Joel: I understand your point. It just seemed that the failure of the Commission to provide meaningful comment on a Rule that substantially deviates from the proposal in the NPRM defeats the purpose of a comment period and runs contrary to any claim that comment are a meaningful part of the process. My concern is that if we don’t point out that inconsistency it encourages similar action in the future. It is good to be reassured similar concerns are part of the strategy of our leadership going forward. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel [mailto:Joel.Harrison@wgint.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14886] Re: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider Jay, While I don’t disagree with your position, I view this matter as two separate issues. The first is filing a recon petition that has some possibility of succeeding that will help lessen the impact of the FCC’s mistake. I believe what has been put fourth by the EC is just that. We will not be successful in attempting to change the FCC back to what was contained in the NPRM and we would not be able to salvage anything from this. The second, more important matter to me personally, is developing a strategy that will prevent this from happening in the future. I don’t see Cross going anywhere in the near future. I think he is about 52 and although he has been a government employee for many years I personally don’t see him going anywhere. So that leaves us with the task to get smarter in dealing with him. Something we’ve talked about doing for many years but have yet to be successful. Sucking up to him is not the right approach. One thing that is clear is that we have to be smarter in our filings and generating individual comments in support of our petitions and positions. The fact that the FCC will take a handful of comments over an organization representing many is not unique to the FCC. Professionally I’m involved with a utility group through EPRI that deals with the NRC. The NRC recently made a decision in a matter similar to an FCC NPRM and that decision had some parallel aspects to this in that the final decision was quite different in some aspects than what was proposed in their equivalent NRPM. The utility/EPRI organization decided to file comments, however, it was made very clear in addition to the organization filing comments on behalf of all of the industry that the utilities should also file individual comments in support of the organization because the NRC doesn’t consider a representative organization’s comments as carrying any more weight than one individual. So, that is really step one in a strategy to work up that will contain many steps and is something I want to concentrate on in the coming weeks. I’m very pleased that the FCC finally acted on WT 04-140, however I’m not at all pleased that they deviated significantly from their NPRM on the 80 meter issue. Fortunately, they only took this approach on 80 meters. As always, your comments are appreciated. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re odv 14872 Resolution to Reconsider I am voting to approve the Recommendation of the EC because I believe it is important for the Board to present a “united front” when making a filing with the FCC. Perhaps the FCC was correct and a more extensive reallocation of 75/80 meters was in order. If so the question should have been put forth in the NPRM where there was an opportunity to discuss the question freely and openly before issuing an order. Essentially FCC propounded one question in the NPRM and answered another in the subsequent Report and Order. The FCC appears to ignore its own Rulemaking process in favor of action and Order that is little more than a sleight of hand game with amateur allocations. Our Petition for Reconsideration should point out that disturbing fact. My preference would have been to stick with something closer to our original Petition to Refarm the Novice allocations. It seems to me the strength of our initial request was the thoughtful, deliberate, inclusive process we as the ARRL Board undertook prior to filing the petition. The Report and Order issued by FCC was the antithesis of an orderly, focused process. Iit is true that no matter what action we take regarding Reconsideration a number of ARRL members will be unhappy. That being the case I would have preferred a Petition for Reconsideration that strives for a more substantial objective than restoration of 35 kHz to CW/Data/RTTY. I recognize the challenge presented to the EC on short notice and the desirability for a united front, so I vote Aye. 73, Jay, KØQB