Not even my four-day-old can pack so much crap in such a small package. 73 de Brennan N4QX ________________________________ From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf of Kay Craigie Sent: Tue 8/21/2012 3:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:21034] Re: FCC Report to Congress Looking at a different record? Maybe. It is hard to look at *anything* when your head is where theirs is. What a wimpy excuse for a report by a federal agency. 73 - Kay N3KN

Havingread in detail the FCC’s “Report” that is being submitted to Congress, whatstrikes me about it is its remarkably superficial content from beginning to end.There is nary a shred of FCC analysis in this. I had thought that reports aboutthe draft document sent over to DHS were perhaps overly critical, not havingseen this at the time. But the gist of those early reports was entirelyaccurate: the report contains no analysis at all. It merely reports on certainof the comments and summarizes, rather than analyzes, the comments received.There is zero original input into the document. It skews toward the CAI input(and that of one individual HOA representative) because that input isconsistent with the FCC’s prior decisions refusing to preempt CC&Rs itself. Itis to be expected that the FCC won’t want to make a recommendation to Congressthat makes its prior decisions look as though they were in error when made.However, in order to avoid that, the Report ignores ARRL’s argument about thepervasiveness of covenants and the severity of the language of covenants. Ourcomments, if seriously analyzed by a responsible government employee reviewingthe record, would have justified a finding that there is not in many cases anopportunity for an Amateur Radio operator to operate a station from his or herresidence. But the Report, without citation to any part of the record at all, concludesin paragraph 39 that “Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land userestrictions have become more common, our review of the record does notindicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subjectto such restrictions.” That is a completely irresponsible conclusion, and itindicates that it was somehow the commenters’ obligation to prove a negative,rather than the FCC’s obligation to investigate this by doing more than justreading the comments filed. How completely unimaginative and irresponsible. Thereare some helpful, quotable portions of the report pertaining to the value ofAmateur Radio in emergencies and in disaster relief. However, with respect to the impediments toenhanced Amateur Radio emergency communications, and specifically relative tothe need to preempt CC&Rs, the report simply says, in effect, that “well,one group says this and another group says that, so we can’t conclude that ourprior decisions refusing to preempt CC&Rs were wrong.” No one is asking theCommission to admit that it was wrong, in 1985 or even in the 1990s when ARRLasked FCC to review the matter. But unanimity in comments received is not aprerequisite for, nor is it a substitute for, independent analysis. Congresshad every reason to expect much more from this report than the exceptionallypoor response of the agency. Defensively,FCC states in footnote 14 that drafts of the Public Notice and the report were “sharedwith OEC prior to release, and OEC provided substantive comments andsuggestions throughout the process.” What the footnote does not say, however,is that those OEC comments were not incorporated in the final version of theReport. How collegial is that? The DHS input, (we are told on very goodauthority) made reference to FCC’s OTARD decision to preempt CC&Rs, findingthat they were a significant impediment to video delivery to residences. FCC conveniently excised that from the final versionof the Report because it would have justified a recommendation that Congressinstruct FCC to preempt CC&Rs. Like the BPL proceeding, FCC simply sweepsunder the rug that which does not fit well with its preconceived outcomes. It seems to me thatARRL should consider submitting a critique of this Report to Congress, with acopy to the Chiefs of WTB and PSHSB, who should be ashamed to submit toCongress such a superficial and insubstantial Report. 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: Niswander, Rick <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 4:04 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21036] Re: FCC Report to Congress Classic verbiage that appears to say one thing but actually has virtually no information content at all. If 1,000 homes are for sale, and 990 of them have restrictions, the statement is factually correct – “the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” In fact, that statement is factually correct as long as there are at least two homes not subject to restrictions. Dr. Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Spilman 106 East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 252-328-6975 252-328-4835 (FAX) From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org]On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:21033] FCC Report to Congress Attached is the FCC Report to CongressPursuant to Section 6414 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. I have not yet read the entire document carefully but the following sentence jumped out at me from paragraph 39: “Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common,86 our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” They must be looking at a different record. Dave _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

