[arrl-odv:21670] Re: FCC Denies ARRL BPL Reconsideration Petition
At 11:55 AM 4/17/2013, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
It comes as no surprise but as something of a disappointment that in the attached document the FCC has denied in all respects our December 20, 2011 petition for reconsideration of certain of its BPL decisions.
George Carlin's seven famous words (and a few others) come to mind. Maybe we can use this FCC response as an example in our follow up with Congress about obstacles to Amateur Radio, and to urge Congress to authorize some additional technical expertise in the FCC instead of lawyers. Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
There is some editorial fodder in the document. The Commission congratulates itself on having waited so long to take enforcement action against IBEC that IBEC went out of business in the meantime, rendering our interference complaint moot. It also notes that non-existent BPL systems listed in the UTC database cannot be sources of harmful interference, which is true enough -- but the FCC repeatedly has used UTC's bogus information about the extent of BPL deployment to tout the technology. Dave -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Tom Frenaye Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:05 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:21670] Re: FCC Denies ARRL BPL Reconsideration Petition At 11:55 AM 4/17/2013, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
It comes as no surprise but as something of a disappointment that in the attached document the FCC has denied in all respects our December 20, 2011 petition for reconsideration of certain of its BPL decisions.
George Carlin's seven famous words (and a few others) come to mind. Maybe we can use this FCC response as an example in our follow up with Congress about obstacles to Amateur Radio, and to urge Congress to authorize some additional technical expertise in the FCC instead of lawyers. Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Tom Be careful; lawyers are creatures of delicate sensibilities and we might be offended by the implications of your expressed preference for non-lawyers. :-) 73 *-----------------------------------------------------* ** John Robert Stratton N5AUS Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *-----------------------------------------------------* On 4/17/13 11:05 AM, Tom Frenaye wrote:
At 11:55 AM 4/17/2013, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
It comes as no surprise but as something of a disappointment that in the attached document the FCC has denied in all respects our December 20, 2011 petition for reconsideration of certain of its BPL decisions. George Carlin's seven famous words (and a few others) come to mind.
Maybe we can use this FCC response as an example in our follow up with Congress about obstacles to Amateur Radio, and to urge Congress to authorize some additional technical expertise in the FCC instead of lawyers.
Tom
===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
It is noteworthy that the 2nd MO&O was very carefully drafted, with the clear intent of depriving us of an argument to take back to the Court of Appeals. At this point, we would have to argue to the Court that FCC didn't address some of our arguments. They misstated virtually all of them, and they sidestepped most, but they marched through our pleading and very specifically noted that they had previously addressed all of our arguments and that we brought "nothing new" to the table on reconsideration on any of them. That isn't true, but they are entitled to be wrong in their conclusions. They just have to address all of the issues raised. In this respect, the order is very different in form and approach from the norm in docket proceedings. They did not want us to be able to go back to the Court of Appeals on this case. Having read it over a few times, I think unfortunately that they have made it very difficult indeed to appeal this issue any further. And Tom, it is not just more technical expertise and fewer lawyers at FCC that is needed (as near and dear to me as that legislative effort is); it is technical experts who: (1) are listened to by the decisionmakers before the decisionmaking occurs, and (2) have some modicum of professional integrity. Our principal antagonist at FCC on BPL, and one of the principal authors of the Orders in this case (including this one), is an extra class ham, KB3LVE. I think he is an ARRL member as well. 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: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21670] Re: FCC Denies ARRL BPL Reconsideration Petition At 11:55 AM 4/17/2013, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
It comes as no surprise but as something of a disappointment that in the attached document the FCC has denied in all respects our December 20, 2011 petition for reconsideration of certain of its BPL decisions.
