Jay, Chris & Dave can chime is as well if they have other comments in response to your questions, but here are mine. a. We are still convinced the FCC wants to work with us to achieve a regulation by bandwidth environment. There is no requirement whatsoever on their part to contact us and continue to open the door for us to further tweak this proposal as they are doing, in fact in my 20 years on the board this has never happened. You are correct that the FCC has previously done what they wanted to do, however in those cases they have not had such a large negative comment filing to deal with as they had with the original filing. b. We will never satisfy everyone. There were some negative comments in this matter that were expressed over the internet or filed that were done so just simply because it was the ARRL that filed them. One very important fact now is that our ex-parte filing has brought to light a number of the benefits of the original proposal. These people will still be here, however now that greater attention has surfaced about this matter, and we know more about what people are opposed to, we can better manage the comments and also work to ensure supporters file as well. c. The existing petition is not flawed but in my opinion neither is the original one. Withdrawing the existing petition for the purpose of reviewing the comments and addressing them as best we can in a refiling doesn’t cause us to loose anything. Sure, there will be a few scream that we don’t know what we’re doing, but taking one more shot to address misunderstandings or concerns will be of benefit to us. As to what we will specifically do “next time”, I assume you are referring to what we will do if we withdraw the petition. First, we immediately explain in a web story exactly what we are doing and why, and that we will be revisiting the matter in July. Between now and July we begin to publicly state the issues that have arisen since the original filing and address them, emphasizing the history of our publicity and surveys in this matter. In July we will discuss all of this at length and it will be up to the board as to how we proceed. We meet with the FCC Mobility Division and reach an understanding that we have to move forward on this matter, one way or the other and impress upon them the length of time we have spent in developing our filing from within the amateur community. While I don’t have a specific proposal now of what we would file because that will be developed by the board, I would propose re-filing something similar to the original proposal that addresses the issues that have been raised since then, ensure we solicit support (I don’t think we did that with the original filing) and let it go. I consider this our last shot at moving forward with this in the near future, regardless of how it falls. No more negotiating or re-evaluation. Sure, there will be some that will shout screams of joy at prevailing, but those are the exact same people who said we should withdraw this petition and revisit it, so where does that leave them? It leaves us as being responsive, as we have always been throughout this entire process, and working to arrive at the best possible solution. I trust I have addressed all of your questions, Jay. If not, you now how to reach me (hi!) 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re RM15416 In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote. The EC Recommendation is a bit of a surprise since except for the recent spate of direct emails from Winlink2K aficionados I was under the impression from recent ODV’s that there was little ongoing discussion on the ex parte effort to change RM11306. We are being asked to approve withdrawal of our Regulation by Bandwidth Petition with the expectation we will subsequently re-file the Petition or a near clone. The reason is that FCC apparently is “very much inclined to support regulation by bandwidth, but is limited in their ability to do so by the public record, which constrains them” because virtually all the comments filed are negative. Our purpose in taking this step would be to eliminate existing very negative and incendiary Record of Comments in the filing, many of which are based on misunderstanding. I can support this action. but I first need to first clarify why: a. We feel the feedback and “suggestions” from FCC are reliable; b. We believe a refilling will satisfy the highly polarized concerns of those who have previously filed the “negative and incendiary comments; c. The existing Petition is flawed In the past FCC has not been troubled by a lack of support for its actions. The decision to provide a “medical waiver” for Morse exams above 5 wpm and the recent substantial increase of the 75 Meter phone allocation are but two examples. In each instance FCC ordered a significant change on the basis of less than a handful of comments regarding issues that deeply divided the Amateur Service. It seems FCC can do pretty much whatever it chooses despite the record. Do the letters BPL ring a bell. So why is it reluctant to act here if it truly supports the Regulation by Bandwidth model? Prior to filing the RM11306 Petition the Board went through a multi year process of developing a proposal, presenting it (twice) to the members and Amateur community at large and receiving and evaluating feedback. What specifically will we do next time? Again, what specifically will we do next time? We need to recognize that withdrawing this petition will cause those who have opposed Regulation by Bandwidth and the Winlink2K folks to believe they prevailed and become even more hardened in their positions and beliefs. If we think it was tough this time; next time around will be twice as hard and maybe even twice as ugly. 73, Jay, KØQB