I agree with Chris, Kay, and Rick N that there is very little substance in the report. Which is not bad for us. We didn’t expect the FCC to talk itself into changing its position. They don’t want to take the initiative; they want to be told what to do by Congress, as they were with OTARD. Now we can go to the committees of jurisdiction and say, “Read this 15 page report – it won’t take very long. Then take a look at these excerpts from the 128 pages we submitted that directly refute the Commission’s unsupported conclusion that the record doesn’t show that amateurs can’t find homes that are not subject to private land use restrictions.” We’re not arguing that the Commission’s earlier decisions were wrong. We don’t have to, because so much has changed since then. Private land use restrictions are now so pervasive in so many parts of the country that it’s now, inarguably, a federal issue. Whether the Commission acknowledges that or not, the record is clear – which is why we need the help of Congress. Dave From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Imlay Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:09 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: john.chwat@chwatco.com Subject: [arrl-odv:21037] Re: FCC Report to Congress Having read in detail the FCC’s “Report” that is being submitted to Congress, what strikes me about it is its remarkably superficial content from beginning to end. There is nary a shred of FCC analysis in this. I had thought that reports about the draft document sent over to DHS were perhaps overly critical, not having seen this at the time. But the gist of those early reports was entirely accurate: the report contains no analysis at all. It merely reports on certain of the comments and summarizes, rather than analyzes, the comments received. There is zero original input into the document. It skews toward the CAI input (and that of one individual HOA representative) because that input is consistent with the FCC’s prior decisions refusing to preempt CC&Rs itself. It is to be expected that the FCC won’t want to make a recommendation to Congress that makes its prior decisions look as though they were in error when made. However, in order to avoid that, the Report ignores ARRL’s argument about the pervasiveness of covenants and the severity of the language of covenants. Our comments, if seriously analyzed by a responsible government employee reviewing the record, would have justified a finding that there is not in many cases an opportunity for an Amateur Radio operator to operate a station from his or her residence. But the Report, without citation to any part of the record at all, concludes in paragraph 39 that “Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common, our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” That is a completely irresponsible conclusion, and it indicates that it was somehow the commenters’ obligation to prove a negative, rather than the FCC’s obligation to investigate this by doing more than just reading the comments filed. How completely unimaginative and irresponsible. There are some helpful, quotable portions of the report pertaining to the value of Amateur Radio in emergencies and in disaster relief. However, with respect to the impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio emergency communications, and specifically relative to the need to preempt CC&Rs, the report simply says, in effect, that “well, one group says this and another group says that, so we can’t conclude that our prior decisions refusing to preempt CC&Rs were wrong.” No one is asking the Commission to admit that it was wrong, in 1985 or even in the 1990s when ARRL asked FCC to review the matter. But unanimity in comments received is not a prerequisite for, nor is it a substitute for, independent analysis. Congress had every reason to expect much more from this report than the exceptionally poor response of the agency. Defensively, FCC states in footnote 14 that drafts of the Public Notice and the report were “shared with OEC prior to release, and OEC provided substantive comments and suggestions throughout the process.” What the footnote does not say, however, is that those OEC comments were not incorporated in the final version of the Report. How collegial is that? The DHS input, (we are told on very good authority) made reference to FCC’s OTARD decision to preempt CC&Rs, finding that they were a significant impediment to video delivery to residences. FCC conveniently excised that from the final version of the Report because it would have justified a recommendation that Congress instruct FCC to preempt CC&Rs. Like the BPL proceeding, FCC simply sweeps under the rug that which does not fit well with its preconceived outcomes. It seems to me that ARRL should consider submitting a critique of this Report to Congress, with a copy to the Chiefs of WTB and PSHSB, who should be ashamed to submit to Congress such a superficial and insubstantial Report. 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: Niswander, Rick <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 4:04 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21036] Re: FCC Report to Congress Classic verbiage that appears to say one thing but actually has virtually no information content at all. If 1,000 homes are for sale, and 990 of them have restrictions, the statement is factually correct – “the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” In fact, that statement is factually correct as long as there are at least two homes not subject to restrictions. Dr. Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Spilman 106 East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 252-328-6975 252-328-4835 (FAX) From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:21033] FCC Report to Congress Attached is the FCC Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 6414 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. I have not yet read the entire document carefully but the following sentence jumped out at me from paragraph 39: “Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common,86 our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions.” They must be looking at a different record. Dave _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv