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 Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BPL Complaint Dismissals:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 09 on March 2, 2007
Website: http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!

ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BPL Complaint Dismissals:

The ARRL has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking to compel the FCC to provide several documents related to its dismissal http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/12/22/100/ of several broadband over power line (BPL) interference complaints from radio amateurs in Manassas, Virginia. The FCC told five Manassas radio amateurs December 14 that it was throwing out their complaints, asserting that its measurements last October 25 and 26 showed the Manassas BPL system to be in compliance. The ARRL has disputed the FCC's findings and, on December 21, sought clarification in a letter to several FCC officials, including Enforcement Bureau Chief Kris Monteith and Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Kathryn S. Berthot, who authored the dismissal letter. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, says the FCC's silence to date prompted the FOIA request.

"The reasons for the Commission's dismissal, after months of delay, of five of the six Manassas complaints are inadequately documented, and no action appears ever to have been taken on a sixth complaint," Sumner commented. "The FOIA request was submitted only after the FCC failed, after more than two months, to respond to a letter from the ARRL pointing out apparent deficiencies in the Commission's investigation and requesting additional information to supplement Kathryn Berthot's terse and uninformative letter of December 14 dismissing the five complaints."

While Manassas-area amateurs indicate that new BPL equipment has somewhat reduced interference, some severe interference exists, and the situation remains "far from acceptable," Sumner said.

ARRL Chief Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, filed the FOIA request February 23, seeking essentially the same information and documentation it had asked the Commission last December to provide voluntarily. The League is looking for any documents that:

* indicate whether or not the hams who filed interference complaints were notified in advance of the FCC inspection and testing in late October, and, if so, who;

* indicate if anyone other than FCC staff observed the Manassas BPL system tests;

* indicate which FCC staffers were involved in the testing and if any were from the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET);

* indicate which FCC staff members determined the test procedures used during the October inspection;

* indicate whether or not representatives of BPL system operator COMTek and equipment supplier Main.net had been notified in advance of the October inspection and testing;

* identify the six areas of the BPL system where the FCC reported it conducted tests, how it determined those areas, why two test sites were segregated from the six identified earlier, whether test results on October 26 differed from those of the previous day and whether there were changes in the BPL system prior to the October 26 testing, and that

* indicate specific test methodologies and equipment the FCC used during its testing, specific frequencies checked, radiated emission levels recorded, the distance from power lines and their height above ground, if any underground lines were tested and if they were notched on any bands.

The League also wants copies of all correspondence regarding the October 25-26 tests "between or among" OET, the Enforcement Bureau, Main.net, COMTek and/or the City of Manassas, including letters and e-mails.

In his December 21 response to the FCC, Imlay maintained that Berthot's letter raised more questions than it answered. For starters, he said, there's no independent means to evaluate the conclusions Berthot described.

One complainant, George Tarnovsky, K4GVT, said neither he nor the other five complainants was alerted to the planned FCC testing. The others are Donald "Butch" Blasdell, W4HJL; William South, N3OH; Arthur Whittum, W1CRO; Jack Cochran, WC4J, and Dwight Agnew, AI4II. Berthot's December 14 letter altogether overlooked Whittum's May 2006 complaint that BPL interference precluded communication with the EastCARS and MidCARS nets on 40 meters. As recently as February 26, Whittum reported experiencing harmful interference on 40 meters from emissions that appeared to be well in excess of FCC limits.

Last August, the ARRL had recommended that the FCC Enforcement Bureau and the OET to take independent measurements in Manassas, rather than relying on COMTek to provide the information. It further urged the Commission to permit all concerned parties to witness the testing and be assured that the testing was valid. "Had that been done," Imlay wrote December 21, "and had the measurements been fairly and objectively made, and if the results were as the Commission stated in its December 14 letter, this matter would have been resolved. As it is, nothing is now resolved."

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 26, No. 09 March 2, 2007

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Let the light of day shine on the FCC activities!  
by AI2IA on March 2, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Last August, the ARRL had recommended that the FCC Enforcement Bureau and the OET to take independent measurements in Manassas, rather than relying on COMTek to provide the information. It further urged the Commission to permit all concerned parties to witness the testing and be assured that the testing was valid. "Had that been done," Imlay wrote December 21, "and had the measurements been fairly and objectively made, and if the results were as the Commission stated in its December 14 letter, this matter would have been resolved. As it is, nothing is now resolved."

All you BPL defenders and ARRL bashers take note of this last paragraph of the article. The FCC is not the secret police. Let us see what really went on here. If it was all proper, well then, there is nothing needed to hide, is there? We the People ....
Let us take look at the whole hog. Oh! The FCC might take revenge on amateur radio, we must not ruffle them! Pah!

 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The original posting on the ARRL website says: ( http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/27/100/?nc=1 )

--------------------------
"In requesting a fee waiver with its FOIA request, the ARRL noted that the FCC .."
--------------------------

Notice this KEY phrase does not show up on this press release....

The ARRL asked for a WAIVER FOR PAYMENT on the FOIA request... meaning it expects to pay for the legal issue to prepare the request, and the cost of preparing a press release on it--but YOU AND I should pay for the rest.

Please, USG: DON'T USE ONE penny of my hard working taxes to facilitate this request for 'free'.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by KG6AMW on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Careful Chip, your ignorance is showing.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by N9XCR on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KG6AMW said,"Careful Chip, your ignorance is showing."

