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

[ARRL-ODV:9511] ARRL.net and SPAM
by John Bellows 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

It is almost getting to the point where we Amateurs are talking and writing about Spam to such an extent that those communications are themselves becoming Spam. By the way todays trivia is that the name SPAM* was simply a trade name for spiced ham. SPAM* was created and produced just down the road in the hometown of the Austin Radio Club. Thats Austin, Minnesota not Texas. But I digress. As Barry noted there is an A&F Sub-Committee looking into the question of spam and arrl.net. The committee is comprised of one member of A&F and 3 other board members, all well versed in these issues and in asking the right questions. It seems to me the whole spam question exists on several levels. The first level deals with decisions by providers such as AOL and Earthlink about what constitutes spam. Some providers have stopped or filtered arrl.net messages as spam. With few exceptions the providers have after discussion with HQ folks and sometimes with customers that the restrictions on arrl.net messages should be lifted. Others, such as Earthlink, may take a hard nosed stance and continue to hold those messages for their customers. The bottom line is that this is a world of choices. If the Provider continues to stop arrl.net messages the customer/arrl.net user has a choice to make. He or she can choose to stay with the Provider and forego the arrl.net forwarding service, switch to one of the multitude of arrl.net friendly providers or put pressure on ARRL to impose a higher level of spam filtering as the messages pass through the forwarding service. By the way, in some instances the ISPs are not saying that its all spam, in some instances they are also saying that there's too much of it (based on their own measures) coming through arrl.net. At the next level of the individual user each internet and email user makes a choice as to how to deal with spam as in it received. Some users choose to let it flow in every day and be a constant irritant. Others such as W7OZ enjoy zapping it with the delete key. Still others such as WØCP choose to use one of the freeware programs available on the net to automatically deal with the vast majority of spam flowing their way. I think Walt uses MAILWASHER. The point is each person has the ability to deal with spam that comes knocking at the door. Some will choose not to do anything and expect others (in our case ARRL) to make the choice for them. I also understand that some providers like Earthlink allow "personalization" of the spam filtering product they offer their customers. This is one of the real irritants in the Earthlink situation. They have a product to let their customers decide but yet their not allowing messages to get to the program by blocking at the front door. So the question comes down to what should we ARRL do about solving the problem for members who choose to continue with Providers that shut down or delay arrl.net messages and those members who chose not to employ free spam filter programs or free use of the delete key? We could choose to employ a high level of spam filtering prior to forwarding messages. If we do that we run the risk of establishing a set of criteria that will zap a message one of the members wants to receive. That would put us back in the same conflict we are currently having with Earthlink. The only difference would be that now we would be wearing the black hat. The next question is how do we pay for any higher level of filtering? This may be exceedingly difficult in light of strategy D6 which was adopted as part of the new Strategic plan i.e. Develop a Board policy that states all new programs and services must have a business plan and minimally break-even financially. As previously noted there is a committee of knowledgeable and dedicated board members currently working on this precise question. I am hopeful they can find a way to address this that we can afford. That may or may not be possible. If we give them a little time to work on this I am confidant have more information as to the available options and be in a much better position to decide how to deal with this ongoing problem. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9510] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

I don't follow your Wright Brothers analogy, Chris. Be that as it may, let me just repeat for ODV what I have previously said to you about what would constitute a satisfactory outcome: I think a satisfactory outcome for us on the BPL NOI would be a finding by the FCC that BPL is not viable below 30 MHz and cannot be permitted there because of the high potential for interference, and that if it is to be permitted above 30 MHz the 50-54 MHz band has to be notched. This would have to be coupled with a reaffirmation that BPL operation is strictly on a non-interference basis, and that any instances of harmful interference to licensed radio services have to be immediately resolved by the BPL operator. However, this outcome would not satisfy the concerns of some of our coalition partners and potential partners -- the NAB and APCO, for instance. It also seems unlikely to me that it would satisfy the BPL interests, although of course I wouldn't shed any tears over that. If we're serious about a coalition I don't see how we can leave the interests of the coalition partners out of the equation. Also, until more work is done on the potential for out-of-band interference -- particularly harmonics, which could affect two meters among other bands -- we should stay aligned with NTIA's concerns on that score. At least some members who work there think there is a potential for creating a "negative buzz" about BPL on Wall Street such that potential investors would shy away from it. I see no reason to discourage that line of thinking. The utilities can do more with fiber-to-the-home than they can with BPL. Why not encourage them to foresake BPL and go directly to fiber? Do we have the horsepower to make either of these things happen? No. But we can plant some seeds. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Imlay, Chris (ARRL Counsel) Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9502] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 9/25/2003 4:07:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: But my favorite example is March 1988 QST: "TV Answer: What Was the Question?" A quote from that editorial: "Once in a while an idea comes along that is so preposterous, and the actions of its proponents so outrageous, that no amount of human charity can put a reasonable face on it -- or on the actions of those who would even take it seriously." Well, to continue the debate, Dave, telecom and utility people most certainly DO take BPL seriously, to the extent that a lot of money is going into advocating it. It is really easy to see that the FCC is going to want to push the concept to the extent of at least allowing the industry to try to make a competitive service play. I don't think it will; you don't and we on this reflector don't. But where is our ability to cause those advocating it to cease and desist? I don't think it exists. All this leads me to suggest that, if we can allow FCC to limit BPL to the bands 30-88 MHz, and to "notch" (an inappropriate term, apparently) 6 meters, we should be in a position to allow ourselves to declare victory. As Ed Thomas put it, the success or failiure of BPL is not the FCC's job; they think they have to facilitate the initiation of a competitive service. If they can do so in a way that is responsive to our very legitimate and urgent concerns, I think we ought to step back and let them fail at the attempt. It is like the Federal Government prohibiting both the Wright Brothers and Otto Lilienthal from aviation experimentation. Sure, they could have saved Otto's life in the process, but they would have prohibited the Wright Brothers too. That seems to be their thinking. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9509] Re: Fwd: Today is his 103rd birthday ...
by R. B. Vallio 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

My "new" card will be in the mail to him on Friday morning. A great idea. 73, Bob W6RGG ----- Original Message ----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:36 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9505] Fwd: Today is his 103rd birthday ... I think it would be nice if we sent him a QSL card from each of us. I will be sending tomorrow a letter of congratulations (official letter head). Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9508] Re: November QST Editorial
by R. B. Vallio 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

November QST EditorialMaybe you should send a copy of this to Abernathy! Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 7:50 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9481] November QST Editorial The attachment is the November QST editorial, written on the basis of member feedback to the October editorial. Dave <<It Seems QS-0311.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9507] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by W5JBP＠aol.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Thanks for the information Rick. As an informational point, I am traveling down to Austin Monday to meet with the Texas Public Utilities Commission to talk about BPL. Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9506] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by K5ur＠aol.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

In a message dated 9/25/2003 3:25:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, W5JBP writes: > Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. > > I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is > a public relations hype. > > 73 > > Jim Haynie, W5JBP _____________________ Interesting point. I had a ham that works for a co-op elec co tell me at a hamfest over the weekend that BPL will be so costly for the power co that it will only be provided in the cities and then quite limited for years due to the costs. What struck me was how unconcerned he was about the issue. He basically said that we (ARRL) were getting concerned over an issue that is not nearly as impacting of the masses as we've led people to believe. I didn't agree with him but thanked him for the info. Take that for what it's worth, as info from a ham that is an engineering mgr for one of the co-ops. 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9505] Fwd: Today is his 103rd birthday ...
by W5JBP＠aol.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

I think it would be nice if we sent him a QSL card from each of us. I will be sending tomorrow a letter of congratulations (official letter head). Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9504] A Curious Thought about BPL
by Mike Raisbeck 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Hello All, I'm intrigued that we haven't heard much from the cable industry concerning BPL. If they felt it to be a competative threat, I suspect they would be squalking loudly by now. Ms. Abernathy's speech may hold a clue. She made mention of the removal of regulatory restrictions that would be possible if BPL were to join the competative fray: "As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LEC's broadband services as if they were the only available offerings." The cable people, I'm sure, have studied the technical feasability of BPL, and, I suspect, they are not afraid of it in the least. However, they may very well see it as the lever to remove restrictions upon their own industry. Given the anti-regulation mindset (insofar as it affects business interests, but not, of course, as it affects individual rights ;-) that the current administration has displayed, "competition from BPL" should more than enough of an excuse for the FCC to do exactly what the cable industry wants. Cheers, 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.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9502] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by W3KD＠aol.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

In a message dated 9/25/2003 4:07:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > > But my favorite example is March 1988 QST: "TV Answer: What Was the > Question?" A quote from that editorial: "Once in a while an idea comes along that is > so preposterous, and the actions of its proponents so outrageous, that no > amount of human charity can put a reasonable face on it -- or on the actions of > those who would even take it seriously." > > Well, to continue the debate, Dave, telecom and utility people most certainly DO take BPL seriously, to the extent that a lot of money is going into advocating it. It is really easy to see that the FCC is going to want to push the concept to the extent of at least allowing the industry to try to make a competitive service play. I don't think it will; you don't and we on this reflector don't. But where is our ability to cause those advocating it to cease and desist? I don't think it exists. All this leads me to suggest that, if we can allow FCC to limit BPL to the bands 30-88 MHz, and to "notch" (an inappropriate term, apparently) 6 meters, we should be in a position to allow ourselves to declare victory. As Ed Thomas put it, the success or failiure of BPL is not the FCC's job; they think they have to facilitate the initiation of a competitive service. If they can do so in a way that is responsive to our very legitimate and urgent concerns, I think we ought to step back and let them fail at the attempt. It is like the Federal Government prohibiting both the Wright Brothers and Otto Lilienthal from aviation experimentation. Sure, they could have saved Otto's life in the process, but they would have prohibited the Wright Brothers too. That seems to be their thinking. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9501] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Well, even I don't think I would go as far as Dick has suggested. As a whole, consumers would tend to value the HF spectrum a lot less than we do. Something to chew on. Dave -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:54 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9496] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL 25 SEP, 2003 - 1550 CDT I'm quite certain we can document, with the right "PE stamps" on the paperwork that BPL would truly be RF pollution on a national scale. However, the Commissioners are going to ride this horse as far as they can drive it - in spite of "professional" proof that PBL is a badly flawed concept. I believe the only way this dragon can be truly slain is to make it politically unpopular to the point our federal legislators will again override the FCC as it just did in the commercial broadcast service. True, we are not equipped to mount a mass-media campaign aimed at the prospective users of BPL. But we should be able to get consumer groups on the warpath by documenting for them that BPL cannot be the ubiquitous, low cost, high-speed broad band Internet link because its physical limitations reduce signal bandwidth/throughput and make it far more costly, than hyped by its proponents, to serve widely scattered customers. Much of Corporate America is in deservedly disrepute with many of our citizens today. If consumer organizations (Consumers' Union, AARP, etc.) were to really spread the word that BPL is a greatly overstated proposal that cannot provide a competitive Internet communications service, will endanger our national security, and will only enrich a few CEO's, I believe the necessary "critical mass" can be achieved and it will crush this proposal. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0