Just a couple of points in response to Dick's thoughtful comments, if you will: The problem with the 1300 negative comments isn't so much that the FCC is "caving in" to "only" 1300 commenters among 680,000 hams. It is that the 1300 comments were almost universally opposed to the proposal, which was after all a bare petition, not an FCC proposed rulemaking. One can't blame the FCC here, because they are, I am thoroughly convinced, attempting to be supportive and help us sell this concept. The trouble is that in order to survive a challenge to an FCC NPRM proposal to go forward with some form of regulation by bandwidth, and avoid a very easy argument that the FCC's action would be arbitrary and capricious, the FCC needs something positive on which to hang its hat. The record isn't there. And the fact is, the record has in it large groups of comments not relevant to the amended proposal, and some comments based on misconceptions about what is being proposed in the amended proposal. So FCC has a bad record. It is reasonable, and not mere chicanery, for FCC to want us to consider starting over again, to create for them a clearer record, and something on which they can base a proposal to go ahead with the concept that we want to go ahead with. Eliminating confusion, some caused by us, much more caused by doomsayers, false prophets and sophists such as Skip Teller, is a good opportunity. 1300 comments on a bare petition for rule making is very very large. It is not a small smattering of comments. Compare this to the first no-code rulemaking, an FCC NPRM. There were 5,000 comments filed on that, admittedly at the time paper ones. This is not a situation like that in 04-140 or 05-235 where FCC thought it knew more than we did about what is good for the Amateur Service. Joel has apparently turned that around. This is a different day, a different proposal, and one that wasn't popular when we first filed it. To some extent, it is likely to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" plan in the future as well. But consider case by case solutions to regulatory proposals rather than systemic ones, because a topic like regulation by bandwidth is a difficult sell no matter what we do, and therefore not evidence of a problem we have in marketing other proceedings. Chris -----Original Message----- From: dick@pobox.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:47 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:15450] Re:RM11306 RM15416 17 APR 2007 - 2315 CDT During our long path to RM-11306, which started before I arrived on the board, I have had specific concerns, as have most of my fellow directors. Our pre-Exparte proposal now known as RM-11306 is the product of untold man hours in meetings, discussions and many draft proposals, and finally a board consensus. At the EC teleconference after the completion of Chris Imlay's review, I asked about the number of negative messages the FCC received first on the "full draft" RM-11306 and then on what I refer to as our truncated proposal. The estimate given was a total of about 1300 negative messages. This number can be adjusted one way or the other, but what struck me is that the FCC's position on RM-11306 is being driven by only 1300 negative messages from 600,000+ Amateur Radio Service Licensees! And because the commission is caving in to this very small minority, we are being forced to salvage the situation by using a legislative technicality in order to expunge this negative message record. We are being forced to keep the Wizard of Oz's secret of the man behind the curtain. In spite of my disgust with this situation, I authored the motion recommending to the board that it withdraw RM-11306 from consideration at this time. We will then tweak, re-draft, or otherwise re-configure this proposal and file it again. However, I expect we will have a major backlash from what up to now has been the so-called silent majority. I do not like the situation we are in on this proposal. Yes, we failed to sell it to the amateur radio community. But the FCC also shares some of this blame and we cannot express this fact outside of our board family, if we really want regulation by bandwidth to become the way our amateur bands are managed. Jim and Jay are correct. We must make sure we are all in total agreement on a revised proposal, a plan of action to sell it, and our enthusiastic individual willingness to then sell it. If we fail in any of these three steps, we are wasting our time and the ARRL's credibility. I vote to withdraw RM-11306 from consideration by the FCC. - Dick, W9GIG ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.