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

[ARRL-ODV:8983] Re: WRC-03 Approves 7-MHz Package
by david.sumner＠ties.itu.int 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Wade, the short answer is yes. However, the converse is also true: if we want to try for a further improvement at 7200-7300 we can do that, too. The latter is not a simple question and deserves some discussion when we're a bit more removed from this conference. With regard to the possibility of a threat to 7200-7300, bear in mind that even broadcasters admit their requirements in Region 2 are less than in 1 and 3. And of course, we would have to defend our existing allocastions anyway, at any conference. This time we have 7000-7200 safely locked up, and we managed to get the agenda limited to 4-10 MHz -- not the "about 4 to 10" that was in the WRC- 03 agenda. Dave K1ZZ Quoting Wade Walstrom <walstrom(a)mchsi.com>: > Outstanding news! It will be hard to wait until 2009. Congratulations to > Dave and the rest of our team > who worked so hard to make this happen. I hope all are having a safe trip > home after a successful > session. > > One question, however, that I am cautious to ask. In the agenda for WRC2007, > item 1.13, I am not sure > what is included in all the highlighted references, but are we going to have > to start work now to > preserve the Region 2 7200-7300 KHz allocation in 2007? > > 73, > > Wade W0EJ > > david.sumner(a)ties.itu.int wrote: > > > History was made today. Never before in the history of radiocommunication > has > > an HF broadcasting band been shifted to accommodate the needs of another > > service. But that's what happened at WRC-03 this morning during the final > > working Plenary, which is still going on at this writing. A carefully > crafted > > compromise was approved on first and second reading that calls for > broadcasters > > in Regions 1 and 3 to vacate 7100-7200 kHz on 29 March 2009 and for the > band to > > be allocated to the amateur service from that date forward. > > > > The fact that this was done to accommodate the amateur service has left > more > > than a few other delegates somewhat incredulous. > > > > The only previous case of an HF broadcasting band being relocated or > narrowed > > occurred at WARC-79, when the broadcasting service relinquished 70 kHz of > its > > little-used 26 MHz band. That cost the broadcasters nothing -- they didn't > use > > the band very much, and still don't -- and helped them mask the magnitude > of > > the expansions they were seeking elsewhere at WARC-79. > > > > But we are not gloating, even for a moment. It took the cooperation of > > broadcasters and many, many others to enable us to bring this home for > radio > > amateurs. The people who worked with us who are not radio amateurs -- > including > > some who were strongly opposed at the start but who acceded to the > compromise -- > > deserve much of the credit. > > > > Attached is what I believe is an accurate, but unofficial, Table (with > all > > footnotes that were changed or added) as adopted this morning. The reason > it is > > unofficial is because there were some edits of the footnotes made during > the > > course of presentation of the document that I have picked up but that are > not > > yet reflected in the official conference documentation. > > > > Again, the main feature is the move of broadcasting out of 7100-7200 kHz > in > > Regions 1 and 3 and the introduction of the amateur service. This provides > a > > worldwide amateur allocation of 200 kHz less than six years from now -- a > > relatively short period of time for the ITU -- with no change at 7000-7100 > kHz > > and with the existing additional 100 kHz, 7200-7300 kHz, retained by > amateurs > > in Region 2 on an exclusive basis. Thus, the incompatibility between > amateur > > and broadcasting use of the 7-MHz band will be cut in half; the spectrum > > available to amateurs in Regions 1 and 3 will double; the useful spectrum > for > > Region 2 amateurs at night will double; and we have lost nothing in the > process. > > > > This result falls short of our goal of a 300-kHz worldwide, exclusive band > for > > amateurs at 7 MHz. We knew that it would. ITU decisions are made by > consensus. > > Building consensus requires give and take, and we didn't have much to give. > The > > conference could easily have concluded, as did a number of the > participants, > > that the cost to other services of even a partial realignment outweighed > the > > benefits to amateurs. > > > > But somehow, when the dust settled we had gained a significant improvement > in > > the 7-MHz amateur allocation -- and on a reasonable schedule. Dates as far > out > > as 2033 were proposed during the course of negotiations. For comparison > > purposes, broadcasting expansion agreed at WARC-92 does not take effect > until > > 2007 15 years later. > > > > In the Table of Frequency Allocations, 7000-7200 kHz will be exclusively > > amateur in Regions 1 and 3 (and 7000-7300 kHz in Region 2). By footnote, > a > > number of countries mostly in Region 3 and the Arab States have also > > allocated 7100-7200 kHz to the fixed and mobile services. None are in > Region 2 > > or in Europe. > > > > The story of how this all came about will be fun to write, but its not > one > > that I should try to tell in my current sleep-deprived state. > > > > Good ITU compromises and virtually every decision made here is a > > compromise -- are sometimes described as leaving everyone equally unhappy. > Your > > Geneva team is tired, and pretty happy. > > > > 73, > > Dave Sumner, K1ZZ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: Document 390 as > adopted unofficial rev 3.doc > > Document 390 as adopted unofficial rev 3.doc Type: WINWORD File > (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8981] Re: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by K5ur＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Oh, and BTW, Andy, thanks so much for the info you sent out earlier today about this server issue. I have actually been using it in several responses to complaints that came in tonight and it really helped. Thanks. 73, Rick - K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8980] Re: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by K5ur＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

