[arrl-odv:18384] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113
That's a bit tough, Marty. On the one hand, as you say, telling members that something is in the pipe from FCC is a good way to calm those who currently believe that the sky is falling. On the other hand, this is information we obtained as the result of our working relationship with FCC staff in the Wireless Bureau. When Dave Sumner and I met with the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (the originator of the anticipated NPRM) on the subject of 97.113, they did not mention the pendency of this, or that it was being drafted at the time. However, we were told by our WTB contact before that meeting that the PSHSB draftsperson was in the room and was actively taking notes during our meeting. So, clearly, PSHSB does not want the pendency of the NPRM out on the street prematurely. Going public now would, as I see it, compromise our WTB source. For that reason, it would be nice to wait on publicizing the FCC NPRM somewhat. I don't know how serious it would be to "out" our source, but I hate to jeopardize a source of information, when that information we routinely get can be related to the Board for its consideration. Also, the Board may wish to go a different way from the FCC, and forming public opinion among the membership prior to Board consideration of the issue might not be beneficial to the Board's deliberations. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sat, Jan 2, 2010 7:14 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18381] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 Is the existence of this proposed NPRM something we can disclose to our members? If so, I'd like to let those most interested in the issue know that it's in the works. Doing so may also take some heat off the League to initiate a proposal (unless, of course, the Board decided that we should do so preemptively). Happy New Year! Marty Marty Woll N6VI Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division Ass't DEC, ARESLAX BCUL 15 & Training Officer, LAFD ACS CERT III ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:20 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18373] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 . . . the information we have about this NPRM is quite reliable. I believe that the FCC will in fact release this NPRM sometime soon, and that it will propose (and be limited to) the codification of the present waiver process, as the options paper indicates. . . .
I understand, Chris; thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure about the circumstances surrounding our getting that piece of news, so I'm glad I asked. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: n6vi@socal.rr.com ; arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:18381] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 That's a bit tough, Marty. On the one hand, as you say, telling members that something is in the pipe from FCC is a good way to calm those who currently believe that the sky is falling. On the other hand, this is information we obtained as the result of our working relationship with FCC staff in the Wireless Bureau. When Dave Sumner and I met with the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (the originator of the anticipated NPRM) on the subject of 97.113, they did not mention the pendency of this, or that it was being drafted at the time. However, we were told by our WTB contact before that meeting that the PSHSB draftsperson was in the room and was actively taking notes during our meeting. So, clearly, PSHSB does not want the pendency of the NPRM out on the street prematurely. Going public now would, as I see it, compromise our WTB source. For that reason, it would be nice to wait on publicizing the FCC NPRM somewhat. I don't know how serious it would be to "out" our source, but I hate to jeopardize a source of information, when that information we routinely get can be related to the Board for its consideration. Also, the Board may wish to go a different way from the FCC, and forming public opinion among the membership prior to Board consideration of the issue might not be beneficial to the Board's deliberations. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sat, Jan 2, 2010 7:14 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18381] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 Is the existence of this proposed NPRM something we can disclose to our members? If so, I'd like to let those most interested in the issue know that it's in the works. Doing so may also take some heat off the League to initiate a proposal (unless, of course, the Board decided that we should do so preemptively). Happy New Year! Marty Marty Woll N6VI Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division Ass't DEC, ARESLAX BCUL 15 & Training Officer, LAFD ACS CERT III ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:20 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18373] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 . . . the information we have about this NPRM is quite reliable. I believe that the FCC will in fact release this NPRM sometime soon, and that it will propose (and be limited to) the codification of the present waiver process, as the options paper indicates. . . . =
participants (2)
-
Chris Imlay -
Marty Woll