Greg (et al) -- Thanks for the heads up. I really think this is a mess that's possibly getting messier, and I still worry about the potential for exploitation in the future ("the door was cracked in favor of businesses back then; how much would it hurt if it was cracked just a wee bit more for purpose ABC? And a wee bit more for XYZ later on?"). I think the we (the Board) had a superb opportunity to emerge as the leader in this issue, especially since FCC solicited our straight-up opinion on the matter. If Chris and Dan were reasonably certain, based on their 'intel', that FCC's eventual NPRM would likely have been to the tune of Option B, ARRL could have put forth an Option A position ("leave it alone...97.113 isn't broken, the impact is minimal if not non-existent, and the risks of opening our doors to operations on behalf of businesses -- regardless of the purpose or scope -- is just too great"). In that case, FCC may have either (a) agreed with ARRL and gone with Option A, (b) sought a compromise between our Option A position and their likely Option B position, or (c) disagreed with ARRL and proceeded with their likely Option B position. In any of those cases, ARRL would have demonstrated its leadership as the National Association for Amateur Radio and the potential worst case scenario, though not ideal, would have been mostly palatable. Instead, the question was called to curb debate and thoughtful reasoning, and we chose not only to spend our opportunity essentially conforming as best as possible to FCC, but we also went the additional step of further liberalizing the position we thought FCC was settling on, and adopted an Option C position. It's something that obviously we can't take back now, and is nevertheless now our official position. But it'll be interesting to see what happens now that CQ has entered the fray and, if Chris gets indication that FCC will still largely stick with ARRL's position, then that just further points to us having passed up a great opportunity. This is something that's been on my chest since Newington, as I couldn't voice it before the question was called...sorry if this crosses anyone wrong; stirring a post-mortem debate is NOT my desire. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Greg Sarratt wrote:

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

ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org