1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D. C. 20554
In the Matter of:
American Hospital Association?s
Blanket Waiver request for use of Reference: WP 10-54
Amateur radio frequencies.
To the Commission:
OPPOSITION TO HOSPITAL BLANKET WAIVER REQUEST
SUBTITLE
The Fleecing of Amateur Radio
Anyone with average intelligence who, devoid of emotion, and applying a
modicum of critical thinking would arrive at the conclusion this American
Hospital Association?s (AHA) request for a Blanket Waiver is not only vacuous
and absurd, but patently offensive. This request makes a mockery of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), its rules, the United States Public
Law and the United States Congress in its task of upholding the International
treaty to which it is a part. Further, proffering this and other 47CFR97.113
waiver requests for consideration shows the distinct disregard Commission
subordinates have in respecting their responsibility for the Delegated
authority given them to uphold the public trust in administering the laws and
regulations entrusted to the Federal Communication Commission.
Page 1 of 15Houlne: The Fleecing of Amateur Radio 3/20/2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Delegated Authority should have returned this letter to the writer with
prejudice. They should have returned it because it does not meet the
qualifications for a waiver request under any circumstances. They should have
returned it because the writer demonstrated prior knowledge of DA-09-2259 and
thus knew they did not qualify, directly, for a waiver. They should have
returned it because the letter provably shows the utter incompetence and gross
negligence of the writer through:
1) a complete lack of understanding the law;
2) a complete lack of understanding the rules;
3) exhibited contempt for following those laws and rules;
4) reflects the lacking character of the AHA and;
5) the unmitigated insulting disrespect toward not only the FCC
but the entire Amateur radio community.
The nature and intent of the AHA are quite evident and telling by carefully
reading the last two paragraphs on page two and the first paragraph on page
three. Here this foolhardy, and no doubt, fool of a writer display total
disregard for the Amateur service, its participants and the rules they must
follow. Besides totally mis-characterizing other aspects of Amateur radio,
this writer completely marginalizes Part 97.113 and then with total arrogance
and contempt says Part 97.113 really does not mean what it says. Clearly this
writer never learned to do proper research. The only other conclusion is this
foolish signatory rubber stamped a letter prepared by others without even
giving it a cursory review and checking of facts. That begs the question of
who prepared the letter if the writer did not. Was it someone else within the
AHA ? Or was it from outside ? Two very good possibilities come to mind.
One is a private association. The other is a department of a federal agency
interested in pushing this matter.
Page 2 of 15Houlne: The Fleecing of Amateur Radio 3/20/2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Obviously, the public will never learn the truth. No matter, as the evidence
before us clearly shows whoever wrote the letter has absolutely no
understanding of the Amateur service, its history and laws or they just simply
do not care.
The writer, on page two, paragraph one, admits it is a voluntary inclusion (my
emphasis in red): ?Thus, if a hospital plans on utilizing Amateur Radio as a
backup communications source during a disaster pursuant to Standard
EM.02.02.01, it must conduct at least two emergency drills annually utilizing
Amateur Radio.? Relying upon the 2009 Joint Commission on Accreditation
Standards Handbook, section EM.02.02.01, the writer quotes the relevant
portion from page 53, titled ?Rationale for EM.02.02.01" which says: ?The
hospital maintains reliable communications capabilities for the purpose of
communicating response efforts to staff, patients, and external organizations.
The hospital establishes backup communications processes and technologies (for
example, cell phones, landlines, bulletin boards, fax machines, satellite
phones, Amateur Radio, text messages) to communicate essential information if
primary communications systems fail.? This makes no statement that they
require Amateur radio for accreditation. Also, the Joint Commission on
Accreditation makes no definitive statement as to the frequency of drills or
tests though proffering the construct of ?at least two . . .?
Around 1910, to improve hospital quality and functionality, a private group
got started leading to establishing an accreditation process. Today they call
it the Joint Commission on Accreditation. Participation is voluntary ! This
carries financial implications on several levels, for example; cost of the
accreditation, better insurance rates and charging higher patent fees for
having the accreditation. The AHA is not the accreditation commission. They
Page 3 of 15Houlne: The Fleecing of Amateur Radio 3/20/2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are a ?special interest? group amounting to nothing more then a lobbyist or
union requiring dues, like the Teamsters.
All of this is not the concern of the Amateur radio operator, yet the writer
strives, by innuendo, to give the impression that they need Amateur radio to
get accreditation. That is false ! This letter, on its face, at the very
least, is being coy and manipulative. It clearly shows a pecuniary interest
by the AHA on behalf of its members to reduce the costs, by each hospital, to
request waivers for each instance though they do not qualify as stated in DA-
09-2259.
The AHA claims to have about 5000 hospitals under its umbrella. It fails to
state that it does not represent all hospitals or any subordinate forms of
smaller clinics, etc.
47CFR97 already permits Amateur radio operators to provide communications in
times of emergency, including passage of third party messages. No prohibition
exists against a ?volunteer? Amateur radio operator from preparing, by doing
tests and drills, whenever he chooses. The only steadfast exclusionary clause
is that it cannot be done for the direct pecuniary interest of the Amateur
operator, or others, or on behalf of the Amateur?s employer. During a drill
or a real emergency the pecuniary aspect does not mean the Amateur could not
order life supporting materials like food, water, shelter or even fuel to
support his continued existence and operating. What it does mean is the
Amateur operator cannot charge or be paid for his time, or his use of, or the
use of, his equipment. Hence, the statement of ?on behalf of his employer? as
that is, in effect, his being paid for his time, use of his license and use of
his equipment.
Page 4 of 15Houlne: The Fleecing of Amateur Radio 3/20/2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
What really amazes me is why these hospital employees are fooling with a radio
when they should be attending to the patients in need of medical attention.
OOPS, you are having a heart attack, but wait, I got to talk on the Amateur
radio first. Are these people serious ? The reason they have employed these
people at hospitals is to do a job related to medical treatment, not to play a
radio operator ? The math just does not add up !
No-good reasons exist why these hospitals and other functionaries cannot use
the everyday ?volunteer? Amateur radio operator. They (hospitals) do not want
to do so is because they do not want to deal with volunteers and all that go
with that.
For inclusion in this record, I am appending a submitted motion relevant to
this matter from November 2009. That submission directly addresses the non
validity of the AHA letter requesting a blanket waiver.
Again, I oppose the AHA waiver request and any other requested waivers that
Delegated Authority has or intends to approve regarding 47CFR97.113. These
waiver requests are in direct contravention to the International
Telecommunications Union treaty, the laws of the United States of America, and
the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
WB6BNQ
William Houlne
2732 Grove Street
National City, CA 91950
Page 5 of 15Houlne: The Fleecing of Amateur Radio 3/20/2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADDENDUM
For inclusion into the record of WP 10-54 follows
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE OR CLARIFYING ORDER
and
Application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority
Submitted November 2009
Page 6 of 15Houlne: The Fleecing of Amateur Radio 3/20/2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D. C. 20554
In the Matter of:
Commission comments concerning the
use of the ?waiver? process for a Reference: DA 09-2259
Government entity?s usage of Amateur DA 09-2302
radio under 47CFR97 as stated via a DA 09-2420
public notice # DA-2259.
To the Commission:
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE OR CLARIFYING ORDER
and
Application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority
47CFR97 already had the necessary rules permitting the Amateur service to pass
messages from a ?third? party to another ?third? party, including so called
?emergency? communication, during ?normal? Amateur radio use. The only
restriction is it cannot be done for pecuniary reasons. This includes a
licensed Amateur who is an employee operating a station ?on behalf of? his
employer.
Granting of waivers represents an illegal and improper attempt to circumvent
the plain requirements of 47CFR97 because it has the effect of reading
47CFR97.113(a)(2) and (a)(3) completely out of the Rules. To the extent that
the amateur service does provide ?structured? emergency communications, it is
supposed to be done within the framework of RACES.
Page 7 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A prime requirement of regulatory interpretation is the Commission must read
the regulation in question as a whole and in context. The purpose of the
regulation is to accomplish a desired result. The Commission can only
accomplish this if it has read and construed the regulation as a whole and not
in parts; otherwise the Commission?s intention, as ordered after public rule
making, will not be effectuated.
The true crux of the matter is twofold. First, the Amateurs, themselves, are
disproportionately selling the ?hobby? as an ?emergency? service, which it is
not. Second, the ?served? agencies want their employees in charge as actual
licensed operators, but this violates the remunerative prohibitions of
47CFR113(a)(2) as follows: ?Communications for hire or for material
compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise
provided in these rules;? and 47CFR97.113(a)(3) which provides specifically as
follows: ?Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has
a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer.?
ABOUT THOSE WAIVERS
Though 47CFR1.3 provides for a ?waiver? process, it does so with a ?good
cause? requirement as specified in 47CFR1.925. In the public notice, DA 09-
2259 (Released: October 20, 2009), Delegated authority, while correctly
clarifying a particular aspect of 47CFR97, inadvertently left the impression
that a waiver is a simple, readily usable, easy and routine process with which
to circumvent the current rules under 47CFR97.
Clearly, if ?good cause? is required then it is not a simple, easy, or routine
process and the Commission never intended it to be a readily usable method for
Page 8 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
circumventing the rules. Five possible grounds for ?Good cause? are set forth
in 47CFR1.925. They are: 47CFR1.925(3)(i) - public interest is frustrated;
47CFR1.925(3)(ii) - inequitable application, unduly burdensome, contrary to
the public interest, or no reasonable alternative.
The reason no ?good cause? exists for the issuance of a waiver is that none of
the requirements exist for a finding of ?good cause? as defined in
47CFR1.925(3)(i) and 47CFR1.925(3)(ii), and it cannot be inequitable if
47CFR97.113(a)(3) specifically prohibits it. By requesting a waiver the
applicants admit they are doing it with remuneration from and ?on behalf of?
their employer and that is precisely why they are requesting a waiver.
47CFR97.113(a)(3) is very precise regarding remuneration and employment.
WHAT PROMPTED THE PUBLIC NOTICE DA 09-2259 ?
A major reason the ?public notice? came about is due to inquires about Amateur
operators, whom hospitals employed, who operated the hospital?s Amateur radio
?emergency? net operations. A popular Amateur radio Internet WEB site forum
questioned this practice. Then some Commission staff comments concerning this
subject became a major discussion on said WEB site, and other venues, which
created the need for a cohesive Commission statement in DA 09-2259.
While DA 09-2259 refers to ?government-sponsored emergency preparedness and
disaster drills,? many Amateur operations deal with hospitals and other
entities whom a government function has not necessarily sponsored. These
hospitals are a for-profit operation and, it seems, that many are wanting to
require some of their staff become licensed Amateur radio operators because
they then do not have to depend upon volunteers. The same thing is happening
Page 9 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with government functions like police, fire, rescue operations and
particularly with State level Emergency Operations.
These government entities see some benefit in using Amateur radio. Amateur
radio equipment is cheaper than its commercial equivalent. Licensing is very
easy and spectrum usage is not a problem in contrast to the issues surrounding
47CFR90 frequency assignments.
However, the real problem is due to the constant promotion, by the American
Radio Relay League, other Amateur organizations and Amateurs themselves, to
sell the virtues of Amateur radio as providing ?emergency? communications.
The ?served agencies? would hardly pay attention to the Amateur service save
for the constant, misplaced and disproportionate promotion. This wrong headed
promotion of the Amateur service as an emergency communication medium raises
the question of whether, in the absence of such promotion, the served agencies
would even consider using the Amateur service in such a capacity in the first
instance. It appears that the serviced agencies? desire to use Amateurs as
emergency communication personnel is due partially to being hounded and partly
to being ?politically correct? rather than that they truly need the additional
help. Lately the ?politically correct? angle has major benefits because the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now providing government grant money
for Amateur applications.
WHAT IS AMATEUR RADIO ?
47CFR97.3(4) clearly states the true purpose of Amateur service as ?A
radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical
investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio
Page 10 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.? This definition
agrees with the International Telecommunications Union treaty and the public
law contained in the United States Code. It should be noted that the term
?emergency? appears nowhere within that definition.
Amateur radio is a voluntary service whose fundamental purpose is five
principles listed in 47CFR97.1. However, 47CFR97.1 is just a general
statement of the basis and purpose of Amateur radio, unlike the specific
requirements imposed by other sections of the Rules. Amateur radio operators,
who generally have no legal training, tend to quote the generalized statements
in 47CFR97.1 as though they had more force and effect than the specific
statements contained elsewhere in the Rules. This is incorrect, and the
Commission should clarify these Amateurs? incorrect understanding of Part 97.
Title 47 of the CFR, in §97.3, contains the specific statement of the purpose
of the Amateur radio service. Nowhere within any of the definitions contained
in 47CFR97.3 is the term ?emergency? used, defined or explained. The ability
to provide ?emergency? communications, while salutary, is not a proper
purpose of the Amateur service. Other radio services have that purpose
instead. The reason emergency communications is not a specified purpose of
Amateur radio is because it is a voluntary service. Amateur radio has no
binding contractual obligation to provide any ?emergency,? or for that matter,
any third party traffic of any kind.
The only statutory language permitting the use of a 47CFR97 station for other
then its designated purpose is 47CFR97.5(b)(4) and 47CFR97.407, called RACES.
The purpose of RACES is to allow a government entity to use a cadre of trained
radio operators in time of ?public? peril be it local, regional, or a national
Page 11 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
event, especially if the President of the United States invokes the ?WAR
POWERS ACT.? However, it appears that although the Rules provide for the
issuance and renewal of the RACES licenses, the Commission no longer issues or
renews RACES licenses.
THE SERVED AGENCIES
Promoting a waiver to circumvent the rules as common practice is illegal and
sends the message that the Rules are meaningless. Allowing waivers is not
going to solve the ?perceived? problem; ?perceived? because no real problem
exists.
The ?perceived? problem is the Agency wanting their management personnel
licensed so they can be in control of the Amateur communications. This is
akin to saying the Ford Motor Company?s upper management need to be auto
mechanics to manage the company properly. This is just simply silly and
clearly not so !
Having a licensed employee operating is not going to fix poor management
problems. More likely, it is the employed Amateur who wants to be part of the
action and is driving the circumstances; thus, putting his ?agency? in harms
way of 47CFR113.
WHAT IS WRONG ?
The wording, intent and meaning of 47CFR97 are, generally, quite clear, yet
many Amateurs lack the sophistication to understand its contents. This is
partly due to the dramatic reduction in the requirements for licensing. The
Page 12 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission has rewritten the rules several times trying to make them clearer
and in so doing have also broadened the scope of permissible operations.
Perhaps they have been too permissive ? The old adage of ?give them an inch
and they will take a mile? appropriately describe those who are so adamant
about ?emergency? communications.
Over the last twenty-five some odd years, the American Radio Relay League
(ARRL) has mounted a major effort to push the ?emergency? aspect of the
Amateur radio service. This ?emergency? spin also includes promoting an
insane amount of NON ?emergency? functions like parades and numerous civic
events. The stated reason is ?it is the primary reason for the Amateur
service and the justification for keeping the spectrum allocations currently
allotted to the service.? That statement may have some truth regarding those
allocations where the signal propagation does not exceed our political
borders. This is not so on those allocations where signals exceed our
political boundaries due to treaty agreements binding the United States as a
member of the International Telecommunications Union.
This ARRL focus brought new entrants to Amateur radio who have little, or no
interest in contributing to the advancement of the radio art. Instead, these
new entrants are intimately and solely aimed at providing volunteer
communications to ?served agencies? and other non government entities.
Unfortunately, the ARRL?s indoctrination was so thorough that these new
entrants think ?emergency? communication is the primary objective of the
Amateur service, contrary to the facts.
SO WHAT IS WRONG ? Again, the real problem is due to the constant,
disproportionate promotion, by ill-advised Amateurs, to sell the virtues of
Page 13 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Amateur radio providing ?emergency? communications, even if it violates
47CFR113. Pecuniary interest should apply to the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security grant money for Amateur applications. Particularly so if it is an
Amateur or group of Amateurs independently receiving such a grant instead of a
government entity.
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUEST
and Application for review
The term ?public? as used in Title 47 refers to the greater populace, that is,
all the citizens of the United States of America. Thus terms attached to
?public? like frustration, inequities, burdensome, and contrary carry the same
meaning. Unfortunately, most of the Amateur?s involved in the ?emergency?
game fail to understand such intricacies and see themselves as the ?public?
being frustrated.
So far, to my knowledge, the Commission, through delegated authority, has
approved two waivers. DA 09-2302 with five employees and DA 09-2420 with a
whopping eleven employees.
Regarding the above waivers, I am unable to see where any public frustrations
exist, except for not wanting to follow the rules. No inequities exist except
the burdensome requirement of following the rules. Likewise, no circumstances
exist that are contrary to the public interest. Plenty of avenues exist with
other sections of Title 47 providing reasonable alternatives, including
learning how to properly manage.
Specifically regarding DA 09-2302 and DA 09-2420, I would like to know exactly
Page 14 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
how the ?public interest? (47CFR1.925(3)(i)) was frustrated because these
employees could not use Amateur radio on behalf of their employer ? Failing
that, exactly which of the four items of 47CFR1.925(3)(ii) {?inequitable
application,? or ?unduly burdensome,? or ?contrary to the public interest? or ?no reasonable
alternative?} thwarted the ?public interest? if these employees could not,
personally and directly, use Amateur radio on behalf of their employer ?
Delegated authority?s approval of the above waivers is procedurally flawed and
violates the statutory construction of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The waiver process is not a medium for fixing poor management or
stroking some Amateur?s ego.
I am submitting this as an Application for review of action taken pursuant to
delegated authority. Additionally, by this submission, I am also seeking a
Protective Order halting further waivers until the Commission can properly
resolve this matter.
Respectfully,
WB6BNQ
William Houlne
2732 Grove Street
National City, CA 91950
Page 15 of 15Houlne - re: DA-2259 - November 27, 2009