Exactly. After all, WHY IN THE HELL should anyone have to pay to verify that government employees are doing their jobs correctly? We pay their salaries, so I don't think it's too much to ask.

Chris
N9XCR
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by WA1RNE on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!


I suppose it's a bit surprising that the FCC didn't release this data to the ARRL and the complaintants' prior to making their decision.


Even so, the ARRL may hit a road block with this FOIA request: the FCC may deny their request based on Exemption 4, which can allow agencies to withhold information they deem is vital to a commercial interest or information that is considered by confidential - by Comtek.


If they have nothing to hide, one would think the data would be released and this whole mess comes to a finale.


....WA1RNE
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by WA4MJF on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Well, if nothing else, the League will
get during the discovery phase of the
civil action.

73 de Ronnie
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

"Exactly. After all, WHY IN THE HELL should anyone have to pay to verify that government employees are doing their jobs correctly? We pay their salaries, so I don't think it's too much to ask.

Chris
N9XCR "

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

This is EXACTLY correct: I don't want ANY of MY tax money PAYING for this request.

Let the ARRL pay for it.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by AI2IA on March 3, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W1YW fails to understand that it is not "his" tax money. It is the Government's tax money. They take it from him whether he wants to give it to them or not give it to them. For all practical purposes he has no control of their tax money. Also, since he says that he is an ARRL member, then his money is helping (albeit in some miniscule way) the ARRL in their pursuit of getting BPL investigative information from the FCC.

These facts are part of the reason we can say that the ARRL is helping all amateur radio operators when the ARRL seeks honest information and accountability on BPL and the FCC.

The fates do lead the W1YW who follows willing, but when he is unwilling, him, they drag!
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
No;

Another false statement with apparent intent to be injurious from AI2IA.

It is the government's TAXATION and OUR tax MONEY.

That INCLUDES **MY tax money**. Goodness knows I pay a lot of it.

Don't lecture someone from Boston about taxes. They might dress up as Indians and throw your tea into the Bay!
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
IMO,

** AND AS AN ARRL MEMBER**,

... a WAIVER is not justified on this FOIA request: the ARRL has substantial funds from its SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND, and that relates directly to the nature of the request--at least as the fund is so defined.

Let me turn the question around: on what BASIS do YOU think the requested waiver is justified?
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by NN4RH on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It will be interesting how this goes. There are several strange aspects to this request. Among other things -

The ARRL* states that the Manassas hams say that they were not notified of the FCC testing. But the ARRL* is filing a request with the FCC to determine if the Manassas hams were notified.

So, (1) if the FCC produces documents that say that the hams were notified, then that makes liars out of the Manassas hams and casts doubt on their credibility as well as the ARRL*'s!

(2) if the FCC does produce documents stating that the hams were NOT notified, then it merely proves something we already know, or

(3) if FCC produces NO documents related to notification, it proves nothing either way.

So of course the ARRL* doesn't want to pay for at least this element of the request - it's a completely pointless excercise at best, and shoots the ARRL in it's own foot at worst.

