Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FW: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

Expand Messages
  • Fred Schlesinger
    Fyi I would appreciate some help here From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@schlesingers.net] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:58 AM To: Henderson, Dan N1ND
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 23, 2009

      Fyi

       

      I would appreciate some help here

       

       

      From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@...]
      Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:58 AM
      To: 'Henderson, Dan N1ND'
      Cc: 'VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net@yahoogroups.com'
      Subject: RE: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

       

      Dave

      Thank you for your response  (See below).  You are indeed a brave man and I admire that.

       

      You are regulatory information manager,  So please excuse my ignorance in thinking you have any authority.  Or that my lawyer on retainer to my organization of which I am a dues paying member might be interested in hearing my opinion of his interpretation of Part 97.

       

      I understand that you are staff.  Staff has to know how the members feel.

       

      This is a crazy situation, and the ARRL has not been helpful in this at all.  Heaven protect us from commercialization!  The way we are going, there will be no amateur airwaves to so protect.

       

      Kindly provide me with the names and phone numbers of the Board of Directors of the ARRL and I will be only too happy to post them all over and see if I can get people to call them.  And give them a call myself.

       

      The law is the law, that is true.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that the law evolves best when somebody uses their head.  The crazy interpretation that charity representation on a drill is different if it is an employee of the charity or an unpaid volunteer is new.  As is any interpretation that says that an employee of a charity cannot do public service with his or her amateur license in a drill if it involves communication simulating a disaster scenario because the employer derives some sort of ethereal “benefit” from it, or the employee, who is probably getting paid anyway, whether or not he has a mic in his hand, has some “pecuniary interest in the transmission”

      What sense does that make in the real world?     Perhaps the FCC might do well to rethink this idiotic opinion.

       

      And as to the ARRL, they appear to be supporting and encouraging this lunacy.  How does that protect our bandwidth?  Doesn’t it make us look silly and petty? 

       

      Wouldn’t it be better to have amateur radio recognized as a part of a disaster response by these non-profits? As a volunteer amateur licensee involved in EMCOMM, I can tell you that is difficult enough absent the assistance of the FCC lawyers and the assistance I am apparently receiving from my trade association. 

       

      Wouldn’t it make sense to drill these organizations so they, (Staff and volunteers alike) know how to use the radio in the proper situations?   

       

      What are the chances that a cash strapped FCC, that does virtually no enforcement on the ham bands as it is, is going to deploy its resources to write waivers for government agencies wanting to include nonprofit staff on the drill?  Not to mention the odds that some government bureaucrat designing a drill will consider the matter enough to request the waiver in advance of the drill? 

       

      And the ARRL, and it’s stepchild, ARES, a-non-government agency, can’t talk to non-profit staff on it’s SET.  And as a non-governmental agency, can’t even ask for a waiver under the FCC opinion. 

       

      How exactly does this promote the inter-operability aspect of amateur radio?  Wouldn’t the response to Katrina have been better if local relief agencies had amateur equipment and staff trained to use it in an emergency, instead of dropping radios in their lap and saying “Go to it boys”.  “Let me explain what CTSS means.”

       

      Let’s get serious here, ARRL, what are you doing to protect me from this outrage?

       

      I would be happy to explain to your Board of Directors who are supposed to be promoting licensing new hams in our dying hobby populated by an overabundance of older Americans and lots of other communication choices for younger Americans that it is indeed counter-productive to those aims  to dissuade staff members of charities like the American Red Cross from getting licenses by effectively banning them from the air when they are practicing their craft to prepare with other hams for an emergency.  Or by creating new interpretations of arcane rules that make absolutely no sense in the real world.

       

      We all agree that no business, no matter how noble the purpose, should use amateur licenses as a substitute for a commercial license.  No one wants t listen to employees on the clock ordering lunch on the ham bands for the office.  Perhaps I am not much of a lawyer but I would have no problem drafting an opinion that makes a proper distinction.  Maybe we should pay our lawyer to do that too. 

       

      Fred Schlesinger

      WW2VEH

       

       

       

       

      October 23, 2009 9:10 AM
      To: Fred Schlesinger
      Subject: RE: [VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net] FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

       

      Hi Fred

       

      Thanks for the comments.

       

      I am willing to talk to anyone but calling ARRL HQ staff like me will not get you anything but an ear to listen.  Staff are not involved in making the kind of policy decision you are seeking.  ARRL policy is made by the ARRL Board of Directors.  Members with concerns over ARRL policy should be contacting the ARRL Directors in their Divisions over policy matters.

       

      Also please note that Mr. Imlay is an attorney in private practice - he is retained by the ARRL, not a League employee.  Calling HQ and asking to speak to him won't get you anywhere - he doesn't live or work in CT.

       

      Thanks and 73

      Dan Henderson, N1ND
      Regulatory Information Manager
      ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio™
      860-594-0236
      dhenderson@...

       

       


      From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@...]
      Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:58 AM
      To: VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: reginfo
      Subject: RE: [VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net] FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

      Bill Wallace has asked me to reconsider dropping my membership with ARRL over this issue with the argument that ARRL is necessary to Protect the spectrum, and that the proper course is to use my influence as a long time  ARRL MEMBER to try and convince them that they are on the wrong side, and that they, of all people, should understand the danger in the FCC’s pronouncement. 

       

      Otherwise, ARES motto,  WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, will have to add an asterisk, (*unless you have the temerity to drill to test and hone your capabilities and effectiveness of amateur radio in a simulated disaster and happen to also work for a charitable organization that helps people, in which case you should keep your mitts off the micn , even off hours, like on Sunday night.)

       

      Catchy, Huh?

       

      Stupid too,

       

      I have reconsidered, and will give persuasion a try.

       

      I will be calling ARRL in Newington today, and try to speak to  ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson N1ND, and have a little talk with them.

      Perhaps you might have the time to make a call as well, and let them know that this FCC opinion is one that you want ARRL to lobby against.

       

      Fred Schlesinger

      Ww2veh

      www.arcsquared.org

       

      Contact information:

       

      Regulatory Information Dan Henderson 860-594-0236 reginfo@...

      Mr.Imlay  doesn’t have a posted phone number

      ARRL HQ

      address is:

      225 Main Street
      Newington, CT 06111-1494
      USA

       (voice) +1 860-594-0200 and (fax) +1 860-594-0259.

       

       

       

      ._,___

    • Bob Crifasi
      Fred, I respect you for speaking your mind and confronting the situation as you see it. You seem forthright and willing to put yourself on the line for what
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 5, 2009

        Fred,

                    I respect you for speaking your mind and confronting the situation as you see it. You seem forthright and willing to put yourself on the line for what you believe. I think many of us are. I know you have done some research on this topic. Please state the issues here along with the facts that have brought you to this reaction. It would be a great opportunity to bring every one up to speed.

         

        Bob KC2RFC

         


        From: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com [mailto: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Fred Schlesinger
        Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:03 PM
        To: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [EC_EmComm] FW: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

         

         

        Fyi

         

        I would appreciate some help here

         

         

        From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@ schlesingers. net]
        Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:58 AM
        To: 'Henderson, Dan N1ND'
        Cc: 'VoIP_American_ Red_Cross_ Communicators_ Net@yahoogroups. com'
        Subject: RE: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

         

        Dave

        Thank you for your response  (See below).  You are indeed a brave man and I admire that.

         

        You are regulatory information manager,  So please excuse my ignorance in thinking you have any authority.  Or that my lawyer on retainer to my organization of which I am a dues paying member might be interested in hearing my opinion of his interpretation of Part 97.

         

        I understand that you are staff.  Staff has to know how the members feel.

         

        This is a crazy situation, and the ARRL has not been helpful in this at all.  Heaven protect us from commercialization!  The way we are going, there will be no amateur airwaves to so protect.

         

        Kindly provide me with the names and phone numbers of the Board of Directors of the ARRL and I will be only too happy to post them all over and see if I can get people to call them.  And give them a call myself.

         

        The law is the law, that is true.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that the law evolves best when somebody uses their head.  The crazy interpretation that charity representation on a drill is different if it is an employee of the charity or an unpaid volunteer is new.  As is any interpretation that says that an employee of a charity cannot do public service with his or her amateur license in a drill if it involves communication simulating a disaster scenario because the employer derives some sort of ethereal “benefit” from it, or the employee, who is probably getting paid anyway, whether or not he has a mic in his hand, has some “pecuniary interest in the transmission”

        What sense does that make in the real world?     Perhaps the FCC might do well to rethink this idiotic opinion.

         

        And as to the ARRL, they appear to be supporting and encouraging this lunacy.  How does that protect our bandwidth?  Doesn’t it make us look silly and petty? 

         

        Wouldn’t it be better to have amateur radio recognized as a part of a disaster response by these non-profits? As a volunteer amateur licensee involved in EMCOMM, I can tell you that is difficult enough absent the assistance of the FCC lawyers and the assistance I am apparently receiving from my trade association. 

         

        Wouldn’t it make sense to drill these organizations so they, (Staff and volunteers alike) know how to use the radio in the proper situations?   

         

        What are the chances that a cash strapped FCC, that does virtually no enforcement on the ham bands as it is, is going to deploy its resources to write waivers for government agencies wanting to include nonprofit staff on the drill?  Not to mention the odds that some government bureaucrat designing a drill will consider the matter enough to request the waiver in advance of the drill? 

         

        And the ARRL, and it’s stepchild, ARES, a-non-government agency, can’t talk to non-profit staff on it’s SET.  And as a non-governmental agency, can’t even ask for a waiver under the FCC opinion. 

         

        How exactly does this promote the inter-operability aspect of amateur radio?  Wouldn’t the response to Katrina have been better if local relief agencies had amateur equipment and staff trained to use it in an emergency, instead of dropping radios in their lap and saying “Go to it boys”.  “Let me explain what CTSS means.”

         

        Let’s get serious here, ARRL, what are you doing to protect me from this outrage?

         

        I would be happy to explain to your Board of Directors who are supposed to be promoting licensing new hams in our dying hobby populated by an overabundance of older Americans and lots of other communication choices for younger Americans that it is indeed counter-productive to those aims  to dissuade staff members of charities like the American Red Cross from getting licenses by effectively banning them from the air when they are practicing their craft to prepare with other hams for an emergency.  Or by creating new interpretations of arcane rules that make absolutely no sense in the real world.

         

        We all agree that no business, no matter how noble the purpose, should use amateur licenses as a substitute for a commercial license.  No one wants t listen to employees on the clock ordering lunch on the ham bands for the office.  Perhaps I am not much of a lawyer but I would have no problem drafting an opinion that makes a proper distinction.  Maybe we should pay our lawyer to do that too. 

         

        Fred Schlesinger

        WW2VEH

         

         

         

         

        October 23, 2009 9:10 AM
        To: Fred Schlesinger
        Subject: RE: [VoIP_American_ Red_Cross_ Communicators_ Net] FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

         

        Hi Fred

         

        Thanks for the comments.

         

        I am willing to talk to anyone but calling ARRL HQ staff like me will not get you anything but an ear to listen.  Staff are not involved in making the kind of policy decision you are seeking.  ARRL policy is made by the ARRL Board of Directors.  Members with concerns over ARRL policy should be contacting the ARRL Directors in their Divisions over policy matters.

         

        Also please note that Mr. Imlay is an attorney in private practice - he is retained by the ARRL, not a League employee.  Calling HQ and asking to speak to him won't get you anywhere - he doesn't live or work in CT.

         

        Thanks and 73

        Dan Henderson, N1ND
        Regulatory Information Manager
        ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio™
        860-594-0236
        dhenderson@arrl. org


         

         


        From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@ schlesingers. net]
        Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:58 AM
        To: VoIP_American_ Red_Cross_ Communicators_ Net@yahoogroups. com
        Cc: reginfo
        Subject: RE: [VoIP_American_ Red_Cross_ Communicators_ Net] FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

        Bill Wallace has asked me to reconsider dropping my membership with ARRL over this issue with the argument that ARRL is necessary to Protect the spectrum, and that the proper course is to use my influence as a long time  ARRL MEMBER to try and convince them that they are on the wrong side, and that they, of all people, should understand the danger in the FCC’s pronouncement. 

         

        Otherwise, ARES motto,  WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, will have to add an asterisk, (*unless you have the temerity to drill to test and hone your capabilities and effectiveness of amateur radio in a simulated disaster and happen to also work for a charitable organization that helps people, in which case you should keep your mitts off the micn , even off hours, like on Sunday night.)

         

        Catchy, Huh?

         

        Stupid too,

         

        I have reconsidered, and will give persuasion a try.

         

        I will be calling ARRL in Newington today, and try to speak to  ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson N1ND, and have a little talk with them.

        Perhaps you might have the time to make a call as well, and let them know that this FCC opinion is one that you want ARRL to lobby against.

         

        Fred Schlesinger

        Ww2veh

        www.arcsquared. org

         

        Contact information:

         

        Regulatory Information Dan Henderson 860-594-0236 reginfo@arrl. org

        Mr.Imlay  doesn’t have a posted phone number

        ARRL HQ

        address is:

        225 Main Street
        Newington, CT 06111-1494
        USA

         (voice) +1 860-594-0200 and (fax) +1 860-594-0259.

         

         

         

        ._,___

      • rocket@schlesingers.net
        Bob I posted that about a week before Yahoo put it through, Somehow it got stuck in Yahoo s ether. Since that time, the situation has changed. Basically, at
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 6, 2009

          Bob

           

          I posted that about a week before Yahoo put it through,

           

          Somehow it got stuck in Yahoo’s ether.

           

          Since that time, the situation has changed.  Basically, at this point, I am waiting for a response from the FCC, who have verbally agreed that salaried members of a charity can participate in a net if they are representing their ham club, not their employer.

           

          If so, then, as long as they can train and the equipment  can be tested, the FCC opinion, although unfortunate, will not stop us from preparing for a disaster.

           

          So far no response in writing from the FCC, who realize that they really have a distinction without a difference at this point.

           

           

           

           

           

          From: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Crifasi
          Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:58 PM
          To: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [EC_EmComm] FW: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

           

           

          Fred,

                      I respect you for speaking your mind and confronting the situation as you see it. You seem forthright and willing to put yourself on the line for what you believe. I think many of us are. I know you have done some research on this topic. Please state the issues here along with the facts that have brought you to this reaction. It would be a great opportunity to bring every one up to speed.

           

          Bob KC2RFC

           


          From: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fred Schlesinger
          Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:03 PM
          To: EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [EC_EmComm] FW: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

           

           

          Fyi

           

          I would appreciate some help here

           

           

          From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@...]
          Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:58 AM
          To: 'Henderson, Dan N1ND'
          Cc: 'VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net@yahoogroups.com'
          Subject: RE: FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

           

          Dave

          Thank you for your response  (See below).  You are indeed a brave man and I admire that.

           

          You are regulatory information manager,  So please excuse my ignorance in thinking you have any authority.  Or that my lawyer on retainer to my organization of which I am a dues paying member might be interested in hearing my opinion of his interpretation of Part 97.

           

          I understand that you are staff.  Staff has to know how the members feel.

           

          This is a crazy situation, and the ARRL has not been helpful in this at all.  Heaven protect us from commercialization!  The way we are going, there will be no amateur airwaves to so protect.

           

          Kindly provide me with the names and phone numbers of the Board of Directors of the ARRL and I will be only too happy to post them all over and see if I can get people to call them.  And give them a call myself.

           

          The law is the law, that is true.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that the law evolves best when somebody uses their head.  The crazy interpretation that charity representation on a drill is different if it is an employee of the charity or an unpaid volunteer is new.  As is any interpretation that says that an employee of a charity cannot do public service with his or her amateur license in a drill if it involves communication simulating a disaster scenario because the employer derives some sort of ethereal “benefit” from it, or the employee, who is probably getting paid anyway, whether or not he has a mic in his hand, has some “pecuniary interest in the transmission”

          What sense does that make in the real world?     Perhaps the FCC might do well to rethink this idiotic opinion.

           

          And as to the ARRL, they appear to be supporting and encouraging this lunacy.  How does that protect our bandwidth?  Doesn’t it make us look silly and petty? 

           

          Wouldn’t it be better to have amateur radio recognized as a part of a disaster response by these non-profits? As a volunteer amateur licensee involved in EMCOMM, I can tell you that is difficult enough absent the assistance of the FCC lawyers and the assistance I am apparently receiving from my trade association. 

           

          Wouldn’t it make sense to drill these organizations so they, (Staff and volunteers alike) know how to use the radio in the proper situations?   

           

          What are the chances that a cash strapped FCC, that does virtually no enforcement on the ham bands as it is, is going to deploy its resources to write waivers for government agencies wanting to include nonprofit staff on the drill?  Not to mention the odds that some government bureaucrat designing a drill will consider the matter enough to request the waiver in advance of the drill? 

           

          And the ARRL, and it’s stepchild, ARES, a-non-government agency, can’t talk to non-profit staff on it’s SET.  And as a non-governmental agency, can’t even ask for a waiver under the FCC opinion. 

           

          How exactly does this promote the inter-operability aspect of amateur radio?  Wouldn’t the response to Katrina have been better if local relief agencies had amateur equipment and staff trained to use it in an emergency, instead of dropping radios in their lap and saying “Go to it boys”.  “Let me explain what CTSS means.”

