Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Court Appeal:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 46
on
November 17, 2006
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Court Appeal:
The Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV) and the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) have filed a joint motion for leave to
intervene in support of the ARRL in its court appeal of the Federal
Communications Commission's Broadband over Power Line (BPL) rules.
The motion to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
is dated November 9 and states: "MSTV and NAB believe that the regulations
under review are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and will
adversely impact their members by, among other things, permitting unlicensed
users of radio spectrum to interfere with licensed uses of the spectrum."
MSTV and NAB are entitled to intervene as a matter of right, so the Court is
expected to grant the motion. As expected, some BPL proponents are seeking
to intervene on the side of the FCC.
ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, welcomed the support of
MSTV and NAB. "It is gratifying that these two prestigious broadcasting
organizations recognize the danger posed to all FCC licensees by the FCC's
flawed BPL rules. It's good to have them on our side."
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 25, No. 46
November 17, 2006
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now all those who have been hot and heavy in their criticism of ARRL should take note and reconsider. You can see the forces are lining up for the legal battle. An entire re-examination of BPL as it is currently operating will occur.
ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, welcomed the support of MSTV and NAB. "It is gratifying that these two prestigious broadcasting organizations recognize the danger posed to all FCC licensees by the FCC's flawed BPL rules. It's good to have them on our side."
Can you imagine a better line-up of any other amateur radio organization and MSTV and NAB on the issue of BPL? ARRL can bring to the table the experiences of its members and the hard work done by the ARRL lab staff, a perfect addition to the material to be presented by MSTV and NAB. When David Sumner said that the ARRL would confront this issue, he meant exactly what he said. This should make all ARRL members pleased with their organization, and all non-members finding a good reason to join their fellow hams in the ARRL.
Sign up with the ARRL. Support the Spectrum Defense fund, and become a part of something positive in the preservation of ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on November 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Can you imagine a better line-up of any other amateur radio organization and MSTV and NAB on the issue of BPL?"
Not trying to be a wise guy, but yes, I can. The line-up would be both better and stronger if the NTIA abandoned its tacit approval of BPL and joined in with the MSTV, the NAB and the ARRL. The poor old FCC and the BPL industry would be alone on the other side. Ah, well, I can dream.......
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a member of the ARRL--I am 'signed up'--let me provide a different perspective and opinion:
1)Unlike other issues, some recent, the ARRL, to my knowledge, has neither openly sought nor openly requested feedback from its full rank and file membership on this issue of suing the gov't (FCC),and as such, there is no evidence that such a dramatic action is supported by the majority of the membership of this non-profit, let alone a majority of the US amateur radio service. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the ARRL has anything but a small gathering of support for this action amongst Part 97 licencees;
2) It is puzzling why said organizations have formally supported the ARRL in it's suit, as their concerns are of a commercial nature (we are decidely non-commercial); any 'issues' regarding Part 15 have been around for decades; and there is NO DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT of BPL upon any of the licensed services so presented.
3) Since it was brought up in comments here, the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund has, to my knowlege, failed to list it's largest donors and respective amounts. It has failed, to my knowledge, to show even a trivial fraction of the ARRL membership is supporting the fund; it has not, to my knowledge, publicly acknowledged that some of it's larger and largest donors may not be licensed ham radio operators, nor affiliates that are directly involved in the ham radio market.
IMO --AS AN ARRL MEMBER-- it is important to ask what is driving this action; who is driving this action; why is this action REALLY being taken; does it have the SUPPORT of the majority ARRL membership; and does it have the SUPPORT of the majority Part 97 licensees.
If we do not have the answers to these questions, in a way that reflects the affairs and interests and of PART 97 licensees AS A WHOLE, then IMO, we may conclude that this is an action of a small group of hams acting as ACTIVISTS, without the full or majority support of Part 97 licensees.
Why is MY ARRL, why is YOUR ARRL--doing this?
Data? Thoughts?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by NN3W on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, Chip there has been evidence of commercial interference. ARINC is having a bitch of an interference issue with a BPL provider at its Half Moon Bay facility.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Notice: 1) ARINC is not a broadcast company; 2) If there is HARMFUL INTERFERENCE, then what is it about the extant Part 15 regulations that precludes resolution of the matter? 3) What efforts have been made to resolve it? 4) Where is the formal complaint on this particular matter before the FCC?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a hard time believing that hams,
who by defintion have a working knowledge
of RF, believe that BPL transmissions
only interfere with ham frequncies.
FLASH! BPL interferes with the users
of every frequency that it is on. Were
it not so, NTIA would notta insisted that
its spectrum be excluded, which it was.
Chip, NTIA would not have standing as
(1) their frequencies are excluded from
BPL, so they have no beef and (2) they
are the guvment and I don't think you
can bring an action against yourownself.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, wrong comment about NTIA.
That was another 1 lander.
Shoulda been I don't think that
the FCC has a good track record
of shutting down nor mitigating
QRM from BPL. There is no will
to do so.
Remember that the Chairman said
in his confirmation hearings that
he believed in the rule of the
marketplace and not regulations.
That is the whole basis of the
action, the FCC must follow the
law and regulations, no matter how it
affects the marketplace.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Chip, wrong comment about NTIA.
That was another 1 lander"
-----------------
This was your comment, not mine. I have not discussed the NTIA.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Articles in QST justify support by MSTV and NAB.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW posts:
"2) It is puzzling why said organizations have formally supported the ARRL in it's suit, as their concerns are of a commercial nature (we are decidely non-commercial); any 'issues' regarding Part 15 have been around for decades; and there is NO DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT of BPL upon any of the licensed services so presented."
This puzzle is just rhetoric.
The concerns of MSTV and NAB are not strictly limited to a "commercial nature." TV and radio broadcast stations also use VHF and UHF for mobile links as one example.
Ample information is there, if you look for it and read it. What I include here is just a tiny sample. You would have to refute the entire body of material on BPL hazards to radio commumication to justify accepting BPL as it is.
"Others at risk
• The "short waves" -- the only part of the radio spectrum that supports long-distance, intercontinental radio communication. The short waves are used for international broadcasting, aeronautical, maritime, disaster relief, and other services including the military.
• The "low-band VHF" frequency range that is heavily used by volunteer fire departments, police, and other first responders.
• Depending on their distance from a BPL system, some public safety and federal government radio systems could receive harmful interference."
