View Full Version : Report Says FCC Talks Too Much.
N5PVL
10-04-2007, 12:15 PM
This report (http://www.examiner.com/a-968790~Report_Says_FCC_Talks_Too_Much.html?cid=sec-promo) is of interest to amateurs, in light of the secretive and underhanded actions by ARRL folks associated with the bandwidth segmentation proposal, WL2K and the 'hinternet' paradigm.
Ever wonder how the ARRL gets so much done with the FCC under the table, without the amateur radio community's knowledge? This report explains that the problem is widespread within the FCC, not just involving the ARRL, and that now there is some chance that the practice will either cease or at least be seriously curtailed.
This is good news for amateur radio operators, and a serious setback for the underhanded 'hinternet' element within the ARRL.
Visit the FCC-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_fcc.htm) for the latest information about the Federal Communications Commission.
If you have news or information about the FCC, please stop by and share the info with your fellow amateurs at FCC-Watch.
Note: FCC-Watch needs a moderator, an amateur who will regularly do what I have just done; Keep an eye out for news and information about the FCC that may impact amateurs and post the info at FCC-Watch, where any ham may view it and share it. Send me ( N5PVL ) a QRZ PM for more info.
Charles, did you actually read the article?
The only thing being leaked is a "heads up" on when an item is coming up on a vote.
No where is any specific organization mentioned, but the article mentions industry organization lobbyists in particular. Further, it goes on to state Quote[/b] ]Not everyone benefits from the heads up, however.
Some advocates, the report said, "who generally represent consumer and public interest groups, told us they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their arguments." which would appear to belay your contention that this alleged conspiracy is to the benefit of the ARRL.
Oh well... never let the facts in a story get in the way of making hay out of a sensational headline, eh?
I'm not seeing the point here. Every federal government agency involved in any rulemaking process entails collaboration amongst dozens of employees. The rulemakers (commissioners or assistant secretaries (Senior Executive Service secretaries (i.e., political appointees), not the administrative assistant types)), office directors, attorney advisors, clerical staff, and office secretaries are all in the loop as to what is going down. Most all of them know somebody who has an interest in the proceeding and are prone to giving out tips as to what is happening. Even those who play the cards close to the vest may inadvertently tip off interested parties during the course of normal communications.
This is nothing new.
As to the ARRL, they're doing the same thing that every lobbying interest in Washington D.C. does. They meet with officials, they stay on the phone, they have recorded ex parte meetings. Its not underhanded. Although, clearly they haven't done a very good job of it....
N5PVL
10-04-2007, 01:08 PM
W3WN asks:
Quote[/b] ]
Charles, did you actually read the article?
Yes, I read the article. I also remember the ARRL attempting to slide some of its business with the FCC under the table, leaving the amateur radio community out of the loop.
This tends to occur more often when it is well-known that business is regularly being conducted under the table, without penalty.
Your quote mentions "some advocates" who generally represent public interest groups, not the ARRL as you appear to believe.
Did you actually read the article?
N5PVL
10-04-2007, 01:12 PM
NN3W observes:
Quote[/b] ]
This is nothing new.
Yes, corruption has been around a long, long time. Pointing out that fact though, in no way reduces the fact that corruption is undesirable, and unacceptable if you are interested in civilization as opposed to chaos.
Corruption is a big term to be using here. I'm not so sure that letting someone know that a vote is coming up in two weeks constitutes corrpution. Being paid to change your vote, yes. But this?
N5PVL
10-04-2007, 01:22 PM
Sorry to hear that you are having trouble with that.
ab0wr
10-04-2007, 01:33 PM
Goodness gracious, folks, did you not read the article for meaning?
Lobbying is NOT LEGAL after the agenda has been published.
Tipping off lobbyists as to when the agenda is to be published gives them a chance to do "last minute" lobbying to make sure *their* point of view is fresh on the mind of the Commissioners when they do their voting.
When only some of the interested parties are tipped off to this ahead of time it constitutes an unfair action on the behalf of the FCC AND IT *IS* CORRUPTION of the worst kind.
The FCC should consider themselves lucky. Many times findings such as this result in an FBI investigation to see if anyone is receiving payments under the table for their actions.
tim ab0wr
Many states have a "sunshine" law. In Florida (one of the tougher states) the law says officials can't talk about matters before a governmental body unless it is a public meeting and you're "on the record".
It pretty much puts an end to back room politics.
You're saying that informing someone of an upcoming vote, which may result in lobbying, which may or may not sway persuade a commissioner is worst that flat out paying money to a commissioner? Wow....Priorities have change.
n0nwo
10-04-2007, 02:00 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Oct. 04 2007,06:54)]Charles, did you actually read the article?
