July 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9044] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by sysop＠bfdin.com 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

*** Off-line *** Dave, Thanks for your answer. My personal opinion is that the FCC is going to do away with the code regardless of what we (ARRL) request. The tiger is staring us right in the face. See you in a couple weeks! - Bill N3LLR AR>Bill, that is difficult to gauge. One possibility is that, having waited this long to put out the Omnibus NPRM, they may just tack this onto it. It would be relatively easy to delete the references to Element 1 from 97.501-97.509. Or, they might do a special "Article 25 revision" NPRM to take on board all of the changes to Article 25. Morse aside, we should go through Part 97 to identify those things that should be changed to bring it into line with the new Article 25. As two simple examples, 97.115(a)(2) and 97.117 concerning international communications ought to be amended. If they do the latter, given the intertia that would have to be overcome it could take a couple of years. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Edgar, William (SM, Western PA) Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 10:31 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9017] Re: Morse Code Requirement Dave, Any idea when the FCC may drop the CW requirement? - Bill N3LLR AR>Thanks to the pace of FCC rulemaking,despite the fact that the international AR>regulations change tomorrow we still have time to make this part of our AR>strategic planning. AR>73, AR>Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9043] Re: Nice FCC RFI Preemption Decision
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

It's great to see the good guys win one, Chris. Thanks for making sure we participated in the proceeding. The principle of federal preemption of RFI regulation is pretty important to our members. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Imlay, Chris (ARRL Counsel) Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:46 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Lindquist, Rick, N1RL; Hennessee, John, N1KB Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9041] Nice FCC RFI Preemption Decision Greetings. Finally, a bit of good news from FCC. Please look at the Cingular Wireless decision, DA 03-2196, which you can pop up at http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-document-index.pl?t=2 and hit the 3rd item down in the list. We filed comments in this proceeding, in which the County of Anne Arundel (which includes Annapolis, MD) in Maryland attempted to regulate public safety/Nextel RF interference. This decision, running 17 pages, is as thorough a statement of FCC RFI preemption as has come from the Commission in many years. While the case law has been consistently favorable, the FCC has been sparse in saying much since a case called 960 Radio in 1985. This is a very good defense tool in RFI cases, especially in problem states like California and New Jersey. I urge you to keep a copy handy, and John Hennessee at HQ will as well. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9042] 2nd VP report
by Kay Craigie 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

The attached document is my report to the Board. Please let me know if you need it in text form rather than Word. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9041] Nice FCC RFI Preemption Decision
by W3KD＠aol.com 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Greetings. Finally, a bit of good news from FCC. Please look at the Cingular Wireless decision, DA 03-2196, which you can pop up at http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-document-index.pl?t=2 and hit the 3rd item down in the list. We filed comments in this proceeding, in which the County of Anne Arundel (which includes Annapolis, MD) in Maryland attempted to regulate public safety/Nextel RF interference. This decision, running 17 pages, is as thorough a statement of FCC RFI preemption as has come from the Commission in many years. While the case law has been consistently favorable, the FCC has been sparse in saying much since a case called 960 Radio in 1985. This is a very good defense tool in RFI cases, especially in problem states like California and New Jersey. I urge you to keep a copy handy, and John Hennessee at HQ will as well. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9040] Re: CW, etc.
by Jim Weaver 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Rick, You of course made interesting points. I do not have the vast experience (mine is at best only half-vast) that you have, but I find it interesting and helpful to share information on common issues. As one item in point, I reiterate that I find it very interesting and a more than mildly surprising that the 200 +/- replies I've received so far include only two respondents who think we ought to pick up swords and cudgels and gird ourselves in protective belts to challenge the flame-breathing monsters that would abolish Morse requirements. Maybe, just maybe, the perspective on this issue has changed after all. I would not have expected it to, but . . . 73, Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9039] Reading past ODV messages on arrl.org
by sysop＠bfdin.com 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

I seem to recall that ODV messages were stored on the arrl.org website in the ODV section. I went there a few minutes ago and didn't see where to read them. Can someone point me to the right location? Thanks! - Bill N3LLR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9038] 2003-0706 Mini-CW Poll Results
by dick＠pobox.com 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

7 JUL, 2003 - 1730 CDT FWIW (not a whole lot), I did conduct a mini-poll at the Kankakee ARS Hamfest yesterday morning. I have attached an MS Word 97/2000 format file to this message that contains the mini-poll sheet and the tabulated results. Attendance at this hamfest was approximately half (700) compared to the last couple of years. Weather was not a problem, but I think the 4th of July holiday weekend was a very big factor. As I expected, my mini-poll did not create any excitement. I had to draw people's attention to it and in many cases hand them a sheet and ask them to fill it out. A few people took the sheet with them. As there was no return address on it, and I asked for an immediate response, I don't expect much of a mail-in return. Only 35 people responded at this hamfest. Tabulation Notes: 1. All ARRL membership was verified today. One call sign was invalid or I was reading it wrong. After trying 10 permutations of that call sign, I gave up and discarded that (abolish Morse code) response. 2. There were only four non-ARRL member responses. 3. The two "other" responses both wanted the Morse code requirement applied to all license classes. 4. The majority (25) want to keep the current Morse code requirement; keep it for both General and Extra Class licenses; and attach a "high" priority (8) or a "moderate" priority (17) to any effort to retain the Morse code. 5. Approximately 30 of the respondents are active DXers and contesters and are therefore favorably disposed to keep Morse Code as a licensing requirement. 6. A Husband-wife couple (both Extra class DXers) are on opposite sides of this issue... most curious. I suppose some could read a lot into this poll. But it's not anywhere close to a true cross-section sample. The overall feeling I got from the respondents is that whether or not they want it, the abolishment of the remaining Morse code requirement is all but a done deal with the FCC. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9037] CW, etc.
by K5ur＠aol.com 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Hi All: It seems that it was not that long ago that we debated and fought, yes fought, over the CW issue when we worked on the license restructuring. Amazing how quickly those of you who wanted cw killed or whacked last time have jumped on this again. So, when can I bring Scarborough Reef back up for a vote? Be that as it may, I'll tell ya, 5 wpm doesn't mean squat to somebody who cares enough to get a license. Get off that notion. FOLKS, IT JUST AIN'T THAT DIFFICULT TO GET A HAM LICENSE! Come on! As far as you Directors telling me what your Division wants, that's fine I guess, but I'm more concerned about my own. I don't send ya'll all the correspondence or input from my Division, so are we going to play that game now to help prove a point? We have not been doing that in the past. I am disappointed that we have jumped on this like a duck on a june bug. It concerns me greatly as to our decision and analysis process, especially with Board meeting just next week. Hey, don't we have an R & R Committee working on strategy and things that might be along this line? Tnx. 73, Rick - K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9036] Re: CW etc.
by Jim Weaver 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

I certainly agree that a true entry level license would be very valuable. I think too, that we need to be on guard against FCC choosing to reduce or take away much of the CW spectrum if Morse is no longer required by them. Maybe we should modernize terminology by promoting Digital band segments rather than CW segments. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9035] Overview of CW opinions
by Jim Weaver 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Hello, gang, A Director letter to GL Division members reached them this morning, apparently (I put it together and sent it to HQ last night). As of 2 PM some 160 or so replies have been received to a 3-question straw vote included in the letter. I have not tabulated the responses yet, but at this moment, the response can be categorized safely as follows: Fight like Hell to keep Morse regulatory requirements: Very few want this. Devote moderate effort to keep these requirements: Somewhat over the majority favor this. This is not their most important issue. BPL, antenna restrictions, frequency protection are among the more important issues. Devote minimal effort (submit a petition to FCC and let it go at this): The second most popular and fairly widely held opinion. Do nothing to maintain Morse requirements: This has what to me is a surprising amount of support. Many who responded along this line favor petitioning FCC to abolish the requirement. I'll get the results tabulated and share them within a few days. I expect there will be a number of more replies when I log on to send this message. Interestingly enough, one (only one) person was aggravated with me for asking. He believes we ought to bite the bullet, move into "today" and petition FCC to drop the requirements. Another fellow thought it ridiculous that Staff cannot do everything at once -- e.g., full-bore fight to maintain Morse, the BPL work, antennas and frequencies, LoTW etc., etc. All with no additional money or staffing being required, of course. The preliminary bottom line seems to be that the intensity of support for maintaining Morse has decreased during recent years. 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division k8je(a)arrl.org - Tel. 513-459-0142 ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is! GREAT LAKES DIVISION CONVENTION, September 6, 2003: See http://greatlakes.arrl.org

1 0