League Laywer Beaten Up

[WA3VJB]

The lawyer for the group in Newington, Chris Imlay, W3KD,  appears to have fallen victim to the same misinterpretation he has uttered unto others in his representation of the League's bandwidth petition.

Take a look at the Comments filed in a proceeding he has floated for the Society of Broadcast Engineers:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=RM-11308&start=1&end=10&first_time=N

Geez, maybe the general public ought to file comments opposed to his petition over there, pointing out how he has a history of misguided proposals and faulty perception as to how they are received.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I’ll assume your topic title is a vain attempt of an early “April Fool” since it makes no sense. In reviewing SBE’s proposal and their subsequent reply comments, I believe SBE’s legal representatives presented their case in a well thought out manner. Actually, some of the comments against, seemed to be as confused as some of the comments against RM-11306

What seems to be your “boggle” with the proposal? Or, are we grasping for some anti-ARRL sentiment as we stroll into spring.

[Art]

"Or, are we grasping for some anti-ARRL sentiment as we stroll into spring."

As if . . . one would have to 'grasp' at malfeasance by the ARRL . . . . .

[WA3VJB]

I can always tell when I've hit my mark because Pete will try to dispute it. Thank you for rising to the bait, again.

For others who don't get it, the filing by Sprint Nextel is a taste of the same medicine Imlay coughed up to ham radio operators. I wonder how it feels to him that he has been so utterly misinterpreted?  Maybe it's the same sort of outrage he provoked in his Reply to the Amateur community, ultimately illustrating why his client no longer represents most of our active, lawful, licensed operators.

Then again, one person or group filing against your proposal is perhaps no big deal, yet Imlay filed a Reply to Sprint nonetheless. When an overwhelming majority files against your proposal and you, as counsel, FAIL to refute it, or worse, disingenuously Reply as Imlay has done, then he is not serving his client and does not demonstrate that he is a good communications lawyer.

Where Imlay completely ignored in his Reply the 8 to 1 ratio of Comments opposed to the bandwidth petition which he had the misfortune to be involved with, here now his points are being ignored by a cellular telephone group commenting on the proposal he filed on behalf of the "Society of Broad Engineers"¹.

"SBE's proposal would impose extraordinary and unnecessary burdens on virtually all wireless licensees," said Nextel.
"Indeed, the requirements that SBE proposes are a solution looking for a problem," Nextel said.

Showing dramatic inconsistency in his treatment of the responses to the Newington petition compared with the SBE petition,  Imlay tallied up all seven parties that filed comments in RM-11308, and was able to count high enough to tell us that only one filed opposed. Sprint.

Do you think he ran out of fingers counting up the supportive comments for the Newington plan, quit while he was ahead, and then wrote his Reply based only on that ?

A-henh !

Phil you are correct, the SBE proposal is well-founded, and clear. It is easy to validate its merits.
Also well founded, clear and with merit are the vast number and depth of arguments opposed to the Newington bandwidth proposal.

For Imlay to overlook this opposition in his cavalier fashion speaks very poorly for his level of professionalism, and opens an opporutnity for additional lines of attack against the League and its counsel. His response to the Sprint/Nextel filing shows that he is capable of being receptive to oppositon and handling it in a manner that is above reproach.


¹Imlay's filing with the FCC incorrectly lists the name of the company he represents, as seen in the ECFS listing for the Pettion accepted into the public record as the first document in RM-11308.

[w3jn]

Obviously, with Imlay, there's no possible chance of *future* conflict of interest, as there apparently was with the recent unfortunate candidate for  Atlantic director.

[WA3VJB]

John, good point -- especially when you look at Sprint/Nextel's line that Imlay's proposal for SBE would affect nearly all wireless licensees. Does that mean ham radio operators, too ? Although Sprint's point is not sustainable, at least from what they've presented under it, yes, someone with spare time and legal expertise could probably find a variety of potential conflicts of interest that rise to or exceed the level that the volunteer board used against the candidate for Atlantic Director. He was in a position to file litigation, seemed to me, but probably, like the rest of us, went and washed his hands after realizing what sort of creepy, slimy thing he had tried to grasp.

[WA3VJB]

There's a lot of venom out there as to how the group in Newington treated the public's response.
AC0H, Kevin said on another page --

I doubt seriously that Imlay wrote those comments on RM-11306. He posted what he was told to post. Kind of an enlightening nugget into the ARRL's overall arrogance. "Damn it, we're the ARRL. Sit down, shut up and do as we tell you!"

---
Kevin, you're probably right about his passing along what he was told to say. But the problem we have is finding someone accountable. The ARRL likes to say that their volunteer Board of Directors reviewed and approved the proposal from the informal panel comprised of digital buffs,  but no one seems to want to publicly "own" the premise, the manifestation, and the implementation that would have followed this proposal had it drawn any significant support.

Now it's doomed, and the League is likely to get spanked by the FCC for it's failure to lay a proper foundation among the people it supposedly represents.

Imlay, with a responsiblity to his client, will hopefully have tried to warn them that their path presents a poor outcome, harmful side effects, and political punishment.

The closest we have to a face on this scheme is Paul Rinaldo, the League's DC lobbyist and "technology" guru, who had to personally pitch the idea at a puzzled board of directors meeting last year.

You may have noticed he is virtually invisible in the proceeding and its defense.


Paul/VJB

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The SBE is not unlike the ARRL - they  have their head in the sand regarding the future. It does not surprise me Imlay represents both. The SBE has always opposed competition, and that's what wireless providers like Sprint represent. If the SBE can put administrative roadblocks in the way other potential or existing competitors ways, they will. Their failure to deal with the changes in the telecommunications world will only hurt them. Protectionist schemes will be routed around, ignored or legislated away by much larger and more powerful economic and political forces.