In a message dated 7/4/03 12:45:55 AM Central Daylight Time, andy(a)andyoppel.com writes: << I think you are jumping to conclusions when you state that "we got shut down". >> I'm not sure I give a flip about the proper technical lingo, what I know is it ain't working and I got unhappy members. 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8978] Re: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by K5ur＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Dick: The real issue I'm concerned about is making the arrl.net service work for our members. Like I said in the other email, we need to see if there is some fix, and I'm eager to hear what Barry concludes will be a remedy. As to spam, I'm not convinced there is not some middle ground on filtering. There may be. I don't know. I've heard countless stories on filtering, pro and con, for months on end, but I'd like to hear some alternatives other than someone continuing to say "it's not the ARRL's fault" when we get shut down by Hotmail.com, MSN.com, Juno.com, and Comcast. Is that due to the fact we don't have filtering? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. Don't know. Wonder what other similar services like our "arrl.net" service are doing. Anyone know? Are they getting blocked and shut down? 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8977] Re: WRC-03 Approves 7-MHz Package
by dick＠pobox.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

3 JUL, 2003 - 2335 CDT Half a loaf is far better than none, and this appeared to be a real possibility as late as a few days ago. Congratulations to Dave and all the others who worked long and hard for several years to see this through! Happy 4th of July to all of you and your families! KA-BOOM !!! 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8976] Re: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by dick＠pobox.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

3 JUL, 2003 - 2330 CDT I now totally agree with Mike Raisbeck's rationale for not filtering ARRL.Net email traffic. We don't need the additional load of complaints that would result from our less-than-perfect filtering efforts. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8975] Re: FW: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by K5ur＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Rgr. Tnx info, Mike. Have a great 4th. In fact, EVERYBODY have a super 4th and great holiday weekend! 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8974] Re: FW: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by Mike Raisbeck 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Rick, Sure it is easy to fix IF you (the user) are willing to have the League do the filtering for you. But think about the consequences of that. If we do the filtering, WE become responsible not only for the stuff that gets through the filter, but, more importantly, for the stuff that should get through the filter but doesn't. We don't want to be responsible for the critical email that didn't get through. And don't let anyone tell you that automatic filtering is reliable. It isn't. It both lets in unwanted spam (the spammers are getting better every day), and blocks wanted email, as Comcast's filtering mechanism did today. Comcast support spent nearly an hour on the phone with me today. I talked to multiple layers of their support management, threatened to take over $1000 per year of business away from them just by myself, and made the day quite stressful for a number of their staff. That was because of email that I didn't get due to their poor choice in spam filtering. If we start filtering, we can expect to be getting those calls ourselves. One could, of course, adopt the attitude that arrl.net should not be used for any important email. Great sell ..... Ultimately, the only good solution to the spam problem is to keep it from being sent in the first place. I note, however, that neither hotmail, MSN, juno, nor AOL have a perfect record in this. I've received, and continue to receive, spam from all of these sources. And I don't mean spam email reflected through them, but rather spam that ORIGINATES in their various domains. Funny how they don't block each other :-) Mike ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: K5ur(a)aol.com [mailto:K5ur@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8973] Re: FW: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic Mike The arrl.net email service has been stopped by Hotmail.com, MSN.com, Juno.com in the past, now Comcast, and maybe AOL for my arrl.net is not working and I use AOL. Consequently, something has to be done. I don't know what, but something has to be done to try and prevent this from happening for our members, even if only a small number are effected. Maybe there is an easy fix we don't know about. Don't know. I hear mixed views from it's an easy fix if "the ARRL would just do it" to "it's more of a complex problem." So you want to get spam so you can filter it yourself? That's fine, but that's not what the ARRL members want in this Division. K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8973] Re: FW: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by K5ur＠aol.com 04 Jul '03

04 Jul '03

Mike The arrl.net email service has been stopped by Hotmail.com, MSN.com, Juno.com in the past, now Comcast, and maybe AOL for my arrl.net is not working and I use AOL. Consequently, something has to be done. I don't know what, but something has to be done to try and prevent this from happening for our members, even if only a small number are effected. Maybe there is an easy fix we don't know about. Don't know. I hear mixed views from it's an easy fix if "the ARRL would just do it" to "it's more of a complex problem." So you want to get spam so you can filter it yourself? That's fine, but that's not what the ARRL members want in this Division. K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:8972] Re: FW: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic
by Mike Raisbeck 03 Jul '03

03 Jul '03

Rick, et al. I for one do not want "something done". One reason I like arrl.net is because it does NOT filter the mail. I prefer to do my own filtering, as many people do. Also, if we filter, we will find that we start getting complaints from hams who lost mail because we chose to reject something they wanted. Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: K5ur(a)aol.com [mailto:K5ur@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:23 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:8971] Re: Comcast Blocking arrl.net traffic Barry: I get at least a phone call a month and now, it seems, at every hamfest people complain about the spam on arrl.net. Something has got to be done. They don't like to hear us blame someone else. They think it is the ARRL's problem. I've gotten two phone calls today about the arrl.net email being blocked, plus one email from an expert, who, as you know because I sent you a copy, is convinced the ARRL is the problem, not Comcast, not a third party host. By the way, my k5ur(a)arrl.net was just blocked and I do NOT use Comcast, so why was it blocked? 73, Rick - K5UR

1 0