The only reason I can think of for the ARRL* making this particular request about notification, is to set up a situation such that if no documents are forthcoming, they can make claims about a "coverup", "conspiracy", "collusion", etc... Great stuff for activism, gets people all excited emotional and makes them want to throw money at the ARRL*.


~~~~
* ARRL apparently stands for "National Association for Amateur Radio"
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by KG6AMW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
As I said, “careful you ignorance is showing“. The public is entitled to view public records without restriction. Government agencies are entitled via statute to charge for copying costs. As an option, if the person/business does not want to be charged by the government agency, they can copy it themselves or they can hire their own firm to come in and copy. Asking the government agency to waive their copying costs is at their option and is usually dependent on how large the request is. The government is paid to conduct the business of government not be your copy boy. The ARRL has the right to ask but not expect free copy service.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by K0RFD on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The FOIA fee-waiver standard is found in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). It says:

"Documents shall be furnished without any charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established under clause (ii) if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."

Since the ARRL is seeking documents to help the public understand an activity of the government, the so-called BPL testing, it clearly meets the statutory standard.

Note that the standard DOES NOT say "except if pisses off BPL apologists like Chip."
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I continue to be amazed how, IMO, some hams want to reduce arguments to a switch (on or off; pro or anti), as well as manifesting the dynamic range of emotions of a 4 year old, i.e. A through C. It isn't relevant whether I am that way; it's the utter goofiness that ensues when some may not take the side of your argument.

Again. Goofy.

The request is with respect to a SPECIAL INTEREST, not the PUBLIC INTEREST. It is will easily play out as a 'request without merit'.

The ARRL should pay for these documents, if they get them, because they represent a special interest.

That is the informed opinion of an ARRL member: the request neither represents the majority wishes of ham radio nor the ARRL membership--at least there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT that. Henc a very, very 'special interest'--with limited interest at that!

How's that:-)!
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The ARRL has the right to ask but not expect free copy service."

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

SURE they have a right to ask; but why should I have to help pay for it?

No one has profferred an answer that that question, not posed --3-- times...
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The ARRL has the right to ask but not expect free copy service."

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

(fixing the solecisms...)

SURE they have a right to ask; but why should I have to help pay for it?

No one has proffered an answer to that question, now posed --3-- times...

 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Great stuff for activism, gets people all excited emotional and makes them want to throw money at the ARRL*.


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

The problem with getting older is more and more 'institutions' ask you for money--some have hundreds of 'development officers' acting as pollinating bees to take away your pollen...

That's OK. It's easy to say no. And there is a fairness in getting to 'yes'.

The point is one has to ask the tough questions such as (among others):

1) why do you REALLY need this money?
2) what actual IMPACT will it have on the institution--as opposed to paying (likely frivolous) salaries in the short-term?;
3) what makes this request especially meritricious?

I think the ARRL has every right to play the donation game, and some of the things they are doing right now are great: the EC initiatives; the young people initiative; the push to get info to bring in new hams post-CW requirement.

However, the BPL issue is not one of them: the impact, to date is zero. IMO it is an embarrassment to us in the telecom and wireless world. And that IS a big deal.

So doing silly things like demanding an FOIA action--for free--is way over the top. My opinion. Yours may differ.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
The cost of copying is now the big deal?  
by AI2IA on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL has done its research over an extended period of time. ARRL engineers have conducted field studies with calibrated test equipment. ARRL attorneys have looked into the laws. Amateur radio victims have come forward. Their cases have been documented. Liaison has been made with professional associations with similar concerns about BPL, and the ARRL leadership has made the decision to move forward. The ARRL position is an informed and researched position. Go look at the ARRL web site.

Contrast this with the isolated, often contradictory and fragmented empty opinions of some ARRL detractors who seek attention for themselves, are not part of informed or activist groups, and struggle to concoct far out excuses to object to full disclosure of the FCC’s conduct in regard to their own BPL complaint investigations. Go look at their web sites, if you can find them.

The collective wisdom of the ARRL organization taken as a whole easily trumps the weak and miniscule opposition of the ARRL critics on eHam.net.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The collective wisdom of the ARRL organization taken as a whole easily trumps the weak and miniscule opposition of the ARRL critics on eHam.net."
------------------------------------

I heartily agree.

The problem is that the BPL issue is NOT availing itself of the "collective wisdom of the ARRL".

I am not a critic of the ARRL. I am a member who is critical of policy on this issue. Again: do you understand that life is not a switch OM?

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by K0RFD on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Chip--you're damned near talking to yourself at this point.

You lost your audience as soon as you, well, started talking to yourself.

If you want to keep talking to yourself, go for it. I think most of us are off to another thread. Especially since you asked on what basis the ARRL asked for a fee waiver, it was answered, and you ignored the answer.

I'm off to the Elmers forum where I can maybe do something more important than arguing with a narcissist. If you want to help the hobby, I suggest you do something similar.

Or, you can keep talking to yourself. You usually do.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by KD2KU on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W1YW
"The ARRL has the right to ask but not expect free copy service."
---------------------------

(fixing the solecisms...)

SURE they have a right to ask; but why should I have to help pay for it?

No one has proffered an answer to that question, now posed --3-- times...
----------------------------

Let's see now Chip- if the ARRL did get the "free" copy service, the amount YOU would pay would be?
.000000000001 cent (wild guess) ?

So, under these circumstances it would be impossible for ONE penny of your taxes going for this. :-)








 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Chip--you're damned near talking to yourself at this point.

You lost your audience as soon as you, well, started talking to yourself...
