Dave,
Just FYI, here is the response I got back to your points...
I don't necessary agree with the response, but Jim is closer to
the situation than I am so here goes...
Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid
employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid.
To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me)
in
addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte
presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of
the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum
bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error.
His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are
trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed
for quite some time. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max.
bandwidth
is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this
will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not
proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other
form of
data. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive
means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to
monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before
they transmit. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can
require their use to avoid QRMing.
His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to
Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition
for VHF and above. Interestingly, if Regulation by Bandwidth had been
adopted, there would have been no reason for us to ask FCC to impose a
maximum
transmitted bandwidth on data transmissions.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee
Dissenting Recommendation
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 -0000
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was
forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but
it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we
in an adult conversation here, or what?
>>>It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document
you forwarded: "It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is
exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some
serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable."
2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek
broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond
until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI).
>>>Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked
the "Amateur Radio News" section of the ARRL's web site going all the
way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC
submission that amateurs could review.
>>>The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting
it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the
proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no
response whatsoever to the issues raised.
If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office!
That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise
I wouldn't bother having this discussion.
>>>If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings
of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to
accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am
an ARRL member.
I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so
he continues to have my full support.
>>>Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to
display their skills at damage control quite so frequently.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
