December 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:8123] Bird? Plane? UFO? No, Stratellite
by Jim Maxwell 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

From WA8DZP's technology mailing list. An opportunity for us? 73. Jim, W6CF Bird? Plane? UFO? No, Stratellite By Xeni Jardin Story location: 02:00 AM Dec. 23, 2002 PT Three companies are devising plans to send unmanned, spherical airships into the stratosphere to serve as relay platforms for two-way wireless broadband service. Canadian R&D firm 21st Century Airships signed a partnership agreement in November with Atlanta's Techsphere Communications that includes plans to send the Canadian firm's high-altitude balloons 70,000 feet above sea level for use as telecommunications beacons. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but through the agreement, Techsphere provides R&D funding to the Canadian airship firm, and in turn becomes the exclusive provider of spherical airship technology to U.S. telecom and defense industries. Another Atlanta-based firm, wireless Internet developer Sanswire, is negotiating with Techsphere for exclusive rights to release an airship-based wireless Internet service throughout the United States by 2004, at a targeted consumer subscription price of $29 a month. Sanswire CEO Michael Molen calls the platforms "stratellites" because they will fly 13 miles up in the stratosphere -- not out in space as satellites do. Satellite-based Internet services provide high-speed downloads, but offer limited two-way capability because of the long distance from Earth to satellite and back. Molen says Sanswire's system will deliver Wi-Fi connections to consumers, and 5.8 GHz and licensed spectrum ranges to ISPs. Additional potential applications include cellular, 3G, paging, fixed wireless and high-definition TV broadcasts. What makes 21st Century's airships unique is their orb-like shape. Unlike conventional, cigar-shaped blimps that must make wide turns to reposition when they veer off target, the Canadian firm's spheres use GPS detectors and propulsion engines to keep each floating station locked at desired coordinates. A well-known stratosphere-based wireless service provider that was established in 1997, SkyStation, uses cigar-shaped airships. Techsphere CEO Keith Vierela believes stratosphere-based networks combine the strengths of terrestrial networks -- higher bandwidth, lower power requirements and proximity to users -- with those of satellite networks, which have wide coverage areas and unobstructed paths between transmitters in the sky and receivers on Earth. Plans involve creating a constellation of 12 airships beyond the range of weather and commercial air traffic. Each craft would remain aloft for a year and service a 300,000-square-mile area -- roughly the size of Texas and Louisiana. "People have been thinking about this for years, but (21st Century Airships CEO Hokan) Coltan has designed the first model that could really work," said Vierela. "His design does for airships what helicopters did for fixed-wing aircraft. They can go up, down, hover or spin on an axis. When you're in the stratosphere, that leads to interesting things." Coltan's 60-foot-diameter prototypes have ascended 18,000 feet. At 130 feet in diameter, the next round of prototypes will climb to 30,000 to 40,000 feet in mid-2003. The final prototypes set to launch in 2004 will be 260 feet in diameter and float 60,000 to 70,000 feet up. "Getting each platform in the air will cost in the tens of millions," said Coltan. "But a 13-mile-high tower is like a dream for wireless providers. And if you cover urban areas with airships, what spills over into outlying rural areas is like free coverage -- you've solved the problem of connecting rural residents cost-effectively." But technical and business challenges may yet ground the lofty airship plans. Shirley Tseng, satellite application specialist with aerospace and telecom firm Infinite Global Infrastructure, believes cost is a major factor. "With telecom, it's all about price," said Tseng. "People have been trying to do this for over a decade. If they can keep costs down and integrate into terrestrial or satellite networks, they might have a chance." Tellus Venture Associates President Stephen Blum said he's seen many business plans similar to Sanswire's. "I haven't seen one that meets aerodynamic requirements," Blum said. "They have to float inside a 200- to 300-meter 'box,' and that's hard for an airship. After you solve that problem, you have to create a service that can perform better and cheaper than cable or DSL." But, he added, the technology shows promise for countries outside the United States. Molen says Sanswire will perform a demonstration in early 2003 during which a transmitter-equipped Kevlar balloon will ascend 10,000 feet, communicating with laptops on the ground. Molen hopes to deploy the first fully functional platform within 18 months, at an approximate purchase cost of $10 million. "We think this system can provide broadband to the continental U.S. for about $100 million. People have been coming from all over the world waving checks in the air at us."

