ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rules:
from
W1AW Bulletin via the ARRL
on
October 5, 2006
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rules:
ZCZC AG18
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 18 ARLB018
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT October 4, 2006
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB018
ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules
The ARRL Executive Committee is expected this weekend to ratify
plans to appeal in federal court certain aspects of the FCC's Part
15 rules governing broadband over power line (BPL) systems. Assuming
the EC signs off on the strategy, the League will file a Notice of
Appeal by October 22 with the US District Court of Appeals - DC
Circuit. ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said the
League went forward with its appeal plans only after considering the
effect on licensed spectrum users of letting the BPL rules stand.
''This decision was made after careful review of the FCC's October
2004 BPL Report and Order (R&O) and of the August 2006 Memorandum
Opinion and Order (MO&O) that dealt with petitions for
reconsideration,'' said Sumner.
Several reconsideration petitions of the initial R&O - including one
from ARRL - called on the FCC to strengthen rules aimed at
protecting licensed radio systems from BPL interference. Instead,
in a new rule only revealed after the FCC made the MO&O public, the
FCC limited the extent to which an unlicensed, unintentional
radiator has to protect a licensed mobile station.
The new rule, 15.611(c)(1)(iii), provides that BPL operators only
have to reduce emission levels below established FCC permissible
limits by 20 dB below 30 MHz and by 10 dB above 30 MHz - even if
that's not enough to resolve harmful interference complaints.
Sumner contends the rule change contravenes the International Radio
Regulations and the Communications Act of 1934. ''The FCC has, in
effect, tried to redefine harmful interference,'' he said. ''It can't
do that. The Commission doesn't have the authority to do that, and
we're going to demonstrate that to the Court of Appeals.''
What the FCC has done with respect to licensed mobile services
''should strike fear into the hearts of those who rely on public
safety communications,'' Sumner added, especially since the rule
requires BPL operators to do even less above 30 MHz than at HF.
The Commission also declined to adjust the 40 dB per decade
''extrapolation factor'' applied to measurements performed at
distances from power lines other than those specified in Part 15.
Sumner says this is an important technical point because the
existing Part 15 rule causes test results to underestimate actual
field strength. Petitions for reconsideration from the ARRL and
others argued that a figure closer to 20 dB per decade was more
appropriate. Sumner called the Commission's stand on the 40 dB per
decade rule ''clearly, demonstrably and inarguably wrong.''
He said the principles that the FCC appears to be following for the
first time - if applied generally - represent an abuse of licensees'
rights. ''It's unacceptable that the FCC would reduce the rights of
its licensees in favor of unlicensed, unintentional emitters,'' he
said. ''Remember that 'unintentional emission' is just another term
for 'spectrum pollution.'''
Sumner made it clear that the League is not suing BPL providers for
causing interference, nor suing the FCC for failing to enforce its
own rules against harmful interference. ''We are not satisfied with
the level of attention the Commission is paying to existing cases of
BPL interference, but this is not the time to pursue that in federal
court,'' he said.
While the separate standard for what constitutes harmful
interference to a mobile and the 40 dB per decade extrapolation
factor issues precipitated the decision to appeal, Sumner said, the
arguments the League puts forward in its court filing may touch on
other matters as well.
''The court is not going to rewrite the rules,'' Sumner explained.
''The court can make the Commission go back to the drawing board and
re-decide them, however.''
NNNN
/EX
Source: W1AW Bulletin via the ARRL.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The court can do lots of things.
We have now reached an important milestone in the history of the American Radio Relay League.
Without a mandate of its own membership, without even the hint of approval by the overall amateur radio community, THE ARRL has decided to take formal action against our regulatory body, the FCC.
There is no turning back: the general good operating communication between this small (less than 20% of the US ham population) non-profit and the government agency must now, IMO, be considered tarnished and formal.
The ARRL has accomplished nothing save for, IMO, taking the meaningless actions of an activist organization, that does not have the demonstrable support of its majority membership on this matter, let alone the demonstrable support of the majority of the US ARS.
I am ashamed, today, to be a ham and ARRL member. Black is in order.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC2OBG on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm...what's the ARRL to do when the FCC chairman - the chairman of a regulatory agency - REFUSES to behave like a regulatory agency?
The FCC chair said: "If reconfirmed, I would continue to make decisions based on a fundamental belief that a robust, competitive marketplace, not regulation, is ultimately the greatest protector of the public interest," Martin said in his prepared remarks.
Source: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267390A1.pdf
73, Jeff - KC2OBG
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by AD5X on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here in the West Gulf Division, I was polled several weeks ago by the Division and asked whether the ARRL should do this. I am in agreement with this, and let my Division Director know.
Phil - AD5X
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by AB0WR on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was never polled by my ARRL representatives.
As I see it, the problem isn't the ARRL action concerning the BPL issue. The *problem* is that it came to this point at all.
As the ARRL becomes more divorced from the amateur population, as represented by declining membership percentages, and as it demonstrates this estrangement to the FCC through petitions that are roundly rejected by the majority of the amateur service, the FCC rightly understands that the ARRL is becoming more and more feckless and powerless. The result is that the FCC pays less and less attention to the positions and poliicies espoused by the ARRL as time progresses.
While taking the FCC to court may be the only avenue left to the ARRL in this specific situation, the true answer to the general situation lies elsewhere. It is *truly* time for some introspection by the ARRL and a reconsideration of its current policies and positions.
(I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen)
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was never polled.
Let's get a sense of who was polled.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC2OBG on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was NOT polled and I SHOULD NOT have been polled. I expect the ARRL to make decisions on my behalf in the same way I expect my government representatives to make decisions on my behalf. If I don't like the decision I'll let them know.
Jeff
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Here in the West Gulf Division, I was polled several weeks ago by the Division and asked whether the ARRL should do this. I am in agreement with this, and let my Division Director know.
Phil - AD5X "
----------------------------------------------
Are you saying that the plans to go to court were made public weeks ago and the membership wasn't made aware of it? Or was it some very restricted and confidential poll?
My motivation for asking--as an ARRL member, I want to know how this was handled, and whether it was done above board and in the name and best interest of the membership.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by AI2IA on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It is neither prudent nor wise, nor is it practical for an organization such as the ARRL to poll all of its members on every issue some meglomaniac members exploit so they can trumpet to an audience. As ARRL members, we elect officers to act in our best interests in accordance with the bylaws. We leave the day-to-day decisions to our leaders. Do the meglomaniacs care what the real leaders are doing? Of couse not, they are just interested in blowing their own horns, and they couldn't care less if they obscure the ARRL actions that matter in so doing. For this posting the clowns will substitute their brand of nonsense for the old song of the ARRL haters that the ARRL does not do enough to represent amateur radio. If this species of kooks and their willing dupes in the audience succeed in taking over this article's posts, imagine what a mockery they would make of amateur radio if they were allowed to talk about themselves all the time. This is why they are outsiders and not elected officers of the ARRL. Fortunately most of us see their self-centered purposes through all their noise and bombast.
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Could you kindly get someone to check your copy first? I THINK you have a message, but it's too difficult to get past the poor grammar.
Try again OM.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I appreciate thier efforts however it "seems to me," and I am speaking very objectively here, that their track record concerning BPL efforts has been the main focus of attention within the membership for the past few years.
Basically, if one is measuring the entire organizations performance based on the success vs. failure rate of BPL policy alone, then yes, I suppose I can see how people would come to these conclusions.
However, the ARRL has had a long history beyond BPL and has an excellent historical account serving the best interests of amateur radio.
So, yes go ahead and disagree with current ARRL policy. However don't base the entire organizations performance on one single legislative issue.
Stand back and see the big picture.
My thoughts, My opinions.. Thank you.
73
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can't imagine why I, as an example, would have any interest in running for anything to do with the ARRL.
The failure of that system is clear to me, and will, IMO, be more apparent as this debacle of suing the US Government takes hold, is rejected, and the membership is forced to do soul-searching on the organization itself.
Basiclly, on such an important matter, you need a mandate to justify said action. With no mechanism for knowing, there is no mandate.
This may be the most important (negative) thing the ARRL has ever done.
Do you REALLY want YOUR ARRL to sue the FCC in an effort to force a point of view held by a small percentage of hams, and funded, perhaps in no small part (IMO) by non-hams?
Sheer activist lunacy.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W5ESE on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was polled some time ago (by email) by my Division
Director (West Gulf Division; Coy Day, N5OK).
I sent my reply. Whether I'm in the majority or not,
I don't know. Doesn't matter much.
He also solicited member input on retaining a
Morse Code element in the licensing process.
If your Division Director didn't solicit member
input, you need a new Division Director.
73
Scott
W5ESE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by AC7CW on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have heard BPL noise, it is bad. The only way to beat BPL noise is to sue the offenders everywhere and anywhere they interfere with lawful Amateur Radio Activity until it is not worth it for them to interfere with same. If you roll over and play dead eventually somebody will come along and bury you.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off I'm an ARRL member, if the ARRL had to poll it's membership for every action we would never get anywhere. Since I am a ARRL member I trust the ARRL to work in my best interests; do I agree with everything they do, no. The ARRL should of taken this action a long time ago. The FCC is broken, run by politicians who don't have the faintest clue about the technology they over see. They have basically redefined the term 'harmful interference' regarding BPL, how much longer will it be till they redefine 'harmful interference' caused by faulty power line hardware?
Michale Powell, you're an IDIOT, Mr. Martin, you're no better. There are much more deserving technically competent people who can do a far better job running the FCC. Not a bunch of 'the market solves all' political ladder climbing ass kissers.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am ashamed, today, to be a ham and ARRL member. Black is in order.
73,
Chip W1YW
Well Chip, if you really believe this, cancel your ARRL membership, turn in your license for cancellation and sell all your ham gear. With the statements you have given here so far, you appear to be a BPL apologist.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KI6CDF on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am of the opinion that the ARRL haters just love to blowhard in forums like this. I doubt whether any of them have ever written a thoughtful letter to the ARRL governing body, the FCC, their congressman or anyone else. Its very easy to take shots here. Its a lot more difficult to express a reasoned thoughtful position to those in a position to influence law and regulation.
I'm with you. I expect the ARRL (and I'm a member) to do what it is doing. That's what I pay my dues for. If I don't like what the organization is doing I can choose to accept it, ignore it, complain to the organization, participate in the governing body and on on... What doesn't make sense is to leave the organization. Who else is looking out for us? This website? I doubt it.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KI6CDF on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So, can you let us know specifically what it is that you done to deal with this situation? Please enlighten us.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Craig, N7UQA said:"Well Chip, if you really believe this, cancel your ARRL membership, turn in your license for cancellation and sell all your ham gear. With the statements you have given here so far, you appear to be a BPL apologist."
More than an apologist, IMO Craig. A pro-BPL activist, agent, or who knows what. Jumps into any BPL discussion, it seems, and disses anyone or certainly the ARRL for aggressively objecting to what amounts to officially-sanctioned, unlicensed broadband noise.
Noise that can, as has been demonstrated, impair or prevent operation of licensed radio services. Especially mobiles.
It is intriguing that the ARRL has focused on the potential for public safety system impairment. This, IMO, adds considerable weight to their upcoming argument(s).
As a long time member, I just renewed my membership for another three years. I hope that the $111, in part, will support this effort. If I can help the ARRL in any way prevail in this matter, I certainly will.
I don't always agree with the League, but, in this case, it is doing EXACTLY what should be done to protect not only the ARS, but other licensed services as well. Even, folks, our friends on 26/27MHz.
Good job. Excellent job. Keep up the good works.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Leeds, AL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, that is why we have the courts.
When a guvment leader says that he
is gonna follow the market and not
the regulations then that MUST be reined
in. We are a Nation of laws and ratified
teaties are the law. Read the consitution.
Just as a citizen cannot disregard the
laws they don't believe in, the guvment
is bound to follow them, too. "Arrogance of
power" is something that seems to be infecting
both the Legislative and Executive Branches of
of our guvment lately.
I think the League has good chance of
prevailing and all the actions thus far
have appeared to exhaust the use of the
administrative process, which must be done
prior to filing suit.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Phil, AD5X Said:"Here in the West Gulf Division, I was polled several weeks ago by the Division and asked whether the ARRL should do this. I am in agreement with this, and let my Division Director know."
Phil: It would have been nice to have had all of the Division Directors request feedback, but, that didn't happen. At least in Southeastern Division it didn't. But, I doubt they could really quickly do a good poll in view of the timing as to when appeals can/could be made on the MO&O.
However, at the Huntsville, AL Southeastern Division convention in August, all were present, Division Director, Section Manager and President Joel Harrison, to listen to feedback. I met Joel and suggested they do just what they are doing.
It is really important to challenge errant government decision making. Especially, as in this case, where lives could be on the line as a result of interference to low band VHF public safety mobile communications.
Before I forget it, (and I won't) thanks for the column in CQ and all of the articles you write for both CQ and QST. Much appreciated.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Leeds, AL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, W1YW Said:"Basiclly, on such an important matter, you need a mandate to justify said action. With no mechanism for knowing, there is no mandate."
The mechanism(s) for "knowing" include measurement data from Aircraft Radio, Inc., and the British government. Also, common sense, with respect to BPL's effects on public safety mobiles in fringe reception areas.
"This may be the most important (negative) thing the ARRL has ever done."
One of the most important things, but certainly not negative. And, certainly in the best public interests. With respect to public health and safety.
"Do you REALLY want YOUR ARRL to sue the FCC in an effort to force a point of view held by a small percentage of hams, and funded, perhaps in no small part (IMO) by non-hams?"
It isn't a small percentage, Chipster, of just hams that object to the effects of BPL. Funded by non-hams? How so? If you mean supported by other interested parties in the court case, that's entirely to be expected. And, not just via an Amicus Curiae brief either. Perhaps from the likes of Boeing, Lockheed, ARInc, APCO, and the NAB.
"Sheer activist lunacy."
Look in the mirror, Chipster. You'll see that which you describe.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Leeds, AL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok, answer the following poll:
-------------------------
1. Do you believe the ARRL should do something about the potential interference caused by BPL?
Yes No (Circle one only)
2. Do you believe the ARRL should do nothing at all about the potential interference caused by BPL?
Yes No (Circle one only)
Now please go out and spend 35 cents on a stamp and place this obviously dumb and unnecessary poll back into the pre addressed envelope and return it back to us here in Newington, CT.
Thank you for wasting your time responding to this needless poll because someone, somewhere suggested we had to do this to get your feedback!
------------------------------------
.... See my point?
Why waste time, money and resources only to conclude the obvious?
73
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Who regulates the electro-magnetic spectrum in this country. arrl or FCC?
BE FORWARNED:
1) If arrl prevails, and FCC subsequently decides to make us exempt from Part 15 protections, we wil have won a victory, but LOST the war. We will have arrl to thank for the beginning of the end of our hobby.
2) If arrl looses, what little remaining influence arrl has, will be gone. FCC will not just ignore arrl on big things, but may ignore arrl on EVERYTHING. Pissing-off the people that control our licenses, priveleges AND SPECTRUM is a risky bet.
Many believe that the potential risks (loss of Part 15 protections and spectrum) FAR outweigh the potential benifits of marginal protection from marginal interference that BPL seems to ACTUALLY produce.
Its showdown time at the OK corrall. And if we loose in the long run, just remember who you have to thank. THE NEWINGTON BOYS CLUB. They may be taking a HUGE gamble with the future our hobby.
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by KC2IJI on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm a member and support the action. Sue them !
If you have any doubt about BPL, go to Rt. 9A in Briarcliff Manor, NY...It's 20/S9 within a quarter mile of any power line with BPL.
