Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/LDMSONGRSLTUVRFSNDVSCAVOMNYBRMRN/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "LDMSONGRSLTUVRFSNDVSCAVOMNYBRMRN",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/LDMSONGRSLTUVRFSNDVSCAVOMNYBRMRN/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "RaySoifer (a) cs.com",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "[email protected]",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: [Advisors] Re:  Re: FCC Omnibus R&O",
    "date": "2006-10-13T17:59:25Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Rick, Bob, Art et al,\n\nI finally got around to reading the Report and Order, and agree that FCC is \nout to lunch.\n\nIn footnote 169, they say that orbital debris matters have already been \naddressed in Docket 02-54, and are therefore moot.  The footnote also goes on to \nstate that a recon petition (ours) is pending in 02-54.\n\nHowever, the revised regulation language includes all of the orbital debris \ngarbage (pun intended) they adopted in 02-54, which would thus become effective \n30 days after publication in the Federal Register unless FCC takes the same \n\"escape hatch\" that they did in 02-54, where the actual Fed Reg notice excludes \nSec. 97.207.\n\nMy suggestion, then, is that someone (Perry, Art, Paul Rinaldo??) call FCC \nand ask them if, in view of the recon pending in 02-54, they plan a similar \nexclusion in the Fed Reg notice of this Report & Order.  If so, then we need not \ndo anything until action is taken on our recon petition, whenever that is.  If \nnot, then we should file a recon petition in 04-140 that mentions the \nfootnote, and incorporates by reference our earlier recon petition and the associated \nReply to Oppositions.  Such a new petition could also include new material as \nsuggested by Art.\n\nWhen thinking about this, please bear in mind that the purpose of a recon \npetition is not to persuade FCC to change its mind.  That won't happen: their \nmind is already made up and don't try to confuse them with the facts.  Rather, \nits purpose is to lay the groundwork for a possible future challenge in court \n(as ARRL is now doing in the BPL matter), since you cannot raise in court any \nissue that was not before FCC when it made the decision you are challenging.\n\nHope this helps.\n\n73,\n\nRay\n\n\n\n",
    "attachments": [
        {
            "email": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/LDMSONGRSLTUVRFSNDVSCAVOMNYBRMRN/",
            "counter": 2,
            "name": "attachment.html",
            "content_type": "text/html",
            "encoding": "us-ascii",
            "size": 1931,
            "download": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/LDMSONGRSLTUVRFSNDVSCAVOMNYBRMRN/attachment/2/attachment.html"
        }
    ]
}