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

[ARRL-ODV:9034] Re: CW etc.
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Coy, I am with you on this one. We need something very much like the British "Foundation" license. One of our fastest growoing HF modes is digital and that is in the cw sub bands. Therefore I do not see those sub bands being diminshed or deleted anytime soon. It is simply more ham radio paranoia or urban myth stuff. Frank...N2FF.....

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9033] Re: Notice of Second Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

No, not as such, Joel. It's just the usual thing -- people will show up in the hotel restaurant for breakfast when and if they feel like it. It's awkward wording, but the intent is to tell people that they're free to make their own arrangements for dinner Saturday night. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 7:21 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9014] Re: Notice of Second Meeting Dave, Are we actually having a "Group" breakfast as indicated below?? Just curious. Joel -----Original Message----- From: david.sumner(a)ties.itu.int [mailto:david.sumner@ties.itu.int] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8945] Notice of Second Meeting No. 2191-N July 2, 2003 NOTICE OF SECOND MEETING ALL DIRECTORS: In compliance with the requirements of the Articles of Association and the relevant provisions of the Bylaws, the 2003 Second Meeting of the Board of Directors of The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, is hereby called for 8:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Friday, July 18, 2003, at the Windsor/Hartford Airport Marriott, 28 Day Hill Rd., Windsor, Connecticut. Arrangements have been made for a group dinner on the Thursday evening preceding: attitude adjustment at 5:30 P.M. and dinner at 6:00 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. Transportation from and to Bradley International Airport will be provided by Marriott. There is a Marriott courtesy phone located in the baggage claim area. An accommodation form is enclosed; please return the form or respond by email as soon as possible 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. The only planned proposal for amendment of the Articles of Association or Bylaws was sent to officers and directors on June 3. 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

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9032] Re: Mail Test
by Andy Oppel 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

O.K. Then I won't send one. :^} R. B. Vallio writes: > > No reply is expected... > > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9031] Re: Morse Code Requirement
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

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:9030] [ARRL-ODV:9027] Fwd: My Opinion (long)
by R. B. Vallio 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

This is my second try at sending this to ODV. My first try was bounced, because the system didn't recognize me as a member. Probably because of a bad system back-up, or restoration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. B. Vallio" <w6rgg(a)sbcglobal.net> To: <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [ARRL-ODV:9027] Fwd: My Opinion (long) > Thanks for sharing that, Dick. As much as I dislike keyboard sending and > code readers, Mr. Riesbeck may very well have come up with an idea whose > time has come. I'm sorry to report that I have received no correspondence > on the matter at all, let alone one of this import. > > Bob > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9029] Re: CW etc.
by Coy Day 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

Hi Folks, Sometimes when our president throws out lemons, he is looking for someone to make lemonade with them. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the subject. First let me say that I don't have a problem with doing away with the Morse requirement. Just because my favorite mode is CW doesn't mean that everyone has to know it. I'm also not concerned about the CW sub bands going away some day. We have bands with no CW sub band and they work fine. As a matter of fact, I think 160 is better for it. IMHO we are in dire need of an entry level license with a question pool that is much less technical than the current exam pools. In other words an "operator's permit". Recommend giving these folks some small segments on HF both CW and SSB with limited power. Eliminate the Morse exam or at most test them on paper for a knowledge of the characters. We could make this recommendation to the FCC and then recommend keeping the current Morse testing for the General and Extra Class licenses. What do you think? Coy

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9028] Mail Test
by R. B. Vallio 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

No reply is expected...

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9027] Fwd: My Opinion (long)
by dick＠pobox.com 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

6 JAN, 2003 - 2005 CDT I received this email letter from a Central Division ARRL member Alvin Riesbeck, W9AFR. It's a bit rambling, but he covers several issues. I thought at least some of you may find his views to be of interest. I doubt if his suggestion about the biological dangers of RF being transmitted on power lines has any validity, unless much, much higher power levels are used. But I find it interesting that he brought it up. 73 - Dick, W9GIG ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Alvin Riesbeck <alvinr(a)Z6.com> To: w9gig(a)arrl.org Subject: My Opinion Reply-To: alvinr(a)Z6.com July 5, 2003 Mr. George Isely Central Division ARRL Director Mr. Isely I am sending you this e-mail because I have read and have been told the leadership of the ARRL would like to know ARRL memberâs opinions. I was hoping to make this short but I am afraid it will not be short. I have read your Bio and you are an interesting man. I am not quite so interesting but I think you need to know a little about me. I am 62 years of age and have been license since 2000. I use to lessen to amateur Radio in the 60's and even took a class in Morse code in that time period but I was never license. I was re-introduced to amateur radio again in 1999. I am currently an extra, but I do not use Morse code because I have a hard time hearing the code (I loss some hearing). I did pass the CW test after a year of beating my head against the wall. CW I am a retired computer programmer (federal government). Anytime I would go to a planning meeting that involved change the first thing one would hear is the magic phrases "what is wrong with the way we did it in the past". Amateur Radio is not the only organization going through the argument of old Vs new. My model train club also has the steam vs diesel crowd and they also fight like cats and dogs. Now that WRC-03 has spoken about the Morse code testing requirement, I believe the FCC will follow by removing the CW testing requirement. The ARRL should not moan about CW testing going away or try to force the FCC to keep it. The ARRL should be leaders and set new policy to try and make all HAMs respect the other Hams opinion. It is a forgone conclusion that the use of Morse code will not go away and it will be used for many years to come. The real question to answer is will all old and new hams both use the code in the future or will the new Hams just say YUK and never use it. This brings me back to the question of do hams stay in the 19th century or do they advance to the 21st century. Think about this, CW started out as spark, advance to a straight key and finally to the bugs of today. In all of these cases the signal transmitted was the same but the way the signal was initiate by the radio operator was different. In fact it is not the manual key but the signal itself that get through when others fail. There-fore it is the signal that is important not how we initiate the signal. I am suggesting that those who want to use manual CW do so and that a new computer driven CW system be generated. This new system would be a computer program such as digipan (example PSK31). It would generate CW instead of the PSK31 signal, it would look like digipan (or any similar program) and connect into the radio CW input port. In other words a computer program that would be used for CW. It should be able to transmit into any current radio including QRP. That would make the code in vogue again for Hams who have a hard time using CW for whatever reason they may have. This would also help older hams that like me use psk31 because they have a hard time hearing the CW code. This would result in all Hams being capable of transmitting in CW and may result in an increase use of CW. PSK31 I use psk31 a lot. In fact I have 30 confirmed states using psk31. Today there are more ham using this mode and the spectrum is getting crowded. I am not sure who is in charge of the band plan, but I would suggest adding a new frequency for psk31 to be used for DX only (on 20 meter at least) in addition to the current one at 14.070. I think the current frequency should remain because of crystal control radios such as "Small Wonder Labs" QRP psk31. This also would be a step forward for psk31 users. BPL issue I have read your newsletter on the subject of BPL. I think your newsletter was much better than my e-mail to the FCC but I brought up an issue you and the ARRL maybe did not think about. I brought up the issue of "Thermal effects of RF Energy". It is about RF energy causing damage to body tissues. This question in on the Tech license exams. (Now You're Talking! Chapter 10). The gist of my e-mail was the FCC was going to allow the electric companies bring into every house in the USA an RF signal that may or may not damage body tissue. The RF would be present in the home whether the occupant used the DPL system or not. This issue is well document by the FCC. Like the issue of magnetic fields generated on electric line. It does not matter if the issue is true or not, once the class action lawyer (after they get done with the food industry) decide this is their next little moneymaker all hell for the FCC will brake loose. Seriously: I am telling you this so if you think this issue is valid you can forward this issue on to the ARRL staff. Maybe the ARRL staff can present this issue better than me. But I did make an effort. Conclusion. It has been stated that amateur radio must interest younger Hams if it is to continue. In the years 1930 through 1950 radio was the cutting edge of technology, then came television and finely in 1980 the personal computer, which really changed the landscape forever. The ARRL should realize that amateur radio could only survive by combining computers and radios into one package. Today most kids are experts using the computer and even more so than their parents. No one can tell what will be in 20 years. I believe the future for amateur radio will be computer-generated radios both receiving broadcast signals and transmitting with a computer driving a little black box that is generating the on air signal. This will be the norm. We can only adapt to the new technology or go the way of the horse and buggy. This is the future whether I and/or the ARRL like it or not. Thank You W9AFR Alvin Riesbeck 7713 Crabtree Court Woodridge Illinois, 60517-2915 alvinr(a)z6.com

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9026] Re: Re Morse code Requirement
by Andy Oppel 06 Jul '03

06 Jul '03

My experience with the FCC (which isn't very extensive) has been that anything they don't have to regulate suits them just fine. So, I expect them to waste no time or energy on retaining the morse code requirement. May we should petition them to let us send CW over power lines so we can compete with their BPL initiative... 73, Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director At 02:36 PM 7/6/2003 -0500, you wrote: >All too often we allow events to overtake us. We, and most Amateurs, knew >that Morse proficiency would be eliminated as an international treaty >requirement by WRC03. True, common wisdom was it would take a year or so >to implement. The only change that has occurred is that FCC will be >addressing the issue sooner rather than later. > > > >My suspicion is that most Board members have been discussing the >elimination of A.25 as treaty requirement with members for some time. In >my experience that discussion is immediately followed by What will FCC do >once that happens? Admittedly I haven t kept a running count, but the >vast majority of comments seem to be either an enthusiastic or a resigned >belief that the domestic Morse requirement will be eliminated. The main >concern I hear expressed is not over the elimination of the Morse >requirement but over retention on a significant Morse sub-band. > > > >Irrespective of Amateur opinion, the current mindset, track record and >expressed philosophy of FCC, Chairman Powell and the Commissioners should >provide some indication of their pre-disposition to eliminate any >regulation not deemed absolutely necessary (and even a few that are). FCC >has already declined to keep track of Morse CSCE s for Technicians with HF >privileges. There is little reason to think they have any interest in >keeping any record or mandating any requirement in the Amateur Service >that is not absolutely required. > > > >Until the question comes before the Board I ll continue seek member >opinion on this question. I ll also ask if given the choice we should >spend limited resources on this question or on Frequency preservation issues. > > > >73, > > > >Jay, K0QB > >. > > Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9025] Re Morse code Requirement
by John Bellows 06 Jul '03

06 Jul '03

All too often we allow events to overtake us. We, and most Amateurs, knew that Morse proficiency would be eliminated as an international treaty requirement by WRC03. True, common wisdom was it would take a year or so to implement. The only change that has occurred is that FCC will be addressing the issue sooner rather than later. My suspicion is that most Board members have been discussing the elimination of A.25 as treaty requirement with members for some time. In my experience that discussion is immediately followed by What will FCC do once that happens? Admittedly I havent kept a running count, but the vast majority of comments seem to be either an enthusiastic or a resigned belief that the domestic Morse requirement will be eliminated. The main concern I hear expressed is not over the elimination of the Morse requirement but over retention on a significant Morse sub-band. Irrespective of Amateur opinion, the current mindset, track record and expressed philosophy of FCC, Chairman Powell and the Commissioners should provide some indication of their pre-disposition to eliminate any regulation not deemed absolutely necessary (and even a few that are). FCC has already declined to keep track of Morse CSCEs for Technicians with HF privileges. There is little reason to think they have any interest in keeping any record or mandating any requirement in the Amateur Service that is not absolutely required. Until the question comes before the Board Ill continue seek member opinion on this question. Ill also ask if given the choice we should spend limited resources on this question or on Frequency preservation issues. 73, Jay, K0QB .

1 0