August 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:7745] Re: Black Eye For Ham Radio
by Kay Craigie 31 Aug '02

31 Aug '02

Has someone made sure that Riley is aware of this case? 73 - Kay WT3P --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7744] Black Eye For Ham Radio
by dick＠pobox.com 31 Aug '02

31 Aug '02

31 AUG, 2002 - 1300 CDT The Amateur Radio licensee information and newspaper report was forwarded to me by a local ham friend. Evidently, Hap Holly may have given this unfortunate news item national exposure with his RAIN Report. FWIW, this idiot IS NOT an ARRL member. I would love see Riley Hollingsworth cancel his license. BTW, the village of Inverness is generally considered to be expensive - a "high rent" district. 73 - Dick, W9GIG ======================================================================== BILY, WILLIAM S, WB9DIG (Tech Plus) 2039 BRADWELL INVERNESS, IL 60067-4369 Issue Date: Jan 27, 1995 Expire Date: Jan 27, 2005 Date of last Change: Jan 27, 1995 ======================================================================== Suspect In Cop's Death Told to Give Up Radios By Aamer Madhani Chicago Tribune staff reporter August 30, 2002, 2:24 PM CDT An Inverness man whose alleged misuse of a police radio channel led to a scuffle with an officer who subsequently died from a heart attack has been ordered to surrender his radio gear to authorities. Presiding Cook County Judge Joseph Urso ordered that William Bily, 56, by Tuesday turn over all his transmitting equipment -- including a treasure trove of ham radio gear -- to Barrington-Inverness police as a condition of his release on bond while awaiting trial. Bily appeared today in the Rolling Meadows branch of Cook County Circuit Court in connection with misdemeanor charges of resisting a peace officer and interfering with emergency communications. A longtime amateur radio enthusiast, Bily allegedly disrupted police communications Sunday by transmitting over the Barrington-Inverness police radio channel. When Officer Steven Graham came to his home, Bily allegedly resisted arrest. During their tussle, Graham, 53, suffered a fatal heart attack, authorities said. Asserting the heart attack resulted from the scuffle, the Cook County medical examiner's office ruled Graham's death a homicide. But Assistant State's Atty. Steven Rosenblum said today his office does not intend to seek more serious charges against Bily. Bily's attorney, Frank Cece, asked that his client be forced to hand over only gear that could cut into the police radio band. He maintained that Bily, a Marine veteran who saw combat during the Vietnam War, has much equipment that poses no risk to police radio frequencies. "Ham radio is a lifelong hobby of my client," Cece said. "I don't know what detriment is caused to the people." But Rosenblum countered police had visited Bily's house on July 4, 2000, for interrupting their frequency. "This is not the first occasion," the prosecutor said. Urso also ordered that, as part of the bond agreement, Bily not possess any firearms and that he not contact the family of Graham -- a 29-year veteran of the department and son of the late state Sen. John Graham. A bench trial was set for Oct. 2 in the Rolling Meadows courthouse. Copyright (c) 2002, Chicago Tribune

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7743] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by K5ur＠aol.com 31 Aug '02

31 Aug '02

Hi All: Regarding this bandwidth issue, I don't see a compelling reason to move quickly. Consequently, I'd say let's take whatever reasonable time is needed to make a smart decision on what to do. I thought this proposal was not going to change anything other than the mode "terms" in order to bring us into the current terminology. However, after reading all the mail, I'm not sure now. What are the AMers upset about? I can't help but feel I may have missed something or that I may have made a less-than-informed decision. Obviously, some feel there are some serious consequences. 73, Rick - K5UR In a message dated 8/30/02 3:49:48 PM Central Daylight Time, jmax(a)attglobal.net writes: << I say don't rush. Having said that, can Dennis give us some background and rationale for trying to get it out this fall? 73. Jim, W6CF >>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7742] QST
by R. B. Vallio 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

My regular copy of QST arrived in today's mail. The tops of all pages resembled a fine-tooth saw blade, and the tops of the cover pages were not even with the tops of the content pages. The bottom of the cover and content pages were cleanly cut, and in alignment with one another. Do I have a collector's item for offer on ebay, or were there numerous other copies equally mutilated? This is being sent as a heads-up for HQ, and for those of us who may receive similar questions from the membership. My wishes for a safe and pleasant Labor Day weekend to one and all. 73, Bob - W6RGG (back row sitter)

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7741] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Maxwell, Jim (Dir, Pacific) 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

I say don't rush. Having said that, can Dennis give us some background and rationale for trying to get it out this fall? 73. Jim, W6CF "Vallio, Bob (Vice Dir, Pacific)" wrote: For what it's worth, you have my complete support on fitting it into the next cycle. 73, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: <W3KD(a)aol.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: <prinaldo(a)arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:26 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7731] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth In a message dated 8/29/2002 8:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was intended It would seem that Jay has hit on an important point here; there are numerous areas where interpretation of Board intent may be required. The first is as Jay has stated. Another is the issue of timing, and what will constitute the next reasonable opportunity to submit the proposal. Cross is feverishly (I say that totally tongue-in-cheek; he is taking forever with a simple NPRM) working on the "omnibus" Part 97 rulemaking incorporating numerous rulemaking petitions as we discussed at the Board meeting. This NPRM will likely be released in November, he says, or at least it will be in October when the Bureau sends it to the Commissioners. It is not likely that another major matter such as this will be included at this point, but perhaps it is not impossible. In any case, as we have essentially committed to batch-filing rulemaking matters, and we have "shot our shot" for this upcoming one, the next reasonable opportunity to do the Part 97 bandwidth rulemaking could well be two years hence. This is likely to be unsatisfactory to the HF data network folks, but would suit the AMers just fine, no doubt. Paul Rinaldo and I are scheduled to meet tomorrow for a coordination session, and he has done yeoman draftsmanship on a rough (really rough, he says) appendix on this subject in what little free time he has had lately. We are not on a fast track on this matter (because Paul has other critical priorities, as you are aware, and we have some domestic spectrum protection issues on the near horizon (Trahos and the new 222-225 MHz skirmish being two). So, unless you all feel otherwise, this rulemaking will probably slip to the next batch, perhaps two years (or even more) hence. I am aware that this is unsatisfactory to Director Bodson, who suggests that we should try to get this into the anticipated NPRM this fall. How shall we proceed in terms of time? 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7740] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Vallio, Bob (Vice Dir, Pacific) 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

For what it's worth, you have my complete support on fitting it into the next cycle. 73, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: <W3KD(a)aol.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: <prinaldo(a)arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:26 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7731] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth In a message dated 8/29/2002 8:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was intended It would seem that Jay has hit on an important point here; there are numerous areas where interpretation of Board intent may be required. The first is as Jay has stated. Another is the issue of timing, and what will constitute the next reasonable opportunity to submit the proposal. Cross is feverishly (I say that totally tongue-in-cheek; he is taking forever with a simple NPRM) working on the "omnibus" Part 97 rulemaking incorporating numerous rulemaking petitions as we discussed at the Board meeting. This NPRM will likely be released in November, he says, or at least it will be in October when the Bureau sends it to the Commissioners. It is not likely that another major matter such as this will be included at this point, but perhaps it is not impossible. In any case, as we have essentially committed to batch-filing rulemaking matters, and we have "shot our shot" for this upcoming one, the next reasonable opportunity to do the Part 97 bandwidth rulemaking could well be two years hence. This is likely to be unsatisfactory to the HF data network folks, but would suit the AMers just fine, no doubt. Paul Rinaldo and I are scheduled to meet tomorrow for a coordination session, and he has done yeoman draftsmanship on a rough (really rough, he says) appendix on this subject in what little free time he has had lately. We are not on a fast track on this matter (because Paul has other critical priorities, as you are aware, and we have some domestic spectrum protection issues on the near horizon (Trahos and the new 222-225 MHz skirmish being two). So, unless you all feel otherwise, this rulemaking will probably slip to the next batch, perhaps two years (or even more) hence. I am aware that this is unsatisfactory to Director Bodson, who suggests that we should try to get this into the anticipated NPRM this fall. How shall we proceed in terms of time? 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7739] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Gary Johnston 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

Amen. 73, Gary KI4LA on 8/29/02 10:18 PM, jmax(a)attglobal.net at jmax(a)attglobal.net wrote: > I agree with Jay. > > No one has given us reason to hurry on this, at least > not yet. Let's fully understand what we want to do, > the ramifications of those wants, and then get it right > the first time. January is early enough. And if we > don't have a good concensus in January, then delay > it even more. > > 73. Jim, W6CF > > > John Bellows wrote: > >> I have full confidence in the ability of Chris and Paul to craft an >> appropriate petition on this question. With each posting on this topic it is >> becoming more apparent that the allocation by bandwidth resolution has >> ramifications far beyond those discussed in July. More specifically there >> appear to be a variety of opinions as to what the petition is intended to >> accomplish and the specifics of what is to be included in the request to FCC. >> Without that information Chris and Paul are left to interpret what was >> intended. >> >> Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended >> Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended >> to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to >> proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have >> is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was >> intended. >> >> Jay KØQB >>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7738] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by dick＠pobox.com 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

29 AUG, 2002 - 2115 CDT If we are going to probe this can of worms, I would like to have a draft proposal developed by the MSC in advance of the January board meeting. If there is not enough time to do this by the end of this year, I then suggest a report/proposal ahead of next July's meeting. There is no way we are going to put together and approve a proposal if we wait until we gather in Newington in January to do the initial work. Of course, I wonder why the rush if it's going to be a couple of years before we can take new petitions to the FCC. I don't think minute 64 mandates a time frame... I prefer that we digest any ideas put forth by Paul Rinaldo and Chris Imlay and then decide if this issue should be further pursued. I see no conflict with minute 46 by going this route. If it's not technically and/or politically practical, the board can always vote to drop the matter. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7737] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by jmax＠attglobal.net 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

I agree with Jay. No one has given us reason to hurry on this, at least not yet. Let's fully understand what we want to do, the ramifications of those wants, and then get it right the first time. January is early enough. And if we don't have a good concensus in January, then delay it even more. 73. Jim, W6CF John Bellows wrote: > I have full confidence in the ability of Chris and Paul to craft an appropriate petition on this question. With each posting on this topic it is becoming more apparent that the allocation by bandwidth resolution has ramifications far beyond those discussed in July. More specifically there appear to be a variety of opinions as to what the petition is intended to accomplish and the specifics of what is to be included in the request to FCC. Without that information Chris and Paul are left to interpret what was intended. > > Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was intended. > > Jay KØQB > > Dave: > > 6kHz is not okay for SSTV as it is image. Therefore, bandwidth is limited to a max of 3Khz. > > Dennis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [ mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:55 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7726] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth > > > Art Goddard suggested I share with you the following exchange that he and I had a few months ago. > > Dave K1ZZ > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Art Goddard [ mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:01 PM > > To: David Sumner K1ZZ > > Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP > > Subject: Is there a Limit? > > Hi Dave- > > At Visalia, a couple of members expressed concern to me about the SSB > > "Hi-Fi" operation on 14.178, and other frequencies. According to these > > members, the Hi-Fi proponents have modified their radios for up to 6KHz of > > audio bandwidth and are unnecessarily disrupting nearby operators. > > 97.307(a) says use no more bandwidth than necessary. ITT's Reference Data > > for Radio Engineers states that 3KHz is the necessary audio bandwidth for > > communications-quality radiotelephone and 4-10KHz for sound broadcasting, > > "depending on the quality desired". Since broadcasting is prohibited > > (97.113) what is the justification for broadcast audio in the Amateur Radio > > Service? > > Is there any limit? Is SSB with 6KHz bandwidth (J6E) OK? The ARRL FCC Rule > > Book, 12th ed., p 4-27, appears to side with the HI-Fi folks, bounded only > > by "good amateur practice". If J6E is OK for SSB radiotelephone, then 6KHz > > is OK for SSTV and any other non-phone emission (97.307(f)(2)). And if 6KHz > > is OK for SSB, then 12 KHz is OK for AM. > > May QST, p13, carries an ad for Ten-Tec's Jupiter radio heralding "Great > > Audio!" with built-in DSP selection of transmitted audio up to 3.9KHz to > > "deliver the finest sounding audio in amateur radio". By carrying this ad, > > we have aligned ourselves with the Hi-Fi proponents, at least in some > > people's eyes. > > "It Seems to Us" there's an opportunity for ARRL to provide some guidance > > here... > > 73, Art > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:11 PM > > To: 'Art Goddard' > > Cc: Jim Haynie W5JBP > > Subject: RE: Is there a Limit? > > Hi Art, > > Occupied bandwidth is defined as 26 dB down from mean power. The bandwidth of a voice signal is heavily dependent upon the individual voice characteristics. Even if a transmitter is deliberately designed to pass voice frequencies above 3 kHz, it will be a rare voice that contains much energy at those frequencies. > > Looking at it another way, is there an affirmative obligation on an amateur to filter out of his or her transmitted voice signal, frequency components that are present in his or her voice? I don't believe there is. > > Poor IMD characteristics and excessive power are more likely to cause problems than broad transmitter filters, it seems to me. But I admit that I seldom listen with a filter wider than 500 Hz. > > 73, > > Dave K1ZZ > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7736] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth
by Wade Walstrom 30 Aug '02

30 Aug '02

I would favor examining the issue and any proposal in January. Let's do a good job on this one. 73, Wade W0EJ "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" wrote: > As I now understand it, the task the Board has given staff and Chris is to draft a petition for rulemaking that converts the existing rules regarding emission types and standards into rules based on bandwidth, without imposing any new limitations on existing amateur operations (since the Prime Directive is, "No reduction in anyone's privileges"). That's a big job and as Jay has said it is fraught with potential unintended consequences. It can be done. It just can't (and shouldn't) be done quickly. Neither would it be responsible for us then to file the petition without first bringing it back to the Board and explaining the implications, which are considerable. I pointed out one implication in [ARRL-ODV:7663]: data modes would be newly permitted in the subbands that are presently limited to phone/image/CW (since CW is permitted everywhere). > > I believe the temporal imperative arises from Pactor III. If Pactor III is "documented publicly" as per 97.309(a)(4) it can be used legally in the RTTY/data subbands as long as the symbol rate does not exceed 300 bauds. (One could argue, and I have done so in the past, that the intent of the 1-kHz FSK limit in 97.309(a)(4) is to limit the bandwidth to something on the order of 1 kHz, but I really think it's too much of a stretch to try and apply this decades-old standard, which dates back to 850-Hz-shift RTTY, to current digital practices.) Pactor III cannot be used under automatic control because 97.221(c)(2) limits the bandwidth to 500 Hz. > > Anything else requires either a rules change, a waiver, or an experimental license. And as Chris has pointed out, a rules change isn't going to happen quickly enough to make the Pactor III folks happy, no matter what. > > Dave K1ZZ > > -----Original Message----- > From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:26 AM > To: arrl-odv > Cc: prinaldo(a)arrl.org > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7731] Re: ARRL & Bandwidth > > In a message dated 8/29/2002 8:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: > > Rather than risk an unfortunate encounter with the Law of Unintended Consequences we may prefer to wait until January to clarify what we intended to request and how to do that as narrowly as possible. The other option is to proceed, in which case the only Board wide guidance that Chris and Paul have is the language of the motion rather than our individual opinions of what was intended > > It would seem that Jay has hit on an important point here; there are numerous areas where interpretation of Board intent may be required. The first is as Jay has stated. Another is the issue of timing, and what will constitute the next reasonable opportunity to submit the proposal. > > Cross is feverishly (I say that totally tongue-in-cheek; he is taking forever with a simple NPRM) working on the "omnibus" Part 97 rulemaking incorporating numerous rulemaking petitions as we discussed at the Board meeting. This NPRM will likely be released in November, he says, or at least it will be in October when the Bureau sends it to the Commissioners. It is not likely that another major matter such as this will be included at this point, but perhaps it is not impossible. > > In any case, as we have essentially committed to batch-filing rulemaking matters, and we have "shot our shot" for this upcoming one, the next reasonable opportunity to do the Part 97 bandwidth rulemaking could well be two years hence. This is likely to be unsatisfactory to the HF data network folks, but would suit the AMers just fine, no doubt. > > Paul Rinaldo and I are scheduled to meet tomorrow for a coordination session, and he has done yeoman draftsmanship on a rough (really rough, he says) appendix on this subject in what little free time he has had lately. We are not on a fast track on this matter (because Paul has other critical priorities, as you are aware, and we have some domestic spectrum protection issues on the near horizon (Trahos and the new 222-225 MHz skirmish being two). So, unless you all feel otherwise, this rulemaking will probably slip to the next batch, perhaps two years (or even more) hence. I am aware that this is unsatisfactory to Director Bodson, who suggests that we should try to get this into the anticipated NPRM this fall. > > How shall we proceed in terms of time? > > 73, Chris W3KD

1 0