ARRL -- The National Association for Amateur Radio
"Studies appended to the League's comments suggest received signal levels of BPL broadband noise at typical amateur stations would be anywhere from 33.7 dB to 65.4 dB higher than typical ambient noise levels in the worst-case situations. "BPL cannot be deployed using amateur allocations in the MF, HF and VHF bands without severely high interference potential," the ARRL reiterated."
This is not the place to question the existence of the threat, but to comment on the support ARRL is receiving from NSTV and NAB. It is not at all puzzling to anyone who looks at the ARRL material on BPL to see why MSTV and NAB would want to join hands with the ARRL on this.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This puzzle is just rhetoric..."
---------------------
EXACTLY!
I am glad that reason has prevailed.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
BPL needs Spectrum Defense Fund action.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the Devil himself contributed to the Spectrum Defense Fund, it would still be a good deed.
Here is a quote from Dave Sumner, K1ZZ in the November 2006 appeal letter:
"A new FCC rule is aimed directly against mobile stations - in all services, not just amateur. The new rule, §15.611(c)(1)(iii), exempts BPL operators from having to do anything to correct interference to mobile operations other than to notch emissions to a level 20 dB (below 30 MHz) or 10 dB (above 30 MHz) below the absolute limit specified elsewhere in the rules. Here's a direct quote from the FCC (emphasis added):
Where an Access BPL operator implements such notching, we will not provide further protection to mobile operations, nor will we require the operator to resolve complaints of harmful interference to mobile operations by taking steps over and above implementing the "notch."
Consider what this means. If a BPL system blankets an area with interference, the FCC will require nothing of the BPL system operator beyond putting a 10- or 20-dB notch on the frequency used by a complaining mobile operator.
This isn't just a proposal. It's a rule that is now in effect. With one stroke, the rights of FCC licensees have been subordinated to those of spectrum polluters!
ARRL measurements and studies show that this leaves the interference 25 dB higher than the median values for man-made noise in residential areas and up to 40 dB higher than the minimum values that amateurs routinely use for reliable communication. And as for other services, if a BPL system prevents a dispatcher from reaching a fire truck or ambulance - well, that's just too bad."
I ask, why would anyone not want to help defend against this?
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is CERTAINLY not the place to discuss the "threat" of BPL--for the simple FACT that there is no DEMONSTRABLE threat to amateur radio, based upon several years of trials and the pure PAUCITY of actionable allegations and the pure PAUCITY of complaints of harmful interference.
Just to bring up a related question...what ham band do you think will be the next one to be re-allocated? My speculation is that 3300 MHz will be the first to go. But I also speculate that enough non-hams have found out enough about ham radio (from this BPL 'adventure' we created) and it's under-utilized spectrum allocations to make the wheels of action turn in the next few years.
So much for placing our eggs in the wrong baskets...
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW contributes:
"This is CERTAINLY not the place to discuss the "threat" of BPL--for the simple FACT that there is no DEMONSTRABLE threat to amateur radio, based upon several years of trials and the pure PAUCITY of actionable allegations and the pure PAUCITY of complaints of harmful interference."
Thus we see why the support of MSTV and NAB given to the ARRL in its defense against BPL is a great puzzle to W1YW, whereas it is no puzzle at all to most of the rest of us.
Perhaps MSTV and NAB see things that W1YW refuses to see.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excuse me--
Who is US?
If you mean Part 97 licensees, I submit to you that there is NO EVIDENCE for support of this initiative(of suing the USG --FCC) beyond a very small fraction of the licensees. If you have evidence to the contrary then--come on old man-- help us out.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I submit to you that there is NO EVIDENCE for support of this initiative(of suing the USG --FCC) beyond a very small fraction of the licensees."
What lunacy! Has the ARRL collected no evidence? Is the ARRL lab a virtual reality arcade? You assert that there is no evidence. Well then, you may be confident that the courts will throw out the case, but the ARRL's legal staff does not think so.
The "evidence" as you would call it is that it is recognized by the courts, moving forward, gathering support, collecting evidence, while on the other hand, your chosen position has none of these beyond your own posts. It is you who are isolated. Provide a list of experts in the ham community who share your views. How do you prove the existance of reality to some one who finds it convenient to deny it? If there are others out there who support your view, encourage them to come forward and post something plausible here.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't want anyone to "share my views". I couldn't care less. I want you to have your OWN views--based upon the facts. Here are the facts with regards to this action by the ARRL:
1) The ARRL has not, to my knowledge, polled the membership to see if it supports--IN A MAJORITRY STANCE-- this effort to sue the FCC;
2) The ARRL has not, to my knowledge, provided any public evidence about ANY NUMBERS regarding support of even a FRACTION (let alone a majority) of the membership in this action to sue the FCC;
3) The ARRL represents only about a 20% fraction of the overall number of Part 97 licencees;
4) The ARRL, to my knowledge, has not publicly disclosed HOW MANY ARRL MEMBERS have actually donated money to the Spectrum Defense Fund (which it is claimed is supporting the costs, in large part, of this action);
5) The ARRL HAS NOT PUBLICLY DISCLOSED, to my knowledge, what ***NON-HAM** companies and organizations have actually provided donations towards this action (directly or indirectly)to the ARRL/NAAR.
6) There is NO EVIDENCE that the Part 97 licensees support this lawsuit of the FCC by the ARRL.
These are the facts. Again, if I am needing knowledge with regard to said facts, then kindly inform myself and others what those FACTS are, and cite them from an accurate and public source.
The members of our great ARRL need to decide if this (IMO) ACTIVIST approach by a **FEW** of its members really represents the wishes of the body in majority. If not then some deep soul-searching about the MISSION of the ARRL and said execution firmly, IMO, needs review.
I am of the opinion that the FACTS which apply to the above will be forthcoming in any 'discovery' phase of this lawsuit. But it helps to publicly discuss it.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
No trumpet music. Keep on the subject.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For the final time so as not to give further occasion to trumpet blasts from those with bizarre approaches to BPL and the ARRL:
1. Organizations of renown have joined together to seek legal remedy for a serious threat to radio communication in general and to hams in particular.
2. A single trumpeter blasts forth on eHam.net with an isolated viewpoint.
3. The preponderance of evidence is recognized by experts as sufficient to move the case forward.
4. The trumpeter offers vociferous assertions.
5. The ARRL directors take action on behalf of their membership and for the good of all hams and for radio communication in general in accordance with the powers given them in the bylaws.
6. The trumpeter faults the ARRL directors for not putting the issue to the membership in the form of a referendum.
7. We, and I speak for myself and the hams I regularly communicate with, welcome the addition of the MSTV and NAB to the ARRL's legal action.
