PDA

View Full Version : The ARRL Letter, Vol 27, No 16


AA7BQ
04-26-2008, 02:41 PM
IN THIS EDITION:

* + Court Finds FCC Violated Administrative Procedure Act in BPL
Decision
* + Counting Down to Dayton Hamvention
* + ARRL Lab Test Engineer Leaves HQ Staff
* + Antenna Expert L. B. Cebik, W4RNL (SK)
* + What's Coming Up in the May/June Issue of QEX
* + Get Ready for the 2008 Hurricane Season
* Solar Update
* IN BRIEF:
This Weekend on the Radio
ARRL Continuing Education Course Registration
+ Hamvention Traffic Update
+ New Section Manager Appointed in New Hampshire
ARRL to Discontinue Web Classifieds

+Available on ARRL Audio News <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/)

================================================== =========
==>Delivery problems: First see FAQ
<http://www.arrl.org/members-only/faq.html#nodelivery> (http://www.arrl.org/members-only/faq.html#nodelivery), then e-mail
<letter-dlvy@arrl.org> (letter-dlvy@arrl.org)
==>Editorial questions or comments only: S. Khrystyne Keane,
<k1sfa@arrl.org> (k1sfa@arrl.org)
================================================== =========

==> COURT FINDS FCC VIOLATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IN BPL
DECISION

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today
released its decision
<http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200804/06-1343-1112979.p
df> on the ARRL's Petition for Review of the FCC's Orders adopting rules
governing broadband over power line (BPL) systems. The Court agreed with
the ARRL on two major points and remanded the rules to the Commission.
Writing for the three-judge panel of Circuit Judges Rogers, Tatel and
Kavanaugh, Judge Rogers summarized: "The Commission failed to satisfy
the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act
('APA') by redacting studies on which it relied in promulgating the rule
and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its choice of the
extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL emissions."

The Court agreed with the ARRL that the FCC had failed to comply with
the APA by not fully disclosing for public comment the staff studies on
which it relied. The Court also agreed with the ARRL that the Commission
erred in not providing a reasoned justification for its choice of an
extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade for Access BPL systems and in
offering "no reasoned explanation for its dismissal of empirical data
that was submitted at its invitation." The Court was not persuaded by
the ARRL's arguments on two other points, on which it found that the
Commission had acted within its discretion.

The conclusion that the FCC violated the APA hinges on case law. "It
would appear to be a fairly obvious proposition that studies upon which
an agency relies in promulgating a rule must be made available during
the rulemaking in order to afford interested persons meaningful notice
and an opportunity for comment," the Court said, adding that "there is
no APA precedent allowing an agency to cherry-pick a study on which it
has chosen to rely in part."

The Court continued, "The League has met its burden to demonstrate
prejudice by showing that it 'ha[s] something useful to say' regarding
the unredacted studies [citation omitted] that may allow it to 'mount a
credible challenge' if given the opportunity to comment." Information
withheld by the Commission included material under the headings "New
Information Arguing for Caution on HF BPL" and "BPL Spectrum Tradeoffs."
The Court concluded that "no precedent sanctions such a 'hide and seek'
application of the APA's notice and comment requirements."

With regard to the extrapolation factor, the Court ordered: "On remand,
the Commission shall either provide a reasoned justification for
retaining an extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade for Access BPL
systems sufficient to indicate that it has grappled with the 2005
studies, or adopt another factor and provide a reasoned explanation for
it." The studies in question were conducted by the Office of
Communications, the FCC's counterpart in the United Kingdom, and were
submitted by the ARRL, along with the League's own analysis showing that
an extrapolation factor closer to 20 dB per decade was more appropriate,
as part of the record in its petition for reconsideration of the FCC's
BPL Order. The Court said that the FCC "summarily dismissed" this data
in a manner that "cannot substitute for a reasoned explanation." The
Court also noted that the record in the FCC proceeding included a study
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that
"itself casts doubt on the Commission's decision."

The briefs for the ARRL were prepared by a team of attorneys at
WilmerHale, a firm with extensive appellate experience, with assistance
from ARRL General Counsel Christopher D. Imlay, W3KD. Oral argument for
the ARRL was conducted by Jonathan J. Frankel of WilmerHale. Oral
argument was heard on October 23, 2007; the Court's decision was
released more than six months later.

After reading the decision, General Counsel Imlay observed, "The
decision of the Court of Appeals, though long in coming, was well worth
the wait. It is obvious that the FCC was overzealous in its advocacy of
BPL, and that resulted in a rather blatant cover-up of the technical
facts surrounding its interference potential. Both BPL and Amateur Radio
would be better off had the FCC dealt with the interference potential in
an honest and forthright manner at the outset. Now there is an
opportunity to finally establish some rules that will allow BPL to
proceed, if it can in configurations that don't expose licensed radio
services to preclusive interference in the HF bands."

ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, added: "We are
gratified that the Court decided to hold the FCC's feet to the fire on
such a technical issue as the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor. It
is also gratifying to read the Court's strong support for the principles
underlying the Administrative Procedure Act. Now that the Commission has
been ordered to do what it should have done in the first place, we look
forward to participating in the proceedings on remand, and to helping to
craft rules that will provide licensed radio services with the
interference protection they are entitled to under law."

ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN, concluded: "I am very pleased that
the Court saw through the FCC's smoke screen and its withholding of
valid engineering data that may contradict their position that the
interference potential of BPL to Amateur Radio and public safety
communications is minimal. The remand back to the FCC regarding their
use of an inappropriate extrapolation factor validates the technical
competence of Amateur Radio operators and especially of the ARRL Lab
under the direction of Ed Hare, W1RFI. We are grateful for the work of
our legal team and especially for the unflagging support of the ARRL
membership as we fought the odds in pursuing this appeal."

==> COUNTING DOWN TO DAYTON HAMVENTION

With less than one month to go, everyone wants to know what's new in the
ARRL EXPO <http://www.arrl.org/expo> (http://www.arrl.org/expo) at the 2008 Dayton Hamvention
<http://www.hamvention.org> (http://www.hamvention.org/). Who's going to be there? What's happening
and when? We here at HQ are gearing up for an exciting time in the ARRL
EXPO in Ballarena Hall at Dayton's Hara Arena, and mixing up a bit of
the old and the new.

ARRL Membership Manager and ARRL EXPO Coordinator Katie Breen, W1KRB,
said, "We have many new publications and apparel items that we are proud
to introduce. A highlight is always in the annual release of the
'2008/2009 ARRL Repeater Directory' -- new to this year's edition are
the handy indexing tabs on the cover so you can quickly find the
listings you're looking for. The Directory has new easier-to-read
listings because the pocket-sized book is one-half inch bigger."

If you are interested in learning about more tools with which to enjoy
Amateur Radio, then the new "VHF Digital Handbook" or "HF Digital
Handbook" by QST Editor Steve Ford, WB8IMY, should go home with you! If
you'd like a terrific resource of materials spanning a variety of
topics, then "Hands-On Radio Experiments" by H. Ward Silver, N0AX, is
right up your alley. "We here at ARRL are very proud of Ward's selection
as Hamvention's Amateur of the Year," Breen said. "Come meet him and
have him autograph your new book."

Breen said that new ARRL mugs and clothing items will be introduced at
Dayton this year: "Demonstrate your pride as a radio amateur in your
office or your shack. While you're at it, show off being a ham in our
new 'HAM' logoed apparel or 2008 Field Day apparel. And to top it all
off, it will all go home with you in our new environmentally friendly,
reusable bag." All those who purchase $10 or more in the ARRL EXPO will
receive a complimentary reusable eco-friendly bag that you can take home
and use when grocery shopping and more. All new and renewing ARRL
members will also receive this new bag, Breen said.

A new area within the ARRL EXPO this year is the interactive "Doctor Is
IN" booth. "You've read the column in QST for years and everyone always
wants to know who is behind the costume. Here's your chance to stop by
the booth, ask your question and have some one-on-one time with ARRL's
Technical Experts. You might even be able to submit a stumper and get it
published in QST," Breen added.

This year's Docs On Call will be QST Contributing Editor Ward Silver,
N0AX; QEX Editor Larry Wolfgang, WR1B; ARRL Senior Technical Editor Joel
Hallas, W1ZR; QST Editor Steve Ford, WB8IMY, and ARRL RF Engineer Mike
Gruber, W1MG. On Saturday, automotive experts Mark Steffka, WW8MS, and
Don Hibbard, W8DBH, will be on hand to answer your questions. They will
be at the Doctor Booth, as well as providing an interactive session in
the ARRL Movie Room about mobile Amateur Radio and ignition systems.

Breen said that the Movie Room, a new feature of this year's ARRL EXPO,
will host a presentation on "40 Years of the Worked All Europe Contest"
presented by Jorg Jahrig, DJ3HW, and Dennis M. Haertig, DL7RBI, of
Deutscher Amateur Radio Club (DARC), the German equivalent of ARRL. The
movie room will also host a variety of DXpedition videos, Breen said.
"The highlight of the video presentations will be with Bob Allphin,
K4UEE. Bob will host an interactive session during the viewing of the
video of the Peter I DXpedition to the Antarctic. Sit back, relax and
enjoy in the new ARRL Movie Room."

The 2008 Dayton Hamvention is May 16, 17 and 18 at the Hara Arena in
Dayton, Ohio. Find out about activities within and in conjunction with
Hamvention at the Dayton Hamvention's Web site
<http://www.hamvention.org> (http://www.hamvention.org/).

==> ARRL LAB TEST ENGINEER LEAVES HQ STAFF

After more than 17 years at ARRL, Laboratory Test Engineer Mike Tracy,
KC1SX, is leaving the HQ Family and moving to New Jersey to take on a
position with Synergy Microwave <http://www.synergymwave.com/> (http://www.synergymwave.com/), a
company owned by Dr Ulrich Rohde, N1UL.

Tracy came to the League in 1991 as the night/weekend operator for W1AW.
It wasn't long before the W1AW Chief Operator recognized his talent for
more technical applications; when a position in the ARRL Lab opened up
in 1993, he recommended that Tracy apply. "I did, and was quickly
accepted as the new Technical Information Services Coordinator where I
handled many of the technical questions of members and referred others
to those more knowledgeable on particular subjects. I also developed
some databases and other resources to help in the process of answering
members' questions," Tracy said. In 1997 when the Lab Test Engineer Mike
Gruber, W1MG, stepped down, Tracy switched seats yet again, testing
Product Review equipment.

