September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9413] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by W5JBP＠aol.com 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

In a message dated 09/11/2003 10:21:48 AM Central Daylight Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > Rod (in his role as a Region 2 representative who is on the Region 2 EC by > virtue of representing the ARRL) and I (in my role as the IARU Secretary > appointed by the ARRL) abstained. Everyone else voted in favor. (PB2T, VE6SH, > JJ1OEY, and W4RI were present as observers and did not have a vote.) This looks really bad. Our board position has not changed. Why would we abstain? Not only does it look bad, but our silence on the 9 petitions at the FCC also looks bad. We were asked by the FCC if we were going to lead or follow this train. It appears to the amateur community that we left the station all right, out the back door! We have until September 29 to either file something or not. I suggest that after dinner on Saturday, a meeting to discuss this and come up with a course of action. The League should be in the leading position not only here in the United States, but in the international arena as well. It would seem that we have abdicated our leadership role. Should there be a "special" board meeting to cover this situation? I would like to hear from each director as to their thoughts. Jim Haynie, W5JBP President, ARRL

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9411] Web item on AOL block of arrl.net
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

FYI....The following item is going up on our web page immediately: AOL blocking ARRL E-Mail Forwarding Service messages: On Monday, September 8, it came to ARRL's attention that AOL was blocking e-mail sent to them via the ARRL E-Mail Forwarding Service <http://www.arrl.org/members-only/emailfwd.html> (@arrl.net addresses). ARRL immediately contacted AOL to explain the situation and was told that AOL would remove its block on mail from the ARRL E-Mail Forwarding Service server. AOL still has not resolved the situation, explaining that there is a "backlog" of work in their network area. AOL representatives were unable to indicate specifically when the situation would be rectified. We apologize for any inconvenience that this situation has caused. [ARRL logo] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have contacted the technical reps repeatedly this week and have received nothing more than promises that the situation will be fixed. This item is simply following up on what we told them would have to happen in fairness to our members who were also AOL customers. At the present, there are almost 6,000 ARRL members with arrl.net addresses being forwarded to aol.com addresses. 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9410] Monthly ARRL-in-Action Solicitation
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Dave Hassler asked me to share this with you. 73, Mark K1RO ________ Hi All. I hope this note finds you all well and enjoying the late summer sun. I am asking for word of anything out there that you personally, or someone in your division, is doing directly for a member, or the membership in general, other than hamfest booth reports (which I will HAPPILY take for the Web version of this column, btw! :^) This column is all about reminding members, and others who read the magazine, that the volunteers in the field organization are doing things in the membership's best interests and that we're "on the job." So, anything that is a direct helping action that exemplies League activities/goals/directives/missions is great for this column. Some recent examples of items include: helping out at a Big Project pilot school, getting materials to a remote club, and working with a SGL on an antenna issue. Or maybe there's something else you're doing, big or small? If it's something the League is doing on behalf of its membership, then it's fair game and I'm all ears! My deadline this month is Sept. 16 for the November issue. My direct e-mail is k7ccc(a)arrl.org. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you. 73, Dave Hassler, K7CCC Assistant News Editor QST Magazine and ARRLWeb

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9409] Re: Intro License
by Mike Raisbeck 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Hi Jay, It was good to chat with you last Friday. I was in Connecticut to attend the SM training course, but of course I also paid Tom a call. Gave me his $#!(*+$ cold, he did .. Ive been mulling over your comments concerning the intro license proposal. You are not the only person who has suggested a scheme with more power, but fewer frequencies, so I wanted to give this some serious thought. After much contemplation, Im still convinced that low power, rather than limited frequencies, is the best tool to use in differentiating between intro class licensees and the rest of us. Here are my reasons: 1. The old novice license died for several reasons, including lack of phone privileges and ghettoization of the license class by limiting frequencies. Limited frequency and mode space seems likely to concentrate intro licensees into spaces inhabited only by other intro licensees. This is not what we want. Instead, we want intro licensees to spend most of their time talking with people of higher license classes. The way to learn and improve is to play with people who are better than you. 2. QRP implies cheaper gear. All other things being equal, a QRP rig is cheaper than a QRO rig. This point should not be overdone; the differences are not huge, but they do exist. Furthermore, it is more common to see very stripped down and simplified rigs at QRP power levels; more stripped and simplified than simple power reduction would dictate. This may be the bigger cost savings. 3. QRP implies cheaper and easier kits. This is certainly true for the same reasons as cited above concerning cost, though, as with cost, the point should not be overemphasized. 4. Low power implies less QRM to others. I suppose that new users are more likely to make mistakes that cause unintended QRM (intentional interference is another matter entirely). I know I did; somewhere in the archives I have a 20 meter OO report from my novice days. Something about my 40 meter harmonic Of course, a similar result can be partially achieved by limiting frequency and mode, but this cure results in the ghettoization problem note in 1) above. 5. Low power implies less RFI to others. Although it is certainly not impossible to generate RFI with a 5 Watt rig, I do not personally know of any such case. Of course, RFI problems involving hams are usually the fault of badly designed or overloaded consumer electronics. But thats not really important, particularly to a new ham faced with an irate neighbor. Better that a newcomer learn the ropes before having to deal with TVI. 6. 50 Watts, a feature of the most popular current intro class proposal (NCVEC), is insufficiently differentiated from 100 Watts, which is more or less the standard non-amplified power only 3 dB or half an S unit. If we use 5 Watts as the limit, the difference becomes 13 dB or 2 S units. This is far easier to police, both from a legalistic perspective (which is only marginally important, since almost no one is ever prosecuted for too much power), and from a sociopolitical perspective (social pressures have on the whole turned out to be the most important enforcement tool in the Amateur Radio Service.) 7. There are few HF rigs currently in the 50 Watt power range. There are 5 Watt rigs, and a few 20 Watt rigs. There are also 5 Watt kits. 8. My experience with QRP, and the experience of others that has been relayed to me, indicates that 5 Watts is more than enough power for there to be plentiful and satisfying communication when a band is reasonably open. A good test for this is to scan a band, and spot every signal which is S9 + 25 dB. At 5 Watt QRP power levels, these would all still be S9, even if the original signal were 1500 Watts. I contend that the number of available communications partners at any given time, with 5 Watts and General frequency/mode privileges, greatly exceeds the number available with 100 Watts and limited frequency/mode privileges. To sum it all up, there are currently under discussion two methods for differentiating between intro class licensees and General class licensees. These two methods are power limitation, and frequency/mode limitation. So, we get the following decision matrix. Intro License Decision Matrix Limited Frequencies/Modes Broad Frequencies/Modes QRP Power If the old Novice didnt work, then a fortiori this wont either The present proposal Full Power (ie., 100 Watts) Didnt work when we had the Novice license Indistinguishable from the General class license, and would be rightly considered as dumbing down the hobby. If the QRP power limitation is not acceptable, and heavy frequency/mode limitations are not effective (as we learned from the old Novice license) then we need to find another meaningful differentiator. Alternatively, we could abandon the intro license concept. Thanks for sending me the results of your Dakota Division survey. A cursory reading of it suggests that a low power, broad frequency/mode privilege license isnt what your members are thinking. On the deeper reflection, the power question and the frequency/mode question werent linked. If the choices were presented as in the matrix above, I imagine the result would be different, though I wont presume to guess what it would be. In any case, this may be a situation in which the Board needs to take a strong leadership and educational role. So far Ive presented the idea to perhaps 50 people. Some have liked it. Some have expressed reservations but have listened to my arguments. None have condemned it. This tells me that there is general acceptance of the intro class license concept, there is no deep seated antipathy to the low power/broad privileges concept, and that further dialogue and explaination would be fruitful. So where should we go with this? 73, Mike K1TWF ------------------------ Here is the Communicator Class proposal in its latest form, for reference: 1. 5 watts power limit (unless otherwise restricted to a lower value). 2. All General frequencies and modes, except for 10 MHz, 60 meters, and 219-220 MHz (ie., places where there are special restrictions or rules of one sort or another) 3. Existing novices, techs, and tech pluses get these privileges in addition to whatever they currently have. 4. Very distinctive callsign which may not be used as the callsign when operating with anything other than communicator privileges. Perhaps N 2x3's (eg. Nx1xyz), or even 2x4's (Nx1wzyz). 5. Upon upgrading, an operator must get a new call, but could keep the old call along with the new one. However, the distinctive callsign could ONLY be used subject to the privileges of the communicator class. This could get to be something of a cult thing with the QRP crowd. It also makes it easier to police the power level restriction. 6. no vanity calls 7. A simple written exam of perhaps 25 questions, concentrating on operating practice, essential rules, and only very basic technical matters. No RF safety, no propagation, no esoteric stuff, no CW test (although there might be a word question about it on the written exam).

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9408] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by James Weaver 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9407] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Rick, that wording was adopted in Guatemala in 2001 and was unchanged in the revised Resolution. It was taken from the IARU Region 3 Darwin Conference recommendation in September 2000, which reads in part: "IARU Region 3 strongly supports Morse code as an effective and efficient mode of communication. However, it believes that the position of Morse as a qualifying criterion for an HF amateur license is not relevant to the healthy future of amateur radio." Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick (aol.com) Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:59 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9406] Re: Other IARU AC actions In a message dated 9/11/2003 11:21:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > further recognizing that the position of Morse as a qualifying criterion for an HF amateur license is no longer relevant > to the healthy future of amateur radio, _________________________________________________ Oh bull. CW is the second most used mode. Come on. I think this wording stinks and I'm disappointed you and Rod didn't do something about the wording short of standing on your head. Some other wording could have been used, or simply these words not said at all, and achieved the same result. Abstain votes makes it look like we side-stepped the issue. OK, we can say we didn't vote "for it" per se, but we sure can't say we voted against it, either, and for that reason it will look like we endorse the notion that CW "is no longer relevant to the healthy future of amateur radio." 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9406] Re: Other IARU AC actions
by K5ur＠aol.com 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

In a message dated 9/11/2003 11:21:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > further recognizing that the position of Morse as a qualifying criterion for an HF amateur license is no longer relevant > to the healthy future of amateur radio, _________________________________________________ Oh bull. CW is the second most used mode. Come on. I think this wording stinks and I'm disappointed you and Rod didn't do something about the wording short of standing on your head. Some other wording could have been used, or simply these words not said at all, and achieved the same result. Abstain votes makes it look like we side-stepped the issue. OK, we can say we didn't vote "for it" per se, but we sure can't say we voted against it, either, and for that reason it will look like we endorse the notion that CW "is no longer relevant to the healthy future of amateur radio." 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9405] Re: Thoughts on an intro license
by Mike Raisbeck 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

Hi Greg et al. The designs for interesting QRP rigs are out there, as are kits, as are some very fine ready-built ones (Yaesu FT-817, Tentec Argonaut, etc.) One of the advantages of this license proposal is that more such radios might well be produced. These should be cheaper (by how much I don't know) than 100/200 Watt radios, assuming the knee in the production curves were reached. 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: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:53 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9390] Re: Thoughts on an intro license I like Mike's Communicators license proposal. One problem is where do we come up with lots and lots and lots of 5 watt rigs? Are there many QRP rigs with phone capability? I know little of QRP (I really have never worked it intentionally). We'd have to have lots of inexpensive such rigs if we are to get those LOTS of people on the air. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9404] Other IARU AC actions
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

The news release announcing the results of the 6-8 September IARU Administrative Council meeting in Amsterdam will be released shortly. A pre-release copy is at the end of this message. One of the decisions the Administrative Council took in Amsterdam was with regard to the existing Resolution 01-1 on Morse testing. The resolution adopted in Guatemala spoke in terms of reducing the speed to 5 wpm as an interim step and dropping the international requirement. After WRC-03 the resolution either had to be deleted or amended. Deleting it would have meant that IARU policy was silent with regard to what should be done at the domestic level. The AC decided that the policy should not be silent, and amended the resolution to read as reproduced below. Rod (in his role as a Region 2 representative who is on the Region 2 EC by virtue of representing the ARRL) and I (in my role as the IARU Secretary appointed by the ARRL) abstained. Everyone else voted in favor. (PB2T, VE6SH, JJ1OEY, and W4RI were present as observers and did not have a vote.) I'm sure there will be a furor from some quarters. 73, Dave K1ZZ RESOLUTION 01-1 (Rev. 2003) concerning the Morse code The IARU Administrative Council, Amsterdam, September 2003, considering the approval without opposition of Recommendation ITU-R M.1544, which sets out the minimum qualifications of radio amateurs, recognizing that the Morse code continues to be an effective and efficient mode of communication used by many thousands of radio amateurs, but further recognizing that the position of Morse as a qualifying criterion for an HF amateur license is no longer relevant to the healthy future of amateur radio, resolves that IARU policy is to support the removal of Morse code testing as a requirement for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz. NEWS RELEASE International Amateur Radio Union P.O. Box 310905 Newington, CT 06131-0905 USA FAX: +1 860 594 0259 E-Mail: iaru(a)iaru.org <mailto:iaru@iaru.org> 10 September 2003 For immediate release IARU Council Addresses Strategic Issues The Administrative Council of the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) held its annual meeting on 6-8 September 2003 in Amsterdam. The meeting was to be held in Taipei in conjunction with the IARU Region 3 Conference but was moved to Amsterdam when the Region 3 Conference had to be postponed to next year as a result of travel restrictions arising from concerns about SARS. The Council took the following actions: 1. Four hours of the meeting were devoted to a strategic planning session with a planning horizon of the year 2010. Several key issues that are likely to influence the future of the IARU were identified. A report is to be drafted and circulated for further consideration by the Council early in 2004. 2. The results of the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference concerning the amateur and amateur-satellite services were reviewed in detail. The Council congratulated and thanked all individuals and organizations who contributed to the satisfactory outcome. IARU member-societies were urged to bring to the attention of their administrations the desirability of adopting specific changes in their domestic regulations for the amateur and amateur-satellite services, so that they will be consistent with the revised Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations. 3. The Council revised an existing Resolution concerning the Morse code in the light of the WRC-03 decision to leave to each administration the question of whether or not to require a demonstration of Morse skill to operate below 30 MHz. Under the revised Resolution, IARU policy is to support the removal of Morse code testing requirements. 4. A working document describing the spectrum requirements for radio spectrum allocations to the amateur and amateur-satellite services was reviewed and updated, particularly to reflect the results of WRC-03. One result of WRC-03 was the adoption of a recommended agenda for the next WRC presently scheduled for 2007. The agenda includes two items of interest to the amateur service: a review of allocations between 4 and 10 MHz and a possible secondary low-frequency amateur allocation at 136 kHz. While considerable progress was made at WRC-03 toward fulfilling amateur service spectrum requirements at 7 MHz, the requirements were not fully satisfied and there may be an opportunity to revisit the issue at WRC-07. 5. The ITU meetings at which IARU representation will be required for the coming year were identified, and plans for representation were reviewed. The IARU will participate in meetings within Study Group 1 of the ITU Radiocommunication Sector concerning the interference potential of high data rate telecommunication systems using power lines (variously referred to as PLC, PLT, and BPL). 6. The budget for 2004-2006 was presented by the International Secretariat (ARRL). The budget includes provision for financial contributions from the three regional organizations to defray a portion of the expenses, in accordance with previously adopted policy. The Council thanked the International Secretariat for its continuing financial support of the IARU. 7. Council reaffirmed the importance of World Amateur Radio Day, celebrated each year on 18 April, as an opportunity to present a positive image of Amateur Radio to the general public. World Amateur Radio Day marks the anniversary of the founding of the IARU in 1925. 8. Preparations for the IARU exhibit at the upcoming ITU TELECOM World 2003 (Geneva) were reviewed. TELECOM World 2003 is the world's largest telecommunications exhibition and is visited by many telecommunications administrators and other important officials. 9. Reports of volunteer IARU international coordinators and advisers were received. At the request of the IARU Satellite Adviser, policies concerning frequency coordination of satellites operating in the amateur-satellite service bands were clarified. In response to the increased emphasis placed on emergency and disaster relief communications in Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations, the new volunteer position of IARU Disaster Communications Adviser was created. 10. The International Secretariat presented nominations of candidates for President and Vice President for the 2004-2009 term, and the nominations were unanimously endorsed by the Council. Larry E. Price, W4RA, was nominated for a second term as President. Timothy S. Ellam, VE6SH/G4HUA, was nominated as Vice President. The nominations will be submitted to the IARU member-societies for ratification. 11. Retiring Vice President David A. Wardlaw, VK3ADW, was recognized for his long and devoted service to the IARU. 12. The Council requested that the ARRL, as the contest organizer, have its Contest Advisory Committee consider the merits of proposals for changes in the rules of the IARU HF World Championship. 13. The next scheduled meeting of the Council will be held in Trinidad & Tobago on 2-4 October 2004, following the Conference of IARU Region 2. Attending the Amsterdam meeting were IARU President Larry Price, W4RA; Vice President David Wardlaw, VK3ADW; Secretary David Sumner, K1ZZ; regional representatives Ole Garpestad, LA2RR, Don Beattie, G3BJ, Hans Blondeel Timmerman, PB2T, Pedro Seidemann, YV5BPG, Rod Stafford, W6ROD, Tim Ellam, VE6SH, Fred Johnson, ZL2AMJ, K. C. Selvadurai, 9V1UV, and Yoshiji Sekido, JJ1OEY; and recording secretary Paul Rinaldo, W4RI.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9403] FW: day brightener
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

I don't take up reflector bandwidth for these too often, but I thought this was worth relaying. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Texx [mailto:texx@delong.org] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 3:48 PM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Subject: day brightener My present consulting contract has me doing computer support for the USFS. In a recent casual office conversation, I mentioned being a ham. The response "Oh yeah, you and your ham buddies are sure bailing us outta trouble in Idaho & Montana..." brightened my day. Whats interesting is that the hams doing fire support in ID & MT are in a totally different region from our Region-5 (SF Bay Area) but the folks in "FIRE" out here know very well how helpful the hams out there are. The govt grapevine speaks well of us. Please share this message with the rest of the ARRL office and use it any way you feel best helps us in justifying our continued use of spectrum. -texx, R "Texx" Woodworth, kg6ath,

1 0