Might as well sell the equipment....anything not VHF UHF.
This is also the reason for the delay in a decision on Element One (no, don't open that door !) because elimination would produce a one time surge of new hams to HF, which as the new BPL allocation, would be a problem.
Like it or not, our FCC is not a regulatory body as much as it is now a part of the Deparment of Commerce, and ham bands and users are not profitable in their eyes.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jonathan, W9WHE-II(the man with a Packet Node eham name) says:
"Many believe that the potential risks (loss of Part 15 protections and spectrum) FAR outweigh the potential benifits of marginal protection from marginal interference that BPL seems to ACTUALLY produce."
OK, Jonathan, who's "many" besides you and yourself? The Chipster too? Wow, that's a many. And, a heavy does of marginal, to boot.
How is it that the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution wouldn't be useful if the FCC were to retaliate by selectively eliminating objecting licensed radio services from the protections of Part 15? Or, specifically, an organization's right to free speech and access to the courts as guaranteed by the Constitution? If APCO were to chime in as well, via Amicus Curiae or directly, would your analysis also include removal of all public safety radio systems from Part 15 protections in similar retaliatory fashion?
I can think of *nothing* more imbecillick than for
someone astute in the law to think that an agency would dare consider retailiatory action against an appellant.
Also, if you weren't such an ARRL HATER, perhaps you could see the forest for the trees.
If you already haven't, perhaps its time for you to be a 'joiner' and pony up some bucks to join Glenn Baxter's International Amateur Radio Network while it still exists. That way you could say you belong to something besides the ambulance chaser fraternity.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM, an internet lawyer, posits:
"How is it that the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution wouldn't be useful if the FCC were to retaliate by selectively eliminating objecting licensed radio services from the protections of Part 15?"
Lee, you need to STOP talking about things you simply do NOT understand. You do nothing but mislead and confuse people with your NONSENCE.
The 14th Amendment (a/k/a equal protection clause) requires that the government treat all similarly situated persons similarly. Since the potential elemination of Part 15 protections would apply to ALL licensed hams, EQUALLY, there would not, could not and would never would be any 14th amendment imlications.
As for retaining part 15 protections for Public Service licensees, Amateur Service licensees are NOT "similarlly situated" as the Public Service licensees. We, as hams, simply are not the same as providers of police, fire and EMS services. Therefore, there would not, could not and would never would be any 14th amendment imlications.
STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH NONSENCE.
W6EM demonstrates why you should get legal advice from a licensed attorney, not from internet bulliten boards.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Like it or not, our FCC is not a regulatory body as much as it is now a part of the Department of Commerce,
---------------
Very, Very, interesting statement right there.
In the great white north, before Industry Canada (IC) came along, they had what was known as the "Department of Communications" (D.O.C.)
Now the DOC was a real agency, with real communication vans, monitoring stations, high tech DF stuff. They had tapes running 24/7. Radio enforcement was the the name of the game in town and everyone knew that fact loud and clear.
Then eventually, due to government shuffling, taxpayer finger pointing for more government cutbacks and the usual government confusion that takes place, the Canadian DOC was dissolved into the new "Industry Canada" (whatever that name has to do with amateur radio is beyond me) as the main regulatory body overseeing everything in Amateur Radio.
Well that's basically when all enforcement and /or legislative activities in amateur radio went completely downhill.
The new IC is basically just a small section of a larger governmental department store. It's most likely to be 1 person, 1 desk, a chair and a telephone sort of administration located in a 4 x 8 cubicle.
Here is the agency description that is regulating Amateur Radio legislation in Canada today and I quote:
"Industry Canada and the Industry Portfolio have many programs and initiatives to provide help related to a variety of areas, such as Aboriginal business, consumers, industry, regions, small business, research, science and youth."
Gee, they didn't even mention amateur radio in there? Guess it's not that important huh?
... Exactly the point!
..So, with all the know nothing suit and tie politicians who never actually touched the knobs on any piece of amateur radio equipment who are in full control of running the Amateur Radio politics show, how soon will it be before the Amateur Radio division of the FCC is reassigned and becomes a similar umbrella operation?
The point is at least we have the ARRL as a governing body and hopefully they will be around if and when that should ever happen here.
We need this devils advocate to keep government in check and on thier toes.
Go to Canada and see what I mean about lack of amateur radio intervention. Does VE7KFM ring a bell with anyone?
73
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by AA3NJ on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this IS the last battle, and the "war" will be won or lost in the court, this time. I am guessing it has taken the ARRL so long to get to this point, to make this decision, because the outcome will "forever" determine the part 15 status of ham radio. This is not an issue of "if we win this battle, we will have lost the war". If the ARRL wins this battle, future acts making ham radio exempt from Part 15 (or modifying Part 15 to relax the criteria of harmful interference) would seem to be nearly impossible, because it could then be argued in court that the FCC's intent was to intentionally damage one class. It is more likely (but not certain) that the court will uphold the FCC's position. But, I think the ARRL is in a position of choosing the lesser of two evils; i.e. to go to court or do nothing. If nothing is done, the problem will only get worse until there might be no ham radio in 25 years. I'll continue paying my dues and hope we win. How do you like the FCC becomming a political arm and mouthpiece of the "I'm entitled to it because I can make money at it, and you can't" crowd? Are they part of the "government by and for the people" crowd? I don't think so. I'll stand in the latter crowd, even if it means getting beat up in court.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Who regulates the electro-magnetic spectrum in this country. arrl or FCC?
BE FORWARNED:
1) If arrl prevails, and FCC subsequently decides to make us exempt from Part 15 protections, we wil have won a victory, but LOST the war. We will have arrl to thank for the beginning of the end of our hobby.
2) If arrl looses, what little remaining influence arrl has, will be gone. FCC will not just ignore arrl on big things, but may ignore arrl on EVERYTHING. Pissing-off the people that control our licenses, priveleges AND SPECTRUM is a risky bet.
Many believe that the potential risks (loss of Part 15 protections and spectrum) FAR outweigh the potential benifits of marginal protection from marginal interference that BPL seems to ACTUALLY produce.
Its showdown time at the OK corrall. And if we loose in the long run, just remember who you have to thank. THE NEWINGTON BOYS CLUB. They may be taking a HUGE gamble with the future our hobby.
Well now Johnathan, besides misspelling the words will, privileges, benefits and corral; this has got to be some of the most ignorant stuff you have posted to date. Forget the fact that BPL was born of fraud and deception, forget that BPL generates interference, forget the fact that BPL is being pushed for 100% political reasons. Your assumption that the FCC would single out the the amateur radio service and exempt it from part 15 interference is silly.
Johnathan is saying don't complain, be complacent, follow orders no matter how ridiculous and always assume the FCC knows best. If I would of followed Johnathan's advice and had not complained to the power company, I still would have power line interference. Oh, and you all better cancel your ARRL membership if you know what's good for you.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Craig, N7UQA said:"Johnathan (W9WHE-II) is saying don't complain, be complacent, follow orders no matter how ridiculous and always assume the FCC (government) knows best."
Yes, good advice, Jonathan, in a Facist society. Or, they'll come and get you.
We're getting closer all the time and further way from 'We the People.' What with the likes of Abramoff and his big organizatinal bucks buying off our decision makers.
And to respond to Jonathan's interpretation of the Equal Protection clause, that's one small way to look at it. But, when one considers all licensed services equally and fairly, well, that makes it totally applicable. And, there are now areas where the FCC has not applied its regulatory and pre-emptory powers equally. And, in Jonathan's approach, its OK, after the fact, to retaliate by making what is now equal, unequal. Absurd.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AA3NJ writes:
"If the ARRL wins this battle, future acts making ham radio exempt from Part 15 (or modifying Part 15 to relax the criteria of harmful interference) would seem to be nearly impossible, because it could then be argued in court that the FCC's intent was to intentionally damage one class".