ARRL Lab Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, said, "When Mike came to the ARRL Lab,
he was our Technical Information Coordinator where he helped maintain
the TIS Web pages <http://www.arrl.org/tis/> (http://www.arrl.org/tis/), as well as helping to
field technical questions for members. Over the years, Mike, as Lab Test
Engineer, helped modernize the test process through new test equipment,
new test software and new test methods. In between all that, he always
found the time somehow to write articles, watch over the technical
content of ARRL's advertising and help other staff more often than his
job may have required.

"One of the most pleasant parts of any manager's job is to hear good
things about his or her staff. When Mike was in the Lab, my job was
pleasant, as staff often told me about how he had helped them above and
beyond the call of duty," Hare said.

"Mike's shoes will be hard to fill," Hare said, "but we have hired Bob
Allison, WB1GCM, to do just that." Allison, a ham for almost 35 years,
most recently worked for a Hartford television station, WVIT, NBC 30,
for the past 28 years. Over those years, he has done a lot of things at
the station, from testing the television transmitter to day-to-day
maintenance of the studio facilities; this, said Hare, "has prepared him
to take over this important job in the Lab."

Allison, an ARRL member, has served as a volunteer tour guide at ARRL
<http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/08/07/2/> (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/08/07/2/), offering members a
friendly and informative tour of HQ that they will remember for a long
time to come. "Although he is new at being an HQ employee, we all feel
that he has been part of the family for a while," said Hare. Allison and
his wife, Logbook of The World Specialist Kathy, KA1RWY, reside in
Coventry, Connecticut. Allison also enjoys sailing and working on Model
A Fords.

Allison said, "I have been active on the air since I was first licensed
as WN1TDN in 1974, where I enjoy operating, experimenting and meeting
people from around the world. I can't say what ham band I like best,
except all of them. While I enjoy restoring old radios, I very much
enjoy the new ones and digital modes such as PSK-31. I am honored and
humbled to be part of the ARRL Laboratory Staff and I'm looking forward
to serving our members and testing some really cool, new radios!"

Tracy, whose last day at ARRL is today, said, "The various
responsibilities I have held over 17 years at ARRL have taught me
volumes about the League's membership, Amateur Radio in general and
many, many different technical topics related to the Service. The
support I received from other HQ staff was invaluable, and I will long
remember my time here."

==> ANTENNA EXPERT L. B. CEBIK, W4RNL (SK)

L. B. Cebik, W4RNL, ARRL Technical Advisor and antenna authority, passed
away last week of natural causes. He was 68. An ARRL Life Member, Cebik
was known to many hams for the numerous articles he wrote on antennas
and antenna modeling. He had articles published in most of the US ham
journals, including QST, QEX, NCJ, CQ, Communications Quarterly, Ham
Radio, 73, QRP Quarterly, Radio-Electronics and QRPp. Larry Wolfgang,
WR1B, QEX Editor, called Cebik "probably the most widely published and
often read author of Amateur Radio antenna articles ever to write on the
subject."

Cebik lived in Knoxville, Tennessee and wrote more than a dozen books on
antennas for both the beginner and the advanced student. Among his books
are a basic tutorial in the use of NEC antenna modeling software and
compilations of his many shorter pieces. A teacher for more than 30
years, Cebik was retired, but served as Professor Emeritus of philosophy
at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Cebik served his country in
the US Air Force from 1957-1961, specializing in air traffic control.

One of Cebik's last articles for QST, "A New Spin on the Big Wheel,"
appeared in the March 2008 issue. The article, co-written with Bob
Cerreto, WA1FXT, looked at a three dipole array for 2 meters. This was a
follow-up to their article in the January/February issue of QEX that
featured omnidirectional horizontally polarized antennas. Cebik authored
the "Antenna Options" column for QEX.

Former ARRL Senior Assistant Technical Editor Dean Straw, N6BV, and
editor of "The ARRL Antenna Book," said: "LB will be greatly missed by
the thousands of hams he's helped through his incredibly prolific -- and
invariably proficient -- writing about antennas. LB helped me personally
in numerous ways while I worked on antenna matters at the League, always
communicating with a gentle, scholarly attitude and a real eye for
detail. I'm in shock at the news of LB's passing. May his soul rest in
peace."

Licensed since 1954, Cebik served as Technical Editor for "antenneX
Magazine" <http://www.antennex.com> (http://www.antennex.com/). According to Jack L. Stone,
publisher of antenneX, he had not heard from Cebik for a few days and
became worried: "I called the Sheriff in Knoxville to go check on him
since I hadn't heard from him in over 5 days, either e-mail or phone,
which is highly unusual. The Sheriff [went to Cebik's house to check on
him and] called back to tell me the sad, devastating news. As his
publisher of books, monthly columns, feature articles and
software/models for more than 10 years, we communicated almost daily
during that span of time. Not hearing from him for that long was
unusual, causing my concern. He was like family to me and was loved and
respected by so many."


Cebik maintained a Web site <http://www.cebik.com> (http://www.cebik.com/), a virtual treasure
trove to anyone interested in antennas. Besides a few notes on the
history of radio work and other bits that Cebik called "semi-technical
oddities," the collection contains information of interest to radio
amateurs and professionals interested in antennas, antenna modeling and
related subjects, such as antenna tuners and impedance matching. Cebik
said that his notes were "geared to helping other radio amateurs and
antenna enthusiasts discover what I have managed to uncover over the
years -- and then to go well beyond."

His Web site also contains information on antenna modeling. His book,
"Basic Antenna Modeling: A Hands-On Tutorial" for Nittany-Scientific's
NEC-Win Plus NEC-2 antenna modeling software, contains models in .NEC
format for over 150 exercises. "Since the principles in the book apply
to any modeling software," Cebik said, "I have also created the same
exercise models in the EZNEC format. For more advanced modelers using
either NEC-2 or NEC-4, I have prepared an additional volume,
"Intermediate Antenna Modeling: A Hands-On Tutorial," based on
Nittany-Scientific's NEC-Win Pro and GNEC. The volume includes hundreds
of antenna models used in the text to demonstrate virtually the complete
command set (along with similarities and differences) used by both
cores."

ARRL Contributing Editor H. Ward Silver, N0AX, said, "LB typified
generosity. He was always developing material that was published widely.
Furthermore, the quality of the articles and concepts was always high,
but the writing was such that an audience with a wide range of technical
backgrounds could understand it. His Web site is a Solomon's Treasure of
solid antenna information -- available to all."

Wolfgang remembered Cebik, saying, "L. B. was an ARRL Technical Advisor,
with expertise in antenna modeling and design. I learned that I could
count on L. B. to offer clear, concise comments on any submitted article
dealing with antennas. He was always a friendly voice on the other end
of my phone line when I needed to talk to an expert, and I came to
expect a quick e-mailed response to any antenna questions that I sent
him. L. B. was so much more than an antenna author, though. He was one
of the first ARRL Educational Advisors I ever had the pleasure of
working with when I became editor of the ARRL study materials. He played
a key role in helping develop the concept of online courses when ARRL
began to study the idea of the Continuing Education program
<http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html> (http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html); his Antenna Modeling course has
been one of the most popular offerings in the program. L. B. leaves a
legacy of friendly advice and Amateur Radio wisdom. I will miss him as a
friend and as an advisor."

Cebik's niece, Gina Robeson, also of Knoxville, told the ARRL that her
uncle "was amazing to me in a different way than hams viewed him. But he
was a legend to me and to the thousands of amateurs whose lives he
touched with his work. To me he was my uncle, teacher, friend and
confidant. He was a wonderful man, but his family did not really know
about the ham side of him."

Robeson said her family spent each Christmas with Cebik and his wife
Jean; Jean passed away in 2002 from cancer. "It was always the greatest
fun with all the food and family getting together. It did not matter if
we were getting together as a group or if it was just me and Uncle Roy,
he always had the time to listen and offer advice. He will be sorely
missed."

A memorial service for Cebik will be held Sunday, April 27 at 1 PM at
Mynatt Funeral Home, 2829 Rennoc Road in Knoxville. Cebik will be
cremated and his ashes scattered in his garden, the same place his
wife's ashes were scattered. "They will once more be together," Robeson
said.

==> WHAT'S COMING UP IN THE MAY/JUNE ISSUE OF QEX

The May/June issue of QEX is out, and it is full of theoretical and
practical technical articles that you don't want to miss.

In this issue, James Ahlstrom, N2ADR, describes his software defined
radio (SDR) transmitter in "An All-Digital SSB Exciter for HF." Juan
Jose de Onate, M0MWA, and Xavier R. Junque de Fortuny present a useful
accessory for software defined radios and analog receivers, with "A
Software Controlled Radio Preselector." Cornell Drentea, KW7CD,
concludes the series on his high performance "Star-10 Transceiver --
Part 3." After presenting schematic diagrams of the rest of the main
sub-assemblies, KW7CD describes the outstanding test-lab performance of
his radio.

James D. Hagerty, WA1FFL, updates his January 2002 QST project with "An
Advanced Direct-Digital VFO." Contributing Editor L. B. Cebik, W4RNL
(SK), looks at the physical operation of various antenna "reflectors" in
"Antenna Options," and Contributing Editor Raymond Mack, W5IFS, tells
about a new source for UHF and microwave semiconductors, unusual local
sources for meter fuses and magnet wire, and describes some new Atmel
microcontroller design tools in "Out of the Box."

Would you like to write for QEX? It pays $50 per printed page. Be sure
to check out the Author's Guide <http://www.arrl.org/qex/#aguide> (http://www.arrl.org/qex/#aguide) for
more information. If you prefer postal mail, please send a business-size
self-addressed, stamped envelope to QEX Author's Guide, c/o Maty
Weinberg, ARRL, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111-1494.

QEX is edited by Larry Wolfgang, WR1B, and is published six times a
year. The subscription rate for ARRL members in the US is $24. For First
Class US delivery, the rate is $37 for members, $49 for nonmembers. For
international delivery via air mail, including Canada, the subscription
rate is $31 for members, $43 for nonmembers. Subscribe to QEX today
<http://www.arrl.org/qex> (http://www.arrl.org/qex).

==> GET READY FOR THE 2008 HURRICANE SEASON

It's that time of year when preparation for the hurricane season
ratchets up -- earlier this month, Orlando, Florida hosted the 30th
annual National Hurricane Conference, and state and county Emergency
Management Agencies are currently checking plans and assets for the
upcoming season. Rick Palm, K1CE, editor of the ARRL's ARES E-Letter,
said, "Now is the time for ARES members to assess their portfolio of
communications equipment and disaster response knowledge." Hurricane
season runs June 1-November 30.

Palm gives several tips for amateurs involved with hurricane operations:

* Monitor major HF hurricane networks during events this season. The
Hurricane Watch Net on 14.325 MHz, is one of several key players. It
serves either the Atlantic or Pacific during a watch or warning period
and coordinates with the National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami.
Frequent, detailed information is issued on nets when storms pose a
threat to the US mainland. In addition to hurricane spotting, local
communicators may announce that residents have evacuated from low-lying
flood areas. Other amateurs across the country can help by relaying
information, keeping the net frequency clear and by listening. See the
Hurricane Watch Net's Web site <http://www.hwn.org/> (http://www.hwn.org/) for more
information. The net works closely with the hams at the NHC's Amateur
Radio station WX4NHC <http://www.wx4nhc.com/> (http://www.wx4nhc.com/)

* The SATERN Net (Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network) provides
emergency communication support to the Salvation Army and populations at
large. They also handle health-and-welfare traffic. SATERN holds high
profile nets on 20 meters (14.265 MHz) during major hurricanes and has a
long history of excellence, discipline and service. Refer to the SATERN
Web site <http://www.satern.org/> (http://www.satern.org/) for more information.

* The Maritime Mobile Service Net (MMSN) meets on 14.300 MHz and is
composed of hams who serve and assist those in need of communications on
the high seas. According to its Web site <http://www.mmsn.org/> (http://www.mmsn.org/), the
primary purpose of the net is for handling traffic from maritime mobile
stations. The network is recognized by the United States Coast Guard and
has an excellent working relationship with that agency. The MMSN has
handled hundreds of incidents involving vessels in distress and medical
emergencies in remote locations, as well as passing health and welfare
traffic in and out of affected areas. They also work closely with the
NWS and NHC by relaying weather reports from maritime stations.

* The VoIP SKYWARN and Hurricane Net operates by combining both the
EchoLink and IRLP linked repeater networks, while handling critical wide
area communications during major severe weather and tropical events.
These operations have gained national stature in recent years and
provide excellent service. Whenever tropical weather is imposing a
threat to the US mainland and certain other areas of interest, the VoIP
WX-NET will be fully operational. See the VoIP SKYWARN and Hurricane Net
Web site <http://www.voipwx.net/> (http://www.voipwx.net/) for more information.

Palm said that during hurricane events, there are usually two or three
regional nets (usually on 40 or 20 meters) that spring to prominence as
major key assets to the disaster response on an ad hoc basis. "Watch for
these nets, as well as the nationally recognized networks described
above, this season. Don't transmit on their frequencies unless you are
absolutely sure you have something substantive to add, and then only
under the direction of the net control station," Palm advised.

If you are interested in Emergency Communications, please be sure to
check out the monthly ARES E-Letter. You can elect to receive this
newsletter via e-mail by going to the Member Data Page
<http://www.arrl.org/members-only/memdata.html> (http://www.arrl.org/members-only/memdata.html) on the ARRL Web site.

==>SOLAR UPDATE

Tad "Great is the Sun, and wide he goes" Cook, K7RA, this week reports:
This week we had a couple of brief sunspot appearances -- 991 and 992 --
but they were both from Solar Cycle 23 and their emergence was fleeting.
On Wednesday, April 23, the planetary A index rose to 32 due to a solar
wind and south-pointing Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF). Expect
geomagnetic conditions to stabilize this weekend, but to again become
active on May 2. Sunspot numbers for April 17-23 were 0, 0, 13, 12, 0,
13 and 13 with a mean of 7.3. The 10.7 cm flux was 69.2, 70.2, 71, 70.8,
70.9, 71.3 and 70.7 with a mean of 70.6. Estimated planetary A indices
were 8, 6, 5, 4, 4, 5 and 32 with a mean of 9.1. Estimated mid-latitude
A indices were 7, 5, 6, 1, 3, 4 and 17, with a mean of 6.1. For more
information concerning radio propagation, visit the ARRL Technical
Information Service Propagation page
<http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/propagation.html> (http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/propagation.html). To read this week's
Solar Report in its entirety, check out the W1AW Propagation Bulletin
page <http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/prop/> (http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/prop/).

__________________________________

==>IN BRIEF:

* This Weekend on the Radio: This weekend, the SP DX RTTY Contest, the
Helvetia Contest, the QRP to the Field contest, the Nebraska QSO Party
and the Florida QSO Party are all scheduled for April 26-27. The AGCW
QRP/QRP Party and the QRP Minimal Art Session are both May 1. Next
weekend is the NCCC Sprint Ladder on May 2. On May 3-4, be on the
lookout for the MARAC SSB QSO Party, the MARAC CW QSO Party, the 10-10
International Spring Contest (CW), the Microwave Spring Sprint, the 7th
Call Area QSO Party, the Portuguese Navy Day Contest, the Indiana QSO
Party, the ARI International DX Contest and the New England QSO Party.
The RSGB 80 Meter Club Championship (SSB) is May 5. All times listed are
UTC. See the ARRL Contest Branch page <http://www.arrl.org/contests/> (http://www.arrl.org/contests/),
the ARRL Contester's Rate Sheet
<http://www.arrl.org/contests/rate-sheet/> (http://www.arrl.org/contests/rate-sheet/) and the WA7BNM Contest
Calendar <http://www.hornucopia.com/contestcal/index.html> (http://www.hornucopia.com/contestcal/index.html) for more
info.

* ARRL Continuing Education Course Registration: Registration remains
open through Sunday, May 4, 2008, for these online course sessions
beginning on Friday, May 16, 2008: Amateur Radio Emergency
Communications Level 2 (EC-002), Amateur Radio Emergency Communications
Level 3 (EC-003R2), Antenna Modeling (EC-004), HF Digital Communications
(EC-005), VHF/UHF -- Life Beyond the Repeater (EC-008), and Radio
Frequency Propagation (EC-011). Each online course has been developed in
segments -- learning units with objectives, informative text, student
activities and quizzes. Courses are interactive, and some include direct
communications with a Mentor/Instructor. Students register for a
particular session that may be 8, 12 or 16 weeks (depending on the
course) and they may access the course at any time of day during the
course period, completing lessons and activities at times convenient for
their personal schedule. Mentors assist students by answering questions,
reviewing assignments and activities, as well as providing helpful
feedback. Interaction with mentors is conducted through e-mail; there is
no appointed time the student must be present -- allowing complete
flexibility for the student to work when and where it is convenient. To
learn more, visit the CCE Course Listing page
<http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html> (http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html) or contact the Continuing
Education Program Coordinator <cce@arrl.org> (cce@arrl.org).

* Hamvention Traffic Updates: With less than 20 days before the 2008
Dayton Hamvention, there is one small hitch, according to Hamvention
organizers: road construction, and lots of it. "One of the main surface
streets used by attendees of Hamvention every year is Needmore Road
since it is almost a straight shot from I-75 (exit 58) to Hara Arena,"
said Hamvention Talk-In Chairman Rob Lunsford, KB8UEY. "Unfortunately, a
rebuild project has begun on this roadway right in the travel path to
Hara; it will be down to one lane each way for during Hamvention." There
is also construction at the north end of the Downtown Dayton area (about
the 53 to 56 mile markers on Interstate 75), Lunsford said. "In this
area, the Ohio Department of Transportation has started a multi-year,
multi-phase reconstruction of I-75 in which there are lane restrictions,
bridge replacements and various other adjacent projects. These projects
are much overdue and will, in the long run, drastically improve travel
in the area. Unfortunately, for now we are faced with these projects in
high volume areas that are already prone to trouble from even the
slightest traffic issue. To assist everyone involved we are asking that
those attending Hamvention please try to avoid these areas if possible.
Our hope is that if we minimize our traffic in the area, and a problem
does occur, we do not make it worse with our increased traffic flow."
Lunsford said that individuals traveling on I-70 will not need to make
any changes from years past. For more information or if you have
questions feel free to contact Lunsford via e-mail
<talkin@hamvention.org> (talkin@hamvention.org). Once in the Dayton area and you find you need
assistance, Lunsford advises tuning to 146.940- for further assistance.
Directions to Hara Arena can be found on the Dayton Hamvention Web site
<http://www.hamvention.org/hv2008/accommodations/directions08.htm> (http://www.hamvention.org/hv2008/accommodations/directions08.htm).

* New Section Manager Appointed in New Hampshire: Al Shuman, K1AKS, of
New Boston, New Hampshire, has been appointed Section Manager of the New
Hampshire Section, effective April 21. ARRL Membership and Volunteer
Programs Manager Dave Patton, NN1N, in consultation with New England
Division Director Tom Frenaye, K1KI, announced the appointment after
Sterling Eanes, AK1K, of Hollis, Section Manager since July 2005,
decided to step down due to mounting work responsibilities and other
commitments. Shuman served as New Hampshire Section Manager for two
previous terms: December 1992-June 1999 and October 2000-June 2005. His
term of office continues through June 30, 2009.

* ARRL to Discontinue Web Classifieds: As of April 30, ARRL will cease
listing classified ads in Radios On-Line, the classified ad section on
the ARRL Web site <http://www.arrl.org/RadiosOnline/> (http://www.arrl.org/RadiosOnline/). According to ARRL
Chief Operating Officer Harold Kramer, WJ1B, the ARRL has experienced an
increased number of complaints by members and users regarding postings
and practices that do not conform to the Radios On-Line Web site's
original intent: "Despite our efforts to monitor the site regularly,
these problems persist. These have included postings for guns and
'personal' ads. Our staff that administers this service has deleted
items and notified the 'poster,' only to find the ad back two days
later, placed in every category. We are spending a disproportionate
amount of staff time dealing with this matter; it is no longer worth the
cost of maintaining the service when other online services have been
established to handle the specific need for online person-to-person
sales."

================================================== =========
The ARRL Letter is published Fridays, 50 times each year, by the
American Radio Relay League: ARRL--the National Association for Amateur
Radio, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111; tel 860-594-0200; fax
860-594-0259; <http://www.arrl.org> (http://www.arrl.org/). Joel Harrison, W5ZN, President.

The ARRL Letter offers a weekly e-mail digest of essential and general
news of interest to active radio amateurs. Visit the ARRL Web site
<http://www.arrl.org> (http://www.arrl.org/) for the latest Amateur Radio news and news
updates. The ARRL Web site <http://www.arrl.org/> (http://www.arrl.org/) also offers
informative features and columns. ARRL Audio News
<http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/) is a weekly "ham radio newscast"
compiled and edited from The ARRL Letter. It's also available as a
podcast from our Web site.

Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole
or in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be
given to The ARRL Letter/American Radio Relay League.

==>Delivery problems (ARRL member direct delivery only!):
letter-dlvy@arrl.org
==>Editorial questions or comments: S. Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA,
k1sfa@arrl.org
==>ARRL News on the Web: <http://www.arrl.org> (http://www.arrl.org/)
==>ARRL Audio News: <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/) or call
860-594-0384

==>How to Get The ARRL Letter

The ARRL Letter is available to ARRL members free of charge directly
from ARRL HQ. To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your address for
e-mail delivery:
ARRL members first must register on the Members Only Web Site
<http://www.arrl.org/members/> (http://www.arrl.org/members/). You'll have an opportunity during
registration to sign up for e-mail delivery of The ARRL Letter, W1AW
bulletins, and other material. To change these selections--including
delivery of The ARRL Letter--registered members should click on the
"Member Data Page" link (in the Members Only box). Click on "Modify
membership data," check or uncheck the appropriate boxes and/or change
your e-mail address if necessary. (Check "Temporarily disable all
automatically sent email" to temporarily stop all e-mail deliveries.)
Then, click on "Submit modification" to make selections effective.
(NOTE: HQ staff members cannot change your e-mail delivery address. You
must do this yourself via the Members Only Web Site.)

The ARRL Letter also is available to all, free of charge, from these
sources:

* ARRLWeb <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/> (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/). (NOTE: The ARRL Letter will
be posted each Friday when it is distributed via e-mail.)

* The QTH.net listserver, thanks to volunteers from the Boston Amateur
Radio Club: Visit Mailing Lists@QTH.Net
<http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/letter-list> (http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/letter-list). (NOTE: The ARRL
cannot assist subscribers who receive The ARRL Letter via this
listserver.)

Copyright 2008 American Radio Relay League, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

w6em
04-26-2008, 09:06 PM
COURT FINDS FCC VIOLATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IN BPL
DECISION

"The Commission failed to satisfy
the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act
('APA') by redacting studies on which it relied in promulgating the rule
and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its choice of the
extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL emissions."

OK. That's nice. So, go back, remove the black ink and let the public comment on it once again.




"On remand, the Commission shall either provide a reasoned justification for retaining an extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade for Access BPL systems sufficient to indicate that it has grappled with the 2005
studies, or adopt another factor and provide a reasoned explanation for
it."

All this says is that they have to come up with another number. It does not say that the UK number, or that suggested by ARRL, should be given deference.

They are wins, in part, for which we should congratulate the ARRL.

However, as one would expect when dealing with the judiciary vs. enother branch of government, the FCC was not slapped on the wrists.

The Court should have ordered the FCC to show cause why that 20dB per decade should not be the standard. That would have been a win. A real win.

As to the APA, if it is a law (I'm led to believe that it is) then why weren't those responsible for the redacting prosecuted under that law?

Interesting. At first ARRL spins it like its a huge win. In reality, only just a slight pause.

73.

wa3vjb
04-26-2008, 10:12 PM
Lee,

At first ARRL spins it like its a huge win. In reality, only just a slight pause.

It is no surprise that the group in Newington should try to portray this in a distorted, biased way.

After all, imagine the possibilities in the near-future for subscription solicitations, and the likely smug attitude, David-vs.-Goliath, that we will get from the ARRL administrators.

The line that stuck out for me is that the court relied on case law, not any of the ARRL's technical arguments in the BPL controversy. So the agency didn't follow proper procedure. Since they were found to have acted within their discretion, all they have to do is publish the censored research, draw the same conclusion from it, and stick a little red tab on the litigation with the ARRL's name on it, and file it away for the next time the club comes asking for regulatory favors.

Actually, a lot of the language in the Court of Appeals document illustrates how the League should be compelled to disclose its basis for the mess it made in Brazil at the IARU Region 2 conference.

Ya know ?

KB1SF
04-26-2008, 11:41 PM
COURT FINDS FCC VIOLATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IN BPL
DECISION

Interesting. At first ARRL spins it like its a huge win. In reality, only just a slight pause.

73.

Well, Lee, at the very least, this turn of events certainly proves that the FCC isn't the all-powerful "demi-God" that many US Hams have made it out to be for FAR too long. Moreover, it would appear that the ARRL "tugged on Superman's cape"...and won.

And, contrary to your assertion, I believe this IS a HUGE win, primarily because it demonstrates that the FCC CAN be successfully sued for non-compliance with other US federal statues over what it chooses to put (or keep) in its rules.

Now, if someone with enough interest and money (or both) would just take them to task over the REST of their systemically discriminatory (spelled "illegal") so-called "incentive licensing" foolishness (which now clearly violates BOTH the Americans with Disabilities Act AND the Rehabilitation Act...just to name a few) then life WOULD be nirvana, indeed.

In fact, if that were to happen, we just might be able to get Amateur Radio growing again.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

w6em
04-27-2008, 01:08 AM
Hi, Paul.


.....The line that stuck out for me is that the court relied on case law, not any of the ARRL's technical arguments in the BPL controversy.


Yes, that would be tantamount to saying the FCC can't be believed but (the) ARRL can. No self-respecting entity of government would do that to another.

Since they were found to have acted within their discretion, all they have to do is publish the censored research, draw the same conclusion from it,

Yes, exactly. That shouldn't take too long.


and stick a little red tab on the litigation with the ARRL's name on it, and file it away for the next time the club comes asking for regulatory favors.


Yes, Paul, I think you just might be on to the next procedural innovation. An offshoot from the red light called the red tab......

Actually, a lot of the language in the Court of Appeals document illustrates how the League should be compelled to disclose its basis for the mess it made in Brazil at the IARU Region 2 conference.

What comes around should go around....but of course, doesn't.

w6em
04-27-2008, 12:20 PM
........And, contrary to your assertion, I believe this IS a HUGE win, primarily because it demonstrates that the FCC CAN be successfully sued for non-compliance with other US federal statues over what it chooses to put (or keep) in its rules.



You're entitled to your opinion, Keith, but I beg to differ. If you look around, you'll find many FCC decision court challenges decided in favor of the appellants. Usually, the common-carriers, either wireline or wireless, are sufficiently heeled to take them on and do.

And, if its about money, as in the above example, not a problem "investing" in such tactics.

Its a bit funny what Paul has coined, though. The new "red tab rule" may just be waiting for the League at the next bend in the road. Frankly, I hope it'll be applied to the next ARRLink(tm) Petition for Rulemaking.

ab0wr
04-27-2008, 02:16 PM
You're entitled to your opinion, Keith, but I beg to differ. If you look around, you'll find many FCC decision court challenges decided in favor of the appellants. Usually, the common-carriers, either wireline or wireless, are sufficiently heeled to take them on and do.

And, if its about money, as in the above example, not a problem "investing" in such tactics.

Its a bit funny what Paul has coined, though. The new "red tab rule" may just be waiting for the League at the next bend in the road. Frankly, I hope it'll be applied to the next ARRLink(tm) Petition for Rulemaking.

Lee,

I agree with you. The first thing that came to mind in reading this was that this was a lot of words over nothing -- at least nothing has happened yet.

If the FCC has to change the extrapolation figure or has to change their conclusion based on public dissemination of the studies **then** it can be considered a win.

Sure the ARRL made the FCC pause but for now its like a gust of wind making you pause in your walk. If it makes you (the FCC) change direction *then* we will have seen a real result. In the meantime, at least the ARRL made the FCC pause and they should be congratulated for that -- whether that actually means anything has yet to be determined.

tim ab0wr

w6em
04-27-2008, 02:44 PM
Lee,

I agree with you. The first thing that came to mind in reading this was that this was a lot of words over nothing -- at least nothing has happened yet.

If the FCC has to change the extrapolation figure or has to change their conclusion based on public dissemination of the studies **then** it can be considered a win.

Sure the ARRL made the FCC pause but for now its like a gust of wind making you pause in your walk. If it makes you (the FCC) change direction *then* we will have seen a real result. In the meantime, at least the ARRL made the FCC pause and they should be congratulated for that -- whether that actually means anything has yet to be determined.

tim ab0wr

I think "the devil is in the details" applies here, Tim. The FCC has to now lift the black ink from all of its pages that were supplied to ARRL. One could imagine a follow-on desire by the FCC to change what's under the black ink before its unveiled for all to see. However, since the court saw it in-camera, the court's eyes have seen it as it originally was and no doubt contributed to the majority decision.

At least now, all will be given the opportunity to judge the value of what's been covered up and purposefully dismissed by the FCC in the BPL rulemaking.

If nothing else, it may provide the Commissioners with an opportunity for some staff corrective actions of their own. We'll see. It seems somewhat unfair that attorneys found to have committed sins of omission or worse before the Commission are disbarred from practicing before it, yet its own staff escapes culpability for an intentional cover up of relevant information in a rule making process.

NN3W
04-27-2008, 03:11 PM
WA3VJB wrote:

It is no surprise that the group in Newington should try to portray this in a distorted, biased way.

After all, imagine the possibilities in the near-future for subscription solicitations, and the likely smug attitude, David-vs.-Goliath, that we will get from the ARRL administrators.


Distored, biased way? Don't you think you're being a little over the top? Its called "spin" and EVERY organization does it. ARRL would be remiss if they didnt issue a press release and put some spin on their view of the decision. Distored implies that the statement is a mischaracterization and implies falsity. I don't see that in the release.


W6EM wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, Keith, but I beg to differ. If you look around, you'll find many FCC decision court challenges decided in favor of the appellants. Usually, the common-carriers, either wireline or wireless, are sufficiently heeled to take them on and do.

I agree. This is administrative law and the Federal courts are hesitant to overturn agency action unless its supported by facts and record evidence. Where information is unclear or there is some procedural violation, the Courts will remand the rulemaking back to the agecy and tell the agency to fix the problem. That is exactly what the CADC did here. FCC failed to follow certain APA procedures (and its inferred from the opinion that some of the redacted reports have some unflattering or potentially detrimental info in them) and the Court called the agency on it.

ARRL failed to carry its burden on the Part 15 licensed v. unlicensed service issue which was the real "kill shot" if there was to be a kill shot on BPL.

And I agree with W6EM that the devil will be in the details of those 5 reports.

This is a 40% win...

w6em
04-27-2008, 04:36 PM
That is exactly what the CADC did here.



And, all along I thought it was ACDC. :D More fitting for the band, I guess. (Did the clique de robe already recognize that, hence the rearrangement, or is that just your own acronym?)

Just joshing, of course. Its still April.

wa3vjb
04-27-2008, 04:44 PM
NN3W wrote:
Distored implies that the statement is a mischaracterization and implies falsity. I don't see that in the release.

Let me try to help you find it. Examples come from the three ARRL people quoted in the League's report:

Imlay said:
"It is obvious that the FCC was overzealous in its advocacy of BPL, and that resulted in a rather blatant cover-up..."

Sumner said:
"the Court decided to hold the FCC's feet to the fire on such a technical issue as the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor."

Harrison said:
The court decision "...validates the technical competence of Amateur Radio operators and especially of the ARRL Lab under the direction of Ed Hare, W1RFI. We are grateful for the work of our legal team and especially for the unflagging support of the ARRL membership as we fought the odds in pursuing this appeal."

---------

None of these three assertions are supported by the discussion and conclusions contained in the document from the U.S. Court of Appeals.


Imlay, an attorney whose clients include Kenwood, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, and several commercial stations, is concluding on his own opinion that the FCC was "overzealous" and that it has "advocated" anything as part of its procedural error cited by the Court of Appeals.

Sumner, who has no legal training, has no basis in the Appeals Court document to assert there is pressure on the FCC to change its conclusion about a technical issue. The paper requires only that the conclusion be documented publicly.

Harrison, overlooking the concern over the lawsuit expressed by subscribers and the greater Amateur community, never enjoyed "unflagging support" for his club's lawsuit against the FCC. Also, the Court of Appeals document is utterly mute on the technical qualifications of the hobbyists the ARRL claims to represent, as well as regarding the club's research lab at its compound in Newington.

What is your standard for when unsupported statements constitute inaccuracy?

NN3W
04-27-2008, 07:56 PM
Well, if I wanted to put on my Bluebooking "hat" - D.C. Cir.

w6em
04-27-2008, 08:00 PM
NN3W wrote:


....... Examples come from the three ARRL people quoted in the League's report:

Imlay, an attorney whose clients include Kenwood, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, and several commercial stations, is concluding on his own opinion that the FCC was "overzealous" and that it has "advocated" anything as part of its procedural error cited by the Court of Appeals.



I'm surprised (that) he doesn't represent SCS, GmBH (Pactor II/III modemeisters)



Sumner, who has no legal training, has no basis in the Appeals Court document to assert there is pressure on the FCC to change its conclusion about a technical issue. The paper requires only that the conclusion be documented publicly.




Absolutely right, Paul. No pressure, just reopen the comment period and they can come right back to the same original conclusion, despite the application of bleach to the redact pen.



Harrison, overlooking the concern over the lawsuit expressed by subscribers and the greater Amateur community, never enjoyed "unflagging support" for his club's lawsuit against the FCC. Also, the Court of Appeals document is utterly mute on the technical qualifications of the hobbyists the ARRL claims to represent, as well as regarding the club's research lab at its compound in Newington.



The whole body of the decision is incessantly using the Administrative Procedures Act as the basis for remand and not the ARRL or anybody else's technical data. They do address/mention the NTIA data and the UK data, but all they seem to say about ARRL is that it showed that it (ARRL) had been prejudiced by not getting to see the redacted information.

If the court truly valued the ARRL technical data contribution, it would have ordered the FCC to show cause why that the standard should NOT be 20dB per decade, not just say "go back home and wordsmith it." They state, openly, that they did and do give deference to a federal agency's data over an appellant's. That, I found interesting; and frankly, a bit shameful, but not surprising. Objectivity and correctness should be the bulwarks, not just because something was authored or opined by a federal agency.

That's why many believe, including me, that fair trials are hard to come by when any element of government is the defendant or respondent.

73.

n4qa
04-27-2008, 08:26 PM
Somebody, please!

File a petition with FCC for full amateur privileges in the band 505-515 KHz.
While I appreciate ARRL's experiments down there, I think we need to win the band for *all* US amateurs before FCC applies a red-tab to the very idea!

Y'all *do* want to see the 600-meter Warbler project at:

http://www.n4qa.com

...become a success...don't ya?

72,
Bill, N4QA
ps
BPL should have no effect, one way or the other, at 600 meters...

wa3vjb
04-27-2008, 10:01 PM
Well, if I wanted to put on my Bluebooking "hat" - D.C. Cir.

Be my guest.
Being a layman, I had to look it up.

Bluebooking is a meticulous process that involves verifying the correct format and punctuation for each citation (i.e. cases, law reviews, newspaper articles, ids, supras, etc.), as well as the accuracy of the source title, author, etc.
(source: http://www.law.washington.edu)

If by this you suggest that the quotes I have referenced amount to inaccurate format and punctuation, well, okay, I trust your legal analysis.

But if you're also indicating that you have some training in law, may I direct your attention to the dissenting opinion written by Kavanaugh. I am very curious as to what weight the FCC may assign to this dissent as it re-crafts its proceeding in an uncensored manner.

Judge Kavanaugh wrote, in part, that the Administrative Procedures Act carries no text that supports mandatory disclosure of the documents the ARRL has sought. In fact, the appeals judge wrote, the Supreme Court has struck down other examples of what it considered ad hoc interpretation of the APA in the same manner the majority opinion has done in the instant example.

NN3W
04-27-2008, 10:05 PM
NN3W wrote:


Let me try to help you find it. Examples come from the three ARRL people quoted in the League's report:

Imlay said:
"It is obvious that the FCC was overzealous in its advocacy of BPL, and that resulted in a rather blatant cover-up..."

Sumner said:
"the Court decided to hold the FCC's feet to the fire on such a technical issue as the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor."

Harrison said:
The court decision "...validates the technical competence of Amateur Radio operators and especially of the ARRL Lab under the direction of Ed Hare, W1RFI. We are grateful for the work of our legal team and especially for the unflagging support of the ARRL
membership as we fought the odds in pursuing this appeal."

---------

None of these three assertions are supported by the discussion and conclusions contained in the document from the U.S. Court of appeals.


Imlay, an attorney whose clients include Kenwood, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, and several commercial stations, is concluding on his own opinion that the FCC was "overzealous" and that it has "advocated" anything as part of its procedural error cited by the Court of Appeals.

Actually if you read the opinion there is a very clear undertone that the five FCC studies revealed that BPL operators had a very difficult time in eliminating interference once it was found to be problematic. The majority opinion tends to reflect this fact. They wrote that "{a}s suggested by the League, the partially redacted pages indicate that a study’s core scientific recommendations may reveal the limitations of its own data and that its conclusions may reveal methodology or illuminate strengths and weaknesses
of certain data or the study as a whole." In the concurrence, Judge Tatel wrote that "I agree that the appropriate course is to remand the case with an order to disclose the entire studies on which the Commission relied—warts and all" (emphasis added). Clearly the in camera review of the reports gave the three-judge panel pause to believe that there is more to the final rule than the FCC lead on.

One could certainly argue that the FCC was overzealous if indeed negative information was hidden under the guise of confidentiality. Additionally, the notion that the FCC is being "overzealous" in the current day is NOT original, novel, or distortive. If you are in the Washington circle, you know that there have been NUMEROUS complaints as to the way the Martin FCC has conducted itself - including ramrodding agency rulemaking through staff, holding ex parte meetings, and setting calendars so as to minimize pubic input. Overzealous? Many would argue - absolutely, yes.

Sumner, who has no legal training, has no basis in the Appeals Court document to assert there is pressure on the FCC to change its conclusion about a technical issue. The paper requires only that the conclusion be documented publicly.

Sure he can. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Its a free country. The court directed the FCC to make public 5 studies/reports and entertain comment on the techinical merits of them as. The FCC was also required to futher explain its decision to summarily dismiss any of the conclusions of three 2005 studies concerning an extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade. Again, a remand requiring a technical answer.

Harrison, overlooking the concern over the lawsuit expressed by subscribers and the greater Amateur community, never enjoyed "unflagging support" for his club's lawsuit against the FCC. Also, the Court of Appeals document is utterly mute on the technical qualifications of the hobbyists the ARRL claims to represent, as well as regarding the club's research lab at its compound in Newington.

Can you document a lack of unflagging support - from the membership or from the greater community? Please cite me a study supporting your claim. If you can't, its just a "he said, she said".

NN3W
04-27-2008, 10:09 PM
Be my guest.
But if you're also indicating that you have some training in law, may I direct your attention to the dissenting opinion written by Kavanaugh. I am very curious as to what weight the FCC may assign to this dissent as it re-crafts its proceeding in an uncensored manner.

Judge Kavanaugh wrote, in part, that the Administrative Procedures Act carries no text that supports mandatory disclosure of the documents the ARRL has sought. In fact, the appeals judge wrote, the Supreme Court has struck down other examples of what it considered ad hoc interpretation of the APA in the same manner the majority opinion has done in the instant example.

My Blue book reference was a response to W6EM's comment.

As to cites by Judge Kavanaugh, they are dicta. The they are good reading but carry no precedental weight, as they do not represent the prevailing opinion of the court. Not in the United States at least.

w6em
04-27-2008, 10:22 PM
....... Additionally, the notion that the FCC is being "overzealous" in the current day is NOT original, novel, or distortive. If you are in the Washington circle, you know that there have been NUMEROUS complaints as to the way the Martin FCC has conducted itself - including ramrodding agency rulemaking through staff, holding ex parte meetings, and setting caledars so as to minimize pubic input.

And, that Washington circle includes, no doubt, the House Committee responsible for FCC oversight, the Energy and Commerce Committee, that has its own investigation under way into such tactics.

Perhaps those astute in communicating with its chair, the Hon. John Dingell, D-MI, or his committee staff, would care to share the decision as but one more example of overzealousness of the Martin Commission to reach predetermined conclusions and succumb to the wants of the present Executive Branch hierarchy.

wa3vjb
04-27-2008, 11:25 PM
Too bad none of the Appeals Court decision actually addresses whether the FCC had an inappropriate level of zeal.

The decision says:

The Commission failed to satisfy
the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”) by redacting studies on which it relied
in promulgating the rule and failed to provide a reasoned
explanation for its choice of the extrapolation factor.

Our commentary on QRZ.com and "reports" from the ARRL are good venues to ascribe motives behind a defendant's actions.

It's for the court system to determine whether actions have complied with regulations, and to order procedural remedies when they do not.

The Appeals Court has provided clear logic that should govern not only the FCC's path toward rulemaking on BPL, but also as guidance to the ARRL in its political and regulatory activities.

I mentioned earlier the League's misbehavior in the Region 2 IARU band planning revision that took effect in January. The club represents all U.S. licensees at the IARU, and consequently must interact publicly and without regard to subscription status or paid-up dues in forming policy brought to IARU deliberations.

The lack of transparency at what comprised the planning and decision-making ahead of the Region 2 meeting in Brazil closely resembles the kind of cherry-picking the FCC now must address. I can only hope that the Appeals Court ruling will pressure the ARRL to come forward with full disclosure of why it failed to represent a substantial portion of U.S. licensees at the talks in Brazil, and at remedial negotations offered by non-U.S. delegates right through when the "new" regional plan was enacted.

Words for Paul Rinaldo and Dave Sumner (kindly substitute "ARRL" for "Commission," please:)

The Commission can point to no
authority allowing it to rely on the studies in a rulemaking but
hide from the public parts of the studies that may contain
contrary evidence, inconvenient qualifications, or relevant
explanations of the methodology employed.

KB1SF
04-28-2008, 02:05 PM
I mentioned earlier the League's misbehavior in the Region 2 IARU band planning revision that took effect in January. The club represents all U.S. licensees at the IARU, and consequently must interact publicly and without regard to subscription status or paid-up dues in forming policy brought to IARU deliberations.

The lack of transparency at what comprised the planning and decision-making ahead of the Region 2 meeting in Brazil closely resembles the kind of cherry-picking the FCC now must address. I can only hope that the Appeals Court ruling will pressure the ARRL to come forward with full disclosure of why it failed to represent a substantial portion of U.S. licensees at the talks in Brazil, and at remedial negotations offered by non-U.S. delegates right through when the "new" regional plan was enacted.


Sorry, Paul, but this is an "apples and oranges" argument (which also includes a bit of "sour grapes" tossed in for good measure, I might add).

How do the rule making activities of a US federal agency supported by your and my TAX DOLLARS compare with that of PRIVATE, member-supported, "good ol' boy's clubs" like the ARRL and the IARU?

I DO have a choice whether or not I belong to the latter. However, I DO NOT have a choice as to whether I pay my taxes and support the FCC in rule making activities that affect and are binding (by law) on ALL Radio Amateurs in the United States. That is, of course, unless also I want to go to jail!

And while the League and the IARU may "speak" for all amateurs, that's simply because they say they do. In the end, all of their much ballyhooed "terms of reference" and written "band plans" are simply "gentleman's agreements" that, while they serving a clear purpose in helping to keep order on our bands, are still quite voluntary. Such proceedings and agreements DO NOT have the force of either federal or international regulatory law. And, more importantly, NONE of their work in this area is supported by your or my tax dollars.

The bottom line here is that the activities of the ARRL and the IARU DO NOT fall under US federal (or ITU) rule making statutes and /or procedures that are legally binding on everyone operating in the Amateur Service.

However, the activities of the FCC very much do.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

w6em
04-28-2008, 10:46 PM
How do the rule making activities of a US federal agency supported by your and my TAX DOLLARS compare with that of PRIVATE, member-supported, "good ol' boy's clubs" like the ARRL and the IARU?



I'm not speaking for Paul, Keith, but it seems to me that the misdeeds of covering things up and/or hiding the truth on purpose, seem to apply to both examples.

Sort of like the old limeric "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Whether dues dollars or tax dollars, supporting and condoning deceit just isn't right. So, the ARRL trumpets the unethical behavior of the FCC, yet does the same itself at the IARU. I can see Paul's point. A very valid one.

Now, if you want to talk accountability, well, violating the United States Code is a far more serious breach. One could ask why, then, hasn't the United States Attorney (or a Special Prosecutor) taken a look inside the FCC to see just who's to blame for the inappropriate redacting and apply the appropriate penalties to those involved. Congress just may before this is all wrapped up.

Perhaps, if that were to happen, we might yet see Articles of Impeachment before January 20, 2009. On the other hand, being told to "make BPL a reality" isn't a such a "high crime or misdemeanor" when compared to other directives over the last 7 years and 3 months.

KB1SF
04-29-2008, 12:10 AM
Whether dues dollars or tax dollars, supporting and condoning deceit just isn't right. So, the ARRL trumpets the unethical behavior of the FCC, yet does the same itself at the IARU. I can see Paul's point. A very valid one.

Now, if you want to talk accountability, well, violating the United States Code is a far more serious breach. One could ask why, then, hasn't the United States Attorney (or a Special Prosecutor) taken a look inside the FCC to see just who's to blame for the inappropriate redacting and apply the appropriate penalties to those involved. Congress just may before this is all wrapped up.


And, as I said, while that US Attorney is at it, maybe he (or she) should also look into all the systemic (spelled "illegal") discrimination that's still contained in our 1950's era "good ol' boy" licensing system as well.

That would now appear to be a "violation of the US Code", too, would it not?

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

na4it
04-29-2008, 11:43 AM
Just a comment on BPL. Another news source reports that the actual number of BPL providers is 35...only 35. And of those 35, the share some 5000 customers. That's an average of 143 customers. Utility companies are smarter that we think. They know they won't be able to keep a BPL system going with only 143 customers.

And, if the new WiMAX system ever gets rolled out, BPL, DSL, and Cable are going to have a tough time competing with a DSL speed system that costs the consumer only $19.95 per month....

de NA4IT

wa3vjb
04-29-2008, 05:59 PM
the misdeeds of covering things up and/or hiding the truth

Lee gets my point, despite my murky leap between the two matters.

If a little light bulb could go on somewhere, even if it’s a dim bulb, let’s hope Newington “gets it” that the amateur community expects the club’s administrators to be honest and follow procedure.

But cynically, I bet those now in charge of the ARRL hold at least some of us in such contempt that they probably won’t reform their behavior unless we sue them for the same problems they allege against the FCC.

KB1SF
04-29-2008, 08:42 PM
Lee gets my point, despite my murky leap between the two matters.

If a little light bulb could go on somewhere, even if it’s a dim bulb, let’s hope Newington “gets it” that the amateur community expects the club’s administrators to be honest and follow procedure.

But cynically, I bet those now in charge of the ARRL hold at least some of us in such contempt that they probably won’t reform their behavior unless we sue them for the same problems they allege against the FCC.

Sorry, Paul, but "Newington" is "you". That's because YOU are "in charge" of the ARRL as it is YOU (along with other dues-paying members) who are the ones voting for their leadership and should be "holding their feet to the fire".

And, if that action doesn't satisfy your desires, then you can always run for office in the League to become a vice director (or director) of the organization.

This is precisely how I became first an officer, then a Board Member and later President of AMSAT-North America. I was concerned at the time that not enough was being done to promote the organization and its Phase 3-D satellite construction project. P3-D was a HUGE project that, if successful, would become a major asset to our Service worldwide. You could say that I decided to get up off my finals and put my money (and my time) where my mouth was.

But if you AREN'T a member of the ARRL, then I believe you have absolutely NO grounds whatsoever for grousing here or anywhere else about what they do (or don't do) to satisfy your narrow desires.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

wa3vjb
04-29-2008, 11:15 PM
Keith you present an old argument that is largely discredited.

Why didn't the ARRL administrators seek political office at the FCC, and work for change from within the agency? As U.S. citizens, and taxpayers, they too are the FCC.

Similarly, a number of us have strugged without success to amend a misguided Region 2 IARU band plan that came about as the result, in part, of a small agenda by a big player in League politics, the largely invisible Paul Rinaldo.

The ARRL is the designated club to represent ALL U.S. licensees at the IARU. As much as I see the need to have that club placed on probation for the Region 2 incident, you are unable to disconnect their responsibility meantime to seek input and be demonstrably responsive to that input regardless of whether the information comes from subscribers or not.

The parallel drawn to the FCC is a strong one. They must be responsive to all relevant studies and analysis of BPL in their deliberations on policy that affects all users in an environment.

SInce you are a onetime leader of an organization similar to the ARRL, I direct your attention to the IARU bylaws to help your understanding and to validate what I've now described about the League's responsibility to us all.

KB1SF
04-30-2008, 02:08 AM
Keith you present an old argument that is largely discredited.

Similarly, a number of us have strugged without success to amend a misguided Region 2 IARU band plan that came about as the result, in part, of a small agenda by a big player in League politics, the largely invisible Paul Rinaldo.

The ARRL is the designated club to represent ALL U.S. licensees at the IARU. As much as I see the need to have that club placed on probation for the Region 2 incident, you are unable to disconnect their responsibility meantime to seek input and be demonstrably responsive to that input regardless of whether the information comes from subscribers or not.

The parallel drawn to the FCC is a strong one. They must be responsive to all relevant studies and analysis of BPL in their deliberations on policy that affects all users in an environment.

SInce you are a onetime leader of an organization similar to the ARRL, I direct your attention to the IARU bylaws to help your understanding and to validate what I've now described about the League's responsibility to us all.

As I have said, if you don't like what the League did to you and your buddies with their input to the IARU Region 2 (voluntary!) band plan, then I once again invite you to become more active in the actual process that develops such things, and/or run for office in the League so as to try and change it.

The League is a predominantly volunteer organization. Yes, the Paul Rinaldos of the world are paid staff. But they still take their "marching orders" from the directors who are, in turn, elected by the League's membership. And, as I said, that's YOU...IF you even ARE a member, something you have (conveniently?) yet to confirm in these discussions.

And, as I have also said, if you are still unwilling to do anything more than just post your beefs here on QRZ about what the League has (or hasn't done), to you and your like-thinking buddies, then it would appear your comments are simply more of the same "sour grapes" blather from that ever-shrinking, but yet still highly vocal minority in our ranks who are royally peeved that their long-entrenched, 1950s-era paradigms are now slowly going by the wayside.

The League and the IARU are NOT regulatory agencies. Their role is simply to advise regulatory agencies such as the FCC and Industry Canada. Or, to put it another way, such membership organizations can't make legally binding rules for our Service. They can only suggest and/or comment on them.

Which, once again, clearly DOES make your argument an "apples and oranges" one.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

wa3vjb
04-30-2008, 08:52 AM
Keith,
I was eager to hear your direct response to my analogy as follows, in case you missed it:

Why didn't the ARRL administrators seek political office at the FCC, and work for change from within the agency? As U.S. citizens, and taxpayers, they too are the FCC.

In this one sentence, we have an unassailable connection to your ineffective advocacy of achieving a solution to a problem created by those now leading the club in Newington.

KB1SF
04-30-2008, 12:41 PM
Keith,
I was eager to hear your direct response to my analogy as follows, in case you missed it:

Why didn't the ARRL administrators seek political office at the FCC, and work for change from within the agency? As U.S. citizens, and taxpayers, they too are the FCC.

In this one sentence, we have an unassailable connection to your ineffective advocacy of achieving a solution to a problem created by those now leading the club in Newington.

No, they are NOT the FCC!

The League and the IARU Executive are leaders of PRIVATE, member-supported organizations (some would say lobby groups) that are dedicated to, among other things, advocating PUBLIC policy as it relates to Amateur Radio.

And I would also say that at least part of the so-called "incentive licensing" foolishness that has now become one of the root causes of the negative growth rate we are seeing in our Service in the United States today came about precisely BECAUSE the ARRL packed the FCC with their like-minded, elitist stooges back in the 1950s.

Fortunately, those days (and those stooges) are now long gone and there is more of an adversarial relationship between these two groups...which, in my mind, is precisely as it should be.

And, speaking of "direct responses" and "working for change from within", Paul, YOU have yet to tell us whether or not you are a member of the ARRL. As I said, if you aren't a member then you have absolutely NO grounds to gripe about what they do (or don't do).

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

w6em
04-30-2008, 01:05 PM
Keith,
I was eager to hear your direct response to my analogy as follows, in case you missed it:

Why didn't the ARRL administrators seek political office at the FCC, and work for change from within the agency? As U.S. citizens, and taxpayers, they too are the FCC.

In this one sentence, we have an unassailable connection to your ineffective advocacy of achieving a solution to a problem created by those now leading the club in Newington.

Paul: There's also a tad or two of obfuscation that Keith's tossed into this. The first being his oft-posted support of regulation by bandwidth, since where he now resides is "open season" on the Canadian ham bands. Shoot anything, anywhere. As many have told him, that just isn't practical here in the US. The second, being his dislike of......the FCC's question pool ..and.. being "unfair" by its testing above what he feels necessary to properly operate an amateur station of any class. The third being that tests in their present form are somehow, through the fault of the FCC, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (I've yet to see a viable, demonstrative example of that from Keith's many postings)

The bottom line is, as we all have witnessed, that many of those who run on an "upstage the apple cart" agenda, have been found to have violated hastily contrived rule sets, and had their candidacies tossed out. The reasons, well, are left to the imagination of a Kangaroo Court. Tip the balance of the "pro status quo" Division Directors too far towards equity or, Heaven-forbid, the "retire or else" minority becomes a majority, then we might have hope for meaningful change in ARRL posture.

Since Keith supports the ill-conceived RB concept, arguing with him about an analogy of unethical ARRL representation of all US amateurs before IARU is akin to trying to take candy from a baby.

But, Keith can't apply his "get involved" solution to fix the FCC problem. He won't even try, since he knows that the walls of pre-selection screening apply even more so in government employment than they do in ARRL candidacy.

KB1SF
04-30-2008, 01:41 PM
Paul: There's also a tad or two of obfuscation that Keith's tossed into this. The first being his oft-posted support of regulation by bandwidth, since where he now resides is "open season" on the Canadian ham bands. Shoot anything, anywhere. As many have told him, that just isn't practical here in the US. The second, being his intense dislike of CW and the FCC's question pool being "unfair" by its testing above what he feels necessary to properly operate an amateur station of any class. The third being that tests in their present form are somehow, through the fault of the FCC, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (I've yet to see a viable, demonstrative example of that from Keith's many postings)


Once again, Lee you've misquoted me.

I never said ANYTHING about "disliking CW". In fact, personally, I LOVE CW as it is the predominant mode I use! So please stop taking liberties with what I personally "like" to do on the Ham Bands.

And, as far as regulating our Service by bandwidth goes, what you and your like-thinking buddies who want to keep everything as it was in the 1950s conveniently like to leave out of such discussions is the fact that the FCC's horrific "incentive licensing" approach...with all of it's regulated sub-band (and sub-sub band) so-called "exclusive frequency" foolishness...has also now led to some horrifically poor band allocation as well.

These days, more and more nets and mode-based legacy activities (like AM) are being jammed into ever-smaller slices of spectrum space so as to accommodate everyone's particular passion and license class. Meanwhile GOBS of frequency space (mostly still allocated exclusively to CW) elsewhere goes begging. Any way you cut it, Lee, that's GROSS mismanagement of a scarce public resource.

As I have also said, NOWHERE else in the world are our bands as carved up as they are here in the United States. And now, with all the new equal access laws on the books in the USA, there is no longer a justifiable (spelled "legal") reason for the FCC to continue doing so.

But, as all that regulated bandwidth nonsense now forms the primary basis of the reward system for their clearly systemically discriminatory "incentive licensing" foolishness, I have it on good authority from a former FCC staffer (who shall remain nameless) that regulating our bands by license class and operating mode is also eventually destined to be sent the way of the dinosaur as well.

And, contrary to your own (apparently obsessive) need to see a "viable" example of such discrimination, NOBODY has to bring an actual case to court for such activities to be deemed illegal. ALL that is required under these laws is that it simply be shown that a pattern (or a SYSTEM) of discrimination remains in the regulatory and licensing structures of such public agencies for those laws to immediately apply. What's more, I've given you and your buddies numerous SPECIFIC examples of such systemic discrimination as it applies to the FCC's licensing system for our Service in my posts elsewhere.

Therefore, just as sure as the sun rises in the East, regulating our Service by bandwidth rather than by license class and operating mode is coming soon to an Amateur Radio Service near you.

Now, certainly you and your like-thinking buddies can continue grousing and complaining about that fact. But, for a whole lot of legal reasons that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what "we Hams want", mark my words, Lee.... it's coming.

So, rather than sitting on your finals and pontificating (aud nauseam) from the sidelines about how regulating our Service by bandwidth (something that has been successfully done in Amateur Services everywhere else in the world for decades) simply won't work in the United States, your time and effort might be FAR better spent in planning how we, as a Service, are going to handle that inevitable reality when the sole responsibility for "what goes where" on our bands is dropped back into OUR laps to decide.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

KC4RAN
04-30-2008, 01:54 PM
As I have also said, NOWHERE else in the world are our bands as carved up as they are here in the United States. And now, with all the new equal access laws on the books in the USA, there is no longer a justifiable (spelled "legal") reason for the FCC to continue doing so. And I have it on good authority that they darned well know it, too.


"equal access laws on the books"... as in the Americans with Disabilities act?

You somehow think that operating on any amateur frequency you want to is a "right", protected by the ADA? Wow, that's a stretch...

KB1SF
04-30-2008, 02:49 PM
"equal access laws on the books"... as in the Americans with Disabilities act?

You somehow think that operating on any amateur frequency you want to is a "right", protected by the ADA? Wow, that's a stretch...

Well, not quite.

US federal laws like the ADA require that EVERYONE be given an equal opportunity for full access to public services and resources. That includes our Amateur Service.

Now, that does NOT mean there should be no licensing or control of that access. What it DOES mean is that, by law, barriers cannot be placed in front of people seeking such full and complete access without just cause. That also means that the content and comprehensiveness of our exams need to be tied to some very specific operational needs. Right now (particularly with the exams for the Extra Class license) they aren't.

That's because many of those questions on the Extra exam relate to knowledges and skills for privileges that have already been granted to lower class licensees, and/or they go well beyond those knowledges and skills minimally required by international law to keep Hams (and their neighbors) safe and to prevent themselves from becoming a nuisance to other Hams, their neighbors and/or other radio services.

Taken together, such questioning forms an a "systemically discriminatory" licensing structure for our Service because it creates "unnecessary barriers" to full access to our Service by otherwise qualified applicants...not just to disabled persons. And, maintaining such unnecessary barriers to full access to federally administered programs (like Amateur Radio) is now quite illegal under the ADA along with a whole host of other, equally binding federal equal access laws.

What's more, everywhere else in the world, governments have left it up to we Hams to decide which operating mode goes where on our bands. The International Telecommunications Union, the organization that governs all radio services internationally, has set out broad (VERY broad) frequency allocations for our Service...usually consisting of only an upper and lower band limit and a specified bandwidth for the emissions to be conducted therein.

It is only here in the United States that such broad limits have been further restricted by license class and operating mode in our Part 97. And that is because the FCC, back in the 1950s, decided to base differences in our license classes (and the incentive for us to upgrade) on ego-stroking "exclusivity" (i.e access to so-called "exclusive" operating frequencies and modes) rather than on specific operational considerations such as limits on power output, constructing transmitters "from scratch", operating a repeater or club station, or giving exams.

And, as I have said, simply "stroking egos" no longer cuts it as a valid (spelled: "legal") reason for a US Government agency to grant full privileges to one class of licensees in our Service while arbitrarily and capriciously withholding them from another. Such differentiation can no longer be legally based on applicants being forced to correctly answer exam questions that are either duplicative, irrelevant and/or unrelated to the SPECIFIC additional operating privileges such new licenses will grant.

For example, the EXACT same set of skills and knowledges are required to safely and courteously operate in the Extra Class portions of our bands as in the General Class portions of our bands. Yet, applicants for that Extra Class license must now plow through upwards of 600+ pages of license manual and successfully pass another 50 question exam to be able to legally operate there. Clearly, such "ego-based" license grants constitute an "unnecessary barrier" to applicants attaining full access to our Service because the licensing requirements for an Extra Class ticket have NO underlying basis in any operational, safety or non-interference need. To me, that now makes our current FCC examination system patently illegal under US equal access law.

By contrast, in Canada, those Amateurs with a Basic With Honours Certificate (granted by scoring 80 percent on a 100-question exam) can operate ANYWHERE within the upper and lower limits of ALL of our internationally allocated Amateur Bands. The only frequency restrictions such Basic Certificate holders have are by emission bandwidth, NOT by license class or operating mode. And, usually, for HF, that bandwidth limit is set at 6 KHz (except for 30 Meters where it is set at 1 KHz).

Or, to put it another way, the only operational restrictions place on Basic Certificate holders in Canada is that short "laundry list" of limitations I've outlined above which are reserved exclusively for Advanced Certificate holders. And their Advanced Exam covers only that material that is DIRECTLY related to the specific additional privileges that the Advanced Certificate grants.

The bottom line here is that Canada (like most other countries in the world) leaves it up to its Hams to decide for themselves "what goes where" on our bands. And their exam structure is based on safety and operational considerations rather than on "stroking egos".

Hope this helps.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

w6em
04-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Once again, Lee you've misquoted me.

I never said ANYTHING about "disliking CW". In fact, personally, I LOVE CW as it is the predominant mode I use!

Oops. Guess I mistakenly tied your agreements with the "cripy CBer-curmudgeon" together from the other website discussion. Over 56 years of self denial of an amateur license out of spite and hatred for CW was simply amazing to me.

Sorry about that. You'll have a retraction from me and soon.

No mode restrictions may work fine in Canada, but it won't work well here.
Not with the plethora of "free email" digibots and users here in the US. The prospect of them parking all over and not being capable of detecting channel uses by other modes would soon make our bands a miscoordinated, random mess. And, the prospect of IP content, as promoted by ARRL, on HF is even scarier. Wide bandwidth (10kHz plus?) stuff being splattered hither and yon scares me.

If BPL is such a potential scourge to the amateur service, our own members running wide bandwidth digital or IP content on the HF bands is worse.

Just like gun ownership and operation, some constraints are necessary where population density is high. Oh, since I live in the country and not within a city limits, I can discharge a firearm and do it relatively safely. Not so for someone in a dense, urban neighborhood. Same thing goes for the HF amateur spectrum and wide bandwidth, incompatible modes.

KB1SF
04-30-2008, 04:07 PM
Oops. Guess I mistakenly tied your agreements with the "cripy CBer-curmudgeon" together from the other website discussion. Over 56 years of self denial of an amateur license out of spite and hatred for CW was simply amazing to me.

Sorry about that. You'll have a retraction from me and soon.

No mode restrictions may work fine in Canada, but it won't work well here.
Not with the plethora of "free email" digibots and users here in the US. The prospect of them parking all over and not being capable of detecting channel uses by other modes would soon make our bands a miscoordinated, random mess. And, the prospect of IP content, as promoted by ARRL, on HF is even scarier. Wide bandwidth (10kHz plus?) stuff being splattered hither and yon scares me.

If BPL is such a potential scourge to the amateur service, our own members running wide bandwidth digital or IP content on the HF bands is worse.



Actually, Lee, as I have said, regulating our Service by bandwidth has been the norm throughout the rest of the world's Amateur Services for decades. What's more, this group collectively comprises a FAR bigger chunk of the world's total population of Amateurs than we do.

And THEIR sky has yet to fall.

I operated as IV3KBU in Italy under such rules for the better part of three years and NEVER once encountered the "miscoordinated random mess" you predict. To the contrary, most operators in that part of the world were quite content to operate within the IARU proscribed "voluntary" band plans. Maybe that had something to do with the fact that most Hams using like emission modes tend to seek out others doing the same. Otherwise, they end up talking to themselves.

What's more, your "10 KHz plus" fear is clearly unfounded. The maximum bandwidths allowed on HF in our Service by the ITU are only 6 KHz (1 KHz on 30 meters), not the 10 KHz plus you so fearfully predict, Lee.

Now, granted, chaos WILL probably reign supreme for awhile on our bands here in the USA once the FCC drops their stupid regulated mode and license-class-based frequency restrictions for our Service until everyone finally realizes that SOME form of order and discipline needs to be implemented.

And, clearly, SOME ongoing form of coordination by SOMEONE will be needed for everyone to enjoy their "own little piece of heaven". I'm simply saying that that "someone" shouldn't be a bunch of politically-appointed FCC lawyers sitting somewhere in Washington who don't know diddly-squat about what Amateur Radio is or what it does...and who could care even less.

What's more, there are now some 60,000 licensed Hams north of the US border who have been quite content to operate within the IARU-recommended band plans for decades even though Industry Canada says they no longer need to. That fact, alone, should tell us that the extended "miscoordinated random mess" you and others are now predicting with the inevitable dawn of regulation by bandwidth on our bands in the USA appears to be nothing more than the same "sky is falling" dogma from that same, ever-shrinking minority in our ranks who tend to view ANY change from the old regulatory order as a threat.

I've found it instructive that this same crowd ALSO frantically predicted the "sky would fall" when the FCC (finally!) ditched their arcane Morse testing requirement. Yet we are all still here. In fact, Morse usage on our bands has actually INCREASED (not decreased) as a direct result of the FCC's actions.

And, so, too, it shall be with regulating our Service by bandwidth rather than by license class and operating mode here in the United States.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

w6em
04-30-2008, 04:33 PM
Actually, Lee, as I have said, regulating our Service by bandwidth has been the norm throughout the rest of the world for decades. And THEIR sky has yet to fall.


I'm just stating my opinion of what would be likely to happen here, Keith. Plenty of space elsewhere in the world. However, listening to the numerous Pactor boxes roaring away from where they're supposed to be up and into the phone segments on 20M does give one a clue. Perhaps some of those at hither and yon are non US. Perhaps they continuously buzz away in hopes of attracting some compatible connects.


What's more, your "10 KHz plus" fear is also clearly unfounded. The maximum bandwidths allowed on HF in our Service by the ITU are only 6 KHz (1 KHz on 30 meters), not the 10 KHz plus you frantically predict, Lee.

Lets see, Keith, broadband IP content within 6kHz? Not likely. And its an ARRL-stated goal. Not mine. Since when have regulations stopped ARRL? Their interpretation of FCC regulations, as of now, places NO, I repeat, NO bandwidth limit on digital bandwidth, only its character/symbol rate.

What's more, there are now some 60,000+ licensed hams north of the US border who have been quite content to operate within the IARU-recommended band plans for decades even though Industry Canada says they no longer need to. That fact, alone, should tell you that the extended "miscoordinated random mess" you and others are now predicting with the inevitable dawn of regulation by bandwidth on our bands in the USA appears to be nothing more than the same "sky is falling" dogma from that same, ever-shrinking minority in our ranks who tend to view ANY change from the old regulatory order as a threat.


Well, Keith, one need only have operated on 40M and listened to the 7.0-7.1MHz segment to notice quite a bit of "Canuck" SSB operation there. There's even a daily swap net around 7.090. Ha. And, during two recent SSB contests, about a half dozen of your fellow citizens were operating in that segment on LSB and made it difficult for me to work a weak DX station. At least he was listening up the band.

So, I guess not everyone is voluntarily doing what you say they are up north. Oh, well. that's human nature, Keith.

I guess we should let the folks get back to the BPL "decision", Keith. This is a dead horse.

73.

KB1SF
04-30-2008, 05:48 PM
Well, Keith, one need only have operated on 40M and listened to the 7.0-7.1MHz segment to notice quite a bit of Canook SSB operation there. There's even a daily swap net around 7.090. Ha. And, during two recent SSB contests, about a half dozen of your fellow citizens were operating in that segment on LSB and made it difficult for me to work a weak DX station. At least he was listening up the band.

73.

Well, Lee, if we weren't so frequency restricted in the USA, you MIGHT have been able to get on the band and courteously asked the gent to move. Unfortunately, right now, you (and I when I'm operating form the States) are legally squelched from doing so.

So much for the glorious benefits of our "frequency and mode based" foolishness, eh?

Oh…and by the way…the correct spelling of your derisive term for Canadians is "Canuck". If you continually insist on lumping me in with the rest of my Canadian friends, all that I ask is that you at least learn to spell the term correctly!

Cheers!

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

wa3vjb
04-30-2008, 07:49 PM
SWING and a miss, there, Keith.

Thanks for playing.

w6em
04-30-2008, 08:35 PM
Oh…and by the way…the correct spelling of your derisive term for Canadians is "Canuck".

Then, perhaps you should tell the fans out Vancouver way that their team's name is "derisive" ... :D

Strike two, eh Paul?

KB1SF
05-01-2008, 12:49 AM
Then, perhaps you should tell the fans out Vancouver way that their team's name is "derisive" ... :D

Strike two, eh Paul?

By golly, Lee, you're right!

In fact, Wikipedia discusses the term thusly: "Canadians use "Canuck" as an affectionate description of nationality and the word carries no particular patriotic overtones. A few Americans misinterpret "Canuck" as an offensive noun but would be hard pressed to find a Canadian, French or English, insulted by the word - the opposite being most likely. It is similar in use to "Yankee" for an American."

It would appear I am one of those semi-transplanted "Yankees" who have been misinterpreting the use of the word. I now stand corrected. Thanks.

In addition, I now believe I have more than made my points and you gents have more than made yours. It will be interesting to meet here again in about 5 or 10 years time and see whether regulating our Service by bandwidth has become reality, incentive licensing has gone the way of the dinosaur, and/or whether the ARRL has actually forced the FCC to change their horrifically entrenched positions on BPL.

My hunch is that, by that time, ALL of our quixotic discussions on these and similar issues will have long since been overcome by events.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF