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

[ARRL-ODV:8102] Re: 3rd Party EGCs
by Gary Johnston 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

on 12/17/02 3:30 PM, dick(a)pobox.com at dick(a)pobox.com wrote: > file and attach it to an email message. I hate to sound like the Grinch, > but I'm now dumping an average of 25 percent of all my inbound email > messages as SPAM. Only 25%?!? Dick, you are truly blessed. :-) 73, Gary KI4LA

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8101] Re: Ham Radio Buffs Find a New Calling (washingtonpost.com)
by Jim Weaver 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Thanks, Frank. Jim Weaver k8je(a)arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8100] [ARRL-ODV:8099] 3rd Party EGCs
by sysop＠bfdin.com 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Dick, I agree, and I know it is well intentioned. Please also leave me off of the electronic greeting card providers. Thanks! - Bill N3LLR AR>17 DEC, 2002 - 1400 CST AR>Many members of our board family exchange Christmas cards in various AR>ways ranging from the classic snail-mail variety, to sending attached AR>PDF and JPG file greeting cards, and using third party (paid and free) AR>electronic greeting card (EGC) providers. It's this last (and cheapest) AR>method I want to talk about. AR>Using third party EGCs is another way of making both the sender and the AR>receiver more likely to receive unwanted SPAM messages. The sender has AR>to input the email address of the intended receiver(s) and this is the AR>primary reason these sites have been set up. The sender has supplied a AR>"good" email address that will be sold/transferred/swapped with/to other AR>commercial interests. AR>Therefore, I ask that you please DO NOT send me a third party EGC. AR>Please use the U.S. mail, or scan and convert your card to a PDF or JPG AR>file and attach it to an email message. I hate to sound like the Grinch, AR>but I'm now dumping an average of 25 percent of all my inbound email AR>messages as SPAM. AR>With this off my chest, I do wish all of you and your families the best AR>in this holiday season and I look forward to seeing all of you in January. AR>73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8099] 3rd Party EGCs
by dick＠pobox.com 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

17 DEC, 2002 - 1400 CST Many members of our board family exchange Christmas cards in various ways ranging from the classic snail-mail variety, to sending attached PDF and JPG file greeting cards, and using third party (paid and free) electronic greeting card (EGC) providers. It's this last (and cheapest) method I want to talk about. Using third party EGCs is another way of making both the sender and the receiver more likely to receive unwanted SPAM messages. The sender has to input the email address of the intended receiver(s) and this is the primary reason these sites have been set up. The sender has supplied a "good" email address that will be sold/transferred/swapped with/to other commercial interests. Therefore, I ask that you please DO NOT send me a third party EGC. Please use the U.S. mail, or scan and convert your card to a PDF or JPG file and attach it to an email message. I hate to sound like the Grinch, but I'm now dumping an average of 25 percent of all my inbound email messages as SPAM. With this off my chest, I do wish all of you and your families the best in this holiday season and I look forward to seeing all of you in January. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8098] Ham Radio Buffs Find a New Calling (washingtonpost.com)
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Here is an article from Saturday's Washington Post which has some nice things to say about Amateur Radio and ARRL and our Homeland Defense Grant. Frank...N2FF..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52969-2002Dec13.html

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8097] Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Limits Sought on Wireless Internet Access
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

Thanks to Tom for spotting the article on the 5 GHz RLAN issue. We have a dog in this fight: 5650-5725 MHz. Our interests are aligned with the military on this one. John Markoff is one of the best journalists covering science and technology. The only nits I would pick with his article are that it doesn't make it clear that the U-NII proceeding a couple of years ago already allocated 300 MHz at 5 GHz for such use (802.11a) that is far from fully utilized, nor does it explain the differences between this and the much more popular 2.4-GHz 802.11b. (802.11a is more advanced than 802.11b even though the numbering would suggest exactly the opposite. The WiFi folks, who are better engineers than marketers, have compounded the confusion by calling both WiFi even though they're not compatible.) Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE) Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8096] Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Limits Sought on Wireless Internet Access A friend indeed! -- Tom >Limits Sought on Wireless Internet Access >New York Times >December 17, 2002 >By JOHN MARKOFF > > >SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 16 - The Defense Department, arguing >that an increasingly popular form of wireless Internet >access could interfere with military radar, is seeking new >limits on the technology, which is seen as a rare bright >spot for the communications industry. > >Industry executives, including representatives from >Microsoft and Intel, met last week with Defense Department >officials to try to stave off that effort, which includes a >government proposal now before the global overseer of radio >frequencies. > >The military officials say the technical restrictions they >are seeking are necessary for national security. Industry >executives, however, say they would threaten expansion of >technology like the so-called WiFi systems being used for >wireless Internet in American airports, coffee shops, homes >and offices. > >WiFi use is increasingly heavy in major American >metropolitan areas, and similar systems are becoming >popular in Europe and Asia. As the technology is installed >in millions of portable computers and in antennas in many >areas, industry executives acknowledge that high-speed >wireless Internet access will soon crowd the radio >frequencies used by the military. But industry executives >say new types of frequency spectrum sharing techniques >could keep civilian users from interfering with radar >systems. > >The debate, which involves low-power radio emissions that >the Defense Department says may jam as many as 10 types of >radar systems in use by United States military forces, >presents a thorny policy issue for the Bush administration. > >Even as the armed forces monitor United States air space >for signs of military or terrorist attacks and gear up for >a possible war with Iraq, the nation's technology companies >hope that the popularity of wireless Internet access will >help pull their industry out of its two-year slump. New >limits on that technology could help undermine the economic >recovery on which the administration is also pinning its >hopes. > >"Nobody, including the Pentagon, doubts that this is >important for consumers and industry," said Steven Price, >deputy assistant secretary of defense for radio spectrum >matters. "The problem comes when it degrades our military >capabilities." > >So far, though, there have been no reports of civilian >wireless Internet use interfering with military radar, >Edmond Thomas, chief of the office of engineering and >technology for the Federal Communications Commission, said. > >Industry executives say that military uses can coexist with >the millions of smart wireless Internet devices that can >sense the nearby use of military radar and automatically >yield the right of way. These devices are in use in Europe >and will soon be used in the United States. > >But Pentagon officials say that the new digital >technologies are unproven and could interfere with various >types of military radar systems, whether ones used for >tracking storms, monitoring aircraft or guiding missiles >and other weapons. > >The Pentagon wants regulators to delay consideration of >opening an additional swath of radio frequencies in the >5-gigahertz band that is eagerly sought by American >technology companies and is already in civilian use >internationally. > >In this country, industry executives and some members of >Congress see new spectrum-sharing technologies as a way to >jump-start innovation and commerce. Last month, for >example, Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, >and her Republican colleague Senator George Allen of >Virginia, said that they would introduce a bill in the next >session of Congress to expand the radio spectrum available >for wireless Internet use. > >The military-industry debate also involves the merits of a >technical standard known as dynamic frequency selection, >which is being used by advanced wireless Internet radios >overseas to avoid interference. > >Military officials are asking the American industry, and >companies in other countries, to create and install even >more sensitive versions of dynamic frequency selection - >something that the companies say may cause the technology >to operate incorrectly. American executives say that the >military's demands may also curtail the capacity of >wireless Internet services and could even force a >complicated redesign of millions of computer communications >systems already in place or nearly ready for shipment. > >An estimated 16 million WiFi-enabled computers and other >devices are already in use in this country and overseas. >And in the coming year, Intel plans to put currently >designed WiFi technology on all of the microprocessor chips >it ships for tens of millions of desktop, laptop and >hand-held computing devices. > >"This is a hugely important issue to Intel," said Peter >Pitsch, Intel's communications policy director in >Washington. "I'm hopeful at the end of the day, the U. S. >government will accept a reasonable compromise." > >The dispute may also foreshadow a coming battle over the >airwaves as traditional broadcasters and communications >businesses like cellular companies confront a dazzling >array of new digital communications technologies that can >potentially use the spectrum far more efficiently by >permitting it to be shared by different types of users. > >The roots of the dispute lie in an effort that began during >the Clinton administration and which has continued at the >Federal Communications Commission under the current >administration, to permit civilian use of portions of the >airwaves without licenses. > >"The unlicensed spectrum is a hot-bed of entrepreneurial >activity and one of the few bright spots in our high-tech >economy," said Tom Kalil, the former deputy director of >President Bill Clinton's National Economic Council and an >early advocate of unlicensed spectrum of radio frequencies. >The Bush administration, he said, "should be trying to >increase the amount of spectrum for unlicensed devices, as >opposed to imposing new, retroactive restrictions right as >the market is taking off." > >Earlier this month, the United States presented the >Pentagon position at an international technical meeting in >Geneva of the World Administrative Radio Conference, the >body that oversees radio frequency allocations and >standards. > >European governments hotly disputed the United States >position at the meeting, but it was nonetheless included as >a footnote in the planning document that resulted. The >issues will be confronted directly, and perhaps decided, in >June at the World Administrative Radio Conference in >Geneva. > >Industry officials said that the Defense Department >position had little chance of gaining international >support. As a consequence, they said, the existing radio >bands would probably become more congested, and the >Pentagon would face even more sources of interference >internationally. > >There is a need for global coordination, executives >acknowledge, but they say the Defense Department is going >about it the wrong way. > >"The idea is to get the world on a single page, and Europe >is way ahead of the U. S. in understanding these >interference issues," said Rich Redelfs, president and >chief executive of Atheros, a Silicon Valley maker of chips >used for WiFi systems. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/technology/17WIRE.html?ex=1041130187&ei=1… > >Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company ===== 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:8096] Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Limits Sought on Wireless Internet Access
by Tom Frenaye 17 Dec '02

17 Dec '02

A friend indeed! -- Tom >Limits Sought on Wireless Internet Access >New York Times >December 17, 2002 >By JOHN MARKOFF > > >SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 16 - The Defense Department, arguing >that an increasingly popular form of wireless Internet >access could interfere with military radar, is seeking new >limits on the technology, which is seen as a rare bright >spot for the communications industry. > >Industry executives, including representatives from >Microsoft and Intel, met last week with Defense Department >officials to try to stave off that effort, which includes a >government proposal now before the global overseer of radio >frequencies. > >The military officials say the technical restrictions they >are seeking are necessary for national security. Industry >executives, however, say they would threaten expansion of >technology like the so-called WiFi systems being used for >wireless Internet in American airports, coffee shops, homes >and offices. > >WiFi use is increasingly heavy in major American >metropolitan areas, and similar systems are becoming >popular in Europe and Asia. As the technology is installed >in millions of portable computers and in antennas in many >areas, industry executives acknowledge that high-speed >wireless Internet access will soon crowd the radio >frequencies used by the military. But industry executives >say new types of frequency spectrum sharing techniques >could keep civilian users from interfering with radar >systems. > >The debate, which involves low-power radio emissions that >the Defense Department says may jam as many as 10 types of >radar systems in use by United States military forces, >presents a thorny policy issue for the Bush administration. > >Even as the armed forces monitor United States air space >for signs of military or terrorist attacks and gear up for >a possible war with Iraq, the nation's technology companies >hope that the popularity of wireless Internet access will >help pull their industry out of its two-year slump. New >limits on that technology could help undermine the economic >recovery on which the administration is also pinning its >hopes. > >"Nobody, including the Pentagon, doubts that this is >important for consumers and industry," said Steven Price, >deputy assistant secretary of defense for radio spectrum >matters. "The problem comes when it degrades our military >capabilities." > >So far, though, there have been no reports of civilian >wireless Internet use interfering with military radar, >Edmond Thomas, chief of the office of engineering and >technology for the Federal Communications Commission, said. > >Industry executives say that military uses can coexist with >the millions of smart wireless Internet devices that can >sense the nearby use of military radar and automatically >yield the right of way. These devices are in use in Europe >and will soon be used in the United States. > >But Pentagon officials say that the new digital >technologies are unproven and could interfere with various >types of military radar systems, whether ones used for >tracking storms, monitoring aircraft or guiding missiles >and other weapons. > >The Pentagon wants regulators to delay consideration of >opening an additional swath of radio frequencies in the >5-gigahertz band that is eagerly sought by American >technology companies and is already in civilian use >internationally. > >In this country, industry executives and some members of >Congress see new spectrum-sharing technologies as a way to >jump-start innovation and commerce. Last month, for >example, Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, >and her Republican colleague Senator George Allen of >Virginia, said that they would introduce a bill in the next >session of Congress to expand the radio spectrum available >for wireless Internet use. > >The military-industry debate also involves the merits of a >technical standard known as dynamic frequency selection, >which is being used by advanced wireless Internet radios >overseas to avoid interference. > >Military officials are asking the American industry, and >companies in other countries, to create and install even >more sensitive versions of dynamic frequency selection - >something that the companies say may cause the technology >to operate incorrectly. American executives say that the >military's demands may also curtail the capacity of >wireless Internet services and could even force a >complicated redesign of millions of computer communications >systems already in place or nearly ready for shipment. > >An estimated 16 million WiFi-enabled computers and other >devices are already in use in this country and overseas. >And in the coming year, Intel plans to put currently >designed WiFi technology on all of the microprocessor chips >it ships for tens of millions of desktop, laptop and >hand-held computing devices. > >"This is a hugely important issue to Intel," said Peter >Pitsch, Intel's communications policy director in >Washington. "I'm hopeful at the end of the day, the U. S. >government will accept a reasonable compromise." > >The dispute may also foreshadow a coming battle over the >airwaves as traditional broadcasters and communications >businesses like cellular companies confront a dazzling >array of new digital communications technologies that can >potentially use the spectrum far more efficiently by >permitting it to be shared by different types of users. > >The roots of the dispute lie in an effort that began during >the Clinton administration and which has continued at the >Federal Communications Commission under the current >administration, to permit civilian use of portions of the >airwaves without licenses. > >"The unlicensed spectrum is a hot-bed of entrepreneurial >activity and one of the few bright spots in our high-tech >economy," said Tom Kalil, the former deputy director of >President Bill Clinton's National Economic Council and an >early advocate of unlicensed spectrum of radio frequencies. >The Bush administration, he said, "should be trying to >increase the amount of spectrum for unlicensed devices, as >opposed to imposing new, retroactive restrictions right as >the market is taking off." > >Earlier this month, the United States presented the >Pentagon position at an international technical meeting in >Geneva of the World Administrative Radio Conference, the >body that oversees radio frequency allocations and >standards. > >European governments hotly disputed the United States >position at the meeting, but it was nonetheless included as >a footnote in the planning document that resulted. The >issues will be confronted directly, and perhaps decided, in >June at the World Administrative Radio Conference in >Geneva. > >Industry officials said that the Defense Department >position had little chance of gaining international >support. As a consequence, they said, the existing radio >bands would probably become more congested, and the >Pentagon would face even more sources of interference >internationally. > >There is a need for global coordination, executives >acknowledge, but they say the Defense Department is going >about it the wrong way. > >"The idea is to get the world on a single page, and Europe >is way ahead of the U. S. in understanding these >interference issues," said Rich Redelfs, president and >chief executive of Atheros, a Silicon Valley maker of chips >used for WiFi systems. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/technology/17WIRE.html?ex=1041130187&ei=1… > >Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company ===== 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:8095] January QST
by Jim Weaver 16 Dec '02

16 Dec '02

I may be somewhat prejudiced, but I, too, think the January issue is the best I've ever seen even if I disregard two select pages. 73 Jim Weaver k8je(a)arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8094] Jan QST
by Coy Day 16 Dec '02

16 Dec '02

Congratulations to all involved. I just got the Jan issue today and it is a work of art. Coy ........... Coy Day, N5OK, ARRL West Gulf Division Director RR 1 Box 254, Union City, OK 73090-9726 Home: (405) 483-5632, Cell: (405) 740-8990 Mailto:n5ok@arrl.org Web: http://home.att.net/~n5ok.ok/

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8093] Re: Board Meeting
by Coy Day 16 Dec '02

16 Dec '02

Dick, Thanks for the note. Judy will be looking forward to meeting Sandy. Coy ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Mondro <w8fqt(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 7:07 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8092] Re: Board Meeting Hi Coy, My wife Sandy, KG8HM will be with me this trip. 73, Dick Mondro W8FQT VD Great Lakes Division ----- Original Message ----- From: "Coy Day" <n5ok.ok(a)worldnet.att.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 2:01 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8086] Board Meeting > Hi All, > > Is anyone else bringing their spouse to the board meeting. Judy is coming > this time and I'm trying to drum up some company for her. > > Have my AA tickets reserved at $279. > > Coy > ........... > Coy Day, N5OK, ARRL West Gulf Division Director > RR 1 Box 254, Union City, OK 73090-9726 > Home: (405) 483-5632, Cell: (405) 740-8990 > Mailto:n5ok@arrl.org Web: http://home.att.net/~n5ok.ok/ > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002

1 0