My friend, "Arguing" is simply NOT the same as "proving". If one accepts this argument, then FCC would never be able to change any of its own rules, because someone might "argue" that FCC set out to harm them. This is not an argument that is going to fly. Moreover, courts give government regulatory bodies like FCC considerable defference. In other words, any "tie" goes to the government regulatory body. Think you can prove that "FCC's intent was to intentionally damage one class"? Good luck.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA writes:
"Johnathan (misspelled) is saying don't complain, be complacent, follow orders no matter how ridiculous and always assume the FCC knows best"
Craig, I never said any such thing.
I merely suggest that in light of arrl's prior flawed approach, this new move has risks. We can disagree about the "degree" of risk, but inlight of arrl's prior approach, people should just be aware of the potential. That's all.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM writes:
"And to respond to Jonathan's interpretation of the Equal Protection clause, that's one small way to look at it".
NO LEE, that's the CORRECT way to look at it. That is the way the US Supreme Court looks at it. So that's the way every other US court looks at it. You simply do NOT understand what you are talking about and your nonsense is misleading people.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM, an internet lawyer, writes:
"But, when one considers all licensed services equally and fairly....."
Lee, you simply cannot argue that an Amateur licensee is "similarly situated" to a public service licensee like police, fire and EMS. You would be laughed right out of court. Its absurd.
Under your theory, FCC unlawfully de-allocated 220 Mhz, because it harmed the Amatuer service. Harm is NOT the test. EVERY decision helps some and harms others. If "harm" was the standard, then the government could not tax one group of citizens and give the money to others. You obviously do not understand equal protection arguments.
Once again, Lee demonstrates why you should not get legal advice from an internet bulliten board.
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by AB0WR on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w9whe:
Jonathan,
I'm glad you are here to keep things straight.
For those who are moaning that the ARRL cannot poll the membership "on every decision" or they couldn't get anything done I ask -- How many times per day does the ARRL make a decision to take the FCC to court?
I'll reiterate, this is just more evidence of the estrangement of the ARRL leadership from the amateur community as a whole.
Politicians, and that *is* what the FCC members are, respond to political pressure more than anything else. The ARRL leadership had a lot of alternatives available - enlisting the DHS, the Red Cross, state Adjutants General, etc. to bring political pressure on the FCC. They also had the alternative of bringing grassroots pressure from the amateur community to bear on the FCC via Congressional representation or even via direct grassroots contacts. They did none of this.
If you want to speak to egomaniacs, speak to the leaders at the ARRL who think that they carry more weight with the politicians than the amateur community itself.
Instead they took it upon themselves to sue the FCC in court. They don't even have any co-plaintiffs in the suit! Ask yourself -- is this because no one wants to be seen as allied with the ARRL, is it because no one else sees any legitimacy in the suit, or is it because the ARRL leadership, in all their hubris, didn't bother to recruit any one else?
As Jonathan points out, this is going to put the entire amateur community in a lose-lose situation, not just the ARRL membership --- and that is not where the amateur community should want to be.
It's the culmination of a decades long decline of the ARRL. Rather than blindly defending the ARRL ask yourself why it has come to this.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II, Jonathan blathers:"W6EM, an internet lawyer, writes:"
Let's "set the record straight." I'm not an internet lawyer. No lawyering here. Just some common sense.
As to lawyers, well, take your counsel from Jonathan, if you wish. Jonathan are you still a paramedic, or did you stop doing that once you finished part-time or correspondence/internet law school?
I'm still waiting to hear who "many" are that opine the way you do.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
..And if it pleases the internet court, I rest my case your honor...
...Sorry, I always wanted to say that :)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim, AB0WR writes:"
Politicians, and that *is* what the FCC members are, respond to political pressure more than anything else. The ARRL leadership had a lot of alternatives available - enlisting the DHS, the Red Cross, state Adjutants General, etc. to bring political pressure on the FCC. They also had the alternative of bringing grassroots pressure from the amateur community to bear on the FCC via Congressional representation or even via direct grassroots contacts. They did none of this."
Tim: I would agree that the ARRL has missed some huge opportunities to present the BPL scourge to politicians. Their appearances before committees of the House of Representatives following Katrina, for a couple.
The problem, Tim, is the effectiveness in doing that in front of the likes of Abramoff dumping monies in congressional hip pockets. Can they (ARRL) really compete with all of the soft money from businesses pumped into campaign coffers, etc? The FCC itself is no different. There is, in fact, a recent example of the wilfull suppression of a media ownership report by the FCC. Now, why would they do that? Maybe it might just show improper levels of ownership in certain markets. Senator Barbara Boxer found out about it. Now, its being investigated by the FCC's Inspector General. But, will some heads really ultimately roll? Probably not.
FCC Commissioners, like many of our Representatives and Senators are the best that money can buy.
You may dislike the ARRL. That, is your choice. As you know, I don't agree with Regulation by Bandwidth or touting proprietary protocols (Pactor II and III)
for the same reasons you don't. And, I'm not silent about it either. I recently asked RH for an opinion about the legality of P2 and P3 on HF, and guess what, no response. According to a strict reading of Part 97, it is ILLEGAL to use P2 or P3 on HF since neither are published protocols. Only original Pactor is.
"If you want to speak to egomaniacs, speak to the leaders at the ARRL who think that they carry more weight with the politicians than the amateur community itself."
I'll even agree with you here. Not enough listening to their customers. Us, the membership. But, in this case, I believe they are right. I am most concerned for low band VHF public safety radio systems being harmed by BPL. We'll just have to see what transpires.
After all, all that they want to challenge, apparently, is the permissible signal strength(s).
As to the lack of others going along with ARRL, I think its a bit early to say that no one else would join such litigation. Its very likely that other interested parties would join in.
Even if they don't, there's some fairly powerful data collected by ARInc, and the British equivalent of the FCC. See Sumner's editorial in the October QST.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM wrote:
FCC Commissioners, like many of our Representatives and Senators are the best that money can buy.
No doubt there (Foley the pedophile excluded).
You may dislike the ARRL. That, is your choice. As you know, I don't agree with Regulation by Bandwidth or touting proprietary protocols (Pactor II and III)
for the same reasons you don't. And, I'm not silent about it either. I recently asked RH for an opinion about the legality of P2 and P3 on HF, and guess what, no response. According to a strict reading of Part 97, it is ILLEGAL to use P2 or P3 on HF since neither are published protocols. Only original Pactor is.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who questioned these decisions. I don't believe 'Regulation by bandwidth' is ready for the amateur radio service, it may work in the commercial service but not ours. As far as Pactor II and III, the first thing I thought of was; 'Uh, wait a minute, you cannot use those, Pactor II and III are proprietary and not open protocols. And by definition of part 97, illegal.'
But did I stomp my feet and cancel my ARRL subscription? No, I fired an e-mail of to my district manager and voiced my concerns. He did however have the courtesy to e-mail me back thanking me for my input.
I worked hard to earn my extra class privileges; (novice, technician, general, advanced, extra, 5, 13 and 20wpm code tests) and I'll be damed if I'm going to sit by and let spectrum polluting BPL ruin what I worked so hard to use.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by AE6RO on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really wonder how their suit will turn out. They are using the Federal Court (government owned and operated) to sue the government for relief from something the government wants to do.
Huh. Who do you think will win that round?
On the other hand, some agencies of the government would like to retain HF communications. For overt and covert uses.
I've heard BPL noise to when it propagated from San Diego to Long Beach during a test. There's no doubt it will wreck HF but not everyone understands this physical fact. 73, AE6RO
|
| |
|
You think BPL is bad...
|
|
|
by W1DUD on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wait til you are on HF having a QSO and a ARRL approved Winlink signal hammers you. Why support these clowns? They will never get a dime from me until they clean up their act. "73" The dud
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by AB0WR on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tim: I would agree that the ARRL has missed some huge opportunities to present the BPL scourge to politicians. Their appearances before committees of the House of Representatives following Katrina, for a couple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You know what would have had more impact than the ARRL honcho's appearing? "Mr. Chairman, I have with me an amateur FROM YOUR DISTRICT who I would like to speak for me, for the ARRL, and for Amateur Radio. He represents the amateur operators that are the constituents of each Congressperson sitting here. The problems he will speak of will have an impact on each and every one of your constituents that are ever involved in an emergency"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem, Tim, is the effectiveness in doing that in front of the likes of Abramoff dumping monies in congressional hip pockets. Can they (ARRL) really compete with all of the soft money from businesses pumped into campaign coffers, etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The amateur community will NEVER be able to approach this from the "money" side of the equation. It has to be approached from the constituent service side of the equation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You may dislike the ARRL. That, is your choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't dislike the ARRL. I dislike the attitudes of and the policies/decisions being made by the leadership in the ARRL in the name of representing Amateur Radio.
"If you want to speak to egomaniacs, speak to the leaders at the ARRL who think that they carry more weight with the politicians than the amateur community itself."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'll even agree with you here. Not enough listening to their customers. Us, the membership. But, in this case, I believe they are right. I am most concerned for low band VHF public safety radio systems being harmed by BPL. We'll just have to see what transpires.
After all, all that they want to challenge, apparently, is the permissible signal strength(s).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Amateur radio used to serve the public directly. Under the ARRL leadership amateur radio has moved and is moving further into becoming a common carrier service serving only government agencies and NGO's. When we served the public we could legitimately point to lots of examples and make the politicians understand the decisions being made in government actually impacted their constituency. It gave the politicians one more "brag" to throw out during elections. The FCC knew this too and took it into consideration. Once we started moving away from this, our "weight" with the politicians and with the FCC declined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As to the lack of others going along with ARRL, I think its a bit early to say that no one else would join such litigation. Its very likely that other interested parties would join in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not going to hold my breath.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim, AB0WR said:
"Amateur radio used to serve the public directly. Under the ARRL leadership amateur radio has moved and is moving further into becoming a common carrier service serving only government agencies and NGO's. When we served the public we could legitimately point to lots of examples and make the politicians understand the decisions being made in government actually impacted their constituency. It gave the politicians one more "brag" to throw out during elections. The FCC knew this too and took it into consideration. Once we started moving away from this, our "weight" with the politicians and with the FCC declined."
I agree that there is a trend toward serving government agencies. Although, other than the MARS programs, I don't see a lessening in direct service to the public. Hurricane relief efforts were a mixed bag, but mostly direct to the public.
MARS and its "serve the TSA" mission instead of providing health and welfare messages to and from service men and women is a good example. And, the SHARES program as well. And, I suppose the ARRL money grants solicited from DHS fits the description.
A good deal of the motivation (to serve government agencies) is an attempt to raise the visibility and value of the ARS to government leaders. We are largely unknown, or by some, even thought to be non-existent. Thanks in large part to the gradual disappearance of towers and Yagi arrays by virtue of CC&Rs.
I don't see us backing away from public service to individuals. The government agency involvement is an augmentation. The recent recognition of ARS as part of DHS/FEMA regional interoperability planning is a positive step that will help us survive. We are specifically mentioned in the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act, that was signed into law October 4. (See this week's ARRL Letter) To convolute that somewhat into a question: How could we be a valid part of such planning if, in fact, we have impaired operating capability thanks to BPL hash being omnipresent; and, ineffective outdoor antennas, thanks to CC&Rs?
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Inept ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of BPL
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...this is going to put the entire amateur community in a lose-lose situation, not just the ARRL membership..."
This has always been the case with ANY ARRL maneuver, whether it be a rule change or proposal. The ARRL couldn't give a Clinton about the over 80% of hams that don't "belong".
It is about time!!!
The fact that FINALLY the ARRL is seeking Federal Court remediation would be wonderful. However, once again, they are focusing on the wrong end of the argument. Instead of cherry-picking "certain rules" to argue over, they should have sought an overall injunction 2 years ago. It has been 2 years of fingerpointing, whining & FAXing demand letters.
Only now, 2 years post-decision, do they finally show up where they should have been all along. I guess the "Defen$e Fund" is running dry of suckers or maybe Imlay decided to break the bank & finally do some work away from his heavily used FAX machine with the FCC in speed dial!
The ARRL does not represent Amateur Radio unless there is grant money avaialable or there is a chance to push WinLink down our throats!!! They are only there for themselves & over 130 paid employees!!!
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This bulletin may be an enabler to eventually fixing the problem:
"The FCC has formally launched its new Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/.
"The PSHSB will assume some functions that had been under the umbrella of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), where the Amateur Radio Service will remain. "
"Some observers had speculated that Amateur Radio would be shifted to the PSHSB, thus removing it from the WTB's market-based approach to regulation."
"Moving some of the WTB's current responsibilities to the new bureau could nonetheless speed up the process of moving Amateur Radio-related proceedings through the Commission."
>>> If you're planning to lobby congress for protection from BPL and other threats, I would start with a request to have the amateur service transferred to the new PSHSB whose charter would be enhanced with an intact and interference-free amateur radio.
In parallel, if we are not happy with the ARRL representing our needs, we should consider forming and appointing another group or organization to do so. Considering that the current ARRL membership stands at 152,000, that represents only about 22% of all amateurs - hardly the majority.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
The Challenge
|
|
|
by AI2IA on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In parallel, if we are not happy with the ARRL representing our needs, we should consider forming and appointing another group or organization to do so. Considering that the current ARRL membership stands at 152,000, that represents only about 22% of all amateurs - hardly the majority.
WA1RNE
Ah, yes! An excellent idea! All of the buffoons, jail house lawyers, doom sayers, ARRL haters, self-hating hams, meglomaniacs seeking an audience, those with illusions of leadership, self-proclaimed amateur radio experts, and radio clowns, should all get together and form a new organization that represents them better than the ARRL. There has been so much talk about the ARRL not doing a good job for so long, it is surprising that we have not seen a good, solid, dynamice organization come along and take their place. What are you all waiting for? You can do it. You have all these great ideas and good reasons. Hop to it!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM writes:
"I'm not an internet lawyer. No lawyering here. Just some common sense".
Well, Lee, you could have fooled us.
But for the fact that a real lawyer recognized your absurd equal protection arguments, many people would have theought you were doing lots of lawyering.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1DUD writes:
"Wait til you are on HF having a QSO and a ARRL approved Winlink signal hammers you"
OBVIOUSLY, DUD does not understand.
Since arrl is FOR Winlink, then Winlink is NOT QRM. But since arrl is AGAINST BPL, then BPL IS QRM. Get it? Nevermind that QRM is QRM. Never mind that the arguments are inconsistent. If members of the Newington Boys Club say it, it MUST be true! (Aftertall, they told us that BPL was a "flawed technology" that "won't work", and we all know how true that turned out to be).
Now, sit down, shut up, and send in more money to arrl! They have more staff to hire and more retirement accounts to fund.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA wrote:
"....I fired an e-mail of to my district manager and voiced my concerns. He did however have the courtesy to e-mail me back thanking me for my input"
WOW. Two thoughts:
a) You actually got a response? Save it, someday it might be a valuable one-of-a-kind item!
b) So you got a stock, F5, Macro'ed, canned response. Think he really gives a hoot what you (or any other arrl member) thinks?
|
| |
|
RE: The Challenge
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ah, yes! An excellent idea! All of the buffoons, jail house lawyers, doom sayers, ARRL haters, self-hating hams, meglomaniacs seeking an audience, those with illusions of leadership, "
>>>We can eliminate all of these from the cause.
"self-proclaimed amateur radio experts, and radio clowns, should all get together and form a new organization that represents them better than the ARRL. "
>>>We can start with these folks.
"There has been so much talk about the ARRL not doing a good job for so long, it is surprising that we have not seen a good, solid, dynamice organization come along and take their place. What are you all waiting for? You can do it. You have all these great ideas and good reasons. Hop to it!"
Considering that most people have a life and are not in the magazine business, it's not too surprising.
However, FCC decisions have been made as a result of individuals responding to NPRM's, like the recent code/no code
issue. The ARRL really didn't add any value to this debate - the amateur community took care of it.
So don't be so surprised if some of us do decide to get better organized and provide some focus on key issues.
I'm game......I just refuse to sell magazines. I'll leave that to Publisher's Clearing House.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem, Tim, is the effectiveness in doing that in front of the likes of Abramoff dumping monies in congressional hip pockets. Can they (ARRL) really compete with all of the soft money from businesses pumped into campaign coffers, etc? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I suppose one could get nasty and dig up some politically embarrassing dirt on said politician. I'm certain that some time in their life they have done something embarrassing or illegal. You know, contact old school chums, find out if he ever made questionable e-mails with congressional pages, smoked pot, went to strip bars, paid to have sex with a hooker, had any homosexual relations, crossderssed ect. Since our congress critters seem to get away with this, why not us. ;)
Oh, by the way Jonathan (that should be spelled right), in answer to your questions; I should of kept the e-mail exchange since the DM I talked with is now a silent key. Also the message wasn't canned, he actually took the time to write it; even though the response wasn't very encouraging.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: Inept ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF Said:"It is about time!!!
The fact that FINALLY the ARRL is seeking Federal Court remediation would be wonderful. However, once again, they are focusing on the wrong end of the argument. Instead of cherry-picking "certain rules" to argue over, they should have sought an overall injunction 2 years ago. It has been 2 years of fingerpointing, whining & FAXing demand letters."
Yeah, it is about time. But, based on my own scant experience with going after a government agency in federal court, they probably needed to exhaust all administrative objections, appeals, replies to comments, etc., before this could be done. To have tried it earlier would probably gotten an adverse ruling from the court that could have kept them from proceeding later, even at this point.
Chris Imlay no doubt knows the ropes from his FCC experience.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'll reiterate, this is just more evidence of the estrangement of the ARRL leadership from the amateur community as a whole."
__________________________________________
Absolutely.
|
| |
|
RE: The Challenge
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Considering that the current ARRL membership stands at 152,000, that represents only about 22% of all amateurs"
That number is all fine & smiley faced BUT ask those who are not Life "Members" (who can't get out) IF:
Do you only want QST delivered instead of being counted as a "member"?
You'd be quite lucky to break 100,000 who actually feel like they count.
The ARRL has a high "churn rate" because newbies get in for a couple of years then dive out, either out of lost interest or sheer frustration with "the system".
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by AI2IA on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As usual, the meglomaniacs and ARRL-haters drag the real issue on down to their one-agenda ARRL hate fest, but again as usual, they have nothing to offer. If you all put your collective heads together (you do have collective heads, don't you?), then you could accept the challege and come up with a really fine organization that would truly do what you think is best for amateur radio. Instead of standing on the sidelines offering transparent and mindless criticisms, show us what you do by coming up with that alternative organization to the ARRL. If you really are leaders, than lead, and if you are not leaders and you refuse to be followers, than it looks like all you can do is complain.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.arrlhaters.org
Here are rates (subject to change whenever we want to)
Regular ARRL Hater Membership
With monthly QRM Newsletter*
Regular: 95 or older Special Rate!
1 Year $39 $39
2 Years $76 $78
3 Years $111 $115
* QRM delivery via mountain donkey.
A member of the immediate family of the Jerry Springer show, a League hater, living at the same trailer park address, may become a League hater member but without any change in actual membership costs whatsoever.
Family membership has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that it must run concurrently with that of the member receiving QRM. ARRL haters feel that blind amateurs may subscribe to QRM just like anyone else does and just because we disagree with everything the ARRL does.
Please note that payments must be made in Nigerian Naira (NGN) funds only, and checks must be drawn on a bank overseas and we do not accept Paypal at this time.
Questions?
The American Radio Relay League Haters
396 Psyco, Path
San Quentin, CA 94964 USA
or phone (415)482-8509
or fax (415)482-8509
or e-mail complain@arrlhaters.org
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are two scenarios that are at play here, the first an internal issue for ARRL members, the second being the mission of a non-profit.
First, The ARRL has, for decades, stated that it is: "OF,BY,AND FOR THE RADIO AMATEUR". Keep that thought.
Let's assume that the motivation for suing the government (FCC) is, 'amateur' based. In this case, we have the peculiar situation where there is,apparently, no evidence that the majority of the ARRL membership supports this position, and of course, there is NO evidence that a majority of radio amateurs in the US support the position. Indeed, the lack of interest in the last year would certainly favor the latter interpretation. However, in such a case, it would be a situation where a small number of RADIO AMATEURS are taking action on a position THEY BELIEVE is in the best interest of AMATEUR RADIO. Clearly in doing so, a 70+ year positive relation with the FCC will be tarnished, and may not be reversible. All this for something that is Part 15 and NOT Part 97 to start with. In this case, we are perceived, IMO, as treading dangerously into relegation of a service that has NO relation to ham radio, and whose inadvertant ACCESS BPL impact is demonstrably trivial at worst upon us as an authorized licensed service. Basically the issue becomes one of a small number of Part 97 licensees messing with Part 15, with the self-righteous notion of it being in the 'best interest' of the entire Part 97 licensed pool. This is annoying situation, but one that can play itself out and resolve with a clear cut rejection of the ARRL position by the courts, and then a shakeup of the ARRL by it's constituency.
The more serious issue is one in which the "OF, BY, AND FOR THE RADIO AMATEUR" has, if so, been breached by the non-profit ARRL. This may have occurred, and may be occurring. It manifest by FUNDING, in part or in whole, of the ARRL ACCESS BPL actions BY NON-HAM COMPANIES AND INSITUTIONS.
In this case, the ARRL is NOT acting on behalf of the amateur radio community, but on behalf, at least in part, of interests that have no affiliation whatsoever with Part 97. In this case, there is, IMO, a serious issue of the solidity of foundations of the ARRL, as the ARRL is thus acting on behalf of those who have no input nor interest in Part 97 as a service. Such parties may have an interest in controlling; thwarting; rescinding; or modifying Part 15 with respect to ACCESS BPL, but have no interest in Part 97. IF THIS HAS OR IS OCCURRING, then the ARRL has redefined its mission to lie outside the: "OF,BY, AND FOR THE RADIO AMAATEUR" to something akin to being an activist organization positing amateur radio as a proxy for other parties. We ALL should have serious issues with that. It will be the first time, to my knowledge, that the ARRL has taken such a position, and that the Part 97 ARS has been used as a proxy for others. Answer the question for yourself: is this who WE are and what WE want to be seen as?
The immediate issue is to know where the ARRL has acquired it's funds for the ACCESS BPL issue and the apparent impending court case. Assume that some monies came, and come, from a small number of bona fide amateurs. But how much and what parties who are NOT in any way tie in with Part 97 ALSO DONATED? How MUCH did they DONATE? WHY did they donate?
I am one ARRL member who wants to see this full list public: contributors and amounts. Where is it?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yawwwwwwn. Well, first off, who cares about
your 'scenarios'? In this instance the ARRL is clearly acting in the best interests of amateur radio.
If you weren't so worried about ARRL prevailing in their modest appeal of the permissible NOISE level from such emitters, we wouldn't be hearing from you.
Now, why could that be? Well, for those of you who don't know, the Chipster is a prinicipal in Fractal Antennas. They manufacture RFID antennas for the unlicensed RFID industry. It, too, (the industy) would undoubtedly like a looser Part 15 to permit higher levels of unlicensed noise. Or, to put it another way, less enforcement of Part 15 with respect to interfered-with licensed services.