George Carlin's seven famous words (and a few others) come to mind. Maybe we can use this FCC response as an example in our follow up with Congress about obstacles to Amateur Radio, and to urge Congress to authorize some additional technical expertise in the FCC instead of lawyers. Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Not that what I have done has any meaning to the current issue, but I feel somewhat fulfilled regarding BPL. Cincinnati Bell is nearing completion of changing from copper to fiberglass and I have just shifted my phone, TV , , , and Internet to "FiOptics.". This, in keeping with predictions made by Ed Hare and others to the BoD about 5 years ago, and in spite of the technical acceptability of the power cowbird version of BPL out here. Jim Jim Weaver K8JE Sent from my I-Phone On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Chris Imlay <w3kd@aol.com> wrote:
It is noteworthy that the 2nd MO&O was very carefully drafted, with the clear intent of depriving us of an argument to take back to the Court of Appeals. At this point, we would have to argue to the Court that FCC didn't address some of our arguments. They misstated virtually all of them, and they sidestepped most, but they marched through our pleading and very specifically noted that they had previously addressed all of our arguments and that we brought "nothing new" to the table on reconsideration on any of them. That isn't true, but they are entitled to be wrong in their conclusions. They just have to address all of the issues raised. In this respect, the order is very different in form and approach from the norm in docket proceedings. They did not want us to be able to go back to the Court of Appeals on this case. Having read it over a few times, I think unfortunately that they have made it very difficult indeed to appeal this issue any further.
And Tom, it is not just more technical expertise and fewer lawyers at FCC that is needed (as near and dear to me as that legislative effort is); it is technical experts who: (1) are listened to by the decisionmakers before the decisionmaking occurs, and (2) have some modicum of professional integrity.
Our principal antagonist at FCC on BPL, and one of the principal authors of the Orders in this case (including this one), is an extra class ham, KB3LVE. I think he is an ARRL member as well. 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: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21670] Re: FCC Denies ARRL BPL Reconsideration Petition
At 11:55 AM 4/17/2013, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
It comes as no surprise but as something of a disappointment that in the attached document the FCC has denied in all respects our December 20, 2011 petition for reconsideration of certain of its BPL decisions.
George Carlin's seven famous words (and a few others) come to mind.
Maybe we can use this FCC response as an example in our follow up with Congress about obstacles to Amateur Radio, and to urge Congress to authorize some additional technical expertise in the FCC instead of lawyers.
Tom
===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I concur in Chris's conclusion that further legal challenges on our part would be pointless. This appears to me to be a case of losing the battles at the FCC but winning the war by attrition. Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Imlay Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:49 PM To: Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE); arrl-odv Cc: Hare, Ed W1RFI Subject: [arrl-odv:21673] Re: FCC Denies ARRL BPL Reconsideration Petition It is noteworthy that the 2nd MO&O was very carefully drafted, with the clear intent of depriving us of an argument to take back to the Court of Appeals. At this point, we would have to argue to the Court that FCC didn't address some of our arguments. They misstated virtually all of them, and they sidestepped most, but they marched through our pleading and very specifically noted that they had previously addressed all of our arguments and that we brought "nothing new" to the table on reconsideration on any of them. That isn't true, but they are entitled to be wrong in their conclusions. They just have to address all of the issues raised. In this respect, the order is very different in form and approach from the norm in docket proceedings. They did not want us to be able to go back to the Court of Appeals on this case. Having read it over a few times, I think unfortunately that they have made it very difficult indeed to appeal this issue any further. And Tom, it is not just more technical expertise and fewer lawyers at FCC that is needed (as near and dear to me as that legislative effort is); it is technical experts who: (1) are listened to by the decisionmakers before the decisionmaking occurs, and (2) have some modicum of professional integrity. Our principal antagonist at FCC on BPL, and one of the principal authors of the Orders in this case (including this one), is an extra class ham, KB3LVE. I think he is an ARRL member as well. 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: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21670] Re: FCC Denies ARRL BPL Reconsideration Petition At 11:55 AM 4/17/2013, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
It comes as no surprise but as something of a disappointment that in the attached document the FCC has denied in all respects our December 20, 2011 petition for reconsideration of certain of its BPL decisions.
George Carlin's seven famous words (and a few others) come to mind. Maybe we can use this FCC response as an example in our follow up with Congress about obstacles to Amateur Radio, and to urge Congress to authorize some additional technical expertise in the FCC instead of lawyers. Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (5)
-
Chris Imlay -
James E. Weaver -
JRS -
Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ -
Tom Frenaye