ARRL report - No Consensus Reached for FCC on “Symbol Rate” Issues

I previously posted this in an existing Discussion but thought it deserves its own separate thread. The objective being to try to provide some separation from strictly technical aspects versus the apparently less rational resolution process.

The ARRL News reported yesterday - No Consensus Reached for FCC on “Symbol Rate” Issues

First, the headline as printed is contradictory with the report filed on the FCC EFCS. “At the beginning of our meetings there emerged consensus on the issues to be discussed. By the end, the parties had reached consensus on some of the issues, but not all. Despite our best efforts, some of the parties did not agree to submit to the Commission any of the recommendations on which there had been an apparent consensus, having negotiated with an “all or nothing” approach.”

So there was SOME consensus, not "No consensus". Just no conclusion.

While some are trying to move the League away from "smoke-filled room" non-transparencies, apparently that is not going to happen in all situations yet. Apparently this meeting, on an AMATEUR radio topic, involved not only inhibiting "passions" but also lawyers and associated constraints.

Curious to know on which issues there was consensus. Also, of the participants, which side did not want to go forward to the FCC with the issues for which there was a consensus. And why some feel it necessary to take an "all or nothing" approach.

It's also disconcerting that a prestigious organization like NYU may have authorized expenses to retain attorneys from Hogan Lovells on this or allow its staff and name to be used and displayed in government matters or mass media with alleged blatant deception or misrepresentation, or if aligned with any party taking such an irrational negotiating stance.

All polite and respectful comments welcome.

73, John, WØPV

 

We don't know for sure whether the lawyers or the PR firm are working under university or private payment (I guess)..... and it would be good to find that out i guess. I would avoid ever sending anything out in a legislative matter on University letterhead.....that would get me into trouble.

Someone will have to call NYU to find that out.....
Cheers
gordon

 

The NYU connection is one of the more puzzling aspects of this kerfuffle.

 

Gordon, stop guessing and go get some facts. What PR firm? Where did you get that information? Get facts you can back up with references, besides I saw it on the internet. The lawyer question is answered in the ARRL release.

Play nice in this thread please, if you hope to learn anything. There will be more information coming along shortly to fill in the blanks.

 

Yeah, color me surprised on that one. Both sides need to be sent to the corner for a period of self-introspection before their love of amateur radio eventually strangles it.

Neither side is listening and both represent their own unique threat to the hobby should they fully get their way.

 

Why don’t you just tell us?

 

Interesting.

So what, IYHO, is the middle ground?

 

That's an interesting thought.... I was just thinking that if the status quo is the third option, it's probably the best option, at least for the time being. Given how long FCC has had this on their plate, they may have very well reached the same conclusion.

It's very unfortunate that the differences between the parties had to be aired so publicly, and in front of the Commission. That's not helping anybody.

 

Is there a list somewhere of all the principals (non-ARRL employees) that were involved in that last round of talks, or is that a secret the ARRL has promised to keep also?

 

There is a partial list in the ARRL filing.