[Lowfer] Comment repository link for Docket 15-99

[John Langridge]

OET / ECFS appears to be back online this morning, for what its worth...

73,

XIQ

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:02 PM, JD <listread at lwca.org> wrote:

> It also seems best served that the ARRL be the one to point these issues
>>>> out, if at all.  It should be glaring to the FCC.
>>>>
>>>
> I very much hope ARRL does point out the weaknesses in UTC's arguments and
> the total lack of numbers to support them.
>
> Even though most of the faults will surely be obvious to the FCC, it is
> sometimes very good strategy to let the other side in an adversarial
> proceeding (which this is in many ways, although more civilized than the
> typical courtoom drama) know that they're not pulling the wool over
> anyone's eyes.  If done with sufficent tact and aplomb, it reassures the
> regulators that you are cognizant of the issues and have some depth of
> understanding that the other side may lack.  This can get you a better deal
> than if you're too passive, especially in situations like this where the
> opposition is well funded and has dominated the discussion for so long.
> I've seen it work before.  But it is a balancing act.
>
> ARRL is in the best position to do this, it seems to me.  Their filing in
> this matter is comprehensive and well reasoned, and is a great boost for
> the cause!  For that reason, if I do reply to a few of UTC's points, I
> intend to keep it simple and straightforward and try not to let any new
> issues be raised.  Staying on point is the big thing at this stage, so I'm
> quite happy to save any more vigorous remarks for another time and let ARRL
> do the "heavy lifting" in connection with UTC.
>
> If you have another idea about something contained within someone else's
>>>> initial comment, it seems best to present the idea as an alternative
>>>> approach with a similar  outcome - keep it positive - because the enemy
>>>> will use that division against us, particularly if submitted before the
>>>> deadline where they can see them before the filing deadline.
>>>>
>>>
> I'm in total agreement with John.  Various folks who filed may have views
> that differ on some of the particulars, but our goals are fundamentally the
> same.  Keeping a positive tone in replying to someone else who supports the
> cause not only prevents the opposition from magnifying any perceived
> divisions, but it also demonstrates to the Commission that we know how to
> work together, which will go a long way toward convincing them we can also
> make spectrum sharing work.
>
> John D
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>