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8122] Re: Change to ARRL membership forms
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

Greg, although QST is no longer sold on general newsstands, it is still available in radio stores. The cover price is $4.99. Jim, QST is available to US members by First Class delivery for an additional $32 per year to cover the extra postage (ie, regular membership with First Class delivery is $71 and Senior membership is $66). I'll look into showing that on the Web site. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8121] Re: FCC proposes additional bands for Part 15 devices
by W3KD＠aol.com 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

In a message dated 12/20/2002 5:58:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > > Chris was correct in this one, it looks like they are concentrating on 3.6 > GHz and the TV broadcast bands. The full NOI is now available: > > Actually, there are two problems with this NOI. First of all, it asks the ugly, open ended question about what OTHER bands would be good for expanded Part 15 operation (a subject about which FCC has asked us in the past individually). Thus, our soft underbelly remains exposed. Second, and worse, this NOI takes the part 15 concept and stands it on its head. It asks about separation distances and D/U ratios for unlicensed devices! Absurd! Not to mention that it assumes unlimited jurisdiction to authorized high power Part 15 devices, a subject about which we are in the middle of a serious challenge at FCC, and perhaps, the courts. So, though the bands specifically mentioned are not directly threatening to us, the NOI has some conceptual flaws that we shouldn't allow to go unchallenged. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8120] Re: FCC proposes additional bands for Part 15 devices
by W3KD＠aol.com 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

In a message dated 12/20/2002 5:58:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > > Chris was correct in this one, it looks like they are concentrating on 3.6 > GHz and the TV broadcast bands. The full NOI is now available: Well, don't act so surprised! :-) Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8119] Re: Change to ARRL membership forms
by Greg Milnes 23 Dec '02

23 Dec '02

What did we sell QST for on the news stands? 73/Greg W7OZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wilson, Mark K1RO" <k1ro(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8115] Change to ARRL membership forms The US Postal Service has undertaken an initiative to ensure that membership organizations such as ARRL are in strict compliance with USPS rules governing payment for Periodicals Class publications as part of a membership. You will begin to see some changes to our membership forms over the next few weeks and may get some questions. QST is mailed at Periodicals Class postage rates, which represent a substantial discount over regular postage rates for something the size and weight of QST. To qualify, we must meet certain requirements regarding paid circulation and subscription records. Although the USPS would prefer that associations conduct two separate business transactions -- one for membership and one for the QST subscription -- they allow magazine subscriptions to be paid by dues or contributions provided that the amount paid for the subscription is clearly shown separately from the dues. The example given is: "Annual membership dues of [$] include [$] for a 1-year subscription to [Title]. For years we have used a blanket statement "Fifty percent of dues is allocated to QST, the balance for membership." This must be changed on our membership and renewal forms. There are only general guidelines for setting the stated subscription portion of membership. It does not have to be based on cost, nor does it have to be the rate that we would set if we were just selling magazine subscriptions and not memberships. It must be higher than a "nominal" price (ie, it must indicate some reasonable value). It must be low enough that it works within the paid circulation guidelines with our various discounted memberships - Youth, Senior and multiple years - and with premium offers. We will be amending our membership forms to show an annual QST subscription rate of $15. The new forms will say something like this: "One-year memberships include $15 for a one-year subscription to QST. Membership and QST cannot be separated." The choice of $15 was not arbitrary. We believe the figure should reflect a realistic value for QST but we can't go any higher without creating problems with the discounted membership rates and premiums. We have to show the subscription portion for each membership category (regular, Senior, Youth) and term (1 year, 2 year, 3 year), and we have to note the postage surcharge for Canadian and International rates. So the membership forms will get a bit complicated and staff is working on the best presentation. Other associations are wrestling with this as well and they are all over the map. Some examples of stated subscription prices for association journals: AARP, $3.30. NRA, $3.75. Sierra Club, $7.50. IEEE Spectrum, $16. Sports Car Club of America, $24. Again, if members ask, this change is to comply with USPS requirements. It does not mean that QST costs us $15 a year to produce, and it does not mean that we could or would sell QST subscriptions for $15 if they were available separately from membership. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8118] Re: Change to ARRL membership forms
by Jim Maxwell 21 Dec '02

21 Dec '02

Mark - Will a price also be given for first class mailing? If not, it would be very helpful to have the price available on ARRL Web. 73. Jim, W6CF Wilson, Mark K1RO wrote: >The US Postal Service has undertaken an initiative to ensure that membership organizations such as ARRL are in strict compliance with USPS rules governing payment for Periodicals Class publications as part of a membership. You will begin to see some changes to our membership forms over the next few weeks and may get some questions. > >QST is mailed at Periodicals Class postage rates, which represent a substantial discount over regular postage rates for something the size and weight of QST. To qualify, we must meet certain requirements regarding paid circulation and subscription records. Although the USPS would prefer that associations conduct two separate business transactions -- one for membership and one for the QST subscription -- they allow magazine subscriptions to be paid by dues or contributions provided that the amount paid for the subscription is clearly shown separately from the dues. The example given is: "Annual membership dues of [$] include [$] for a 1-year subscription to [Title]. > >For years we have used a blanket statement "Fifty percent of dues is allocated to QST, the balance for membership." This must be changed on our membership and renewal forms. > >There are only general guidelines for setting the stated subscription portion of membership. It does not have to be based on cost, nor does it have to be the rate that we would set if we were just selling magazine subscriptions and not memberships. It must be higher than a "nominal" price (ie, it must indicate some reasonable value). It must be low enough that it works within the paid circulation guidelines with our various discounted memberships - Youth, Senior and multiple years - and with premium offers. > >We will be amending our membership forms to show an annual QST subscription rate of $15. The new forms will say something like this: "One-year memberships include $15 for a one-year subscription to QST. Membership and QST cannot be separated." The choice of $15 was not arbitrary. We believe the figure should reflect a realistic value for QST but we can't go any higher without creating problems with the discounted membership rates and premiums. > >We have to show the subscription portion for each membership category (regular, Senior, Youth) and term (1 year, 2 year, 3 year), and we have to note the postage surcharge for Canadian and International rates. So the membership forms will get a bit complicated and staff is working on the best presentation. > >Other associations are wrestling with this as well and they are all over the map. Some examples of stated subscription prices for association journals: AARP, $3.30. NRA, $3.75. Sierra Club, $7.50. IEEE Spectrum, $16. Sports Car Club of America, $24. > >Again, if members ask, this change is to comply with USPS requirements. It does not mean that QST costs us $15 a year to produce, and it does not mean that we could or would sell QST subscriptions for $15 if they were available separately from membership. > >73, Mark K1RO > > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8117] Re: FCC proposes additional bands for Part 15 devices
by Tom Frenaye 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

Chris was correct in this one, it looks like they are concentrating on 3.6 GHz and the TV broadcast bands. The full NOI is now available: IN THE MATTER OF ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND. Initiated this inquiry to obtain comments from the public on the possibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in additional frequency bands. (Dkt No. 02-380). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 12/11/2002 by NOI. (FCC No. 02-328). OET <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-328A1.doc> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-328A1.pdf> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-328A1.txt> The sentence in the NOI that may open the door to trouble is in section 14: "Are there any other bands where new unlicensed devices could be permitted to operate?" -- Tom At 11:51 AM 12/12/2002 -0500, W3KD wrote: >It is unclear which bands exactly are being discussed here, but we may have dodged a bullet. We will keep an eye on this NOI. It is a followup to the SPTF report, a white paper about which I will provide you in the next day or so. >73, Chris W3KD > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE News Media Contact: >December 11, 2002 Lisa Gaisford at (202) 418-7280 > >FCC BEGINS INQUIRY REGARDING ADDITIONAL >SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES > >As part of the ongoing effort to promote efficient use of spectrum, the FCC today asked for public comment on the possibility of permitting unlicensed transmitters to operate in additional frequency bands. Such changes could allow the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed devices. This inquiry examines new and creative ways to utilize the spectrum resource more efficiently by considering new spectral frontiers for unlicensed use. > >In a Notice of Inquiry approved today, the Commission stated that the current rules for unlicensed transmitters have been a tremendous success. A wide variety of devices have been developed and introduced under those rules for consumer and business use, including cordless telephones, home security systems, electronic toys, anti-pilfering and inventory control systems, and computer wireless local area networks. The success of those rules shows that there could be significant benefits to the economy, businesses and consumers in making additional spectrum available for unlicensed transmitters. Unlicensed transmitters may be operated under the provisions of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules. Part 15 transmitters generally operate on frequencies shared with authorized services at relatively low power, levels and must operate on a non-interference basis. > >The Notice seeks comments on whether unlicensed operations should be permitted in additional frequency bands. Specifically, it seeks comments on the feasibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the TV broadcast spectrum and locations and times when spectrum is not being used. It also seeks comment on the feasibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in other bands, such as the 3650-3700 MHz band, at power levels higher than other unlicensed transmitters with only the minimal technical requirements necessary to prevent interference to licensed services. > >The Commission noted that there have been significant advances in technology that may make it feasible to design new types of unlicensed devices that are able to share spectrum in the TV bands without causing interference to licensed services operating in those bands. Advances in computer technology make it possible to design equipment that could monitor the spectrum to detect frequencies already in use and ensure that transmissions only occur on open frequencies. The low cost of GPS equipment could allow a device to determine its location and use information from a database to determine whether there are any licensed operations in its vicinity. Equipment can be designed that is frequency agile, with the capability of changing frequency as needed to avoid interference to licensed users. > >Action by the Commission December 11, 2002 by Notice of Inquiry (FCC 02-328). Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy and Copps, with Commissioner Martin approving in part and dissenting in part, Commissioner Adelstein not participating and Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps and Martin issuing separate statements. > >OET Docket No. 02-380 ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8116] Notice of Annual Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING ALL DIRECTORS: In compliance with the requirements of the Articles of Association and the relevant provisions of the Bylaws, the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors of The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, is hereby called for 8:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Friday, January 17, 2003, at the Windsor/Hartford Airport Marriott, 88 Day Hill Rd., Windsor, Connecticut. Arrangements have been made for a group dinner on the Thursday evening preceding: attitude adjustment at 6:00 P.M. and dinner at 6:45 P.M. Other group meals are Friday and Saturday breakfast and lunch, and Friday dinner. We expect the meeting will conclude by dinnertime on Saturday. Honorary vice presidents, directors emeritus, past presidents, and past directors are invited to attend in observer status at personal expense. Vice Directors are authorized to attend with expenses charged to the Board Meeting account. Cash advances are available upon request for those traveling at League expense. A transportation and accommodation form is being sent by regular mail; please return the form or respond by email by January 4, 2003 to Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ, at HQ. Accompanying spouses are invited to attend breakfast and dinner with the Board family. The tentative agenda for the meeting is attached to this letter. It is requested that insofar as possible, motions to be submitted at the meeting be prepared in advance in writing so that a copy can be handed to the Secretary at the time of presentation. It is important that the motion as handed to the Secretary be the same as that submitted for Board consideration. While we will have word-processing and duplicating capability at the meeting site, this should not replace advance preparation. If you wish to have a proposed motion circulated in advance, either send it to me as soon as possible or post it on the Board's electronic remailer. Please also note Standing Order 30: "Each Director offering a motion requiring the expenditure of funds for implementation shall include with the motion his [or her] estimate of the costs involved and the suggested method of funding those costs." Sincerely, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary <<agenda.doc>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8115] Change to ARRL membership forms
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

The US Postal Service has undertaken an initiative to ensure that membership organizations such as ARRL are in strict compliance with USPS rules governing payment for Periodicals Class publications as part of a membership. You will begin to see some changes to our membership forms over the next few weeks and may get some questions. QST is mailed at Periodicals Class postage rates, which represent a substantial discount over regular postage rates for something the size and weight of QST. To qualify, we must meet certain requirements regarding paid circulation and subscription records. Although the USPS would prefer that associations conduct two separate business transactions -- one for membership and one for the QST subscription -- they allow magazine subscriptions to be paid by dues or contributions provided that the amount paid for the subscription is clearly shown separately from the dues. The example given is: "Annual membership dues of [$] include [$] for a 1-year subscription to [Title]. For years we have used a blanket statement "Fifty percent of dues is allocated to QST, the balance for membership." This must be changed on our membership and renewal forms. There are only general guidelines for setting the stated subscription portion of membership. It does not have to be based on cost, nor does it have to be the rate that we would set if we were just selling magazine subscriptions and not memberships. It must be higher than a "nominal" price (ie, it must indicate some reasonable value). It must be low enough that it works within the paid circulation guidelines with our various discounted memberships - Youth, Senior and multiple years - and with premium offers. We will be amending our membership forms to show an annual QST subscription rate of $15. The new forms will say something like this: "One-year memberships include $15 for a one-year subscription to QST. Membership and QST cannot be separated." The choice of $15 was not arbitrary. We believe the figure should reflect a realistic value for QST but we can't go any higher without creating problems with the discounted membership rates and premiums. We have to show the subscription portion for each membership category (regular, Senior, Youth) and term (1 year, 2 year, 3 year), and we have to note the postage surcharge for Canadian and International rates. So the membership forms will get a bit complicated and staff is working on the best presentation. Other associations are wrestling with this as well and they are all over the map. Some examples of stated subscription prices for association journals: AARP, $3.30. NRA, $3.75. Sierra Club, $7.50. IEEE Spectrum, $16. Sports Car Club of America, $24. Again, if members ask, this change is to comply with USPS requirements. It does not mean that QST costs us $15 a year to produce, and it does not mean that we could or would sell QST subscriptions for $15 if they were available separately from membership. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8114] FCC SPTF Report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Dec '02

20 Dec '02

If any of you want to review the FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Report but haven't gotten around to viewing it from the FCC's Web site, it is now available to Board members at http://www.arrl.org/members-only/ODV/docs/FCC-Documents/. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0