8. The trumpeter, speaking only for himself, offers no hams with expertise on BPL who agree with his position and who share his puzzlement over these organizations' support.
It is time for all hams to be happy with this professional support in this important cause.
|
| |
|
RE: No trumpet music. Keep on the subject.
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The case is not about BPL, although
that triggered the case, it is about
the Commissions filure to follow its
own rules and the law. The law being
the ITU treaty duly ratified by the
US Senate and therefore according
to the Consititution the "law of the
land".
The new Chairman told the Congresscritters
during his confirmation hearings to the
effect that he would be governed my
the market place, not rules.
This case is to test whether the Commission
can regulate following the dictates of the
market place or by the rules and the law.
I can see where the interveners would have a
great interest in the outcome.
So as the previous poster said "Keep on the
subject".
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: No trumpet music. Keep on the subject.
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Correction 3rd line, previous post:
failure vice filure
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"For the final time so as not to give further occasion to trumpet blasts from those with bizarre approaches to BPL and the ARRL:
1. Organizations of renown have joined together to seek legal remedy for a serious threat to radio communication in general and to hams in particular.
2. A single trumpeter blasts forth on eHam.net with an isolated viewpoint.
3. The preponderance of evidence is recognized by experts as sufficient to move the case forward.
4. The trumpeter offers vociferous assertions.
5. The ARRL directors take action on behalf of their membership and for the good of all hams and for radio communication in general in accordance with the powers given them in the bylaws.
6. The trumpeter faults the ARRL directors for not putting the issue to the membership in the form of a referendum.
7. We, and I speak for myself and the hams I regularly communicate with, welcome the addition of the MSTV and NAB to the ARRL's legal action.
8. The trumpeter, speaking only for himself, offers no hams with expertise on BPL who agree with his position and who share his puzzlement over these organizations' support."
----------
I find at least 5 fatal factual errors in the above, particularly with respect to my statements.
Thus, along with your your previous history, I hope you will understand why I cannot give your comments much credence. Your emphasis now is in attacking me, rather than my opinions or the issue at hand.
We will see some troubled times in ham radio, based upon this, IMO, delusional obsession with trying to stop BPL. My prediction is that we will not only see the ARRL lose the case--if it proceeds--but see a drastic fall in membership; a radical change of the guard within the non-profit; and substantial losses of spectrum presently allocated to amateurs. It will be a very different world for US hams by 2010, 2011.
It didn't have to be that way, but that's the way a few hams--a very few hams--played it.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You're right, Chip, if the case
were about BPL, the courts would
most likely yield to the Commission.
However, it is about failure to follow
their own admisitrative rules and
the law.
The outcome, we would hope, would be the
court ordering the FCC top reconsider
their regulations, taking into account
the law. The Court would NOT ban BPL,
nor should they. The Court should make
sure the guvment is following the law.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W0CP on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, you raised some interesting points that indicate a distrust or misunderstanding of the League's governance structure.
*****1) The ARRL has not, to my knowledge, polled the membership to see if it supports--IN A MAJORITRY STANCE-- this effort to sue the FCC;
The League is governed by a 15 member elected board. The board has the authority to make policy and it rarely polls the entire membership (which would cost about $10,000). The unusual exception is when it is making policy on extremely divisive issues. In this case, the directors have pursued all the normal options to force the FCC to enforce the law. The only recourse that remains is through the courts.
********2) The ARRL has not, to my knowledge, provided any public evidence about ANY NUMBERS regarding support of even a FRACTION (let alone a majority) of the membership in this action to sue the FCC;
They are not required to provide evidence that any members support this action. Apparently, after studying the matter, listening to counsel, and informally polling their constituents,they have concluded that this is the appropriate next step in an ongoing effort to stymie the proliferation of BPL. By the way, the directors probably average 50-75 days of hamfests and club meetings per year.
*****3) The ARRL represents only about a 20% fraction of the overall number of Part 97 licencees;
So?? What's your point?
******4) The ARRL, to my knowledge, has not publicly disclosed HOW MANY ARRL MEMBERS have actually donated money to the Spectrum Defense Fund (which it is claimed is supporting the costs, in large part, of this action);
Again, so what?? I have, for what it's worth.
5) The ARRL HAS NOT PUBLICLY DISCLOSED, to my knowledge, what ***NON-HAM** companies and organizations have actually provided donations towards this action (directly or indirectly)to the ARRL/NAAR.
Before running for office, each director candidate is required to submit a resume and consent to a background check, the purpose of which is to identify any real or potential conflicts of interest, and to disqualify any candidates who might have conflicting business interests. I think you can safely assume that the directors are making decisions that they belive are in the best interests of amateur radio. While it is unlikely that the League has received any financial support from commercial interests, I don't understand why they wouldn't welcome it or why they would or should disclose it.
*****6) There is NO EVIDENCE that the Part 97 licensees support this lawsuit of the FCC by the ARRL.
The board supported it. That's all that's required under by the by-laws of the organization. Moreover, since when do all Part 97 licensees have any say whatsoever in setting League policy? The answer is - never.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I did no such thing. The issue of trust isn't even in my vocabulary on this subject. Why should it be?
I have presented opinions that ask proper questions about the ARRL's actions on this matter, who supports it, and who is driving it. It is of no consequence to me whether the STRUCTURE OF GOVERNANCE allows the ARRL to proceed without any global solicitation or feedback on the matter.
I didn't say whether the ARRL COULD proceed as it did, I am saying that as a MEMBER it had and has NO evidence for SUPPORT from the majority membership on this action.
Do you dispue this? If you do, then kindly provide the evidence that shows said support.
I am sure that it would be enlightening to the FULL membership to understand exactly what SUPPORT was manifest in making this move.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, I cannot imagine that the
majority of hams don't want the
FCC to follow the rules and the
law. Why do you think that they
do, are you an anarchist??
BTW, I'm a League member and support
the FCC following the rules, not
the market place.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ronnie,
Please stop this assertion posing as fact. There is no reason to believe that the FCC has not invoked the rules and the law. Intent and or gross negligence would have to be clearly shown in that case. I see no such thing.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By Treaty, the guvment must eliminate
harmful interference to licensed services,
not MITIGATE them as the rule the FCC
made.
This is a FACT, in fact, even the short
article at the head of this makes note
of "contrary to law".
I would suggest you read the filings.
Were this just a we don't want BPL,
the court sould simply defer to the FCC.
The whole thing is about the procedures used
in adopting the rule and the rule being
contrary to law.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again, please stop assertions posing as fact.
IMO it is embarrassing for us as a service to do so.
Also, please don't try to posit me as, what Borat would say, a "retard": the issue you refer to is not knowledge of the relevant law, but whether HARMFUL INTERFERENCE existed.
Focus on the FACTS. The facts are what will render this complaint, IMO, as a non-issue, but with profound implications directly to the non-profit ARRL and indrectly to the Part 97 licensees and their future frequency allocations.
Basically, with this court case, the ARRL will remind everyone in the telecom and wireless community who we are, how weak we are in the overall landscape of the 'public interest', and open us up for justificable spectrum re-allocation.
Actions have consequences. Call that a pearl of wisdom.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, Chip, if you can't understand
the filing, the bais for this thread,
that I emailed you, I'm sorry.
Apparently, you're one who can't deal with
the facts. I learned a long time ago you
can't reason with someone like that.
OUT
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I told you, I am well familiar with the filings.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why do you think that they
do, are you an anarchist?? "
------------------
Is this the name you give to people who do not support your position?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Moreover, since when do all Part 97 licensees have any say whatsoever in setting League policy? The answer is - never. "
---------------
Wow.
You guys are just full of naked truth tody.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W6AH on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First I would like to thank Walt Stinson, W0CP, for taking the time to write a concise and cogent response to some of the misinformation and misdirection that W1YW is spreading. For those of you that are unaware Walt is a former Director and Vice Director for the Rocky Mountain Division of the ARRL.
Let me reiterate some of the points Walt has made.
The ARRL is a business. It's Staff answers to the Board of Directors and only the Board of Directors. It operates under 501c3 of the US Tax Code which classifies it as a NonProfit Corporation. But a corporation nonetheless. Membership in the ARRL does not infer ownership only the right to vote for elected officials. Hiring of Senior Staff members at least requires approval of the board. As a member you have the right to vote for Directors and SCMs and have the right to express your views but nothing beyond that. There is nothing compelling the Staff or Board to consult with its membership before taking action. The Advisory Committees that serve the board are exactly that ADVISORY.
As to W1YW assertion that the ARRL represents only 20% of licensed amateurs he is correct on the surface but very misleading. The ARRL's membership consisted of a majority of licensed hams for most of it's 90 Year history. It has only been in the last 20 to 25 years with the relaxation of Code requirements and the institution of the VEC Testing Program that League Membership percentage has dropped. This as a result of the mushrooming number of new licensees. Prior to that ARRL Texts and W1AW Code Practice Sessions were the only practical path to a Ham Radio License. Because of this large percentages of Hams joined the league when they gained their licenses. Though the League's membership is small there is no denying the fact the ARRL is the largest membership organization in the US today and the only Amateur Radio organization in the US today. And it has held that distinction for its entire history. Though there have been a number of different efforts to establish Ham Radio Magazines none have ever evolved into a membership organization.
So Chip, YW, lay off the smoke and mirrors.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Exactly what year or years in the last half century do you think the ARRL had a 50% + membership of licensed Part 97 'hams'?
I've been around for 40 years now as a ham. First licensed as WN1HBX. Most of those as an ARRL member. I don't recall anything like this. Please cite some real info, or we shall assume we are "misdirected".
73,
Chip W1YW
ARRL Member
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Though the League's membership is small there is no denying the fact the ARRL is the largest membership organization in the US today and the only Amateur Radio organization in the US today."
------------------------------
Hmmm...sounds like you are misdirecting to me.... there are many many Amateur Radio organizations in the US today. Yes; I deny this.
The fact that the largest one only has about 20% only indicates that hams, as a whole, do not feel compelled to be joiners; have many different points of view; and no one can 'speak for ham radio'--except hams themselves.
I like that. Pluralism at its best.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"First I would like to thank Walt Stinson, W0CP, for taking the time to write a concise and cogent response to some of the misinformation and misdirection that W1YW is spreading. For those of you that are unaware Walt is a former Director and Vice Director for the Rocky Mountain Division of the ARRL.
Let me reiterate some of the points Walt has made.
The ARRL is a business. It's Staff answers to the Board of Directors and only the Board of Directors. It operates under 501c3 of the US Tax Code which classifies it as a NonProfit Corporation. But a corporation nonetheless. Membership in the ARRL does not infer ownership only the right to vote for elected officials. Hiring of Senior Staff members at least requires approval of the board. As a member you have the right to vote for Directors and SCMs and have the right to express your views but nothing beyond that. There is nothing compelling the Staff or Board to consult with its membership before taking action. The Advisory Committees that serve the board are exactly that ADVISORY. "
---------------------
I couldn't care less about the structure of governance of MY ARRL and YOUR ARRL with respect to this topic. The point is that the ARRL neither solicited nor gathered a majority opinion from its members before and on this lawsuit action. Basically MY ARRL and YOUR ARRL is acting without guidance from the membership as a whole on an historic and IMO dangerous stance.
I am calling the disaster as it happens. You may disagree with this opinion; that's quite OK.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The ARRL is a business..."
--------------------------------
Well, no it's not. It is a non-profit organization. I could state the mission, but that is exactly the main issue of this topic, whether you realize it or not.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Deadline extended to accept members' input on "omnibus" Report and Order (Nov 15, 2006) -- The ARRL has extended the deadline to receive members' input concerning the FCC's "omnibus" Report and Order (R&O) ...."
-----------------------
The above is a quoted reproduction of small snippet from the ARRL web site ((C) 2006), posted under fair use of copyright, in the discussion of this news story topic we are responding to. See www.arrl.org for the original piece in toto.
This quoted public statement is an announcement which makes it clear that the ARRL is both capable and one might say comfortable with soliciting opinions from THE MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE. Hence the fact that it did NOT DO SO with respect to this lawsuit of the USG-FCC is not the fault of some absence of (or prohibitively difficult) mechanism, but an INTENDED decision to not request comment from the MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE before suing the FCC.
It is reasonable to speculate and opine that with this intended absence of membership feedback, the ARRL decided that it did not value the comments of the MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE before suing the FCC.
The question is: W-H-Y?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W6AH on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
""The ARRL is a business..."
--------------------------------
Well, no it's not. It is a non-profit organization. I could state the mission, but that is exactly the main issue of this topic, whether you realize it or not."
I have news for you. ALL 501c3s are businesses. They have to file Articles of Incorporation to obtain their Tax Status.
W1YW wrote:
"The fact that the largest one only has about 20% only indicates that hams, as a whole, do not feel compelled to be joiners; have many different points of view; and no one can 'speak for ham radio'--except hams themselves.
I like that. Pluralism at its best."
You and any other Amateur are free to start your own organization. If so many Hams share your views on this matter and your antipathy towards the ARRL it ought to be a snap to build an organization that dwarfs the ARRL in no time !
And I know your first recruit. You can get W9WHE.
Until that time the Organized Voice is the voice that is heard.
W1YW wrote:
I couldn't care less about the structure of governance of MY ARRL and YOUR ARRL with respect to this topic. The point is that the ARRL neither solicited nor gathered a majority opinion from its members before and on this lawsuit action. Basically MY ARRL and YOUR ARRL is acting without guidance from the membership as a whole on an historic and IMO dangerous stance.
This thread is suppose to be about the NAB and MSTV filing a motion to intervene with the DC Court of Appeals. Yet in your initial post in this thread you cited neither organization. Rather you chose to turn it into a tirade about the ARRL. In that post you used the acronym ARRL appears no less than 9 times. And we even had an ex-Director enter into the discussion to straighten you. Seeing as you did not rebutt a single point of his we can take it that you agree with him.
As to the "MY ARRL" bolonga I have news for you, it's not your ARRL.....IT NEVER WAS ! Like any other business power flows from the Top down. All you can do is agree or disagree. But disagreeing and then proclaiming your membership in the very same organization makes you look foolish. After all it is your dues that provides the financial support the ARRL needs to pursue these actions.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W6AH on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL can solicit the opinion of their membership at any time for any matter. This in no way binds the ARRL to seek approval from their membership before taking action.
Now Chip unless you can get back on topic I will not respond further.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This thread is suppose to be about the NAB and MSTV filing a motion to intervene with the DC Court of Appeals. Yet in your initial post in this thread you cited neither organization. Rather you chose to turn it into a tirade about the ARRL..."
--------------------------------------
I tell you what: If I failed to make reference in the initial post, then I turn in my license and leave ham radio. If I did make an allusion to them, you apologize for your false characterizations and turn in your license and leave ham radio.
That's fair. On your honor now: accept my offer.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Until that time the Organized Voice is the voice that is heard."
------------------------------
I totally agree.
Of course, one should not confuse an "Organized Voice" as necessarily meaning a 'voice of an organization'.
BTW, do I appear 'scattered' to you?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W6AH on November 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA wrote:
"Can you imagine a better line-up of any other amateur radio organization and MSTV and NAB on the issue of BPL? ARRL can bring to the table the experiences of its members and the hard work done by the ARRL lab staff, a perfect addition to the material to be presented by MSTV and NAB."
The NAB's entry into this legal proceeding conveys to the judge that there is more a stake in these proceedings than the preservation of a hobby. As I stated last week the commission under it's last two chairmen has been on a mission to open up access to Frequency Spectrum to any company that says it has an idea to bring internet to the masses with total disregard to the havoc it will wreak with licensed users.
The way the FCC has been doing this is by using Part 15 as a catch all in which to dump these proposed services. And now they want to up the power limits on such devices. Do you want to see the mess caused by the expansion of Part 15 Devices ? Just checkout the comments filed by the Society of Broadcast Engineers in the proceedings to expand the usage of Part 15 devices in the TV Spectrum. And those problems came from the willingness of Ham Radio to surrender parts of it's 2.4 Ghz allocation. See what happens when you start down that road ?
To be sure the NAB and MSTV will not be the only organization to involve themselves in this proceeding. The Society of Broacast Engineers will address the court is some capacity And I will quote from the summary paragraph to their reply comments
"26. No one, and especially not Part 15 users, should be given permission to interfere with licensed services. Allowing data signals extending up to 80 MHz to be coupled into the existing grid of mostly overhead power lines would be an interference train wreck waiting to happen. Such a system would cause chronic interference to licensed users of that same spectrum, and there is no credible engineering basis to indicate otherwise. This was the fatal defect of the RM-10836 proposal,6 and is also the fatal defect of BPL. BPL is a fundamentally flawed proposal that should not be adopted.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The NAB's entry into this legal proceeding conveys to the judge that there is more a stake in these proceedings than the preservation of a hobby..."
------------------------------------
Part 97--the Amateur Radio SERVICE-- is not a H-O-B-B-Y sir. As such it was never ever intended to be "preserved". It's intention is and was to form a skilled pool of those in the radio art; foster good will; and to provide emergency communications service. All of these have an innate requirement for EVOLUTION--not PRESERVATION.
Please review the factual accuracy of your statements. For example, you made one heck of a zinger earlier about my supposed failure to first-post relative to the subject; your statement is demonstrated as false.
What all this is taking us is that Part 97 licensees have SOME whose grasp of the facts is, to be charitable, incomplete.
But they sure have the 'voice' to express!
IMO this is publicly embarrassing and does npt reflect well on the SERVICE.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A new FCC rule is aimed directly against mobile stations - in all services, not just amateur. The new rule, §15.611(c)(1)(iii), exempts BPL operators from having to do anything to correct interference to mobile operations other than to notch emissions to a level 20 dB (below 30 MHz) or 10 dB (above 30 MHz) below the absolute limit specified elsewhere in the rules. Here's a direct quote from the FCC (emphasis added)..."
--------------------------
Historically, the allowance of privilege to mobile service in Part 97 have often had less leeway than fixed. Am I the only one here who was licensed before 1970? Do we have some Hi-Q memory on issues some may dislike remembering?
I think this is a fair and reasonable rule that allows mobile Part 97 operators to enjoy the service without some bizarre super-privilege of demanding 'radio free roads', parking places, garages, dirt pads, in all circumstances in all places. It is a very wise decision that addresses Part 97 usage balanced with other needs. It has ZERO negative effect on the Part 97 mission.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
It is good to have them on OUR side.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, welcomed the support of MSTV and NAB. "It is gratifying that these two prestigious broadcasting organizations recognize the danger posed to all FCC licensees by the FCC's flawed BPL rules. It's good to have them on our side."
I just thought that it would be good to bring this string of posts back to the original good news after a long parade led by a master trumpter who just loves to take center stage. Eccentric posters sometimes encourage others to clarify the issue, and in this instance more than ample sound contributions have been made as a result.
Thanks you MSTV and NAB for joining with ARRL, and we all look forward to the future reports on the progress of this legal challenge. Thanks to all those who added sincere insights to this very good news item.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been thinking of a succinct comment that really summarizes the issue, and, IMO, the failings of the present action by the ARRL---- and here it is. Feel free to quote me on it:
" The ARRL lawsuit against the FCC over BPL has the support of two broadcaster organizations--non hams--but where is the evidence that it has the support of HAMS, that is, the majority membership of the ARRL , let alone the majority of Part 97 licensees?"--Nathan Cohen, Ph.D. ARS W1YW
I hope this helps. I am personally convinced that the crux of the complaint and whether it has merit will depend in part on the answer to this question.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA wrote:
"Can you imagine a better line-up of any other amateur radio organization and MSTV and NAB on the issue of BPL?"
Actually, yes.
Had REALLY INFLUENTIAL HF users (i.e. Millitary or NITA) stepped up and objected, BPL would be dead already. Pity they don't see BPL as the end of the world.
++++++++++
"If the devil himself contributed to the spectrum defense fund, it would be good".
Well, be careful whom you associate with. Those that lay doen with dogs, get up with fleas.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW writes:
"The ARRL is a business...".
Darn right it is a business!
Just check arrl's own website:
"Be it known that we, the subscribers, do hereby associate ourselves as a body politic and corporate pursuant to the statute laws of the State of Connecticut regulating the formation and organization of corporations without capital stock and the following are our Articles of Association"
Its a corporation and a business. It may be non-profit, but its still a busines.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Business" means "for profit". Ask a lawyer for the definition.
The ARRL is not a business.
Sorry.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Concerning Appeals to Authority
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since the post of the appeal to authority (usually the weakest approach to pursuasion) by W1YW, it is fitting that other appeals to authority be noted.
For one, the ARRL has published many enlightening articles in QST on the threat of harmful interference from BPL as it now exists. I have not seen any correspondence from the membership published in QST that denies the threatening nature of BPL. Like it or not, the ARRL has a long standing and honorable world reputation as an authority on amateur radio communication matters in particular, and radio communication matters in general. If we are to look toward authorities for guidance on this issue, then placing our trust in the ARRL as supported by the publication of their findings and the reasons they give for their position, then our trust in their authority in this matter is well grounded (did I create a pun?). In any case, I contribute to the Spectrum Defense Fund, and I approve the actions in regard to BPL taken by the ARRL. - Ray Mullin, Ph.D., AI2IA, member ARRL, life member and past secretary VWOA.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I made no appeal to authority.
My point is that the ARRL does not have the mandate of the radio amateurs in the United States, nor its smaller slice of the pie--its membership--to justify this action as indicative of the best interests of Part 97 licensees.
I have no problem with a 'splinter group' filing a 'nuisance lawsuit', which this is, IMO. I do have a problem, and I expect many others do as well, with the ARRL acting in 'the best interests of amateur radio' in justifying this lawsuit.
How, pray was THAT determined?
Let me ask you a question, a scenario to 'fantasize on': after this case cost $1.6 mil, and the bulk of the costs are eaten up by non-ham contributions to the SDF and the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP DUES, and the suit FAILS, then what, exactly is the Plan B?
Where is the RISK MANAGEMENT for the MEMBERS, let alone the PART 97 LICENSEES?
How much GOOD WILL will be burnt?
IF the members had an active voice in this decision, and THEN decided to push it to the BOD, I would have no problem with the proceeding action as REPRESENTING the ARRL.
I would merely disagree with the action, rather than the shear absence of membership feedback to arrive there.
So, justify the action. Tell us why the membership at large was left out of this. Don't tell me, and us, that the Board had a RIGHT, tell us why it wasn't WRONG to solicit the membership.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by AI2IA on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ho hum. It looks like W1YW has run out of melodies and is playing the same old song. I should think that he has gotten a good share of coverage in this one. Where by the way, are his supporters with their anti-lawsuit me-too's? Come forward please. It is time for all good hams to come to the aid of his position, if you think it reasonable. Oh, and while you're at it, share the reasons for your puzzlement as to why the MSTV and NAB would support the ARRL. It will keep these posts going, because I have had enough on this one.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, I think your comments have been very enlightening.
Sometimes you learn quite a lot by just letting people rattle away.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW writes:
"Business" means "for profit". Ask a lawyer for the definition".
Nonsence.
The truth is that non-profit businesses DO need a business license in most places. Here is just one of THOUSANDS of examples anyone can find with a simple Google search:
"Do Non-Profit Organizations need a business license? Yes. Non-Profit organizations located within the City limits are required to obtain a business license".
See: http://www.ci.redding.ca.us/cclerk/buslicapp.htm#Do%20Non-Profit%20Organizations%20need%20a%20business%20license
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
arrl is a business, just like any other. They just happen to claim to be non-profit.
They have a CEO, a Board of Directors and employees. They are a corporation. They sell products. They transact business in the State of Conn.
arrl IS a business.
|
| |
|
RE: Concerning Appeals to Authority
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA writes:
"I have not seen any correspondence from the membership published in QST that denies the threatening nature of BPL"
And you are suprised?
You don't think arrl is going to give voice to anyone that disagrees with official arrl propiganda, now do you? The fact that arrl chooses not to publish dissenting opinion proves nothing, except that arrl is intollerant of people that disagree.
Now sit down, shut up, and send in your money.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am sorry, but legally non-profits are not formal 'businesses'.
Of course in the (sometimes) la-la land of the Law, one might sometimes envision something that is not a 'business' being required to have a 'business license'.
As I said, check it out with a lawyer.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by AE6RO on November 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Fie on the BPL monster! Fie, fie, fie! AE6RO
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W8MU on November 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sir,
I don't recall the constituency being surveyed by the Congress of the United States prior to the invasion of Iraq, or the passage of the Clean Air Act, or the adoption of NAFTA, either.
You have described, in excruciating detail, that you do not understand how a representative democracy works, nor how a not-for-profit organization works.
The only right held by ARRL members is the right to elect (or fail to re-elect) Directors. By the way, this is a right granted us by the ARRL articles of incorporation, not by law or the IRS code.
You can voice your opinion about ARRL action to your director, to any officer of the organization, to any member of the executive committee. Having held membership in three ARRL divisions (Great Lakes, Southeast, and Delta) each of the three directors welcomed comments (begged for them, in fact) on a regular basis. All accepted comments regardless of membership status, although each typically stated they listened closer to the constituiencies they represented.
The ARRL has not kept the possibility of a lawsuit a secret. It has been mentioned as a possibility
You rationally believe ANY service doesn't know of our allocations? Anyone in that position in industry, dealing with the FCC, will know the allocation for all users, including NTIA (the largest user).
As for the merits of the suit against the FCC, apparently the NAB et al believe it to be meritorious enough to join the suit on behalf of the ARRL. I'll leave it to the lawyers on staff and on retainer by the ARRL to put the merits of the case before the Court.
Meanwhile, if you so passionately disagree with the actions of the ARRL Board, then vote out your director or run for the position yourself.
73 de W8MU
Dayton, Ohio
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W8MU on November 23, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sir,
As a former executive with a 501(c)(3) organization, I state for the record that most certainly a not-for-profit organization can be a business. Check out your local not-for-profit hospital, for one example. Perhaps your local zoo might be a second example.
And, check with the Secretary of State for Connecticut. I believe you will find Articles of Incorporation and corporate bylaws on file there. Chances are the local jurisdiction for Newington, CT, has issued a business license for the ARRL.
73 de W8MU (Marty)
Dayton, Ohio
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello W8MU,
Vent all you want. But keep it away from personal attacks and false charaterizations.
1)The reality is that THE ARRL is suing the FCC without a sense of the the membership's position;
2)Not-for-profits are not formally businesses. Look it up in a legal dictionary and/or ask your attorney.
Is it possible for some of you to manage to disagree without attacking the person you disagree with?
You really need to appreciate that it is LIKELY that others read this thread and form opinions about HAM RADIO based upon them. And we come off, IMO, as being (to be charitable) misinformed; contentious; contrary to the public need; propagandists; defamatory (on some occassions); and basically mean-spirited.
In many ways, we basically , IMO, look to others the way we look at CB'ers.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You have described, in excruciating detail, that you do not understand how a representative democracy works, nor how a not-for-profit organization works"
------------------
Good thing this wasn't addressed regarding me, as it is clearly defamatory. Be careful to not pose opinion as (false and malicious and injurious) fact.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W6AH on November 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
""You have described, in excruciating detail, that you do not understand how a representative democracy works, nor how a not-for-profit organization works"
------------------
Good thing this wasn't addressed regarding me, as it is clearly defamatory. Be careful to not pose opinion as (false and malicious and injurious) fact."
Interesting, I thought of exactly the same thing when I read Point 3 in your original post. No facts or names were presented to back up your charge just unsubstantiated assertions.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am prepared to pursue any formal complaint. Not out of court: trial.
OK?
Hope this helps. I don't cry wolf.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am re-posting Point 3) because of the false assertion that it is defamatory:
" 3) Since it was brought up in comments here, the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund has, to my knowlege, failed to list it's largest donors and respective amounts. It has failed, to my knowledge, to show even a trivial fraction of the ARRL membership is supporting the fund; it has not, to my knowledge, publicly acknowledged that some of it's larger and largest donors may not be licensed ham radio operators, nor affiliates that are directly involved in the ham radio market"
This statement is factually correct. If someone has info that indicates that it is posed as knowingly false, with intent, I invite you to public show that here. To wit: demonstrate that my knowledge is in contradiction to the above statement.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W6AH on November 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
"This statement is factually correct. If someone has info that indicates that it is posed as knowingly false, with intent, I invite you to public show that here. To wit: demonstrate that my knowledge is in contradiction to the above statement."
The only verifiable statement in that entire paragraph is the very first sentence. And that is the one statement you qualify as being unsure of.
W1YW wrote:
"the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund has, to my knowlege, failed to list it's largest donors and respective amounts"
The ARRL is not required to list the donors to any specific undertaking. That is between the parties involved and the Taxman. The ARRL is bound by law to protect the Privacy of it's donors. That means the ARRL must seek approval before publishing their names.
W1YW wrote:
"It has failed, to my knowledge, to show even a trivial fraction of the ARRL membership is supporting the fund"
Just because you have the ability to get on a public internet forum and level the charge doesn't make it true. And using vagurities like the phrase "trivial fraction" ? I would expect better of a college undergraduate much less someone who purports to hold a Phd. As to the content of the statement it fails on 2 counts. First it assumes that members like yourself who oppose the ARRL's action remain members. I submit that logic would imply that members who oppose the League's Action and feel strongly about it would leave the ARRL rather than support it with their dues. It also fails on the count that ARRL Members who support the league on this matter would automatically donate funds to the Defense Fund. I submit there are many members who support the League's actions that do not possess the financial resources to afford to donate to The Defense Fund at this time.
W1YW wrote:
"it has not, to my knowledge, publicly acknowledged that some of it's larger and largest donors may not be licensed ham radio operators, nor affiliates that are directly involved in the ham radio market"
Here is where your argument falls flat on it's face. In it's latest Annual Statement for Fiscal Year 2005 the ARRL lists 99 donors by name and states that it had 26 additional donors who wished to remain anonymous. Of the 99 Donors listed 94 are either from individual hams, their estates or Amateur Radio related business. The five who do not fall into those categories are United Technologies, Corporation for National Community Service, Microsoft, ExxonMobil and the Gryphon Fund. In that report which was signed off by a Certfied Public Accountant the ARRL denoted donations of excess of $10,000. The donations by Microsoft and ExxonMobil did not receive such designations. The Gryphon did exceed that mark. Then stop to consider the ARRL received donations in excess $10,000 from 18 different individual Hams or their estates. As to the monies donate by United Technologies and CNCC, in the discussion section the ARRL listed exactly the amount of money received from those donors and explained that they are or were Community Service Grants earmarked for specific programs.
There is NOTHING in that Report to even suggest, as you assert, that the ARRL's Action is motivated by anything other than what the Board of Directors sees as what is best for the ARRL, it's members and employees.
QED
ref: http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/2005/Annual-Report.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W1YW wrote:
"This statement is factually correct."
The statement has been proven patently false.
What it is is an empty charge without a single hard fact or reference to back it up. Just the hollow rejoinder "to my knowledge" which should be accurately rephrased "to my ignorance" !
So why is it that you besmirch the integrity of the ARRL ? Taken in the context of your complete statement your charge is both "defamatory" AND "injurious"
So why don't you make like tardy student and go back and do your homework lest you be thought of as the Nutty Professor.
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Finally some progress. And, again, there was no defamation in Point 3.
Let's leave your belligerant effort to make this a personal attack and get at some meat.
