January 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10006] Draft Petition for Rule Making, Article 25, and Appendix.
by W3KD＠aol.com 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Greetings. Here is the draft Petition for Rule Making that we would propose to file at FCC upon Board approval. I would like to file it quickly. This draft has been vetted to President Haynie, Vice President Harrison, EVP Sumner, and we drew heavily on the expertise of Bart Jahnke, without whose assistance this never would have been done right. Any surviving errors are not Bart's or Dave's or Jim's or Joel's. All helped edit this draft, but I made the final edits they provided. Frankly, I think this is pretty good. I attempted to address all of Director Goddard's anticipatory questions, all of which were incisive and shows that he has way too much time to devote to Part 97 rules analysis. Please check this out. I must leave for Tucson, AZ for a weekend meeting starting early Friday morning. If possible, it would be good to file this Thursday afternoon. Otherwise, we could hold it until Monday, should any Director require additional time. Your comments and critiques are welcome. Please, also, use the Frenaye/Goddard technique on Paul's and my Minute 64 draft petition and let us have the benefit of your wisdom on that, but not until after this Article 25 petition is put to bed. 73 to all, Chris Imlay, W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10005] Technician vs. General written exams
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Joel Harrison has suggested that I give you all some ammunition to use in rebutting the argument against merging the Technician license into General. The principal argument is that, bearing in mind that we're trying to complete a streamlining of the license structure that will still make sense a decade from now, no one seems able to justify a need for more than three license classes. If you accept the argument that a new entry-level license is needed (which seems pretty compelling to those who think it through) and the argument that the Extra is fine the way it is, there's only one license class left. So what do we do with everyone who's between Novice and Extra? We've demonstrated pretty conclusively that the Advanced and Extra are close enough to be merged -- even the FCC admitted that, although they didn't follow through and do it in 98-143. Once that's done, Technician, Tech Plus, and General are left. "Original" Technicians who passed the old Element 3 exam already have been upgraded to General, if they bothered to complete the paperwork. The present Technician (Element 2) and General (Element 3) written exams had their genesis in the old Element 3, which (until 1987) was the same written exam for both Technician and General. When Element 3 was split to create separate written exams for Technician and General, the two halves initially were called 3A and 3B respectively. The two exams were (and are) similar in difficulty, the main difference being that the Technician exam is mostly (but not exclusively) about VHF and higher and the General exam is about HF. Bart Jahnke sums it up as follows: Technician - The Technician pool has had a primary focus of VHF and above, based on the uniqueness of its operating privileges. Since passing a 5 WPM Morse code exam extends additional HF band privileges to Technicians, and as the 5 WPM Morse code test does not include with it an HF question pool and related written exam, the Technician pool therefore also includes some limited HF operating questions--generally relevant to the 80/40/15 CW subbands and the 10-meter CW/Data/Phone subband. General - The General pool has a primary focus of HF operating procedures and practices. HF propagation is also covered in greater detail. The general pool has no graphics. We have to concede that someone who has earned a General license since 1987 has passed one more written exam than someone who has earned a Technician or Tech Plus license since that time. But the exam wasn't harder than the first, only different -- and the first exam was not devoid of HF coverage. I hope this helps. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10004] 2004 Travel Expense Form
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Enclosed is a new version of the travel expense reimbursement form for 2004 that has been updated to include the new mileage rate of $0.375 per mile. 73, Barry, N1VXY <<2004TVLEXP.xls>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10003] FW: League No-Code Proposal
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

David Coursey, N5FDL, is Executive Editor of ZDNet's Anchor Desk online newsletter. You may remember his column from last October: "Broadband from the electric company? No thanks" Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:32 AM To: 'David Coursey' Subject: RE: League No-Code Proposal David, thanks very much for your supportive words. We expect to file the petition with the FCC in about a week. It would be great to get some exposure for the proposals outside the existing amateur radio community. While I came in via that route myself and understand the advantages, there are a couple of problems with a non-renewable Novice. One is FCC workload; if the license is non-renewable and not reobtainable, they have to keep track of that. If it's non-renewable but you can get it back by passing the test again, that adds processing. Because there are existing Novice licenses (and one of the objectives of the ARRL proposal is to clean up "legacy" license classes) they would have to be made non-renewable as well, which takes something away. Finally, if someone's needs are fully met by the Novice license (or whatever it ends up being called) it's debatable whether the public interest is served by forcing them "up or out." On the other hand, because there would be no Morse barrier between Novice and General we expect a fairly high incidence of upgrading. Another member has suggested that Novice call signs should be systematically assigned and Vanity calls reserved for General and Extra. That's not part of the ARRL proposal, but is an interesting idea; we do know that attractive call signs turned out to be a big incentive for some to go for the Extra. Thanks again. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: David Coursey [mailto:david@coursey.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:58 AM To: K1ZZ(a)arrl.net Subject: League No-Code Proposal Hi Dave: I am not wild about the process that led us to this point-how many years did Morse Code remain a barrier?-but I wholeheartedly support the League's proposal to further streamline Amateur Radio licensing, I did not see this in the proposal, but was there any consideration of returning the "novice" license to non-renewable status, perhaps with a special set of callsigns? I think there is something to making the entry license a stepping-stone rather than a destination. On a related issue, I'd like to see more public service-related questions in the VE pools as a way of making sure licensees take their community responsibilities. Maybe someday we will have an "Extra" exam with options for tech or public service questions. Gee, take a first responder, an ARECC, and an ICS class and get an Extra license for free. :> That would really improve out skill level out in the field. This won't happen, but.... Anyway, the licensing proposal is leadership-quality work. The sort of stuff we pay our dues for. 73... David, N5FDL

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10002] Re: Fwd: New ARRL Proposal to FCC
by Tom Frenaye 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

So far the incoming messages have been more positive than negative (2:1). I particularly liked the one below. The part people particularly seem to like is the new level entry license - especially from those involved in teaching ham radio. -- Tom >From: "Peter" <netmastr(a)comcast.net> >To: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> >Subject: Re: New ARRL Proposal to FCC >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:32:16 -0500 > >Hi Tom, > >This proposal looks FANTASTIC. I thought that the licensing structure >should include HF privileges for all of the classes of license. This >proposal does that. I thought that the code should be retained for at least >the Extra license. It does that too. And finally, I thought that the >classes of license should provide incentive to upgrade. That is >accomplished too. > >I believe that this is the leadership position that I so hoped that the ARRL >could come up with. I would go so far as to call it brilliant. > >Even if the code is dropped completely by the FCC for all license classes >and this proposal is adopted, it is still a win-win situation for the >League. Now, I hope something happens sooner rather than later on this >issue. > >Thanks for the great work that you and others like you do for the League and >its members. > >73 de KI1I, >Peter ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10001] Re: The license restructuring story is up
by Joel Harrison 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

That was back when SNL was really good.......the "good ole days" >To once again over-quote Emily Latella (SNL of long ago), "Never mind." 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10000] Re: The license restructuring story is up
by Wade Walstrom 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Hi Dave! Well, it was a long Monday after a Board weekend and I was going by (tired) memory thinking I had it correct. To once again over-quote Emily Latella (SNL of long ago), "Never mind." 73, Wade W0EJ "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" wrote: > Hi Wade, > > No, 3800 is correct. Figure 2 in Document 39 had it incorrect as 3750. The band edge is now 3850, but we proposed that it be 3800 in RM-10413. > > 73, > Dave K1ZZ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Walstrom, Wade, W0EJ (DIR MW) > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 3:50 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9994] Re: The license restructuring story is up > > Hi Dave! > > I missed this in the copy of the press release I received yesterday, but the > correction to the proposed 80 meter phone allocation was not made. General > should start at 3850 rather than 3800. This was the basis for some of the > discussion at the Board meeting. > > 73, > > Wade W0EJ > > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9999] Re: DXAC
by Kay Craigie 19 Jan '04

19 Jan '04

The DXAC is already up in arms because they weren't consulted and the decision hasn't been explained to them. One said, "Maybe the board needs to be reminded that the DXAC exists." Maybe the DXAC needs to be reminded of what their role is! Just a thought. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9998] Re: PowerPoint Presentation
by Joel Harrison 19 Jan '04

19 Jan '04

That's a great idea, Andy. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy@andyoppel.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9989] Re: PowerPoint Presentation An excellent presentation. I'm thinking about the Section Managers who will likely be placed on the firing line at club meetings (perhaps as the target) more often than Directors and Vice Directors. If the Director and/or Vice Director walked the Section Managers through the Powerpoint slides (via a telephone conference call, for example) so they understand the talking points, would it be o.k. to then give them the presentation. As we have heard so many times before, communication with the Section Managers is essential to our overall success, and this issue seems more critical than most. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 05:45 AM 1/18/2004, you wrote: >Here is the edited PowerPoint presentation. > >As we go "on the road" to sell this plan, let's share our experiences -- >especially any questions you may encounter that give you any trouble. We >can work together to develop the best answers to the tough questions. > >73, >Dave, Joel, and Chris > > 73, Andy Oppel, N6AJO Vice Director, Pacific Division, ARRL n6ajo(a)arrl.org home: (510) 864-2299 cell: (510) 910-1508

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9997] Re: DXAC
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 19 Jan '04

19 Jan '04

Thanks, Rick. Wayne guessed that John would spill the beans and at last report was working on a news release about the change. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick (aol.com) Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:58 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9996] DXAC Hi All: I've heard that N4MM gave a statement to a DX Club that has posted the news on their reflector about our action to remove the IARU criteria from the DXCC Rules. This is just a "heads up" as the DXAC members will probably be asking you for details. Dave, it might be good to get something to the DXAC pronto since they, too, will be getting a lot of questions from members. I guess under the new Committee structure, it would go through Wade. 73, Rick - K5UR

1 0