eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Court Appeal:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 48 on December 8, 2006
Website: http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!

ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Court Appeal:

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, is urging League members to turn their outrage at the FCC's unreasonably favorable treatment of unlicensed BPL systems into generous donations to the 2007 ARRL Spectrum Defense Campaign. The ARRL is suing the Commission in the US District Court of Appeals -- DC Circuit on the ground the FCC concocted rules to -- in Sumner's words -- "accommodate a polluter of the radio spectrum" at the expense of the licensed users it's supposed to protect.

"The BPL rules adopted in 2004 were bad enough," Sumner stressed in an appeal for member contributions to the Spectrum Defense Campaign to help cover the considerable expense of the court appeal. "The rules adopted in 2006 are intolerable. Never before has an unintentional emitter been given a free pass to interfere with licensed radio services."

The ARRL's suit will focus in part on a new FCC rule aimed directly at mobile stations in all radio services, including public safety systems, that the Commission slipped into its August 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) that dealt with various petitions, including one from ARRL, to reconsider portions of the October 2004 BPL Report and Order (R&O) establishing rules governing BPL systems. 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 insufficient to resolve harmful interference complaints.

"This isn't just a proposal. It's a rule that is now in effect," Sumner points out in his letter. "With one stroke, the rights of FCC licensees have been subordinated to those of spectrum polluters!"

The League further maintains that the FCC erred in declining to adjust the 40 dB per decade "extrapolation factor" applied to emission measurements performed at distances from power lines other than those specified in Part 15. The existing Part 15 rule causes test results to underestimate actual field strength, the ARRL has asserted, arguing that a figure closer to 20 dB per decade is appropriate. Sumner says the FCC simply didn't listen, however.

"Without even attempting to address this evidence, the FCC simply concluded: 'No new information has been submitted that would provide a convincing argument for modifying this requirement at this time,'" he said. "Information was submitted; the FCC ignored it."

Sumner says that determining the outcome you want and adjusting the facts accordingly doesn't constitute reasoned decision-making, as the League will demonstrate in court. "We will show that the FCC did not come to a reasoned decision in developing its BPL rules," he said.

Highlighting the extreme importance of the League's BPL lawsuit, Sumner warns that even if BPL should disappear tomorrow, "the FCC's preference for unlicensed, unintentional emitters over the interests of its licensees will remain on the books."

"Bad rules left unchallenged will lead to even worse rules later," he said.

Sumner reviews the League's history of BPL dealing with the FCC in his "It Seems to Us . . . " editorial, "Pretending to Sleep" on page 9 of October QST http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2006/10/01/1/.

ARRL Chief Development Officer Mary Hobart, K1MMH, says that while ARRL 2007 Spectrum Defense Fund donors have been quite generous, there's still some distance to go before the campaign reaches its goal of $250,000 by year's end.

"The League has your back," Hobart tells ARRL members. "This lawsuit is an important and very expensive proposition, undertaken only after careful consideration by the ARRL Board of Directors. We try to make every dollar count, and in this instance, they will count."

While the spotlight this fall is focusing on the BPL court appeal, the League still needs to be in a position to support its ongoing spectrum defense efforts, she added. "The best thing members can do is contribute. This is a case where the ARRL is putting its money where its mouth is, and member support is critical."

Hobart stressed that reaching the campaign's goal by December 31 is paramount. "It's been a good financial year for many people," she said, "and we hope those who have benefited from the economic upswing will opt to be as generous as they can."

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 25, No. 48 December 8, 2006

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
IMO there is a desperate, intense tone to this:like someone with intense anger and no sense of accomplishment.

I will let you judge accordingly.

I find it very, very sad that it has come to this. It is a profound disservice to the service. Your opinion may differ.
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by NN4RH on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
No Chip! Don't you SEE?!!! We must give $$$$ until it hurts. If you don't give to this fund it will be the end of ham radio as we know it.