Now, as to ARRL's possible other industry/state/local government interest in pursuing a mandate to re-examine the MO&O. Well, that only makes reasonable sense. After all, BPL could make communications with a unit of the Missouri or California Highway Patrol impossible at precisely the wrong time. Or, countless fire departments, the US Forest Service and other public safety users of the 30-50MHz VHF spectrum.
Now, as to lawsuits. How many have you sued? If any, I would bet they were quite adversarial. Complete with punitive damages, court costs, etc. When filing an Appeal of a government decision, it isn't a tort issue. Not one where punishment in the form of punitive damages are assessed. And, besides, some big players like AT&T and Verizon have filed suit over FCC issues. So, what's the big deal? They are still in business and do business with the FCC just fine.
73,
Lee
W6EM
PS to the Chipster: Go ahead, tell the eHam moderator that I'm telling the truth about part of your background. I could care less.
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me be more specific.
None of my business interests or activities are in any way affected by ANY decisions regarding Part 15.
None.
W6EM's insinuation is false.
I am disinterested with respect to Part 15. Specifically, I have nothing to do with Access BPL.
However, it is likely that perhaps THOUSANDS OF RADIO AMATEURS are employed in businesses that DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY DEPEND on Part 15 industries. THAT INCLUDES hams who work for BPL COMPANIES,their AFFILIATES, and so on.
I have said this several times, although Mr. McVey continues to state , maliciously, and injuriously, to the contrary.
If you have evidence that falsifies my public statement on this, then you have an obligation to bring it forward, here.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW, ex-N1IR, yet still Nathan "Chip" Cohen Writes:
"I have said this several times, although Mr. McVey continues to state , maliciously, and injuriously, to the contrary.
If you have evidence that falsifies my public statement on this, then you have an obligation to bring it forward, here."
What you have said is that you claim to be disinterested. What I have said, based upon what is/was public information, that you are/were a prinicpal in a firm that manufactures, or did, small RFID antennas. Perhaps you, indeed, are disinterested. Have you ceased your employment with the firm and dispensed with your equity ownership?
Now, having said what is/was thought to be the truth, based upon the Fractal Antennas website information, how can it possibly be "malicious or injurious?" If it weren't the truth, I suppose.
Unless, for some reason you are not or were not the described Chief Technical Officer of the company. If that wasn't correct, I'm awfully sorry, but that's what it said. And also if, somehow, the website erred in its display of RFID antennas inside the bottom of plastic beverage caps, again, I'm sorry. And, I apologize for having said all of that. I'm terribly sorry. Please forgive me.
I don't have evidence to falsify anything. If I did, that, in itself sounds fraudulent. And I despise fraud. Just ask the Justice Department out in San Francisco.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What does being in the electronics industry have to do with this at all?
I don't believe you realize the potential exposure of your accusation: where is the CONNECTION?
It is inconsequential to me ONE WAY OR THE OTHER whether Part 15 regulations are changed in ANY WAY.
It is of NO consequence to me, being a disinterested party, whether ACCESS BPL HAS NEW, LESS, or ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
This is a public statement; and will be available in any discovery process.
You ALSO need to understand yours in kind, and REFRAIN from falsehoods that make relations that DO NOT EXIST.
My educated comments are ones that represent myself. They come from my good judgement and knowledge. They are not formed by ANY outside influence.
Lee, you are crossing over the line at this point. For your own benefit, you need to use the outmost care, moving forward, in statements you make regarding me, my motivations,and who and what I am.
This is not a threat, and I suggest you have your attorney review it.
My attorney is a well-known ham.
Please keep comments cogent to the issues and we can continue to enlighten the subjects at hand.
Cordially,
W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One last tidbit. If you truly don't care about Part 15, then why are you objecting to the ARRL's challenge of what are now one or two parts of Part 15?
Got to be a reason besides liking to look at your own prose on the Web (and your image in the mirror).
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW, Nathan "Chip" Cohen THREATENS:
"Lee, you are crossing over the line at this point. For your own benefit, you need to use the outmost care, moving forward, in statements you make regarding me, my motivations,and who and what I am.
This is not a threat, and I suggest you have your attorney review it.
My attorney is a well-known ham."
I consider the above to be a threat. Any normal person would consider your words as meant to intimidate and suppress my open participation in this forum. So noted. And, recorded, along with a long laundry list from QRZ.COM of similar threatening and intimidating communications.
Sincerely,
W. Lee McVey
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
YAWN. Another rerun of the same old ridiculous Lee and Chip show episode that's been playing for at least three or four years.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Should be interesting to read the text of the brief after its filed.
And, there's little doubt that APCO and probably the NAB will be involved as well since both are affected by VHF ABPL.
This should be a slam-dunk for the ARRL and a major victory. Of course, it would behoove the ARRL to be ready in case an appeal to the ultimate court becomes necessary.
Unlicensed noise generators need further curtailment. The sooner it happens, the safer the public will be.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The point needs to be made clear that the Part 97 ARS is not bringing suit against the FCC.
The ARRL/NAAR is bringing suit on behalf of, apparently, a non-majority fraction of its members, while the entire membership is only about 20% of the US ham population.
In addition, funding for the litigation, apparently, is not being done solely by SOME US radio amateurs in the ARS, but is being provided, in part, by outside sources that have nothing to do with the ARS and Part 97 licensed communication.
Hence although the ARRL/NAAR attempts to abide by the credo: "OF,BY, AND FOR THE RADIO AMATEUR", the evidence in this case does not support that notion.
IMO, the ARRL/NAAR is being used as a proxy for outside influences, apart from Part 97 ARS.
Certainly it has no support from the majority of the Part 97 ARS community in this action.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not clear on who has suffered as a result of the current BPL rules. I am not a highly skilled Internet Attorney like Lee, but it occurs to me that to take something to federal court might require some 'standing' in the case.
I mean other than a handful of mobile operators who seem to think they have some fundamental right to work the weakest possible stations from the noisiest possible locations, or those who think BPL should be prohibited because at some indefinite point in the future at some indefinite location, they MIGHT want to work a weak station while parked next to a BPL box.
Are there in fact ANY unresolved cases of interference to home stations? Or even any unresolved incidental cases of mobile interference, where the mobile operator wasn't deliberately seeking out BPL interference to complain about?
How much is this going to cost the ARRL to pursue a legal challenge to the FCC BPL rules? What is the going hourly rate for lawyers? How many people's membership dues are needed to pay for one hour of a lawyer's time?
Or, if it is not being funded out of the ARRL budget, then who IS paying for it? And why?
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think
the basis of the suit is that in the FCC's
last order on the matter, they allowed
mitigation rather than elimination of
harmful interference to licensed services.
That would be a violation of the ITU treaties
to which the US is a signatory and they having
been ratified by the US Senate are the law of
the land. The suit simply asks that the
Court make the FCC follow the law and their own
relevant regulations, rather than as the
Chairman said let the market place rule,
NOT the regulations.
We cannnot have neither citizens nor the
guvment deciding which laws they will
follow and which they shan't.
Notice the FCC did NOT take the same stance
with NTIA, as they knew stuff would run
down hill on them, if they did. They
ELIMINATED interference to their spectrum.
Yes, there have been unresolved cases for
stations in ham's residences, Manasas made
famous for two battles in the War of Northern
Agression (Yankees call it Bull Run, 'cause
they ran so fast they got away quicker than
the spectators) ( actually they say they
named it for the creek). AZ is another place.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Or, if it is not being funded out of the ARRL budget, then who IS paying for it? And why? "
------------------
No reason why it COULDN'T be paid out the ARRL budget--the relevant question is who, besides hams, put money in that budget,with the assumption it was for this purpose?
What non-Part 97 related companies have become donors to the ARRL/NAAR in the last 3 years??
And, as you said... W-H-Y ??
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Yes, there have been unresolved cases for
stations in ham's residences, Manasas ... AZ is another place.
