October 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:11396] Bandwidth Proposal - Another view?
by Wade Walstrom 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

I do not share the opinion of my colleague from the Pacific Division that our bandwidth proposal is on the wrong track. The proposal is an excellent step, but the member comments have shown there is a need for some tweaking before we submit it to the FCC. However, there is another problem related to our proposal that has festered and now, I believe, requires an ARRL response. Recall, we all received a missive from Skip Teller on 9/20/2004 restating his opposition to the proposal (attached). Vice Director Mondro provided an excellent response to Teller's latest sour grapes on 9/22/2004 in ARRL-ODV:11259 which unfortunately, did not receive much comment or support from the Board. Also on 9/22/2004, Vice Director Oppel informed the Board in ARRL-ODV:11268 that Teller had taken his case to a "higher court": QRZ.com. A QRZ.com article written by ARRL member AG4YO pushed Teller's counter case hard while totally incorrectly stating that ARRL members had no say in the current proposal (quite a claim to make in the middle of the ARRL member review and comment period!) and implying that the Board is once again ramming another issue down the throats of the membership. I have received several responses from Midwest Division members demanding that Teller's counter proposal be posted and acknowledged by ARRL and wondering why the Board is not listening to the membership (again, a curious concern in the midst of the ARRL member review and comment period!). Going back to the QRZ.com thread shows where this "thought process" is coming from. (Could this be what you are seeing in the Pacific Division, Bob?) Now, emboldened by his support on QRZ.com, Teller has restated counter proposal to the Board in his e-mail of 10/11/2004 (attached). Vice Director Mondro, in his role as ARESCOM chairman, has been deflecting criticism of the proposal, ARESCOM, and ARRL fairly regularly since Teller popped off in September and seems to be growing weary of the task when there seems to be little response or interest from the Board. See Dick's response to Director Goddard which I received 10/13/2004(attached). I normally do not take what is posted on QRZ.com too seriously. There are a lot conspiracy theorists who have a forum there and the quality of material I find there reminds me of the now defunct 73 magazine. Much of the input there concerning our bandwidth proposal is no exception to my early observations. However, because of the level of misinformation, distortion, and other falsehoods posted there regarding our proposal and the responses from otherwise good folks from this division alone who seem to be taken in by Teller and his ilk on QRZ.com, I think a response to this misinformation is required by ARRL. I propose that ARRL Chief Technical Officer Paul Rinaldo formulate a brief response to Teller's flawed proposal (hopefully it can be brief) for posting on QRZ.com. Vice Director Mondro has already countered many of Teller's proposal points and I am sure he would not mind that his response be included. We must state the facts of our proposal so that the more open minded folks who frequent QRZ.com (not intended to be an oxymoron) would understand the flaws in Teller's proposal and why the Board gave it the attention it deserved last year. I do not expect to sway those who view the Board as the amateur radio anti-christ and other conspiracy theorists. There are ARRL members who frequent QRZ.com whose opinions of ARRL and the Board are being poisoned by Teller and others and I fear that number is not small. As I said earlier, I normally do not take the QRZ.com threads too seriously but ARRL is being damaged by the misinformation on this issue. Should we risk serious damage to the organization when a factual response would help set the record straight? Let's fine tune our bandwidth proposal based on the thoughtful member comments received. However, before the proposal is submitted to the FCC, the Teller misinformation must be dealt with. This should be a discussion topic at the Executive Committee meeting this weekend. 