwat & Co. had received over 20 letters via email and fax that had been sent to Congresswoman Eshoo's (D-CA) office. Eric handed these over to her Chief of Staff during an in-person meeting. Her Chief of Staff was very interested in a Minority supported amendment with Mike Ross to Title II of the Telecom Bill after receiving the letters from her constituency. By April 7, Eric had personally met with 25 of our targeted 88 Representatives that had input to the Telecom bill. In Addition to the 88, Chwat & Co. had hand delivered copies of all of the letters they had received to the respective Congressional offices. Over 600 letters to 115 House offices (28 of these offices being part of the 88 targeted) had been handed to the Representative, taken into a meeting, or delivered to an office with a letter and a quick meeting with the staffer responsible for telecom issues. (This is why it is extremely important that Chwat & Co. receive copies of letters sent to Representatives) During sub-committee meetings, no affecting amendments had taken place as of this date, but most of the offices Chwat & Co. had met with were interested in supporting ARRL when amendments would be allowed in the Full Committee. We then decided to focus our effort in this direction, but first awaiting the meeting with Chairman Barton's (R-TX) Committee office that would be forthcoming in the next two week period. Chwat and Heis followed this doggedly, literally around the clock. On April 12, Chwat obtained a copy of the newly released Subcommittee markup and Congressional staffers had advised us the full committee will begin opening statements when they return from recess. On April 13, Eric reported specifically on a meeting with Congresswoman Barbara Cubin's (R-WY) staff member, who had received many letters. He was very knowledgeable of Amateur radio and had quite a few intelligent questions Eric was able to answer. Cubin's staff person was interested in what the Chairman says, but took little convincing on the BPL issue. We were then able to discuss ARRL in general with more detail. On April 18, Eric confirmed a meeting with the full Energy and Commerce committee counsel dealing with telecom issues, including BPL. This meeting was scheduled for 4pm on Thursday. Imlay briefed Chwat and Heis for the meeting in addition to providing material to be presented as well. On April 20, Chwat & Co. reported on a very informative meeting with the top staff for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They noted that the committee Chairman would not be supportive of including H Res 230 wording into his Manager's Amendment. However, there were rumblings among committee staff, thanks to our Hill visits and amateur letters, that the interference issue was of concern to House members on the committee. We provided his staff an alternative option to have a concerned committee member (most likely Rep. Mike Ross) introduce a succinct amendment, that would satisfy ham's concerns, to the bill during next markup of the bill the following week with bipartisan support from other committee members. This would engage the Chairman in a dialogue on the issue of a BPL study. Rep. Ross' office was contacted and they were supportive of submitting a version of H Res 230 wording as an amendment. We then provided Ross' office with a draft of the necessary language to accomplish the goals of ARRL. On April 21, we presented our draft language/amendment to the full committee staff on House Energy and Commerce. They did not have problems with the language if Rep. Ross were to introduce it, however, they told us they could not promise it would be considered 'germane' and remain unopposed. Chwat & Co. continued to network with member offices and committee staff to gain support for our amendment before the next markup. On April 22, Eric advised us it was quite imperative we get a letter from someone in Chairman Barton's district. Imlay has a client, who just happens to be a radio amateur, who was attending the NAB conference that lives in Barton's district. Chris had an upcoming previously scheduled dinner with him and asked if he would prepare a letter, which he gladly did. This was sent to Eric who was able to personally deliver it into the hands of Barton's staff. On April 24, Eric spoke with Rep. Otter (R-ID) and Rep. Myricks (R-NC) offices concerning BPL test sites that had been shut down due to interference. Both offices were open to creating a dialogue come Wednesday during the telecom bill markup. This was a very good opportunity. Eric also reported to committee staff that he had confirmed that Rep. Ross would be more inclined to vote for the Telecom bill if his amendment was included. Committee staff retorted that they had experienced some 'push back' from utility companies that this amendment was "redundant, a delay tactic and a waste of money." We answered this comment and others with Sumner's fluent help and believed we solved the problem. The next day, Eric was on the Hill all day, dropping off our material with a memo attachment and speaking with staff if they had a quick second. The vote was scheduled for Wednesday, and we believed we had great momentum building. On Tuesday, April 25, Rep. Ross office advised us that he would offer the amendment on Wednesday. The Committee was preparing for the markup Tuesday evening. Eric was on the hill until very late that evening to address any questions that arose, and Dave, Chris and I were on hot standby to immediately assist Eric with any questions or facilitation as required, and especially to assist Rep Ross' office staff in case they had questions in the night in preparation for this markup. On Wednesday morning, the committee staff contacted Rep. Ross' office to ask that the amendment be moved to Title V of the bill. This section fit our amendment very nicely and we were agreeable.At this same time, however, the Chairman was continuing to hear the views of utility companies and we were getting great pressure from the Chairman's staff. Through our efforts the past few days, including the letter from Chris Imlay's friend and information from Sumner, instead of killing our amendment, the committee staff agreed to allow the amendment be read, then withdrawn for further consideration. This meant we would have more time to educate committee staff, as we really got their attention this past week with this amendment and the large amount of bipartisan support it had (due to the letters and our meetings). The 'delay' would permit us to network in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and work towards the Conference Committee for final passage of this bill. This was the Chairman's Committee Staff suggestion and was beginning to look like all we could achieve. We increased our efforts dramatically on the Senate side, as the Senate is still working on their version of the telecom rewrite. There is also another bill by Sen. Liebermann (D-CT), S. 1725, named the 'Assure Emergency and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005' that we are lobbying to have our wording added to the bill when it goes to the floor. Last evening, while I was attending the Amateur Radio Reception at the NAB Convention I received a call from Sumner indicating that C-Span was airing the committee hearing, and the Ross amendment had been offered, and instead of it being withdrawn for further consideration (based on the agreement with Chairman Barton's staff) Chairman Barton "accepted" the amendment and it was voted and approved by the committee. We waited until this morning to advise you of this just to make sure what was heard was correct! We can attribute the "change of position" of Chairman Barton to a number of things, most important is the letter Chris Imlay was able to solicit as well as the support that the amendment had from a majority of the committee members. Lot's of hard work still remains, however for a very brief moment we can take a breath and smile. Thank you for allowing us to work our plan and again my personal sincere thanks and recognition for the effort of Sumner, Chwat & Co. and Imlay. 73 Joel W5ZN if ((parent != null) && (parent.ProcessCommand != null)) parent.ProcessCommand('bodyLoaded', true);