The only reference on the ARRL web site to interference to a home station in Manassas is a link to a marginally literate filing on the FCC BPL proceeding, by a ham who mentions only that BPL is being used in Manassas and that he lives there and makes some vague assertion about "destruction of the shortwave bands". No specifics and no actual statement that he actually experienced any inteference himself. So that one is specious at best, and doesn't count anyway since there is no record that any kind of actual complaint was ever filed with the FCC.
Otherwise, the two or three interference complaints that the ARRL web site highlites regularly are all mobile cases.
The only case in Arizona that is mentioned by the ARRL is the cottonwood trial, and that was shut down months ago. There was a mention in passing about interference to a home station there way back in 2004, but doesn't seem to have been mentioned again since then so could not have been very signficant to the ARRL. The only documentation I could find abuot it on ARRL is a 2004 table that also indicates that it was not formally reported to the FCC - so it wasn't significant enough to file a formal complaint about, either.
So, if you have any information about actual unresolved home interference cases by all means feel free to post a link or reference to the hard information.
I can't find any, and IF any actually exist, then for whatever reason, the ARRL isn't talking about them which seems odd.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA4MJF, Ronnie said:
"I'm not a lawyer either, but I think
the basis of the suit is that in the FCC's
last order on the matter, they allowed
mitigation rather than elimination of
harmful interference to licensed services.
That would be a violation of the ITU treaties
to which the US is a signatory and they having
been ratified by the US Senate are the law of
the land."
Hi, Ronnie. Well, I'm certainly no 'internet lawyer'. Although our two birds of a feather, that always flock together, seem to incessantly prefer unlicensed Part 15 noise to other licensed services and so speculate.
Yes, loads of speculation piled high and deep. Just like that ultimate college degree. Yet, that's all they offer. Speculation ad nauseum.
Your point is probably correct in that nowhere have I heard of any HF ABPL system that notches international shortwave broadcast bands. So, in addition to clobbering amateur frequencies, they clobber Radio Havana as well. Now, that should make Fidel mad......
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL Rul
|
|
|
by WT4M on October 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps if you feel the ARRL is not adequately representing the interest of Amateurs you could write them a letter. I have always had good experiences with the folks at the League, and they usually respond quite quickly.
If that doesn't get it for you, you could always stop paying the dues...
I think that BPL implemented properly could work quite well, without being a source of interference to other services. However, it is quite apparent that as soon as the President expressed his support in a public speech, the FCC has been more than eager to clear the way for BPL. Why else would it have gained its special status with regard to part 15.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH writes:
"I'm not clear on who has suffered as a result of the current BPL rules. I am not a highly skilled Internet Attorney like Lee [W6EM] but it occurs to me that to take something to federal court might require some 'standing' in the case.
"standing" is an essential element, you are correct.
As NN4RH points out:
"I mean other than a handful of mobile operators who seem to think they have some fundamental right to work the weakest possible stations from the noisiest possible locations, or those who think BPL should be prohibited because at some indefinite point in the future at some indefinite location, they MIGHT want to work a weak station while parked next to a BPL box".
This is an excellent point.
I expect FCC to raise this issue. I wonder what arrl's response will be?
Nevertheless, Lee, W6EM, an internet attorney, concludes:
"This should be a slam-dunk for the ARRL and a major victory".
Well, Lee, time will tell.
There are quite a number of hurdles that arrl must overcome in order to prevail. Good thing arrl has your legal accumen to help them!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's simply amazing. All of these 'fear mongers' trying to scare us about the ARRL's intentions. And, the predicted impact from INSULTING the FCC. Wow.
I just read last week where Joel Harrison, ARRL President wrote a rather stinging, insulting commentary on the FCC's protracted delay in releasing its Report and Order for the Omnibus AR Rulemaking.
You know what? I think it worked. The FCC just yesterday released its MR&O and it definitely has some positive changes for us. And, frankly, in making its decision(s) sided with the majority of commenters, not necessarily the ARRL. One example was remaining steadfast on restricting digital modes to a maximum bandwidth of 500Hz below 30MHz. Even though the ARRL asked for 3kHz (to accommodate pactor II and III). Guess that means Regulation by Bandwidth is dead. Good.
So, onward and upward. We'll just have to see what a motivated ARRL will do next. They've only about another 10 days or so to file with the DC Court of Appeals. Guess I'd best get my Amicus Curiae drafted.....
Ciao,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WT4M wrote:
"Perhaps if you feel the ARRL is not adequately representing the interest of Amateurs you could write them a letter.
If that doesn't get it for you, you could always stop paying the dues..."
I DID!
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: W6EM INTERNET LAWYER
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM writes:
"Guess I'd best get my Amicus Curiae drafted....."
Lee, if your Amicus brief is ANYTHING like your previous "due process" arguments, I can't wait to read it!
Bring it on, Lee! We ALL want to see it!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Plans Federal Court Appeal of Certain BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH writes:
"The only reference on the ARRL web site to interference to a home station in Manassas is a link to a marginally literate filing on the FCC BPL proceeding, by a ham who mentions only that BPL is being used in Manassas and that he lives there and makes some vague assertion about "destruction of the shortwave bands". No specifics and no actual statement that he actually experienced any inteference himself. So that one is specious at best, and doesn't count anyway since there is no record that any kind of actual complaint was ever filed with the FCC"
How can this be?
arrl told us that BPL was an HF crushing, ham radio destroying, 20/S9 QRM monster that would essentially end ham radio as we know it. You mean that its not?
How can this be?
|
| |
|
ARRL Files NASTY Federal Court Appeal of BPL
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARRL seeks review of the orders on the ground that they exceed the Commission's jurisdiction and authority; are contrary to the Communications Act of 1934; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law," the League said in its petition. "ARRL requests that this court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set aside the orders."
Is this legalese for "incompetent"?
The Part 97 revision is the carrot but ultimately amateur radio is going to get beaten with the stick if the ARRL keeps antagonizing the FCC in this manner.
Imlay really broke out the Thesaurus on this one! I don't need one to know what this implies, repeatedly...
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Files NASTY Federal Court Appeal of BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you really want to know, it means
the League is challanging the FCC
and the direction in which
the FCC is going. Remember in the
current Chairman's
Senate confirmation hearings he said,
to paraphrase, I will be guided by
the market place and not by regulations.
Well, neither you nor I nor a guvment
agency can just ignore the law, properly
made regulations, etc and just do what we want.
The League is asking the court to compell
the Commission to folow the law and its
own regulations.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Files NASTY Federal Court Appeal of BPL
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, contends the rule change in the MO&O regarding mobile stations contravenes the International Radio Regulations and the Communications Act of 1934. "The FCC has, in effect, tried to redefine harmful interference," he said. "It can't do that. The Commission doesn't have the authority to do that, and we're going to demonstrate that to the Court of Appeals."
Another idiot at the helm too long. Mobiles are their sole focus & not the fixed station. Perhaps it is the lack of ARRL data on fixed stations that is preventing the FCC from taking their demands seriously? Coupled with a rather poor attitude!
IF the FCC doesn't have the authority to define or redfine anything they see fit in the US, how does it then fall under ITU? If I look at both my FCC licenses, they are all issued by the FCC, not the ITU.
This is going to be one hell of a demonstration folks. I got to ice down the cooler for this one!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Files NASTY Federal Court Appeal of BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would suggest that you read the
US Constitution. You will find
that treaties, like the ITU treaties,
that the US is a signatory to and
that have been ratified by the US
Senate are the law of the land.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
FCC Chairman Touches on BPL Interference Issue in Press Club Speech:
FCC Clarifies Docket Number for Future BPL Comments:
NTIA Study Documents Radio Interference from BPL:
BPL--NAC, Amherst Win More Time:
Broadband Internet Plug and Play
Other News Articles
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
ARNewsline # 1684 -- Nov. 20 2009:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #47 de K7RA:
Technology Enthusiast Boosts Skills with Amateur Radio:
Solar Radio Flux: Slow Upward Trend Since Summer:
|