Hams have the absolute right ... the DUTY ... to deliberately locate our mobile stations such as to maximize interference to ourselves and then comlain about it! But the dastardly FCC made that so much more difficult for us by instituting that silly special rule for BPL requiring them to reduce emissions 20dB below the levels required of any other Part 15 emitter. That makes it so much harder to find those evil BPL boxes and makes it harder to find parking close enough to them to receive the level of interference we must have. It is already responsible for amateur radio op traffic jams (ham-jams) in Manassass! We must put a STOP to the madness! Revoke the BPL rules! Give us back our extra 20dB of noise!!

We must Fight
For our Right
To Static!

Hey, isn't that a Beastie Boys tune?
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Actually Ron, this fails to reproduce the ITALICIZED phrases by Mr. Sumner. I personally found that, well, irrational behavior. It's not what I expect from the League leadership.

I actually agree strongly with Mr. Sumner on one key point: USE THE SDF as an INDICATOR of the desire , or lack of it, to continue this suit against the FCC.

As I have pointed out, the ARRL has not sought to poll the membership in some global way so as to judge whether a consensus exists by the membership to sue the USG-FCC.

I have pointed out that even trivial donations speak loudly. I have pointed out that donating even the price of a "moonpie and a coke" can send a profound message to the ARRL leadership AND the defendent in the suit.

I STRONGLY URGE (sorry no italics key) ALL ARRL MEMBERS TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE WITH THEIR POCKETBOOK!

If you SUPPORT this issue of suit then DONATE to the SDF by using PAYPAL (for example) to give $3.00 --yes a donation you can afford-- to the SDF. If the SDF then has 20,000 or 30,000 donors then the membership will have spoken in SUPPORT of the lawsuit and the goal will be achieved.

I call this the 'moonpie donation'. Check my comments earlier to see why.

IF the NUMBER of donations remains MODEST, this TOO will speak loudly that the MEMBERSHIP does not support the position taken by the ARRL leadership.

So, YES! If you SUPPORT it then DONATE. If you do NOT then DON'T.

Send a M-E-S-S-A-G-E.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by NN4RH on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
(previous post tic...)

But Chip, it's not at that clear to that the Spectrum Defense Fund is actually used for spectrum defense.

If you study the ARRL 2005 annual report, you find that they define Spectrum Defense Fund donations as "temporarily restricted" funds ... which means that they are supposedly earmarked temporarily for the specific purpose of spectrum defense (i.e., you get a solicition in the mail for "spectrum defense" then the accountants have to record those donations as spectrum defense donations).

The odd thing is that 100% of the Spectrum Defense Fund donations are converted to "unrestricted" funds. Which I assume means they are not really earmarked for spectrum defense but go into the general fund.

So does the ARRL really consider the donations to the spectrum defense fund as any indication of support for spectrum defense? Or is it to them a way of increasing general revenue?
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by NN4RH on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
So in other words the true test would be if you sent your money along with a note that states "Restricted For Defense Of Frequencies Only" and see what happens to it.
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Yes:-)

You can do that in the comment box when you send with Paypal (as an example).

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by N4QA on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Say your PC is battery powered, but, you lose your normal electric service during an ice storm or other event.
Would you lose your BPL broadband service as well?

Depending upon how widespread the electric service outage was, you wouldn't necessarily lose your good old dialup connection.
Plus, if your rig were battery-powered, your hamming experience would be wonderful...with the possible exceptions of cold feet and inability to operate that tail-twister...

 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by W6EM on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N4QA asks:"Say your PC is battery powered, but, you lose your normal electric service during an ice storm or other event. Would you lose your BPL broadband service as well?"

Yes, you would. The devices depend upon the integrity of the system to have the signal available. Its also not clear if BPL subscribers would still receive the correct signal when switching or reconfiguration of the distribution systems happen. This can occur routinely, or during efforts to restore following damage. And, even when the damage is finally repaired, a return to the original configuration isn't necessary in all cases.

"Depending upon how widespread the electric service outage was, you wouldn't necessarily lose your good old dialup connection."

Yes, if the telephone service, that is usually underbuilt on the same overhead distribution poles that supply power, is not damaged from whatever event took out the electric primary distribution system. Usually, unless its a vehicle-pole accident, the phone systems aren't affected, since most still use central office DC batteries as power sources. There are distributed small exchanges fed from fiber systems, but even those have battery back up.

Phone systems that are underbuilt are solidly grounded and supported via grounded messenger cables and guard arms and are normally unaffected even if a primary wire should contact them on its way down to the ground, causing fault current to flow through the telco messenger.

And, of course, telco routing back to central offices and distributed switches is not necessarily the same as the power system back to its source. While I was employed in the power industry, we often times made sure that telco lines used for control were not underbuilt on the circuits being controlled. The issue was, as you point out, we wanted control, even when the power system was dead.

"Plus, if your rig were battery-powered, your hamming experience would be wonderful...with the possible exceptions of cold feet and inability to operate that tail-twister..."

Ha. Yes, that's why some of us keep DC powered QRP gear (that doesn't suck batteries dry quickly like FT-817s do). For instance, I have an FT-7, which consumes only 250mA while listening at a comfortable level, thanks to LED dial lights.

I see our frequent 'spammers' have appeared to fill up the thread, as usual, whenever BPL is publicized. They both seem to love Part 15 services. Ah, but they're "disinterested." In fact, so "disinterested", its Piled High and Deep.

73,

Lee
W6EM/4
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by NN4RH on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Lee, when I was growing up in central Illinois and was in the cub scouts, there was a scary story that was told by the adults to the kids around the fire on overnight camping trips.

The story was about some dangerous wild feline beast called the "wampus cat", that reportedly hung around cub scout camps and was known to have snatched and eaten children that strayed too far from camp at night.

None of us ever actually saw a "wampus cat". Nobody we knew ever turned up missing. No confirmed sightings or confirmed 'kills', but the story persists and still scares the kids into behaving.
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Gee Ron, it just scared the hell out of me!

I'm stayin' in tonight!
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I just want the sledgehammer to sink into its groove...

PLEASE note that I ENCOURAGED ALL ARRL members that support the ARRL suit against the FCC to donate--even trivially--to the SDF. Now. Before 31 Dec. Try even, say, $2 via paypal as an example.

I actively encourage those who do NOT support the suit to NOT donate to the SDF.

I will not be donating to the SDF. I speculate only a very small percentage of ARRL membership will, by the urged (by the ARRL) deadline of 31 Dec.

That is the fair and reasoned opined suggestion of an educated ARRL member.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Take a stand!

Decide on ***YOUR*** MOONPIE DONATION (or lack of it).
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by W6EM on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hi, Ron. Nice story. As a rule, I take your Wampus Cat factor into consideration.

One could question application of Spectrum Defense Funds a bit, I suppose, before putting the check in the mail.

Could they be used to further the League Board's goal of broadband over HF ham bands? Coin it "BHB." I suspect so.

I vehemently oppose such BHB foolishness and have said so in some very direct, uncomplimentary language to League officials.

Pactor IV, anyone? J2D at 10kHz wide or more, at 100 Baud per sub-carrier, and in full compliance with FCC regulations? You bet.

Ah, but with Regulation by Bandwidth Limit only a stone's throw away, not to worry. All taken care of.
With an appropriate "exception," of course.

I am a League member, not a League leming.

73,

Lee
W6EM/4
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by NN4RH on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>> Gee Ron, it just scared the hell out of me! I'm stayin' in tonight! <<

Relax. I dont' think the Wampus Cat works that far north.

All you have to worry about is the Dover Demon. Or is the Giant Beaver that haunts your neck of the woods? Can't remember.
 
Wampus Cats and...  
by N4QA on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
sacks of greasy BB's.

Those were units of quantity that dear Mrs Umholtz, my eighth grade math teacher, would sometimes use while teaching our lessons. Thanks for reminding me of her.

Now, as for donations to ARRL and so on...

If you'd rather contribute to Mr Bill's "Recover some of the cash spent on the kids' college education 'fund' ", then, by all means...

I'd give you guys my account info but those foreign do-badders might be watching.

Tell you what...if you pass me on the street, how about just giving me a pat on the back...

72 !

Bill, N4QA
QRP forever!
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
">> Gee Ron, it just scared the hell out of me! I'm stayin' in tonight! <<

Relax. I dont' think the Wampus Cat works that far north.

All you have to worry about is the Dover Demon. Or is the Giant Beaver that haunts your neck of the woods? Can't remember."
-----------------------------

Unbelievably it's TURKEYS and COYOTES.

Turkeys ain't your everyday chicken around here...

No cat is safe.
 
gimme, gimme, gimme!  
by N4QA on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
ARRL...
Always-requesting Revenue & Rules-changes League
 
RE: Another Critter Chip (I didn't say cow chip..)  
by W6EM on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Unbelievably it's TURKEYS and COYOTES.

Turkeys ain't your everyday chicken around here...

No cat is safe."


Boy, sounds like its worse for cats up there than an alley in San Francisco. Although, Belmont is described as mostly as a city of nothing but houses.
With MASS high tax rates, that must be somewhat laughable.

Perhaps the proliferation of coyotes and wild turkeys in our woods is why we don't see cats roaming around the hills here. Just as well.

Lots of Canadian honkers in all the lakes and ponds close to town. Priceless gifts from the northland.

73,

Lee
W6EM/4


 
Reason prevails over negative attention seekers.  
by AI2IA on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Highlighting the extreme importance of the League's BPL lawsuit, Sumner warns that even if BPL should disappear tomorrow, "the FCC's preference for unlicensed, unintentional emitters over the interests of its licensees will remain on the books."

"Bad rules left unchallenged will lead to even worse rules later," he said."

Eham.net is one of the few forums for the ARRL haters, self-hating hams, and other bizarre attention seekers. These clowns take their own posts very seriously and somehow think that they are convincing others to adopt their kook agendas. Yet, it is always the same attention seekers who peddle their nutty ideas here. The ARRL has always been good for amateur radio, and the ARRL critics have never gotten anywhere. These isolated folks cannot even organize themselves into a working organization. Every time an ARRL article appears, they pop out from under the rocks and do their little dances. It is really rather funny!


 
Reason prevails over negative attention seekers.  
by AI2IA on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Highlighting the extreme importance of the League's BPL lawsuit, Sumner warns that even if BPL should disappear tomorrow, "the FCC's preference for unlicensed, unintentional emitters over the interests of its licensees will remain on the books."

"Bad rules left unchallenged will lead to even worse rules later," he said."

Eham.net is one of the few forums for the ARRL haters, self-hating hams, and other bizarre attention seekers. These clowns take their own posts very seriously and somehow think that they are convincing others to adopt their kook agendas. Yet, it is always the same attention seekers who peddle their nutty ideas here. The ARRL has always been good for amateur radio, and the ARRL critics have never gotten anywhere. These isolated folks cannot even organize themselves into a working organization. Every time an ARRL article appears, they pop out from under the rocks and do their little dances. It is really rather funny!


 
Omigosh!  
by N4QA on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Now we have mind readers posting in duplicate!


"...and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats...and they're coming to take me away ha ha!"

 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by AE6RO on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
When I was in Boy Scouts, all we had was the Left-handed smoke shifter, then we'ed go on snipehunts.
Recently I read a story in CQ magazine where the guy was driving through the jungle and a gigantic animal jumped on the windshield, screaming and leaving scratches on it.
He was told it was a descendent of domestic house kittys that had run wild on the island.
Could this be the dreaded "Wampus Cat?" AE6RO
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by AE6RO on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Giant beaver, huh? Now THAT is scary! AE6RO
 
RE: Reason prevails over negative attention seeker  
by AE6RO on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
BPL threatens HF aviation communications as well as amateur. That's not so kooky! Many government assigned frequencies are threatened as well which makes me sure BPL has no real chance of success.
There's absolutely no doubt that BPL causes interference to HF communications. What is in doubt is if it can be mitigated or not.
I once heard a BPL test in San Diego from here in Long Beach, CA. This was about a year ago and haven't heard it since. This would be about 100 miles as the do-do would fly if it could. Happy Holidays, AE6RO
 
RE: Reason Seeker  
by W6EM on December 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
As long as BPL doesn't foul up the Cohen dipole in Belmont, MA, all is well.

 
Here is a financial idea!  
by N4CQR on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Why not cut some ARRL salaries by a small amount until the desired funds are raised?
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
All ideas are good. The bottom line is that since it is SO EASY to DONATE--even a small amount-- a message to the leadership from the rank and file will be sent one way or another.

If, by the end of the year (the ARRL leadership's supposed deadline), 10,000+ league members have NOT donated, then, IMO, this sends a powerful message that the ARRL leadership has acted rashly with respect to the wishes, or absence of them, of and by the member base.

Suing the FCC is, IMO, a can of worms that the memberhsip, as a whole, does not support.

I am an ARRL member, just to remind y'all.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, if you read this reasonably carefully, it asks to 'transform **outrage** against the FCC-BPL into money for the SDF of the ARRL'.

As bizarre, IMO, as this sounds, it DOES offer a rather definitive result: if you DON'T donate then you do NOT have said **outrage**.

Webster's defines **outrage** as: "anger resulting from injury or insult".

So if you DO donate to the SDF, it must be assumed that you are a person acting out of anger-- as opposed to some factual and rational basis.

Is the ARRL--MY ARRL and YOUR ARRL-- an organization OF,BY, AND FOR THE RADIO AMATEUR-- one driven by "anger resulting from injury or insult?"

Is this ARRL the MEMBERS want? I have trouble believing that 20% of the radio amateurs in the US have joined and supported an organization predicated on driving anger into dollars.

Please think about this.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
" once heard a BPL test in San Diego from here in Long Beach, CA. This was about a year ago and haven't heard it since. This would be about 100 miles as the do-do would fly if it could. Happy Holidays, AE6RO "

==================

Can you provide an MP3 file, with documentation that supports this statement? There are thousands and thousands of hams in your area, and I don't recall any of them reporting these alleged results.

Please provide this data for us in our understanding of the effect (or lack of it) of BPL upon the radio amateur community.

Thank you.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by AE6RO on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
No, I can't provide MP3 files for what I heard that long-ago summer night of 2005. I was listening on a vintage receiver and no computers allowed. I did have a Blackberry at the time and was on a 6 meter reflector for a San Diego club. That was how I knew the test would take place.
After I heard it I reported back to the reflector and within 15 minutes the BPL noise was gone.
You may believe it--or not.
I'm looking for a new hobby anyway. Happy Hoolidays, AE6RO

P.S. There are several MP-3 files from other BPL tests online, most particularly from the ARRL website.
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by W6EM on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ah, so typical of the Chipster. A demandment for "facts" following oodles of his own wild speculation.

Better stick to MA turkeys and coyotes. More interesting.
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"After I heard it I reported back to the reflector and within 15 minutes the BPL noise was gone.
You may believe it--or not.
I'm looking for a new hobby anyway. Happy Hoolidays, AE6RO "

--------------------------------------------

Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence.

None forthcoming on yours.

 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by AI2IA on December 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Which mouse is going to put the bell on the ARRL cat?
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by K1GB on December 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
It will be interesting to see, what affect, if any, suing the FCC will have on the long awaited release of Report and Order on the code issue. Will this delay it even longer? Just food for thought!

73, Gordy K1GB
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by W9WHE-II on December 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"...the true test would be if you sent your money along with a note that states "Restricted For Defense Of Frequencies Only" and see what happens to it".

And with arrl's lack of member responsiveness and transparency, do you really think you would ever know what was done with that money?
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by W9WHE-II on December 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The determining factor will NOT be money.
FCC was given the power by the US Congress under the Communications Act of 1934 to make regulations. FCC has done so. The courts will likely give "considerable defference" to FCC decisions. arrl's hype and emotion will not carry the day. This is likely to be a bench trial, decided by a Judge, NOT a jury. The real problem here is arrl's lack of meaningful influence with FCC during the regulatory process.

http://www.eham.net/survey/720


Launching personal insults against FCC commissioners & calling them "incompetent" is neither prudent nor helpful. I sure wish you arrl members would get some control over YOUR arrl. In the end, YOUR arrl is going to cause the rest of the 80% of licensed hams alot of grief.
 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by W6EM on December 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE-II Said:"This is likely to be a bench trial, decided by a Judge, NOT a jury."

Jonathan: Which Law School did you attend, anyway? Didn't they teach you about the United States Court of Appeals system? Even a someone like myself who studied electrical and electronic circuits, not court circuits, knows that federal Courts of Appeal are panels of judges. Not just "not likely," Jonathan, it can't be decided by a jury. I'm amazed, that you claim to be a dues-paying Bar member, yet don't seem to know about the Court of Appeals and how it works. Amazing.

You're beginning to remind me of Dumb-ya. The man with the Ivy League degrees that acts and sounds like someone who didn't make it through high school. Or, he somehow missed catching most of the knowledge thrown his way, thanks to the effects of various recreational drugs.

"Launching personal insults against FCC commissioners & calling them "incompetent" is neither prudent nor helpful."

Now, if the shoe fits, wear it. How does someone with a law degree obtain sufficient technical background to competently judge the merits (or demerits, as in this case) of communication systems? Certainly not from practicing communications law in front of a judge or jury.

Incompetent to properly understand, and therefore judge the merits or pitfalls of highly technical telecommunications equipment would fit probably most, if not all of the the Commissioners. So, what's new about that? The core INCOMPETENCY is failing to weigh the evidence properly, or the input of expertise from technical experts, as is Mr. Hare of the ARRL. Instead listening to sales-hype from lawyers of the BPL industry marketing enterage.

"I sure wish you arrl members would get some control over YOUR arrl. In the end, YOUR arrl is going to cause the rest of the 80% of licensed hams alot of grief."

Now, maybe I would agree, at least in part, with what you've said here. Especially if ARRLink becomes a reality and spreads wideband digital noise (from Pactor-N modems) across our HF bands so that ARRL can collect fees from those yachtsmen on the high seas and rarified air, hiking enthusiasts that have to get their emails in the wilderness.

73,

Lee
W6EM/4


 
RE: ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BP  
by AE6RO on December 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
It's not a belief. I knew when the test would be on, I listened, and I heeerd it.
To tell you the truth, I did have an 8-track recording of it but . ..
The "Wampus Cat" ate it! For breakfast!
Ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas and Happy Channukah! AE6RO
 
ARRL Members' Donations Vital to Success of BPL Co  
by W1YW on December 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"It will be interesting to see, what affect, if any, suing the FCC will have on the long awaited release of Report and Order on the code issue. Will this delay it even longer? Just food for thought! "

-----------------

Hi Gordy!

I suspect that they are waiting for the new phone allocations to sink in first...did you see that the ARRL only NOW is requesting changes? That's 5 days from them taking effect.

!

You and I remember the ARRL from wayback. Do you ever remember it functioning this way?

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: INTERNET LAWYERING BY W6EM  
by W9WHE-II on December 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W6EM writes:

"How does someone with a law degree obtain sufficient technical background to competently judge the merits (or demerits, as in this case) of communication systems?"

Here we go again.
Lee, real lawyers know that this is NOT a technical issue concerning the "merits" of a communications system. Its a LEGAL issue. More specifically, whether FCC has essentially "abused its discretion", acted "arbitraraly or capriciously" or in "violation of its own authority", depending upon the specific issue at hand. The court will NOT decide "merits" of BPL, Amateur Radio or any other communications system. So, it will NOT be a trial over "technical" issues. The issue is a legal inquiry into essentially whether FCC "has the power" to do what it did, and that is a LEGAL, not a technical question.



Lee, you chide lawyers for being technically incompetent to decide technical merits of communications systems. Yet, as a techie, you somehow view yourself as competent to make decisions about the law. Kinda a double standard there, don't you think?

