At 08:08 4/25/2002 -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
>At 08:33 PM 4/24/02 -0400, K4IA wrote:
>>Compared to any one of these lobbies, ARRL is a QRPpp pip-squeak. The three
>>together can crush anything or anyone. I suspect some powers in Congress
>>have already been influenced (bought) and they told the FCC to lay off. That
>>is how it works here in Washington. If ARRL is to have any hope at all, they
>>will have to convince these powerful lobbies first, that preemption is not a
>>threat and secondly, that ham antennas are not a bad thing. We are not a
>>camel -- only one cute little frog. Good luck!
>
>
>I was glad to see K4IA's message, which added some useful perspective to a
>pretty light-weight thread, but this last paragraph kind of threw me.
>
>I don't think anyone should have been surprised that the FCC refused to
>extrapolate from the TCA of 96's preemption of DBS antenna restrictions,
>to apply the same logic to ham antennas. But the precedent has already
>been set, so the broad issue of Federal pre-emnption of CCA's in discrete
>areas has already been resolved. If and when the ARRL decides to take the
>ham antenna matter to Congress, I think it's unduly pessimistic to assume
>massive lobby opposition.
I think K4IA's insight points out that for the ARRL to have any chance of
success in congress they must first work with those lobbies and gain some
measure of their support. Without their support congressional action will
most likely be time and money down the tube. We read in QST of ARRL
official junkets to Washington to visit the FCC and congressional members,
etc. I should hope someone in the League picks up on K4IA's thread and
initiates conversations with these other lobbies if it hasn't already been
done.
73 Phil NA4M
-. .- ....- -- -. .- ....- -- -. .- ....- -- -. .- ....- -- -. .-
....- --
Phil Duff NA4M na4m@arrl.net Georgetown, Texas
|