73, Wade W0EJ Subject: Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:13:01 -0400 From: "Howard Teller" <hteller(a)comcast.net> To: <k5rav(a)arrl.org>, <n5ok(a)arrl.org>, <nz6t(a)arrl.org>, <w6xd(a)arrl.org>, <w4ru(a)arrl.org>, <w4rh(a)arrl.org>, <ws7w(a)arrl.org>, <w0cp(a)arrl.org>, <k4nk(a)arrl.org>, <w4pwf(a)arrl.org>, <n6ajo(a)arrl.org>, <w6rgg(a)arrl.org>, <k9jf(a)arrl.org>, <w7oz(a)arrl.org>, <k1twf(a)arrl.org>, <k1ki(a)arrl.org>, <k0bj(a)arrl.org>, <w0ej(a)arrl.org>, <ka2anf(a)arrl.org>, <n2ff(a)arrl.org>, <w8fqt(a)arrl.org>, <k8je(a)arrl.org>, <wd4q(a)arrl.org>, <k5ur(a)arrl.org>, <n0jph(a)arrl.org>, <k0qb(a)arrl.org>, <k9km(a)arrl.org>, <w9gig(a)arrl.org>, <n3llr(a)arrl.org>, <n3efn(a)arrl.org> CC: "Jim Haynie" <W5JBP(a)aol.com>, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> September 20, 2004 To all ARRL Division Directors and Vice Directors: Two weeks have now passed without any response to my two emails to ARRL President, Jim Haynie, asking whether or not you were given the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation for reference when you reviewed the planned petition to the FCC to regulate subbands by bandwidth instead of by emission mode. So, to be sure you are in possession of complete information as you decide whether or not to continue to support the proposed petition, here is a link to the official Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation, which is part and parcel of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee output, as noted by the Committee chairman in the letter of transferal of the Committee report: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/committee/editedrecommendation.htm This version of the Dissenting Recommendation has been very slightly edited, in the introduction only, in order to forestall a second threat of a lawsuit unless it is recanted, which it will not be. You can refer to the original unedited Dissenting Recommendation passed to you electronically by Dave Sumner in March of 2003 if necessary. If you cannot locate the original document, this one should suffice, as only the introductory paragraph has been changed. Paul Rinaldo might agree to supply copies of the email exchanges of the committee members should you feel it necessary to confirm any details reported in the Dissenting Recommendation. Although Dave Sumner advised me by email when he electronically distributed the Dissenting Recommendation to all of you last March of 2003, I am sure a year later, when asked to support the proposed petition of which the Ad Hoc HF Digital committee output was a major input, you probably did not remember all that the Dissenting Recommendation said unless you were provided with another copy in July 2004. The ARRL proposed petition, which appears to be based on only the majority recommendation of the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, proposes to legislate the following changes to the amateur radio bands: 1. The entire 160 meter band could be blanketed with unattended Pactor-III robot transmitters if so desired. 2. All of the SSB phone bands could be blanketed with unattended Pactor-III robot transmitters if so desired. 3. PSK31 operations would be forced down into the CW activity regions in order to escape the interference from unattended Pactor-II robot transmitters that currently avoid some of the PSK31 activity area, effectively reducing the available space for CW-only activity. 4. A multitude of HF Packet networks, supported by public service volunteer radio amateurs, that depend upon autoforwarding on the airwaves, would be instantly legislated out of existence by making autoforwarding on the air illegal. 5. SSB phone operators, already faced with insufficient space to accommodate all users, would be barred from large segments of the bands in order to protect wideband digital modes, such as unattended Pactor-III email robots, from any interference by SSB phone, but which is not in turn afforded any protection from interference by unattended Pactor-III, Pactor-II, or Pactor-I email robots. The following is a quote from a bulletin that has been placed, as of September 3, 2004, on the Winlink 2000 servers by the Winlink Network Administrator: "One of the purposes of the proposed Petition is to open up more spectrum for digital modes such as those used by Winlink 2000." You must study the Dissenting Recommendation carefully to decide if you think this is necessary or not. The correct answer hinges on whether or not the increased speed of Pactor-III over Pactor-II is worthwhile, using five times the bandwidth as Pactor-II, for an average overall speed gain (for typical-length emails) of only 30%. Because that increased demand for spectrum has to be taken out of space already allocated to everyone else (currently kept free by FCC regulation from interference by digital signals), it will have to be taken from all the already crowded SSB phone segments of the bands. The following is from the copyrighted press release posted online by the ARRL on August 25, 2004: "The draft petition represents expert input from the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, which submitted its report prior to the Board's July 2003 meeting." Note that the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee was chaired by Victor Poor, W5SMM, who is also the architect of the Winlink 2000 network, who is also the author of the committee report. Note also that the draft petition "represents" the expert input from the Committee, implying that the two are very much one