OK, we now have SOME info here on the fact that there are DONORS TO THE ARRL that are NOT IN ANY WAY RELATED to ham radio. AT least ONE OR SOME of these have COMMERCIAL INTERESTS in WIRELESS INTERNET and its INFRASTRUCTURE/ COMPONENTS, of which BPL is such an option. And we also have ANONYMOUS DONORS.
Could you kindly NOW cite the relevant public information with regard to the SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND. Kindly tell us something about THOSE DONORS. You fail to distinguish between donors to the ARRL overall and the SDF.
I still do NOT have knowledge on the donors to the SDF. Hence my STATEMENT is both FACTUAL AND ACCURATE.
Do you? Does anyone?
I will be happy to update my view subject to facts, which was, as you will publicly note, my query very early on in this discussion.
To wit: Who ARE the donors to the SDF?
That is hardly a 'nutty ' question, nor a defamatory one.
Who ARE the donors to the SDF?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"W1YW wrote:
"It has failed, to my knowledge, to show even a trivial fraction of the ARRL membership is supporting the fund"
Just because you have the ability to get on a public internet forum and level the charge doesn't make it true. And using vagurities like the phrase "trivial fraction" ? I would expect better of a college undergraduate much less someone who purports to hold a Phd. As to the content of the statement it fails on 2 counts. First it assumes that members like yourself who oppose the ARRL's action remain members. I submit that logic would imply that members who oppose the League's Action and feel strongly about it would leave the ARRL rather than support it with their dues. It also fails on the count that ARRL Members who support the league on this matter would automatically donate funds to the Defense Fund. I submit there are many members who support the League's actions that do not possess the financial resources to afford to donate to The Defense Fund at this time. "
-----------------
I am sorry you have raised ambiguities and fatuosities, IMO, that have nothing to do with the comment so posed. Because it is important, because it is reasonable, because it is relevant, because it is not defamatory, because I am an ARRL member, I will pose it in a way that now incorporates this new knowledge about the OVERALL donor situation, since, according to your comments, we have NO KNOWLEDGE on the actual DONORS to the SDF, only the overall DONOR POOL, which by definition, must so become an upper limit to the number of SDF donors, no?
For the sake of this specific comment, I shall assume your public statements are correct. I take no responsibility for the accuracy of your statements, nor mine, in this context, if yours were incorrect.
Let's see... there were 125 donors... take out a reasonable number who are assumed to be non-hams, divide by the number of members, multiply by 100 to get a ROUGH percentage; that's not nutty is it?
By Gum, I get a fraction of 1/10th of 1%! Let's say that again for emphasis-- LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF 1%.
So, rewording the above statement, with said additional fact, we get (with the above caveat with respect to the info you provided)..
THE ARRL HAS SUCCEEDED IN SHOWING THAT LESS THAN **ONE TENTH OF 1%** OF ITs MEMBERS FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND.
As ARRL members are able to donate even trivial amounts to the fund, such as the price of a pack of ciggies or a moonpie with a diet coke, this would suggest that the membership DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND.
Now, it is also relevant to ask if SOME members indicate they want the fund, and expect to have it do things like sue the FCC (USG)--but darn if they'll give up even chump change for it. Can we get a handle on THOSE numbers?
Why, that might take the suipport to sue the FCC from a FRACTION of 1% to well, maybe even a percent! IT is intriguing and important to have the data to find this out. Any info?
Not so nutty it would seem...
73,
chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The ARRL is not required to list the donors to any specific undertaking"
-----------------------------
That doesn't mean the membership shouldn't be so informed. The SDF is being used, as a financial support mechanism, to REPRESENT the MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARRL-- as TAKING A DISPUTATIOUS POSITION AGAINST THE US GOVERNMENT.
It is both relevant and reasonable to know WHO SUPPORTS this lawsuit within the membership. Can you or anyone make the case that the ARRL MEMBERSHIP supports it?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I submit there are many members who support the League's actions that do not possess the financial resources to afford to donate to The Defense Fund at this time"
-------------
OK, so they don't want to donate the cost of a pack of ciggies, or a moonpie with a diet coke, to the cause.
How many?
If I were the USG and Current, I would ask WHO is posing the lawsuit? If it is a non-profit that claims to be ACTING ON BEHALF of its membership, I would ask what evidence there was to support that statement. If the non-profit claimed to be ACTING ON BEHALF of amateur radio, I would certainly wish to take such a claim seriously if there was evidence to support it.
Anyone can make a formal complaint (lawsuit). In this case, given that there is no evidence of majority support by the membership of the ARRL, it would have made more sense to remove the membered non-profit from that small coterie of hams that actually support such a suit.
We should assume that the objective of the complaint is to force action upon the FCC without going through the entire litigation process. That makes sense if the plaintiff is actually representing--REPRESENTNG-- a huge constituency. But you can't pretend you have a huge constituency.
I think the lawsuit should go to its completion at this point, in part because the complaint has no tangible support of the amateur radio service as a whole, nor the ARRL membership in anything but, apparently, a very small fraction.
To put it succinctly--the FCC shouldn't cave; there is no substantial ham constituency that awaits the outcome and is affected by it. Indeed, the public needs demand resolution, not caving.
My opinion. Yours may differ.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 25, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW, this notion that non-profits have an overwhelming pool of people that 'support' the cause but can't donate even chump change must confront the success story of Berea College--which recently received generous gifts, almost all in small amounts, from the good people of the Appalachian region, many if not most of which are of modest and fixed incomes.
How much did they get? I believe it was in the area of $100,000,000.
So don't cry 'cheap' OM; people support what they believe in. Even if it's modest when coming from their pocketbooks and wallets..
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by QSYING on November 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Debate over whether ARRL is a business or a not-for-profit and whether Amateur Radio is a hobby or a service helps demonstrate why eHam.net discussions, which could be valuable and useful, are often neither.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL Cour
|
|
|
by W1YW on November 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When we deal with the government, it is important to not lose site of who we are: that is why the clarification is provided.
If you really want to PROTECT THE SPECTRUM we use, then show we are savvy enough to be its stewards.
I hope that helps.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Broadcasters Intervene to Support ARRL in BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm looking forward to the outcome of this litigation. But, let us hope that in the unlikely event arrl prevails, that FCC does not make the Amateur Service exempt from Part 97 protections.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Last Chance to Save Our H.F. Bands:
After The Dust Settles What's Left?
World's Broadcasters Join Anti-BPL Chorus:
Manassas Virginia BPL Update:
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
Other News Articles
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
Indonesia To Launch Orari Satellite Next Year:
Radio Enthusiasts Help Red Cross During Games:
|