The only thing being leaked is a "heads up" on when an item is coming up on a vote.
No where is any specific organization mentioned, but the article mentions industry organization lobbyists in particular. #Further, it goes on to state Quote[/b] ]Not everyone benefits from the heads up, however.
Some advocates, the report said, "who generally represent consumer and public interest groups, told us they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their arguments." which would appear to belay your contention that this alleged conspiracy is to the benefit of the ARRL.
Oh well... never let the facts in a story get in the way of making hay out of a sensational headline, eh?
REALY?
Quote[/b] ]The Federal Communications Commission is doing a swell job communicating with lobbyists, but with the public? Not so good, according to a government report.
The Government Accountability Office says the agency tips off some people with business before the commission in advance about what items are coming up for a vote, usually before the public is notified.
#If the ARRL is not a lobbyist, they what the hell are they?
Quote[/b] ]"Situations where some, but not all, stakeholders know what FCC is considering for an upcoming vote undermine the fairness and transparency of the process and constitute a violation of FCC's rules," That could explain why the ARRL dropped their last round of band width nonsence. They were about to get a black eye and their butts kicked by the FCC.
Quote[/b] ]The report says some people at the agency warn lobbyists when a particular issue is about to come up for a vote...
...That allows a window of opportunity for lobbyists who "time their lobbying efforts to maximize their impact."
The ARRL had proven expert at under the table activities.
Quote[/b] ]One representative of "a large organization that is involved in numerous rulemakings" said FCC staff will tell him what items are scheduled for a vote several days before the agenda is released. The report did not identify the person.
Does anyone remember how a rep from the ARRL told hams at a hamfest about the elimination of the code long before it was announced by the FCC!?!?!? #The threads on that topic are still on QRZ. # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #
Minton
Minton, take another look. The ones being tipped off are INDUSTRY lobbyists. Not groups representing the people.
And Charles, since nothing in the article explicitly points to the ARRL -- the implications of the article is pointing if anywhere away from "consumer" advocates like the ARRL and towards Industry lobbyists -- your comments are merely your opinion. Not facts.
n0nwo
10-04-2007, 02:12 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Oct. 04 2007,08:05)]Minton, take another look. #The ones being tipped off are INDUSTRY lobbyists. #Not groups representing the people.
And Charles, since nothing in the article explicitly points to the ARRL -- the implications of the article is pointing if anywhere away from "consumer" advocates like the ARRL and towards Industry lobbyists -- your comments are merely your opinion. #Not facts.
How did you get that?
again look to the most recent code requirement drop as an example of how wrong you are.
Minton
N2RBJ
10-04-2007, 02:22 PM
Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Oct. 04 2007,09:08)]...I also remember the ARRL attempting to slide some of its business with the FCC under the table, leaving the amateur radio community out of the loop.
Charles,
Can you cite a specific example? I'm curious about the details of this secret ARRL lobbying.
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,07:00)]The ARRL had proven expert at under the table activities.
What recently involving the FCC was under the table?
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,10:12)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Oct. 04 2007,08:05)]Minton, take another look. #The ones being tipped off are INDUSTRY lobbyists. #Not groups representing the people.
And Charles, since nothing in the article explicitly points to the ARRL -- the implications of the article is pointing if anywhere away from "consumer" advocates like the ARRL and towards Industry lobbyists -- your comments are merely your opinion. #Not facts.
How did you get that?
again look to the most recent code requirement drop as an example of how wrong you are.
Minton
How did I get that? Well, let's see...Quote[/b] ]Some advocates, the report said, "who generally represent consumer and public interest groups, told us they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their arguments."
Last time I checked, Industry lobbyists -- don't represent consumer and public interest groups... they represent groups in the various industries affected by the FCC. Broadcasting for one.Quote[/b] ]One representative of "a large organization that is involved in numerous rulemakings" said FCC staff will tell him what items are scheduled for a vote several days before the agenda is released. The report did not identify the person.
Contrary to what we may want to believe, the Amateur Radio Service is not involved in "numerous rulemakings", at least when compared to the vast agenda that the FCC has to deal with. Again, this points to industrial organizations.
No where is the ARRL mentioned by name in this report. In fact, no one specifically is, so it is at best conjecture. Further, the report mentions that the GAO investigators focused on four proceedings. When you consider the number of proceedings before the FCC in any given fiscal year, what are the odds of one (let alone more) of the proceedings investigated involve Amateur Radio?
The code requirement drop? Gee, that's funny, I seem to remember that those petitions were filed by groups like No Code International. Funny, isn't it, that blame for that debacle always descends in full on the ARRL, but never on those that pushed the agenda year after year and finally got their petitions turned into NPRM's?
And frankly, if you really think that the ARRL has a secret back door into FCC proceedings, that debacle amongst others should show otherwise. It didn't matter what the ARRL or anyone else said -- the FCC made their proposal based on the petition, they asked for comments, they read the comments, and then they appeared to ignore the comments and implement the NPRM pretty much as proposed.
I don't belive in revisionist history. Why do you?
Agreed on the last point. If the ARRL is engaging in "back door" lobbying, (i.e., BPL and segmentation by bandwidth), it doesn't have a good track record. So much for the back door providing access and sway.
n0nwo
10-04-2007, 02:50 PM
Quote[/b] ]And frankly, if you really think that the ARRL has a secret back door into FCC proceedings, that debacle amongst others should show otherwise. #It didn't matter what the ARRL or anyone else said -- the FCC made their proposal based on the petition, they asked for comments, they read the comments, and then they appeared to ignore the comments and implement the NPRM pretty much as proposed. #
I don't belive in revisionist history. #Why do you?
Just because they failed does not mean they did not try. Also just they were not named means nothing. NO ONE WAS NAMED! By your standard, no one must be guilty of using a back door approach.
Again notice the fact that the ARRL knew LONG BEFORE anyone should have that the code would be dropped. Can you explain that any other way except for the fact that the ARRL has an inapprobiate relationship with the FCC?
Again, just they frequently fail does not mean they are not trying to slide things past.
Minton
k4kyv
10-04-2007, 02:57 PM
I heard the report on the radio this morning. Here are some more links.
http://www.npr.org/templat....&f=1006 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14980818&ft=1&f=1006)
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6486465.html
http://techdirt.com/articles/20071003/191504.shtml
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,07:50)]Quote[/b] ]And frankly, if you really think that the ARRL has a secret back door into FCC proceedings, that debacle amongst others should show otherwise. #It didn't matter what the ARRL or anyone else said -- the FCC made their proposal based on the petition, they asked for comments, they read the comments, and then they appeared to ignore the comments and implement the NPRM pretty much as proposed. #
I don't belive in revisionist history. #Why do you?
Just because they failed does not mean they did not try. Also just they were not named means nothing. NO ONE WAS NAMED! By your standard, no one must be guilty of using a back door approach.
Again notice the fact that the ARRL knew LONG BEFORE anyone should have that the code would be dropped. Can you explain that any other way except for the fact that the ARRL has an inapprobiate relationship with the FCC?
Again, just they frequently fail does not mean they are not trying to slide things past.
Minton
Because the code drop was a foregone conclusion. #The ITU dropped the requirement. #Why would the FCC retain it? #Only a moron would not be able to see the writing on the wall.
k4kyv
10-04-2007, 03:00 PM
Nothing new and not surprising.
Maybe I should scan and post the 4" thick stack of documents I have on the AM power issue from back in 1983-1990. Documented evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the rulemaking procedures by Johnny Johnston and his henchmen at the Private Radio Bureau.
KI4NGN
10-04-2007, 03:06 PM
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,07:50)]Just because they failed does not mean they did not try. Also just they were not named means nothing. NO ONE WAS NAMED! By your standard, no one must be guilty of using a back door approach.
They didn't mention my name either, so by your reasoning I guess I must also be involved.
Get a grip!
n0nwo
10-04-2007, 03:12 PM
Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Oct. 04 2007,09:06)]Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,07:50)]Just because they failed does not mean they did not try. Also just they were not named means nothing. NO ONE WAS NAMED! By your standard, no one must be guilty of using a back door approach.
They didn't mention my name either, so by your reasoning I guess I must also be involved.
Get a grip!
That is just being obtuse. Try making an argument with some validity. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Minton
KI4NGN
10-04-2007, 03:47 PM
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,08:12)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Oct. 04 2007,09:06)]Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,07:50)]Just because they failed does not mean they did not try. Also just they were not named means nothing. NO ONE WAS NAMED! By your standard, no one must be guilty of using a back door approach.
They didn't mention my name either, so by your reasoning I guess I must also be involved.
Get a grip!
That is just being obtuse. #Try #making an argument with some validity. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #
Minton
Dude, you're the one who explicitly stated that because the ARRL was not named, that didn't mean they weren't involved.
Quote[/b] ]Also just [because] they were not named means nothing.
Follow your own advice.
Gentle folk, not to worry. All will be well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvanJYOGlus
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,10:50)]< snip >Again notice the fact that the ARRL knew LONG BEFORE anyone should have that the code would be dropped. Can you explain that any other way except for the fact that the ARRL has an inapprobiate relationship with the FCC? < snip >
Explain that? Oh gee, that's a TOUGH one! Let's see...
Ah... because the ITU dropped the international requirement for International Morse testing at the WRC (WRC-97, I believe? I'll have to check that to be certain), it was a forgone conclusion that at some point after the US Senate ratified the treaty coming out of the conference, the FCC would move to reduce or completely eliminate the need for Element 1 testing?
This wasn't exactly a secret, boychik. No-Code International (remember them?) beat that drum long and hard long before the FCC finally indicated that they were ready to actually issue the NPRM.
Am I the only one who remembers all the no-code articles that Fred W5YI put in his "Washington Mailbox" column in CQ over all these years? Without bothering, as far as I can recall, to mention that he was on the NCI board.
So riddle me this... why isn't his name, or the organizations he was involved with at the time (NCI & W5YI Group to name two) ever brought up in the backlash over the FCC eliminating the code test? Why don't you ever hear criticism directed at CQ Magazine for their support of No-Code testing?
It's real convenient to blame everything on the League, isn't it? You appear to claim that it's either what they did, what they didn't do, what they failed to anticipate, what they failed to follow up on. Everything is always their fault. Nobody else's. Is that your story?
w7lpn
10-04-2007, 06:09 PM
Beaurocrats pulling strings to ensure they'll get an executive position after government service. Same thing happens in the FDA/Pharmaceutical Corporations. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Oct. 04 2007,14:09)]Beaurocrats pulling strings to ensure they'll get an executive position after government service. Same thing happens in the FDA/Pharmaceutical Corporations. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
That's how we lost 220-222 MHz to the Brown Shirt Delivery Company (who after all the fuss decided they didn't want the band anyway).
Purely coincidental that certain FCC Commissioners ended up working for the very outside people who pulled that one off, wasn't it?
[I think the best part of that "decision" was declaring 220 - 222 MHz underutilized, because there were no repeaters using that part of the band. Why? Because FCC rules didn't permit repeaters in the 220 - 222 MHz part of the band... sorry, there I go again, applying logic to the situation...]
K0RGR
10-04-2007, 06:41 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Oct. 04 2007,11:07)]Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,10:50)]< snip >Again notice the fact that the ARRL knew LONG BEFORE anyone should have that the code would be dropped. Can you explain that any other way except for the fact that the ARRL has an inapprobiate relationship with the FCC? < snip >
Explain that? Oh gee, that's a TOUGH one! Let's see...
Ah... because the ITU dropped the international requirement for International Morse testing at the WRC (WRC-97, I believe? I'll have to check that to be certain), it was a forgone conclusion that at some point after the US Senate ratified the treaty coming out of the conference, the FCC would move to reduce or completely eliminate the need for Element 1 testing?
This wasn't exactly a secret, boychik. No-Code International (remember them?) beat that drum long and hard long before the FCC finally indicated that they were ready to actually issue the NPRM.
Am I the only one who remembers all the no-code articles that Fred W5YI put in his "Washington Mailbox" column in CQ over all these years? Without bothering, as far as I can recall, to mention that he was on the NCI board.
So riddle me this... why isn't his name, or the organizations he was involved with at the time (NCI & W5YI Group to name two) ever brought up in the backlash over the FCC eliminating the code test? Why don't you ever hear criticism directed at CQ Magazine for their support of No-Code testing?
It's real convenient to blame everything on the League, isn't it? You appear to claim that it's either what they did, what they didn't do, what they failed to anticipate, what they failed to follow up on. Everything is always their fault. Nobody else's. Is that your story?
Actually, it was because the Commission telegraphed that move when they, over the objections of ARRL, reduced the code requirement to 5 WPM for all licenses. At that time, they clearly stated that they could find no reason whatsoever to retain the code requirement - they rejected ALL of the arguments that we see here over and over and over again. The only reason, they stated, for keeping any code test was the International Law. Once that law went away, by their own words, there was no reason to keep the code test. They simply couldn't make any other decision without ruling that the previous one was bad, which would make all you 5 WPM Generals very, very unhappy.
ARRL does retain both a legal counsel and a lobbyist in Washington, but I don't know if the lobbyist has any doings at FCC - I believe he's more involved at the Capitol. Like anybody else who cares, ARRL does ask frequently when things may be acted on, but they usually don't seem to get any kind of specific answer. The perfect example of that was the RM that led to the elimination of the Novice bands - the ARRL's petition was accepted by FCC, and was adopted completely, but the final rule making didn't happen until years later, when ARRL finally complained about it. The HF prviliges for Techs, which was part of that proposal, didn't happen until even later.
KC4RAN
10-04-2007, 08:24 PM
Dunno about the rest of you guys, but I would have to go waaaay back in my calendar to find the last time I had an ex parte meeting with the FCC, on Valentine's Day no less.
Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 04 2007,10:50)]Again notice the fact that the ARRL knew LONG BEFORE anyone should have that the code would be dropped.
The ARRL knew at the same time as everyone else that the code would be dropped..... back in 1999 and again in 2003.
Go back and read the R&O that resulted in the 04/2000 changes. The FCC stated that the only reason they even bothered to keep 5 WPM was because it was still an international requirement.
At WRC-03 the removal of the international code requirement was finalized. I'm just surprised it took the FCC as long as it did to put up the NPRM for comments.
The "demise" of Morse Code as a requirement for an amateur license in this country was "written" way back in 1999. Anyone who didn't think so, was simply living in denial.
wb6mmj
10-05-2007, 06:24 AM
The question should be: Did the FCC break any laws? From what I read, it sounds like they did. The report didn`t say anything about breaking any laws, though, but I do wonder.
Also, why would they warn lobbyists
" The report says some people at the agency warn lobbyists when a particular issue is about to come up for a vote"
Is this about the FCC trying to get what the FCC wants?
"Investigators reviewed a period from 2002 to 2006 and focused on four proceedings in particular. They concluded that the FCC "generally followed its rule making process" except for how it handled confidential information"
Confidential Information? Was this about giving a "heads up" to certain people? Or that and other things?
I don`t know what all this means but If they are giving certain people a "heads up" what else is going on that we don`t know about?
Can the FCC be trusted to be fair when it comes to rule making? They apparently havn`t been fair.
Can we trust the FCC to do what is in the best interest of Amateur Radio? I believe they have NOT been doing that. I think they are dumping Amateur Radio into another CB class.
I still want to know what the FCC`s long-term and short-term goals are. But I really don`t think they will tell us.
K7JEM
10-05-2007, 06:45 AM
I am baffled that so many people think the FCC has any thought going on about HR.
Hams live in a delusional world, where ham radio is all important, and the only thing the FCC has to deal with.
Reality is, ham radio is far down the list of things the FCC is worried about.
Joe
KI4NGN
10-05-2007, 09:39 AM
A rare time that I agree with Joe.
This is a ridiculous thread. The GAO discovers that the FCC has leaks. Imagine that...a large government organization that has leaks!
Oh my god, the entire organization must be corrupt! And though consumer and public interest groups (like the ARRL) seemed to be explicitly excluded from receiving the leaks according to the article, naturally the ARRL bashers insist that the League must also be involved in this. One poster even said, and I still can't believe this, that just because the ARRL was not mentioned, that doesn't mean they weren't involved.
Jeez. Get a grip fellow operators! I can assure you that there is no conspiracy against amateur radio. If the FCC, and by extension the US government, wanted ARS gone, they don't need to conspire...it would be gone!
n9lya
10-05-2007, 09:54 AM
Quote[/b] (N2RBJ @ Oct. 04 2007,02:22)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Oct. 04 2007,09:08)]...I also remember the ARRL attempting to slide some of its business with the FCC under the table, leaving the amateur radio community out of the loop.
Charles,
Can you cite a specific example? #I'm curious about the details of this secret ARRL lobbying.
I can ARRL's 2004's Attaempt to sneak the bandwidth proposal thru the FCC... Or were you alseep in 2004http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
How was that secret?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif It was in the public docket. Thats pretty much anything but secret.
Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Oct. 05 2007,06:27)]How was that secret?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #It was in the public docket. #Thats pretty much anything but secret.
It's all the fault of those black helicopters!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
KI4NGN
10-05-2007, 01:38 PM
Muldur and Sculley should be resurrected to look into this. I'd bet anything that the smoking man is behind this. ;)
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 04 2007,23:45)]I am baffled that so many people think the FCC has any thought going on about HR.
Hams live in a delusional world, where ham radio is all important, and the only thing the FCC has to deal with.
Reality is, ham radio is far down the list of things the FCC is worried about.
Joe
I kinda agree Joe. We're more akin to something the commissioners feel they have to scrape off their shoes before going indoors. I wish it were not the case.