As for the judge/jury issue, try reading my ENTIRE post, including the 2 sentences preceeding what you reference:

"The courts will likely give "considerable defference" to FCC decisions. arrl's hype and emotion will not carry the day. This is likely to be a bench trial, decided by a Judge, NOT a jury"


What Lee may not understand is that a court can, if it chooses, remand an issue to a "special" master or tribunal to determine unresolved questions of fact essential to determining the LEGAL issue. Real lawyers know this is possible. Internet lawyers like Lee appearantly do not.



Lee has, ONCE AGAIN, clearly demonstrated why you should get your advice from a real lawyer, not an "internet lawyer".












 
RE: INTERNET LAWYERING BY W6EM  
by AE6RO on December 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think the two parties should duel over the outcome.
Wampus Cats o' Nine Tales at (on?) 60 meters. Heh, heh.
Better keep your ion that one! 73, AE6RO
 
RE: Internet Barrister Jonathan, W9WHE-II  
by W6EM on December 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE-II Said:"Here we go again.
Lee, real lawyers know that this is NOT a technical issue concerning the "merits" of a communications system. Its a LEGAL issue. More specifically, whether FCC has essentially "abused its discretion", acted "arbitraraly or capriciously" or in "violation of its own authority", depending upon the specific issue at hand."

So, just how would the fCC have acted, arbitrarily, or capriciously? Could be, by ignoring evidence of a fair and balanced nature. Evidence that the Commissioners didn't understand. (Or, rejected summarily, thanks to prejudicial posturing per Crawford BPL Barker Dumbya's instructions)

"The court will NOT decide "merits" of BPL, Amateur Radio or any other communications system. So, it will NOT be a trial over "technical" issues. The issue is a legal inquiry into essentially whether FCC "has the power" to do what it did, and that is a LEGAL, not a technical question."

Sure sounds like the LEGAL issues are the result of ignoring valid technical material.

"Lee, you chide lawyers for being technically incompetent to decide technical merits of communications systems. Yet, as a techie, you somehow view yourself as competent to make decisions about the law. Kinda a double standard there, don't you think?"

Did I make decisions about the law? Nah. Just pointed out that your use of "most likely" in lieu of "will be" implied that it was POSSIBLE for a jury to decide the outcome. Hardly.

As to your special magistrate or whatever, I don't think we've read where any FCC matters brought before the DC Court of Appeal have ever been sent somewhere else, unless they came from a lower court and got sent back there. The regulations (law) are/is clear that the DC Court of Appeal is the proper venue for challenging an FCC Order.

The law involved here I would think is akin to Ohm's Law. Very basic stuff, Jonathan. An experienced Barrister should know that there aren't any juries in Courts of Appeal, so cases WILL be decided by a panel of judges.

Ah, maybe all we're talking about here is some fractured English of yours that didn't leave the proper or correct conclusion that you intended for all that read it. Not only is it a good idea to use your spell checker, Jonathan, but I highly recommend a somewhat more sophisticated "intent checker" for your verbage.

73,

Lee
W6EM/4


 
RE: Internet Barrister Jonathan, W9WHE-II  
by NN4RH on December 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think it should be decided on Judge Judy.
 
RE: Internet Barrister Jonathan, W9WHE-II  
by N4CQR on December 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think some of these posts are from Judge Judy. Or JJ Want to be's. If it is a law thread, there are many lawyers suddenly among us. I especially like the engineering related topics. Those where everyone is an engineer; broadcast, RF, studio and one recent one, microelectronics engineer.

You can be anything on the `net.

JCS
 
RE: All hale Lee, W6EM  
by W9WHE-II on December 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
All hale Lee.......
All hale Lee.......

Not only is Lee an all knowing techie, but he is an all knowing internet lawyer, regulatory expert, and litigator.

And to think I wasted all that time and money going to law school!

Damn.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
What is FCC Docket 03-104 Asking?
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial:
ARRL, FCC Continue BPL Interference Resolution Database Debate:
CW and the State of Our 'Hobby'
Do We Need a Kick in the Pants?


Other News Articles
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
ARNewsline # 1684 -- Nov. 20 2009: