Chris and I had our first discussion with a Commissioner's chief of staff on Wednesday afternoon by telephone. I am in Baltimore at the moment, heading to DC shortly to meet Chris for meetings with two or three more Commissioners' advisors depending on the weather (there's a big storm bearing down on the DC area). Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: James F. Boehner MD [mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com] Sent: Fri 2/5/2010 5:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Another 97.113 petition As a matter of fact, the 97.113 issue was mentioned in both CQ and Pop Comm this month (February). - CQ magazine put forth its 4 point proposal, as noted below: e) Communications on behalf of an employer may be transmitted on an occasional basis, provided that: 1) Such communications are incidental to the employee's normal job responsibilities and are conducted voluntarily; 2) Such communications are conducted during an employee's personal time, including but not limited to lunch hours, days off and other non-compensated time periods; and 3) The primary beneficiaries of such communications are other amateurs and /or members of the general public, and not the employer 4) Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit the recreational use of an amateur station on an employer's premises by a duly licensed employee, as authorized by the station licensee -Pop Comm had an editorial by Gordon West, asking readers to support his petition, as previously filed. CQ did have a statement that the ARRL BOD was to discuss this issue at their January Board Meeting. The author (W2VU) also stated that the only unacceptable option is to do nothing. Just FYI, I am on a Yahoogroup list that has a constant discussion on this topic. One of the most outspoken members (originally very much against the ARRL), upon finding out the ARRL BOD action, has asked everyone to write their Directors, Vice Directors and SMs to thank them for the ARRL proposal. Another on the list (a co-petitioner of the Gordon West petition) was not entirely satisfied with the ARRL wording but would prefer to have the ARRL's wording and support than what exists now. I truly feel our proposal is the best of both worlds. I would also be interested in knowing whether Chris and Dan have met with the FCC, and if there is any feedback yet. I see that the Vanity Call issue was immediately addressed by the FCC. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio(tm) From: David A. Norris [mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Another 97.113 petition QSL! Has Chris met with the FCC yet to discuss the ARRL proposal? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sarratt [mailto:w4ozk@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:20 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Another 97.113 petition According to CQ magazine, February 2010 issue, Zero Bias. CQ has filed their own petition for rule making, seeking a broader clarification to 97.113. Their language opens the barn door further for abuse and adds more confusion. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK