Jim, on March 1 I distributed what had been drafted with the observation that I wasn't satisfied with the "boiler plate" sample letters. The problem is with what we're proposing that members ask their Congressional representatives to do: "to contact the FCC and express your concern over the potential for BPL interfering with important over-the air radio services." We know exactly what will happen as a result of that. The Congressional staff will put a buck slip on the letter and ship it over to the FCC's legislative relations office. In turn they will ship back a form letter over Ed Thomas's signature assuring the Congressman that the public comment period is open and that the constituent's concerns have been made a part of the record. The Congressional staff will put a cover letter on it and send it to the constituent -- and as far as they're concerned, "mission accomplished." There is some small potential benefit to be gained from perhaps getting the interference issue on the radar screen of the Congressional office. On the other hand, there is also some risk that the FCC's letter back, touting the virtues of BPL and its claimed potential for extending the reach of broadband services and reducing the cost to consumers through competition, will be more persuasive. Maybe this risk is worth it if what we're trying to accomplish with the grassroots kit is to head off counterproductive approaches by members who are anxious to write to Congress. However, since March 1 we have developed a very good strategy for our comments on the NPRM and for our in-person pitch to FCC commissioners and staff. We're promoting that strategy to members, largely for the same reason: to try and head off counterproductive filings. Right now that should be our grassroots focus, rather than Congress. That doesn't mean we're ignoring the Hill. We're pursuing the possibility of a hearing, but there are a couple of hoops Greg Walden wants us to jump through before we can reasonably expect him to make that happen: the April 2 "coalition" meeting and a subsequent meeting with his staff and BPL proponents. With regard to Minute 56, what hasn't yet been done is to share the grassroots package with Section Managers. Before we do that we need to go back through the material and bring it into line with the strategy, which has been fleshed out a bit since the March 1 "Why is the ARRL Concerned" paper was written. Even then, for the above reasons I'm dubious that this is the "appropriate time" to launch a grassroots Congressional campaign. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL) Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10298] Re: May QST editorial Dave, Good editorial, as usual. I have one question, though. Where do "we" stand regarding the BPL lobby kit to distribute to members? The last I heard, it had been drafted and you and Chris and probably Jim were discussing the release timing for it. When can we expect to see this available to our members? Because the future availability of the packet was mentioned in a Board minute, I advised the members in GLD they should expect it quite soon. This was over two weeks ago and a number have asked me during the last few days when they will receive it. Tnx, Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040-9660, Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail k8je@arrl.org