--------------------------------

Nice try.

I'm not scared of heights either.

My friend, hams talk . It's what we do. Nothing obligates you, or anyone else, to participate in someone else's view, nor, necessarily to share it.

And, yes; I was on the air this weekend, shaking out my new IC756PROIII.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Especially since you asked on what basis the ARRL asked for a fee waiver, it was answered, and you ignored the answer."

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

Here's the deal: You prove your assertion that this FEE WAIVER is in the **PUBLIC INTEREST** and I will gladly retract.

How's that?

What a deal!

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by WA1RNE on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

by KG6AMW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!


As I said, “careful you ignorance is showing“. The public is entitled to view public records without restriction.



>>> That's not necessarily the case. From my 3/3 post:

... the FCC may deny their [FOIA] request based on Exemption 4, which can allow agencies to withhold information they deem is vital to a commercial interest or information that is considered confidential - by Comtek.

From the USDOJ, Exemtion 4:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption4.htm


If Exemption 4 is challenged, ComTek could request a "Reverse FOIA": http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/reverse.htm


I went through this exercise for a reason: Why would the FCC deny the ARRL's and the complaintant's request? Probably because they did their homework and know that the ARRL will have to file an exemption and quite possibly, ComTek has already prepared for this fight and has or is in the process of filing the Reverse Exemption.

Bottom line: fighting the Exemptions will likely cost a heck of a lot more than the FOIA waiver. All of this work and $$$$ for ensuring HF mobile operators who park under or on top of utility lines are not interfered with??

Think about it....for amateurs to run successful EmComm operations, how much HF mobile operation is needed? "Not much" might be as good an answer as any.

If it's not EmComm related, you have to start thinking about cutting your losses and just moving on....


..WA1RNE
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I'm off to the Elmers forum where I can maybe do something more important than arguing with a narcissist"
-------------------------------------------

The only narcissists I know are dead.

Just a word to the wise OM; don't expect people to know who and what you are after you're gone.

Impact lives while you still have one. That's what I've learned. If you want more I'll be quoting Goethe...

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by NN4RH on March 4, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It is unfortunate that the ARRL has been actively pursuing an adversarial relationship with the FCC. We're seeing some of the fallout of that now. If they had maintained a productive, appropriately businesslike relationship, rather than calling FCC commissioners names and accusing FCC of incompetence and graft at every twist and turn, then the FCC probably would have been more inclined to keep ARRL 'in the loop' and share information without having to resort to FOIA.

Sorry, I don't believe as one or two others here do that the ARRL is infallible, god-like entity that must never be questioned.

As an ARRL member, I have a right to question what the leadership of my organization is doing, and to speak out if I am concerned with what they're doing and/or how or why they're doing it.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"As an ARRL member, I have a right to question what the leadership of my organization is doing, and to speak out if I am concerned with what they're doing and/or how or why they're doing it.--NN4RH"

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

Absolutely!

The League needs its experienced members to keep it focused on Part 97.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
arrl's UNREASONABLE demand to waive copy charges  
by W9WHE-II on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Since the ARRL is seeking documents to help the public understand an activity of the government, the so-called BPL testing, it clearly meets the statutory standard".

Not really.
While I support the FOI request, any information provided will likely NOT be of interest to the general public, just a small special interest group, i.e., Hams, which compose only about 0.2% of the "public".

Let arrl have the documents, but force arrl to pay the customary rate.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by K4RAF on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"W1YW fails to understand that it is not "his" tax money."

AI2IA,

Exactly what does the government make in order to claim it is "theirs"? THey don't make wealth, they confiscate it!

No Ray, it is our $$$. How you can continue to defend the feckless ARRL in all its' splendor is revealing of your total lack of objective thinking.

Is it true you have an ARRL tattoo in the middle of your K1ZZ?

K4RAF
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
NN4RH writes:

"As an ARRL member, I have a right to question what the leadership of my organization is doing, and to speak out if I am concerned with what they're doing and/or how or why they're doing it.--NN4RH"

YOU DO NOT.
Just who do you think you are? Don't you know that arrl knows what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to know it? You have no meaningful voice. arrl doesn't really care what you and ordinary hams think about many issues. Now sit down, shut up and send in more money.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by NT4XT on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Like that last news report here that seemed to have resulted in a bunch of criticism against Sumner for speaking out against what an officer of the FCC had publically stated, this seems to also be generating the same response here on eham.
I don't see where Sumner was calling anyone names, nor did I interpret where Sumner was being unreasonable. I saw where he was taking a strong position based upon epirical data/evidence.

Calling someone wrong or something wrong is not necessarily a personal attack, either.
Especially if statements are true, and if I'm wrong, you can call me wrong, and I won't take it personally. I might actually be appreciative.

In re-reading the press releases, I did not see where Mr. Sumner called people names.

I am completely neutral about how I feel about the ARRL in general, and with regard to the FCC, I find the beauracracy to be excellent, overall.
I have never had an unfuffiling interaction with that agency, and at least everyone I ever spoke with or e-mailed there, was courteous, helpful, and good at what they were doing.

I am beginning to wonder about the intentions of some here, though.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!


How about calling FCC commissioners..."incompetent"?
Does that qualify as "name calling" or a "personal attack"?
Many of us think so.

 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Calling someone wrong or something wrong is not necessarily a personal attack, either.
Especially if statements are true, and if I'm wrong, you can call me wrong, and I won't take it personally. I might actually be appreciative.

In re-reading the press releases, I did not see where Mr. Sumner called people names. "--NT4XT

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

I am not aware of relevant personal name calling by Dave Sumner. Perhaps the allusion is to W5ZN's comment on 3 Oct 2006, in a public press release from the ARRL. Joel Harrison is President of the ARRL:

"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency(FCC) to fail to act ..."

It sure sounds like name calling to me.

Hope that helps.

73,
Chip W1YW

 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I am beginning to wonder about the intentions of some here, though..."--NT4XT

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

Feel free to ask.

I think NN4RH;K4RAF;W9WHE; and myself have been very straightforward in our positions and how we arrived there.

I don't necessarily agree with everyone at all times, but I respect where they are coming from.

This feels like a good place for a von Goethe quote...if I find one and can translate well enough I'll put one in.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by QSYING on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
When did anyone ever call FCC Commissioners "incompetent?"

Following is the relevant quotation, from Joel Harrison, not David Sumner. It refers to inactions of the agency, regarding proceedings that had gone on for over five years. It was a request that the commissoners help bring those proceedings to a close. In fact those proceedings were concluded, soon after the request.

Nowhere in that quotation or in any other quotation that I have seen, were FCC commissioners labled "incompetent" by Joel Harrison or anyone else at ARRL.

I do not personally agree with the choice of the word "incompetent," but no individuals were being called names.

Bob - KC9JUB

==>ARRL PRESSES FCC TO RELEASE "OMNIBUS" AMATEUR RADIO REPORT AND ORDER

The ARRL has called upon FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin and his four
Commission colleagues to help end "a very frustrating and protracted delay"
by releasing a Report and Order in the so-called "Omnibus" Amateur Radio
proceeding, WT Docket 04-140. The 2004 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB) proceeding, one of two still awaiting FCC release, consolidated a
dozen rule making petitions addressing various Part 97 rule changes --
including ARRL's Novice refarming proposal. In its Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and Order (NPRM&O), the Commission proposed to go along with the
League's refarming concept and most other recommendations. ARRL President
Joel Harrison, W5ZN, says the long-overdue Report and Order seems to be
stalled for no reason.

"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency to fail to act
on something affecting the Amateur Radio Service," Harrison commented,
"especially after the recognition Amateur Radio has received over the past
year from members of Congress, public service agencies and even the
President." The oldest of the rule making petitions dates back more than
five years, while the NPRM&O came out two and one-half years ago. "There's
nothing controversial in this proceeding," he said. "The FCC needs to act on
this. That's the bottom line."

 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
A-HAH!

So you DO agree the agency was called "incompetent"!

Well, that's name calling in my book.

You want incompetent? Look at Walter Reed. Not the FCC.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by QSYING on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Chip:

I agree that the actions of FCC, as an agency, were characterized as incompetent. I don't agree with that characterization. It was an unnecessary and poor choice of words that would have been best left unsaid.

Regulatory processes can take a very long time, sometimes due to statute, sometimes due to workload, sometimes due to priorities, and sometimes due to reasons that are not shared with the petitioners.

73,

Bob - KC9JUB
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Perhaps someone confused 'agency' with 'commissioners'. I don't believe it was me, but if someone digs it out, and brings it to my attention here, I certainly would retract it. Others can speak for themselves.

I do feel that it is not the ARRL's place to describe the FCC or its actions as "incompetent". Your opinion may differ.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by K4RAF on March 5, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It is not that hard to find many of the personal, slanderous comments published on ARRL stationary mainly set upon antagonizing the FCC powers. The ARRL front runners have made it a habit of calling the FCC incompetent, among other things.

On the other hand, the ARRL then ask for so many things to go their way in FCC decisions & proposals. This started with the total disrespect shown to Michel Powell & to President Bush when BPL was approved as just 1 of 3 prongs toward broadband. Remember the "QSL the Whitehouse" effort?

The ARRL has yet to prove its' case for many reasons & on many levels. ARRL technical blunders aside, current Commissioner Martin has long been out of the "honeymoon period" with under a year at the helm. It is as if they didn't miss a beat, a fax or a press release to accuse, harass, slander or otherwise demean on a personal level. The ARRL shows itself as definitively incompetent in representing adult discourse about FCC issues like spectrum allocations, licensing structure & especially about BPL. Tantrums & FAXs don't move hills, shovels do.

A brilliant strategy that has reaped so many benefits on behalf of all of us, not just "members".

I'd say that's Zero (0)

K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by NN4RH on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL has used terms such as: arbitrary, capricious, incompetent, biased, illegal, abuse, glaring violation of … rules, irrevocably tainted, and so on to describe the FCC. In addition to all of the news releases and so on with less overt innuendo.

Clearly not the sort of language one uses to build and maintain a cordial, productive, cooperative working relationship.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency [FCC commissioners] to fail to act on something affecting the Amateur Radio Service, Harrison commented".



If you don't see that calling someone "grossly incompetent" as a personal attack, then I'm not sure you would consider anything a personal attack.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by QSYING on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I don't think that it was necessary or prudent for Harrison to use the term "incompetent."


However, no one was calling "someone" anything. The reference was to actions of a government agency, which is an "it." There is a difference.

That will exhaust the time I am willing to spend on this issue.

Bob - KC9JUB
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by QSYING on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Below is an adulterated version of the quotation found in W9WHE-II's posting, above:

"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency [FCC commissioners] to fail to act on something affecting the Amateur Radio Service, Harrison commented".

The bracketed expression [FCC commissioners] was added to the quotation. It was not part of the original.

Here is the correct quotation, which makes no reference to FCC Commissioners:

"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency to fail to act
on something affecting the Amateur Radio Service," Harrison commented,
"especially after the recognition Amateur Radio has received over the past
year from members of Congress, public service agencies and even the
President." The oldest of the rule making petitions dates back more than
five years, while the NPRM&O came out two and one-half years ago. "There's
nothing controversial in this proceeding," he said. "The FCC needs to act on
this. That's the bottom line."

The actual quotation can be found at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/10/03/102/


KC9JUB
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Just WHAT "government agency" do you think Harrison referring to?
FEMA? the Army? Perhaps Health and Human Services?

No, it was the FCC.
arrl officials personally insulted FCC commissioners for not acting on arrl's "demands" as quick as arrl wanted.

My goodness. Let's not play silly games.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by QSYING on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I don't give a rat's ass what you think about ARRL or any other issue.

End of discussion.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
So long as arrl keeps needlessly antagonizing FCC with an advasarial approach, ham radio will continue to suffer.
arrl's "demands" to shut down BPL systems were TOTALLY ignored. That should tell arrl that its tactics (NAME CALLING) and poor relationship with FCC have resulted in a LACK of influence (with the people that have the power to TAKE AWAY ham spectrum) and are not working.

Its time arrl realized why only about 20 some percent of licensed hams are members....its arrl ARROGANCE.

arrl: STOP PERSONALLY INSULTING FCC COMMISSIONERS.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"DON'T USE ONE penny of my hard working taxes to facilitate this request for 'free'"

Your taxes or your ARRL membership dollars, does it make a difference? It will cost about 10 bucks of an fcc staffer's time to scan the documents and email them. If there are any to scan.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The premise of the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund was to gather monies so that general membership dues need not be devoted to issues such as BPL.

So the the point is that if you get folks to be so gracious as to donate to a fund, then use the money for the intentions of the fund.

Don't take it from my pocket as a MEMBER or a TAX PAYER.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC should have released the testing documents with the ruling anyway so I think the ARRL is justified in asking for a fee waiver.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Your taxes or your ARRL membership dollars, does it make a difference?"

Uhhhh...70 some percent of hams are NOT arrl members. So, yes, it matters!




"It will cost about 10 bucks of an fcc staffer's time to scan the documents and email them. If there are any to scan".

Not likely. The bill is likely to run thousands of dollars!


 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Uhhhh...70 some percent of hams are NOT arrl members. So, yes, it matters! "

I'm sure ARRL would refund you the $ 0.0000000000001 of your tax money it cost you if you ask.

"Not likely. The bill is likely to run thousands of dollars! "

Only due to FCC incompetance and inefficiency.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 6, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Its time arrl realized why only about 20 some percent of licensed hams are members....

25% of hams are too cheap to pay for memberships
6% can't afford it
15% are angry about something they think arrl did 30 years ago
5% don't know what the arrl is
.00001% belong to AAAR instead
3% think they are in ARRL but are actually in AARP
26% just haven't gotten around to joining
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by K4RAF on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Try more than 80% are not "members" but 100% of hams are subject to both taxes & FCC rules. If they were to seperate QST magazine from "membership", they'd see their "membership" plummet. Then there are the "lifers" who are counted but can't check out.

Getting back to the subject, it can not help "our position" when the ARRL claims to be the ONLY voice for ham radio. Their endless personal taunts of the Commissioners make us ALL look like children who can't quite figure out what to say to get our way. "We" can only seem to throw breath-holding tantrums...

Turn blue yet? I give up & use ECFS to voice my opinions directly to the FCC. I urge you ALL to use the same so the other 80% can tilt the table back to the center...
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hey K0RFD...

Still think I'm talking to myself OM?
 
RE: The cost of copying is now the big deal?  
by K4RAF on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The ARRL has done its research over an extended period of time."

Hardly, unless you count IEEE LobsterFests & computer models of supposed fixed station "interference"...

"ARRL engineers have conducted field studies with calibrated test equipment."

A TS-440 is a piece of "test equipment"?

"ARRL attorneys have looked into the laws."

Yea, Imlay & Co. suck the BPL funds off like a sewage plant on the beach...

"Amateur radio victims have come forward."

A handful (at best) of mainly MOBILE operators. I can not find where mobile stations are afforded "protection" under current Part 97 law... Not to mention vertical antennas MAGNIFY noise. Stacking the deck IMHO...

"Their cases have been documented."

Yea, along with the "stuff the box" FCC complaints by people who don't even live in the vicinity of the supposed "interference". In fact, the ARRL did NOTHING to identify actual BPL noise signatures. They could have looked at the Austrian website & got a clue. Instead, they depended on VOLUNTEERS & non-"members" to go out & do their "work" instead of the "paid amateurs" in Newington doing a task truly worth completing, called "education". I am sure they would charge a fee or require "membership" to access such info...

"Liaison has been made with professional associations with similar concerns about BPL, and the ARRL leadership has made the decision to move forward."

When does the "moving forward" start? Seems to me they need to get over it & move on in Federal court for an injunction or sign off...

"The ARRL position is an informed and researched position."

Pure BS - Barbra Streisand...

"Go look at the ARRL web site."

Are you buying the barfbags with your PayPal account?

"Contrast this with the isolated, often contradictory and fragmented empty opinions of some ARRL detractors who seek attention for themselves, are not part of informed or activist groups, and struggle to concoct far out excuses to object to full disclosure of the FCC�s conduct in regard to their own BPL complaint investigations. Go look at their web sites, if you can find them."

I beg to differ as I am quite informed of the overall broadband issues at hand, especially when wireless is involved. I hold 2 FCC licenses for 25 years while working in & around RF for over 34 years. How dare you say "we" are not educated about the technical & political issues involved with BPL. I would bet some of us have forgot more than some of you you ARRL drones ever knew. Sorry but blah, blah, blah... Blabber, blabber, blabber... No one else has 150 paid (with benefits) employees to write website code or dream of new revenue sources, like online "classes" at $100. Mary Hobart is the "Revenue Development Specialist" & draws a hefty salary along with most of the crew up there. Ray, do you really have that tatoo of the ARRL symbol embossed on your K1ZZ?

"The collective wisdom of the ARRL organization taken as a whole easily trumps the weak and miniscule opposition of the ARRL critics on eHam.net."

Say what you want, you are nothing but a rhetorical rubber stamp Ray. It is funny because your periscope goes up & down so much, it should be pumping oil out of ANWR...

I got to go to work now, using my RF engineering & wireless construction experience toward building wireless infrastucture. This is to provide broadband where there is none currently or in the near future of 50 years. Some of us do far more than simply complain about ether-boogymen or think the world revolves around a few hundred thousand fossilized "thinkers"...

Ray, give it a rest... Because we think you are full of smiley faces & dare to point it out, does not make us "detractors". It is called "forum discussion"...
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Getting back to the subject, it can not help "our position" when the ARRL claims to be the ONLY voice for ham radio."

Yes, we keeping forgetting about the other voice, AARA. LOL

"Their endless personal taunts of the Commissioners make us ALL look like children who can't quite figure out what to say to get our way. "We" can only seem to throw breath-holding tantrums... "

That's a mischaracterization if I ever saw one. The ARRL has called a spade a spade. If they didn't take the approach they have, everyone would whine that they're too soft.

"Turn blue yet? I give up & use ECFS to voice my opinions directly to the FCC."

Good luck with that
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by WA3KYY on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Chip,

There are two major factors that caused the problems at Walter Reed, one of which affects the entire DoD/VA Health Care system.

1. No DoD/VA Hospital Complex anywhere is designed to deal with a large, resident outpatient population requiring long term rehabilitative care. The vast majority of outpatient care is provided by health care facilities near to the location the patient normally lives. It is not cost effective to maintain housing facilties that are not routinely needed. The problem is the specialized rehabilitative care these wounded men and women need is not available at their local health care facilities.

2. A large percentage of the time of senior Walter Reed management has been occupied preparing for the closure of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2011 and the transfer of those operations to the Bethesda Naval Complex and Ft Belvoir mandated in the BRAC 2005 decision which is now law. New construction that was not already approved is prohibited at locations being closed by BRAC and even approved but not started construction requires a waiver.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"IEEE LobsterFests..."

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

Heheh! That's mighty amusing:-)
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Mike,

BRAC sucks, that's for sure!

I think the real issue is care, not facility.

But your comments were very helpful in informing me and others; many thanks!

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by K4RAF on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"That's a mischaracterization if I ever saw one. The ARRL has called a spade a spade."

No Mr. NoCall, I call a dull spade just that... a dull & pointless spade@225 Main Street

Are you AI2IA's alter-ego or are you another ARRL drone?

The problem for you & the ARRL is clear, Google a few words & find everything they said, in their own words. Not my words or any 3rd party but their own horn blowing music for all the world to see. Welcome to the "Information Nation".

If you choose to ignore the obvious, fine but this is my last engagement of a nocall, no !&#! wonder...

Grow a spine, a set of "spherical entities" there coward & then call us back, OK?

K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Grow a spine, a set of "spherical entities" there coward & then call us back, OK? "

This is a forum discussion as you put it. Why are you starting the personal attacks and bullying? I already have a set, no need to call you back, thank you. I can express my opinions in this forum just as much as you.

The fact is the ARRL is right this time. There's no reason why the FCC shouldn't have supplied the test results in the first place. Some people will oppose anything the ARRL does. That's what this is really about.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Don't you just hate it when some folks want to reduce you to an insipid, idiotic stereotype?

If you take the time to read my responses, you will see that there are some things I support the ARRL on strongly, and others where I feel the posed position is not in the best interest of Part 97.

I find it very disappointing that some hams just don't accept that there are valid and educated views that may differ from some party line--or their own views.

I accept it. I just expect you to be able to defend it when appropriate.

Makes you think.

THINKING is GOOOOD!

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: The cost of copying is now the big deal?  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
" I can not find where mobile stations are afforded "protection" under current Part 97 law... "

That's because it was in part 15, but the FCC wrote a loop hole for bpl that says the FCC will not take action if they adjust their systems 20 db below the limit. This was probably the one time the FCC actually knew what they were doing.

"Not to mention vertical antennas MAGNIFY noise. Stacking the deck IMHO... "

Yes it's the mobiles' fault for using vertical antennas (and of course ARRL's since they have them in the Handbook). They should be using quads or yagis on their cars. A dummy load would avoid the interference even more.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
So, to summarize what I've learned:

1)Anybody can request a FOIA copy; the question is why does anyone put a press release out that they requested it?;

2) Waivers for fees--which are likely to be non-trivial-- require evidence for request 'in the public interest';

3) ARRL has requested a fee waiver for the FOIA--but they have not made a case publicly for this being in the 'public interest', as opposed to a 'special interest';

4) The ARRL has a special fund--the SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND--whose objective especially includes issues relating to BPL, thus the ARRL HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY for such things as FOIA requests;

5) Given that the ARRL has the resources to pay, and the need is not demonstrated as being fully in the 'public interest', then the request for waiver of fees is more than likely to be construed as lacking in merit--and declined;

6) A granting of a fee waiver might possibly be used later to construe that the ham related issues on BPL are 'in the public interest'. Yet another reason to turn down the fee request.

Hope that helps. My thoughts on this are crystal clear at this point.

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: The cost of copying is now the big deal?  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"A TS-440 is a piece of "test equipment"? "

ARRL hired a test firm to do measurements for several systems. And it's fine to use a receiver if you're just looking at interference and not exact field strength numbers.

"In fact, the ARRL did NOTHING to identify actual BPL noise signatures. "

Not in fact, more like making up facts. They know more about the on the air noise signatures than the bpl manufacturers themselves.


"I am sure they would charge a fee or require "membership" to access such info... "

More bs speculation. They don't have the bpl info in the members only part of the site.

"When does the "moving forward" start? Seems to me they need to get over it & move on in Federal court for an injunction or sign off... "

There is a court case pending, where have you been?
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by WA3KYY on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Chip,

Don't get me started on this BRAC.

I gave you a rather simple explanation (I work for a tenant activity at Walter Reed Medical Center).

You can only do so much care without the proper facilites although the care for the most part is first rate, at least while you are in the hospital. The problems are occuring primarily in the post-acute treatment phases.

Think Transient Quarters and Medical Holding Company. Think soldiers still attached to their deployed units while undergoing long term rehabilitative care away from their permanent duty station/home.

We can go into more detail offline via email if you wish.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by W9WHE-II on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Just ignore the posters with out ham calls. You are better off.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"Remember the "QSL the Whitehouse" effort?"

No, I don't. Another made-up "fact"?
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You also need to watch out for those who [misquote]
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Mike,

Thanks again for all this info on WR. Information beats ignorance every time!

73,
Chip W1YW
 
RE: arrl's UNREASONABLE demand to waive copy charg  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"While I support the FOI request, any information provided will likely NOT be of interest to the general public, just a small special interest group, i.e., Hams, which compose only about 0.2% of the "public". "

It's of interest to the general public. It proves whether or not the FCC actually took measurements and did them correctly. When everything is done in secrecy there is no way to tell.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
No; the pubic interest is not served by this request. The public interest was served by verification that the system obeyed Part 15 rules.

The level of detail desired in the FOIA request is only of special interest. The released info as the follow up to the measurement--done months ago--was in the public interest.

If you don't believe me, then watch how this plays out.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
No; the pubic interest is not served by this request. The public interest was served by verification that the system obeyed Part 15 rules.

The level of detail desired in the FOIA request is only of special interest. The released info as the follow up to the measurement--done months ago--was in the public interest.

If you don't believe me, then watch how this plays out.
 
Read the Article  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"The reasons for the Commission's dismissal, after months of delay, of five of the six Manassas complaints are inadequately documented, and no action appears ever to have been taken on a sixth complaint," Sumner commented. "The FOIA request was submitted only after the FCC failed, after more than two months, to respond to a letter from the ARRL pointing out apparent deficiencies in the Commission's investigation and requesting additional information to supplement Kathryn Berthot's terse and uninformative letter of December 14 dismissing the five complaints."

This was a questionable investigation, with no action on one of the complaints, no contact with the complainants, and no technical support provided for the decision, and then to boot the FCC becomes unresponsive. It's within the public interest to have this information see the light of day. To not release the information brings questions about the FCC's ability to correctly investigate part 15 complaints.
 
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BP  
by W1YW on March 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I don't see how it is questionable at all. In fact, it seems like it was fairly and professionally done with standard protocols.

You might not like that, but be damned if you, or I for that matter, have some especial right to DEFINE the public interest.

The burden is upon the requestor to DEMONSTRATE that the request is in the public interest.

Sayin' it don' makit so....
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"I don't see how it is questionable at all. In fact, it seems like it was fairly and professionally done with standard protocols."

LOL! No one from the FCC contacted the six complainants, all five received was a letter that it was dismissed. The sixth complaint wasn't even addressed. And then the FCC doesn't respond to ARRL's communications after two months. If that sounds professional to you, I'm glad I'm not a customer at your place of business or a government agency that you would run. Your statement above would make more sense with a smiley face at the end.

"The burden is upon the requestor to DEMONSTRATE that the request is in the public interest. "

It's a fairly easy to prove it's within the public interest. The various items mentioned above create a question of the validity of the process. The only argument presented here against it being in the public interest is that it affects only six hams. If you consider the implication of the FCC's new rule to ignore mobile interference which inadvertently could affect non-amateur public safety communications, it is very much within the public interest.
 
RE: ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents o  
by KD5NCO on March 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Straightkey

You don't seem to get IT

BPL is now 8 years old and aging

There are 300,000,000 (that is Millions) Americans

The government, YOU and I elected, desires to get as many of them "Connected" to the internet as possible

Our economy is consumer based

Security and Safety can be enhanced by a connected citizenry

Education can be enhanced by a connected school infrastructure

Commerce can be enhanced by a connected consumer base

The government, YOU and I elected, mandated every school in America to be "connected"

Amateurs are "perceived" as a bunch of goofy old men with a weird hobby

Amateurs are only 600,000 strong and it is estimated about half are actually actively using any spectrum

300,000 is 0.0001% of 300 MILLION

Of that half a VERY small percentage ever participate or contribute to local or national emergencies

If we were a subdivision in any major company, the division would have been eliminated back in the 90s as non productive to the goals of the company

BPL NEVER had the potential, even at it's worst implementation, to ever affect 5% of the Amateur population

The FCC is chartered and required by law conduct business in the best interests of ALL America's citizens

BPL is not now and definitely will never be as wide spread as it was first envisioned

In the last 8 years, less then 10 FCC licensed Amateurs have reported any interference from a BPL installation

Most of them were mobile

Mobile ARS members can avoid the interference easily without any degradation to their desires or mission

In the last 8 years the ARRL has squandered hundreds of thousands of members money fighting against very few BPL installations. It is not clear how much they got from external contributions from business entities opposed to the competition of BPL

Squandered because BPL never had the potential to harm the interests of America nor the ARS above or beyond many many other consumer devices currently being marketed.

I have never seen the ARRL ask for contributions to fight for it's members with each and every power distribution district/company to reduce power line noise. Not for Plasma TVs. Not for electric fences. Not for illegal imports of computer power-supplies that DO NOT have UL certification or testing...the list of real and pervasive RF noise generating interference sources is surprisingly large

What we do have, is an Non profit special interest group acting way out of proportion to the threat. And the ARRL is doing so in a very adversarial way. There are many of us who are members and think that is a massive mistake.



 
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?
BPL Is 'Spectrum Pollution,' ARRL President Says:
BPL -- Some Humor
HAM Radio Has No Chance Against BPL
FCC Commissioner's Office Clarifies 'Broadband Nirvana' Remarks:


Other News Articles
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
ARNewsline # 1684 -- Nov. 20 2009:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #47 de K7RA:
Technology Enthusiast Boosts Skills with Amateur Radio:
Solar Radio Flux: Slow Upward Trend Since Summer: