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

[ARRL-ODV:7715] Another 220 MHz Band Threat?
by dick＠pobox.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

27 AUG, 2002 1450 CDT This URL was passed to me earlier today. It looks like commercial interests are now after the rest of the Amateur 220 MHz band. :< http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_documen t=6513289200 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7714] Re: Lance, 'NSYNC and ham radio
by W3KD＠aol.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

In a message dated 8/27/2002 11:35:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: Nothing heard about a Today Show interview but did find this article saying "NASA plans to instruct Bass on the basics of HAM radio operations. Since his two would-be crewmates are both experienced spacefarers, it's likely that they are already well-versed in radio operation. " http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/bass_update_020823.html Maybe we can get him N5YNC for a callsign... The ISS Committee has just had me review an agreement that Frank Bauer drafted up regarding Lance Bass' use of A/R for school contacts and general contacts. He is reportedly studying for a license, but there are other arrangements in mind in case he can't get it together in time, etc. This is all rather confidential at this point, I think, and the details are being worked out with NASA. Rosalie is working on this with Frank Bauer of AMSAT. Frankly, I would rather hook up with Largemouth Bass. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7713] Lance, 'NSYNC and ham radio
by Tom Frenaye 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

Nothing heard about a Today Show interview but did find this article saying "NASA plans to instruct Bass on the basics of HAM radio operations. Since his two would-be crewmates are both experienced spacefarers, it's likely that they are already well-versed in radio operation. " http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/bass_update_020823.html Maybe we can get him N5YNC for a callsign... -- Tom ===== 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:7712] PR
by W5JBP＠aol.com 27 Aug '02

27 Aug '02

I was told that there was an interview on the "Today Show" this morning with Lance Bass who is going up to the ISS. He was asked what he would be doing and he said that he would be operating the ham radio station. Did anyone see this? Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7711] Re: Fw: Bandwidth Proposal
by Bernard E. Fuller 26 Aug '02

26 Aug '02

Art, I have already answered the individual. There is no need to go into detailed discussion on this. 73, Bernie-N3EFN -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 10:14 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7710] Fw: Bandwidth Proposal Bernie, are you going to handle the reply for us, or would you prefer several of us to send our own replies, each with slightly different viewpoints and likely conflicting info? 73, Art ----- Original Message ----- From: "WA3VJB Annapolis" <WA3VJB(a)amfone.net> Cc: <K1KI(a)ARRL.ORG> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:45 AM Subject: Bandwidth Proposal To: Directors and Vice-Directors (nationally) From: Paul Courson, WA3VJB, League Member, Advanced Class, licensed since 1971 You undoubtedly have become aware of New England Director Tom Frenaye's motion to explore the idea of defining by bandwidth the distribution of operating activities on the shortwave ham bands. He has told me the motivation was primarily to determine where to place operating activity involving the specialty of digital technology. I believe there should not be a bandwidth-based proposal in the first place, and respectfully ask that you not pursue a Petition for Rulemaking along these lines. The Federal Communications Commission has been totally correct in avoiding such prescriptions in its regulations, and deliberately leaving vague the technical parameters we must operate within. I write to you today seeking your preliminary thoughts on the issue, and to inform you that the FCC in 1976 considered and rejected a similar plan with the failure of Docket 20777. The League would do well to research the basis for that proceeding and the reasons why it was unsuccessful. Twenty-five years after the FCC voted down that proposal, it remains true that limiting by bandwidth would substitute one set of unacceptably constraining parameters for another. Yes, there is a need to resolve the issue of where to situate operating activities involving digital technology, but such technologies have no greater or lesser claim on spectrum than all the other modes and activities we are authorized to experiment with on the shortwave ham bands. Creating space for additional technologies is best handled as a function of operating coordination, NOT the imposition of boundaries based on technical parameters. Such boundaries have historically been established by mode, but that method of definition is clearly obsolete. Operating coordination, by contrast, involves human thought, allows flexibility by band conditions, and encourages coordination to distribute the "load" of operating activities on a given band for the greatest satisfaction of all players. There can be no favoritism by mode or activity, since all such non-emergency communication is considered equally deserving of space. Should that prevailing regulatory assumption change, the successor must consider questions of merit for each mode or activity in order for it to be allowed a place on our bands. This would involve judgments against standards that have not been developed. Meantime, we struggle to operate against an outdated system of separation established when it was a simple choice of "CW" or "Phone" as equally popular modes. Discontinuing rigid, inefficient sub-band segregation, and encouraging dynamic operating strategies of self-coordination is the best scenario that can be hoped for. Compliance with such a system shall be commensurate with a hobbyist radio service; that is to say, it won't be perfect because it does not have to be. I speak from a specialty involving enthusiasts for the heritage mode of Amplitude Modulation. Our vintage activity resembles that of CW, where much of the technical discovery has long been completed, yet where certain skills continue to be refined and perpetuated. Our operating also resembles contesting and DX-ing when it comes to consumption of bandwidth for an enjoyable pursuit. Since we are a specialty, our numbers do not comprise a substantial lobby. We have historically been under-represented in League publications and in political deliberations such as those involving representatives in your position. I am happy to report that in the past 10 years, QST has implemented regular coverage of vintage radio, and that in recent years I have gotten a friendly reception among ARRL officials. In case you haven't had the opportunity to participate in the warm and inviting sound of enhanced audio AM, I would like to invite you to sample this nostalgic facet of the hobby where we pay great respect to part of radio's heritage. We enjoy the support of the Quarter Century Wireless Association, the Antique Wireless Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Society of Broadcast Engineers, among groups you probably have heard of. Within our ranks, we have at least two prominent internet websites, and a publication with some 8,000 subscribers entitled Electric Radio. Please tell me that you can include us in your deliberations as they unfold, rather than keeping us on the outside and reacting after any plan has taken shape. I understand there may be an ad hoc committee empanelled to assist Mr. Rinaldo and Mr. Imlay as they determine whether there is a valid foundation for such a Petition. We would like to be part of such a panel. I look forward to your reply, Paul Courson 202-215-3885 Pursuing vintage radio on the shortwave ham bands! www.amfone.net www.amwindow.org --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/02 --- 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: 8/21/02

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7710] Fw: Bandwidth Proposal
by Art Goddard 26 Aug '02

26 Aug '02

Bernie, are you going to handle the reply for us, or would you prefer several of us to send our own replies, each with slightly different viewpoints and likely conflicting info? 73, Art ----- Original Message ----- From: "WA3VJB Annapolis" <WA3VJB(a)amfone.net> Cc: <K1KI(a)ARRL.ORG> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:45 AM Subject: Bandwidth Proposal To: Directors and Vice-Directors (nationally) From: Paul Courson, WA3VJB, League Member, Advanced Class, licensed since 1971 You undoubtedly have become aware of New England Director Tom Frenaye's motion to explore the idea of defining by bandwidth the distribution of operating activities on the shortwave ham bands. He has told me the motivation was primarily to determine where to place operating activity involving the specialty of digital technology. I believe there should not be a bandwidth-based proposal in the first place, and respectfully ask that you not pursue a Petition for Rulemaking along these lines. The Federal Communications Commission has been totally correct in avoiding such prescriptions in its regulations, and deliberately leaving vague the technical parameters we must operate within. I write to you today seeking your preliminary thoughts on the issue, and to inform you that the FCC in 1976 considered and rejected a similar plan with the failure of Docket 20777. The League would do well to research the basis for that proceeding and the reasons why it was unsuccessful. Twenty-five years after the FCC voted down that proposal, it remains true that limiting by bandwidth would substitute one set of unacceptably constraining parameters for another. Yes, there is a need to resolve the issue of where to situate operating activities involving digital technology, but such technologies have no greater or lesser claim on spectrum than all the other modes and activities we are authorized to experiment with on the shortwave ham bands. Creating space for additional technologies is best handled as a function of operating coordination, NOT the imposition of boundaries based on technical parameters. Such boundaries have historically been established by mode, but that method of definition is clearly obsolete. Operating coordination, by contrast, involves human thought, allows flexibility by band conditions, and encourages coordination to distribute the "load" of operating activities on a given band for the greatest satisfaction of all players. There can be no favoritism by mode or activity, since all such non-emergency communication is considered equally deserving of space. Should that prevailing regulatory assumption change, the successor must consider questions of merit for each mode or activity in order for it to be allowed a place on our bands. This would involve judgments against standards that have not been developed. Meantime, we struggle to operate against an outdated system of separation established when it was a simple choice of "CW" or "Phone" as equally popular modes. Discontinuing rigid, inefficient sub-band segregation, and encouraging dynamic operating strategies of self-coordination is the best scenario that can be hoped for. Compliance with such a system shall be commensurate with a hobbyist radio service; that is to say, it won't be perfect because it does not have to be. I speak from a specialty involving enthusiasts for the heritage mode of Amplitude Modulation. Our vintage activity resembles that of CW, where much of the technical discovery has long been completed, yet where certain skills continue to be refined and perpetuated. Our operating also resembles contesting and DX-ing when it comes to consumption of bandwidth for an enjoyable pursuit. Since we are a specialty, our numbers do not comprise a substantial lobby. We have historically been under-represented in League publications and in political deliberations such as those involving representatives in your position. I am happy to report that in the past 10 years, QST has implemented regular coverage of vintage radio, and that in recent years I have gotten a friendly reception among ARRL officials. In case you haven't had the opportunity to participate in the warm and inviting sound of enhanced audio AM, I would like to invite you to sample this nostalgic facet of the hobby where we pay great respect to part of radio's heritage. We enjoy the support of the Quarter Century Wireless Association, the Antique Wireless Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Society of Broadcast Engineers, among groups you probably have heard of. Within our ranks, we have at least two prominent internet websites, and a publication with some 8,000 subscribers entitled Electric Radio. Please tell me that you can include us in your deliberations as they unfold, rather than keeping us on the outside and reacting after any plan has taken shape. I understand there may be an ad hoc committee empanelled to assist Mr. Rinaldo and Mr. Imlay as they determine whether there is a valid foundation for such a Petition. We would like to be part of such a panel. I look forward to your reply, Paul Courson 202-215-3885 Pursuing vintage radio on the shortwave ham bands! www.amfone.net www.amwindow.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7709] Certification of candidates
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

As a followup to my message of last Friday, I am pleased to report that the listed candidates have been certified as eligible by the Election Committee. This means that in those cases where there is only candidate, that candidate is declared re-elected for the three-year term beginning at noon January 1, 2003. Congratulations to: Bill Edgar, N3LLR, Vice Director, Atlantic Division Jay Bellows, K0QB, Director, Dakota Division Twila Greenheck, N0JPH, Vice Director, Dakota Division Rick Roderick, K5UR, Director, Delta Division Dick Mondro, W8FQT, Vice Director, Great Lakes Division Wade Walstrom, W0EJ, Director, Midwest Division David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7708] Re: subband bandwidths
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

Dennis, I understand the principal purpose of the action. However, if we are indeed going to advocate regulating by bandwidth instead of by mode there are going to be many other consequences. For example, if double-sideband AM is to be permitted then bandwidths of at least 8 kHz and possibly more are going to have to be permitted. If we attempted to make it 6 kHz we would get howls of outrage from AM operators who would correctly argue that that was a new restriction on their ability to improve the quality of their audio, which is why many of them are interested in AM in the first place. But if 8 kHz is permitted for AM in what are now the phone subbands, then it will be permitted in those subbands for all other modes including digital voice and data. Obviously that is going to have an impact on the "majority" SSB operators. I'm not arguing against moving in this direction. I just want to be sure everyone understands that it's not as simple as it may sound. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7702] Re: subband bandwidths Dave: The principal purpose of this action is to take care of wide bandwidth data modes in CW areas. I believe that Paul and Chris can accomplish this. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7663] Re: subband bandwidths One reason for sensitivity on this issue is that in Docket 20777 back in 1976 the answer was very nearly "yes." The maximum bandwidth proposed by the FCC for amateur stations operating below 28.5 MHz (at the time, the lower edge of the phone band) was 3.5 kHz. The maximum bandwidth below 1215 MHz was to be 35 kHz, which would have outlawed fast-scan TV on 420 MHz. (There was no 902 MHz band in those days.) Both the AM and the ATV communities got up in arms. The ARRL position on Docket 20777 was adopted at the July 1976 Board Meeting. We supported double-sideband AM if confined to a nominal bandwidth of 6 kHz, subject to review in 5 years. We opposed eliminating fast-scan TV from the 420-MHz band but supported confining it to two 4-MHz channels, again subject to review after 5 years. Each of these positions was reasonable but neither was regarded by the affected interest groups as being the ringing endorsement of their mode that they felt they deserved from the ARRL. In the face of strong opposition, the FCC did not follow through on the idea of regulating generally by bandwidth but used Docket 20777 as the vehicle for authorizing ASCII. Saying that we will petition at some indeterminate future time to regulate by bandwidth rather than by mode seems to me to be a statement of principle. Minute 64 is silent on the question of what bandwidths would be permitted where. Without more details I don't see how Chris could craft a rulemaking petition. Saying that we want to regulate by bandwidth but don't want anything to change for the existing modes won't compute; for example, at the present time RTTY and data emissions are not authorized in the HF "phone bands" but CW is. Writing a regulation based on bandwidth to preserve that condition would be challenging even for Chris. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:44 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7661] Re: subband bandwidths At 10:11 AM 8/14/2002 -0400, Gary/KI4LA wrote: >> 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at >> the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part >> 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode. > >I am being kindly lobbied over Minute 64. Will this have the effect of >killing AM on the bands or not? No. Not the intention or plan, that'd be suicide.... Guess someone in the AM community needs a villain >We currently have subbands regulated by mode within the FCC rules. For example, on 20m you can not use voice (SSB + AM), or image (SSTV + FAX) below 14.150. The change would be for the FCC to rephrase the rules so that they didn't specify mode (voice/image) but simply state that wide bandwidth signals should be above 14.150 and narrow band signals below. It's actually a simplification of the regulations and moves us towards the time when all (most) signals will digital. > >The origin of this, on my part, was the Technology Task Force and some discussions about digital voice (and Clover 2000 and Pactor 3) and FCC regulations. Paul Rinaldo circulated a white paper with some discussion on it (green cover sheet I think) at the January Board meeting. -- Tom. ===== 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:7707] Re: Mass communication at ARRL expense during campaign period
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

Art, it is true that incumbents have access to tools that are not available to challengers. However, as I read the policy it prohibits the use of these tools for campaign purposes and does not prohibit an incumbent from continuing to have access to the tools necessary to do his or her job during the campaign period. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:21 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7704] Re: Mass communication at ARRL expense during campaign period Dave, thanks for sending out this excerpt from the Rules and Regulations Concerning American Radio Relay League Elections. The applicability to electronic communications and the privacy policy are most enlightening. Shall we assume that incumbent Director and Vice Director candidates are now excluded from access to the membership database available via the ODV page on the ARRL Website? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make use of wildcard query features to create e-mailing lists. 73, Art ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:38 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7703] Mass communication at ARRL expense during campaign period As of last Friday we are in the "campaign period" for Director or Vice Director in the Atlantic, Delta, Great Lakes, and Midwest Divisions. Accordingly, the following policy applies: "In any League election, during the campaign period (the period from the deadline for receipt of nominating petitions for Director and Vice Director until the day ballots are due) any mass communication at League expense in whole or in part, dealing with any candidate in any way or issued by a candidate, League or Section official in the Division of the candidate, shall be approved by the Executive Committee prior to the issuance of such communications. The Executive Committee shall deny approval of any communication, which in its opinion, reasonably might affect the outcome of such election." This policy applies to electronic as well as to printed communications. The ARRL privacy policy prohibits the release of members' email addresses to third parties, including candidates for office. David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7706] Re: Debra Johnson
by Hobart, Mary K1MMH 23 Aug '02

23 Aug '02

Thank you for your good wishes. Please feel free to send a message of welcome to Debra at your convenience. Since she and I will both be away next week, a note the week of 9/3 might be best. She has been meeting with staff in most departments and is eager to roll up her sleeves and get to work. I am thrilled to have a lady of her intelligence, ability and energy as part of our team. 73, Mary -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok.ok@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7700] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Response Mary, Yes, very well done. Also congrats on getting Debra Johnson on board! Let us know when a good time would be to send her a welcome aboard note. Coy ----- Original Message ----- From: Rod Stafford W6ROD <w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7699] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Response Mary -- Took a few minutes to read the response you've prepared for questions about the grant. The response sets out the situation in easy to understand and concise language. Good job. Rod Stafford At 09:45 AM 8/21/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Good morning! > >In response to questions about the CNCS grant for Emergency >Communications, I've prepared the attached response. Per Rick's advice >I've responded to each of Mr. Delker's three questions. I hope you will >find the information helpful in responding to inquiries in your division. > >73, >Mary

1 0