           

          Let’s get serious here, ARRL, what are you doing to protect me from this outrage?

           

          I would be happy to explain to your Board of Directors who are supposed to be promoting licensing new hams in our dying hobby populated by an overabundance of older Americans and lots of other communication choices for younger Americans that it is indeed counter-productive to those aims  to dissuade staff members of charities like the American Red Cross from getting licenses by effectively banning them from the air when they are practicing their craft to prepare with other hams for an emergency.  Or by creating new interpretations of arcane rules that make absolutely no sense in the real world.

           

          We all agree that no business, no matter how noble the purpose, should use amateur licenses as a substitute for a commercial license.  No one wants t listen to employees on the clock ordering lunch on the ham bands for the office.  Perhaps I am not much of a lawyer but I would have no problem drafting an opinion that makes a proper distinction.  Maybe we should pay our lawyer to do that too. 

           

          Fred Schlesinger

          WW2VEH

           

           

           

           

          October 23, 2009 9:10 AM
          To: Fred Schlesinger
          Subject: RE: [VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net] FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

           

          Hi Fred

           

          Thanks for the comments.

           

          I am willing to talk to anyone but calling ARRL HQ staff like me will not get you anything but an ear to listen.  Staff are not involved in making the kind of policy decision you are seeking.  ARRL policy is made by the ARRL Board of Directors.  Members with concerns over ARRL policy should be contacting the ARRL Directors in their Divisions over policy matters.

           

          Also please note that Mr. Imlay is an attorney in private practice - he is retained by the ARRL, not a League employee.  Calling HQ and asking to speak to him won't get you anywhere - he doesn't live or work in CT.

           

          Thanks and 73

          Dan Henderson, N1ND
          Regulatory Information Manager
          ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio™
          860-594-0236
          dhenderson@...



           

           


          From: Fred Schlesinger [mailto:Rocket@...]
          Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:58 AM
          To: VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: reginfo
          Subject: RE: [VoIP_American_Red_Cross_Communicators_Net] FCC PUBLIC NOTICE RE HAM EMPLOYEES AS VOLUNTEERS

          Bill Wallace has asked me to reconsider dropping my membership with ARRL over this issue with the argument that ARRL is necessary to Protect the spectrum, and that the proper course is to use my influence as a long time  ARRL MEMBER to try and convince them that they are on the wrong side, and that they, of all people, should understand the danger in the FCC’s pronouncement. 

           

          Otherwise, ARES motto,  WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, will have to add an asterisk, (*unless you have the temerity to drill to test and hone your capabilities and effectiveness of amateur radio in a simulated disaster and happen to also work for a charitable organization that helps people, in which case you should keep your mitts off the micn , even off hours, like on Sunday night.)

           

          Catchy, Huh?

           

          Stupid too,

           

          I have reconsidered, and will give persuasion a try.

           

          I will be calling ARRL in Newington today, and try to speak to  ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson N1ND, and have a little talk with them.

          Perhaps you might have the time to make a call as well, and let them know that this FCC opinion is one that you want ARRL to lobby against.

           

          Fred Schlesinger

          Ww2veh

          www.arcsquared.org

           

          Contact information:

           

          Regulatory Information Dan Henderson 860-594-0236 reginfo@...

          Mr.Imlay  doesn’t have a posted phone number

          ARRL HQ

          address is:

          225 Main Street
          Newington, CT 06111-1494
          USA

           (voice) +1 860-594-0200 and (fax) +1 860-594-0259.

           

           

           

          ._,___

        • kc2rfc
          Fred, Now, taking the sequence of events of the last few weeks and Yahoo s poor timing… It seems we are on the same page. I m sure more will unfold but it
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 6, 2009
            Fred,
            Now, taking the sequence of events of the last few weeks and Yahoo's poor timingÂ… It seems we are on the same page. I'm sure more will unfold but it seems that some of what we were seeing was crafted to start a bit of furor. It seems to have worked (on me as well). Now that more of the facts are coming into clearer focus I'm taking more of a "wait and see" attitude. In the long run only history will give us a fuller picture. I'm not sure we'll have all the facts then either.

            Bob KC2RFC




            --- In EC_EmComm@yahoogroups.com, <rocket@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bob
            >
            > I posted that about a week before Yahoo put it through,
            > Somehow it got stuck in Yahoo's ether...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.