🚀 go-pugleaf

Having read Mr. Granroth's most recent posting to this newsgroup, I feel 
it may be of value to offer the perspective from the "other side of the 
telephone call", so to speak.

About a week ago, I posted an "open letter from David Nagel", and a 
request for comments on the Data-PCS Petition, filed by Apple Computer.  
The intent of this posting was twofold. a) To inform what I considered 
an audience of above-average technical competence of the existence of 
the Petition, and b) offer a vehicle whereby they could either comment 
directly to the FCC (the normal channel), or if more convenient, provide 
comments directly to Apple Computer, to be forwarded to the FCC.

Mr. Granroth responded as requested, by transmitting a filled-out 
version of the sample letter provided in my posting, to the address 
listed in the posting (data.pcs@applelink.apple.com).  The letter was 
essentially as Mr. Granroth described in his most recent posting.  (the 
letter is currently queued for submission to the FCC.  Upon acceptance 
by the FCC, I will be happy to post the letter in its entirety, as at 
that time, it will be part of the public record.)

Upon reviewing the letter, I was concerned that, although it was signed 
by Mr. Granroth, the address at the top of the letter was the address of 
the department  by which he was employed.  Also, his signature included 
his job title within that department.

Not being a lawyer myself, I did not feel comfortable with submitting 
this letter, in this form, without further consideration.  I contacted 
an Apple Computer lawyer, who has been familiar with the Data-PCS 
Petition since its inception, and asked his guidance on what steps I 
should take to ensure that the needs of all interests were considered.  
He advised me to contact the department named in Mr. Granroth's letter, 
to ensure that they were aware of his letter, and did not object to its 
submission with reference to their institution.

I asked my secretary to locate a phone number for the department.  She 
returned with a number for the (larger) department, of which Mr. 
Granroth's department is a component.

>Both the chairman of my department and the departmental computer system 
>manager have been subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the 
>wisdom of my representing the University of Iowa.  

I called the number which my secretary had obtained.  I reached an 
administrative person (secretary?) of the office of the (larger) 
Department.  I spoke BRIEFLY with the department chairman, who provided 
me with two other names, which he instructed me to contact.  I explained 
that perhaps it would be better if I could discuss the matter with him, 
but he refused to speak further with me, stating that if I would speak 
to one of the other gentlemen, then they would review the matter to him 
later.  I thanked him and said goodbye.  Total time for this dialogue 
was on the order of one minute - two minutes at the very top.  The 
matter was not discussed with the chairman AT ALL.

I called both other numbers and was unable to reach either party.  As 
this was the day before the filing deadline, I was eager to reach 
someone with which to discuss this matter.  I phoned back the 
administrative person at the chairman's office, and explained that I 
could not reach either of the other persons.  She put me on hold to look 
for them (said she saw one of them in the hall a moment earlier).  While 
on hold, I was looking over the letter, when I noticed that Mr. Granroth 
had included his phone number in the mail header.  When the 
administrative person returned to the phone, she said that she was 
unable to locate either of the (other two) persons.  She asked if I 
wished to speak to the chairman again, I said "not at this time.  I have 
another number here which I would like to try first."

I called Mr. Granroth, who much to my relief, answered.  I announced 
myself and explained that I was seeking to speak to management at his 
institution regarding his submission, and asked if this was OK with him.  
He said that it was (OK).

I then placed a call back to the "administrative person" and asked to 
speak to "other person number 1".  He was still not available, so I left 
a number where I could be reached.  "Other person number 1" returned my 
call in about a half an hour.

I explained the purpose of my call - to inform the department that their 
name had been used as a return address on correspondence written by Mr. 
Granroth, and that the correspondence was scheduled to be submitted to 
the FCC the following day.  I read the text of the letter to this person 
(he chuckled).

We discussed the matter for perhaps twenty minutes.  Most of this 
discussion was necessary to clarify the exact purpose of the call.  I 
repeated several times that I was not calling to request that the text 
of the letter be changed (this person offered several times that he was 
not knowledgable on the subject, and could not comment - I did not ask 
him to do so), but that I simply wanted some confirmation that the 
department did not object to the use of their name on the letter.

The person asserted that it could not necessarily be construed to 
represent the department, simply because the department's name was on 
the letter.  He stated that it was common practice to send out letters 
(from an individual) with such a return address, without it necessarily 
representing the institution.

I explained that I was taking a conservative position, and simply was 
calling as a courtesy to the institution, to ensure that their interests 
were considered.

This person never made a statement of approval or disapproval.  I 
summarized by stating that I had voluntarily contacted the institution 
as a courtesy to offer an opportunity for them to review this statement 
of public record before I, as an agent of Apple Computer, duly forwarded 
the letter into the public record.  I stated that I had made a good 
faith effort to do so, however I did not represent our conversation as 
an agreement of explicit approval from the institution.  On this basis, 
I was satisfied to proceed with filing the letter with the FCC.  He 
responded with, "That's what I would do."  I thanked him and said 
goodbye.  Total conversation was 20-30 minutes tops.

>(Silly me.  Not only did I forget to include the smiley, but forgot 
>the standard disclaimer line.)

The letter was not submitted as a netnews posting.  Had it been, I 
probably would have taken it in in the "smiley" spirit.  However, Mr. 
Granroth forwarded the letter, as requested in my posting, with all 
appearances and form of a formal submission of comments to the FCC.  I 
am responding accordingly.

>None of this is going to cause me any difficulty

None intended.  Mr. Granroth's name was never used with the chairman of 
the department, and was provided to the "other" person, only upon 
request, and only after receiving Mr. Granroth's approval to discuss the 
letter with his department's management.  Nothing whatsoever was stated 
or implied at any time regarding Mr. Granroth, other than to repeat the 
text of his letter.

>I didn't give the whole thing more thought than the time it took to 
>type it in, and the result was (I thought) obviously frivolous.

As mentioned above, frivolity was not apparent in Mr. Granroth's letter.  
If frivolity had been intended, I expected that he would have stated so 
in our phone conversation, or in response to a mail posting which I had 
previously sent to him, text following:

>Dear Mr. Granroth,
>
>This is to confirm receipt of your comments on the Data-PCS Petition to 
>the FCC.  Your comments will be forwarded to the FCC on or before Friday, 
>May 10, 1991.
>
>Best Regards,
>William M. Stevens
>Apple Computer

I will answer the following question for Mr. Granroth:

>Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your 
>credentials verified by phone calls from Apple representatives?

No.  In fact, NOBODY's credentials have been questioned, including Mr. 
Granroth's.  The call to his employer was not intended to accomplish any 
purpose other than to offer the institution an opportunity to consider 
the use of their name in this written instrument.


Conclusion:  I thank you for taking the time to read this very lengthy 
posting.  My objective is to provide you with the most accurate 
accounting of the events I can, so that you can form your own opinions 
on the basis of what Mr. Granroth, and I, have both represented as the 
facts.  It is my personal desire that this topic consume no further net 
resources.  The deadline for the FCC comments is tomorrow, May 10, 1991.  
I will post no further (and in fact, have not) on the Data-PCS Petition.  
Your comments to the FCC are, as before, encouraged.

Bill Stevens
Apple Computer