and the same, but the charter of the Committee, and the terms of reference, did not include any bandplan, as it addressed *only* Minute 63, and it was Minute 64 that addressed the need for a bandplan. The Committee was without expert representation for operators of modes other than digital modes, and therefore was not qualified to submit a bandplan that affected all other modes, such as SSB phone. Winlink 2000 uses Pactor-I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III digital modes for operating a wide-scale network of unattended Pactor robot transmitters as email gateways to the Internet for less than 5000 users (representing less than 1% of the FCC-licensed radio amateurs). Yet all of the HF frequencies, except for the CW activity regions, would now be opened to unrestricted use by unattended Pactor-I, Pactor-II, or Pactor-III robot transmitters that do not share frequencies, cannot and do not listen first for a clear frequency, and cannot and do not, respond to a request to QSY. Perhaps it was not clear just how exponentially cross-mode QRM will increase if the proposed petition actually goes forward. Because digital modes and SSB phone modes cannot understand each other, they cannot negotiate for the use of a frequency, and therefore both will wind up always trying to use the same frequency at the same time, with no way to resolve the conflict. When there was only phone and CW, and all radio amateurs understood CW, the two different modes could cross-communicate, so CW was permitted in the phone segments of the bands. CW and phone are understood by LISTENING on the frequency, but digital modes used for text transfer are understood by READING text on a computer screen, and don't absolutely require listening to the frequency at all. As a result, they cannot successfully be mixed with CW and phone, as intended by the proposed petition, because the digital operator may not even have the ability or need to listen on the frequency. This is especially true for Winlink 2000 operations, which are necessarily channelized on predetermined, advertised, meeting frequencies, so there is not even a need to listen on a frequency for tuning in a station. 73, Skip Teller, KH6TY Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee member cc: Jim Haynie, Dave Sumner Subject: A Simple Solution Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:08:55 -0400 From: "Skip Teller" <hteller(a)comcast.net> To: <k5rav(a)arrl.org>, <n5ok(a)arrl.org>, <nz6t(a)arrl.org>, <w6xd(a)arrl.org>, <w4ru(a)arrl.org>, <w4rh(a)arrl.org>, <ws7w(a)arrl.org>, <w0cp(a)arrl.org>, <k4nk(a)arrl.org>, <w4pwf(a)arrl.org>, <n6ajo(a)arrl.org>, <w6rgg(a)arrl.org>, <k9jf(a)arrl.org>, <w7oz(a)arrl.org>, <k1twf(a)arrl.org>, <k1ki(a)arrl.org>, <k0bj(a)arrl.org>, <w0ej(a)arrl.org>, <ka2anf(a)arrl.org>, <n2ff(a)arrl.org>, <w8fqt(a)arrl.org>, <k8je(a)arrl.org>, <wd4q(a)arrl.org>, <k5ur(a)arrl.org>, <n0jph(a)arrl.org>, <k0qb(a)arrl.org>, <k9km(a)arrl.org>, <w9gig(a)arrl.org>, <n3llr(a)arrl.org>, <n3efn(a)arrl.org> CC: "Jim Haynie" <W5JBP(a)aol.com>, <bandwidth(a)arrl.org>, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> Gentlemen, On October 7, I sent an outline of a very simple solution to the interference problem caused by unattended Pactor mailbox stations to Jim Haynie, but I do not know if it arrived, if he has seen it, or if you have received a copy from Jim, as I have received no acknowledgement. Therefore, to be sure you have this information, I am distributing it myself to all of you. This solution is fully supported with accurate current factual data with reference links, as Jim Haynie has asked all of us to do instead of just making an emotional appeal. The solution, presented in this document, amounts to nothing more than just requiring that ALL unattended operations (of any sort), be required to stay in an appropriately-sized space, away from all other operations, so they can be avoided, and so they will not interfere with others. What could be more simple! This is certainly not asking for very much on the behalf of the 99% of FCC-licensed radio amateurs who can just send email from home instead of having to use the Winlink 2000 network, is it? Additional high levels of ARESCOM traffic would still be able to pass over the current Winlink network unimpeded, as the load factor of the Winlink network appears to be averaging only about 30% or so (dependent on time of day and propagation), using the current number of Winlink channels. This should be subject to confirmation with hard data, of course, and if necessary and properly justified, more channels could be allocated, but in a contiguous manner, so there is no return to the current QRM problem. I suggest that you please first consider this essential separation BEFORE you address the segmentation of bandwidth issues, so there will not be any confusion between the two, as there currently is among the membership. In case attachments are blocked on your end, here is a link to the same document: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/simplesolution.htm . After you study this document, please just ask yourself, "Why not!". Thank you for your attention. 73, Skip KH6TY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: simplesolution.htm simplesolution.htm Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html) Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Mondro" <w8fqt(a)arrl.org> To: "Art Goddard" <w6xd(a)comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 7:01 PM Subject: RE: A Simple Solution > Art, > > Has it really developed a determined opposition, or is it the same guy, > who's committee all voted against him because he is wrong? Is the balance of > the HF Digital Committee all wrong? If so why then did the BOD embrace their > opinion? > > Tellers current factual data is not fact and is in error. Simple math and a > little intelligence proves it! > > Sub-bands are no longer necessary and are very restrictive. His logic > regarding how many Winlink stations will fit in a sub-band is absurd. His 30 > percent increase in efficiency for P3 is not true. He is trying his best > to kill the concept of bands by bandwidth. He is also suggesting that > Winlink be put in sub-bands because he claims it is a machine-to-machine > forwarding service, which is not true. Winlink 2000 is initiated by human > beings. > > He is like a child that did not get his way. His tactic is to raise enough > hell to try to reverse what the HF digital committee, the ARRL Staff, and > the BOD relatively independently determined was the proper course. > He is attempting to turn his dissenting view into the majority plan, and > have it his way. He is also suggesting the deletion of Pactor 3 since he > claims it is only 30 percent faster than Pactor 2. 3600 bps is not 30 > percent greater than 800 bps. Pactor 3 is by far the most efficient and > effective digital mode known today. > > > His plan would totally kill any future experimentation with digital data > transfer. Only the interactive modes would be left such as CW, RTTY, PSK-31, > MT63, and the other such conversational modes. Data transfer would be dead > on the ham bands. Do we want to join the 21st. Century or go back in time? I > have spent two weeks answering questions of this kind because this person is > posting his misinformation to qrz.com and people are believing him without > checking the real facts. The board does not seem to want to take the > initiative to respond to this guy and I am not a spokesperson for the board, > the EVP is. I have wasted too much time on this and I have more important > things to do. People can use WL2K if they wish or not use it, it's their > choice and their loss if they do not. We are offering an option here that > works and is being embraced by more people than we have time to work with. > There are numerous articles in QST including one in November on WL2K in the > jungle. > > Art, I posted a response to Tellers accusations on the ODV several weeks ago > and only one person was concerned enough to respond. Does anyone out there > really care that the idiots of the world are taking pot shots at the BOD? I > do and it upsets me greatly but everyone else seems to be pre-occupied with > other things. > > Has anyone thought of asking Paul Rinaldo what he thinks about all this? He > is our chief technology officer, why not ask him what he thinks? Better yet, > why not ask Teller to prove his claims rather than ask me to dis-prove them? > > My thoughts Art, thanks for asking, but I do resent being looked upon as the > bad guy here. When I am asked to do a job, it would be nice if I had some > support. Jim Weaver has been supportive, but that's not enough. > > 73, Dick > > Dick Mondro, W8FQT > Vice Director > ARRL, Great Lakes Division > w8fqt(a)arrl.org > http://greatlakes.arrl.org >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11395] Re: Pactor Robots
by Jim K8JE 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

Dick, Being rather without fear, I answer (if I can) even the "I don't like it" form of comments. My answer is simply that it is not helpful to say one is against something without indicating the reason for the displeasure. I was pleasantly surprised at the responses I received in nearly all instances. In nearly all instances, replies came back in civil tones and contained logical reasons. Some of the reasons were ill-founded and some folks didn't answer. I think I can safely say that most of the "aginits" were surprised they received a civil answer that showed interest in their views. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:18 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11393] Re: Pactor Robots 13 OCT, 2004 - 1705 CDT Hello Dave Patton... First of all, thanks for doing the initial screening and sorting of all the bandwidth petition comments. As a general rule, I have been trying to answer the thoughtful, detailed comments - even the purely negative ones. But I do not have the time or the inclination to respond to someone who says "drop it" with no supporting arguments. I read that kind of input as being equivalent to "Don't confuse me with the facts as my mind is already made up." Besides, I don't want to get into a dialog with a man with the last name of Genovese. I don't want any offers I can't refuse. <grin> 73 - Dick, W9GIG ====================================================================== Subject: FW: pactor robots Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:08:47 -0400 From: "Patton, David NN1N" <nn1n(a)arrl.org> To: "Isely, Dick (Dir, Central)" <grisely(a)speakeasy.net> Not acked, just checking to see if you want to follow up with this? -----Original Message----- From: Joseph.A.Genovese(a)abbott.com [mailto:Joseph.A.Genovese@abbott.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:53 PM To: bandwidth Subject: pactor robots I'm totally against it. Why don't you guys work other issues, i.e ant. regs. BPL etc. Joe WA9KOD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11394] Latest ARRL Web Site BPL Posting
by dick＠pobox.com 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

ARRL Asks FCC Chairman to Recuse Himself from BPL Vote NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 13, 2004--The ARRL has asked FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell to recuse himself from participating October 14 when the full Commission considers a broadband over power line (BPL) Report and Order in the proceeding, ET Docket 04-37. The League alleges Powell broke the Commission's own ex parte rules by appearing at a broadband over power line (BPL) demonstration in Manassas, Virginia, just two days before the FCC meeting. In general, Sunshine Agenda rules prohibit any such contacts between the FCC and stakeholders once a proceeding has formally been placed on the FCC agenda. "It's a glaring, glaring violation of the ex parte rules," ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, asserted today. Because of the short fuse involved, Imlay filed the <http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/13/1/BPL-Motion-for-Recusal.pdf>Motion for Recusal of Chairman Michael K. Powell October 12 via e-mail on an "emergency basis." The petition asks that Powell recuse himself from participating in the BPL proceeding, "both generally and specifically," at the October 14 meeting. Powell, an open proponent of BPL, played host to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Pat Wood III as they toured various sites in Manassas, the site of a BPL field trial, and explained why BPL may be another broadband option. The ARRL's motion asserts that Powell "either knew or should have known that his participation in that presentation is in clear violation of Section 1.1203 of the Commission's Rules." As a result, the League said, the FCC's consideration of a Report and Order in the proceeding "is irrevocably tainted." The FCC released its October 14 meeting agenda on Thursday, October 7. The ARRL learned the following day that Powell and Wood were planning to attend the BPL demonstration. The City of Manassas is running a BPL field trial on its municipal power system. The ARRL immediately protested via e-mail "in the strongest possible terms," but did not receive any response until October 12, since Monday, October 11, was a federal holiday for Columbus Day. Imlay said he finally heard back from two staffers in the FCC Office of General Counsel who said that the attendance by Powell and Powell's legal aide was legal under an exception to the ex parte rules spelled out in Section 1.1204, Subsection 10, of the FCC's rules. For more information on BPL, visit the "<http://www.arrl.org/bpl/>Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) and Amateur Radio" page on the ARRL Web site.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11393] Re: Pactor Robots
by dick＠pobox.com 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

13 OCT, 2004 - 1705 CDT Hello Dave Patton... First of all, thanks for doing the initial screening and sorting of all the bandwidth petition comments. As a general rule, I have been trying to answer the thoughtful, detailed comments - even the purely negative ones. But I do not have the time or the inclination to respond to someone who says "drop it" with no supporting arguments. I read that kind of input as being equivalent to "Don't confuse me with the facts as my mind is already made up." Besides, I don't want to get into a dialog with a man with the last name of Genovese. I don't want any offers I can't refuse. <grin> 73 - Dick, W9GIG ====================================================================== Subject: FW: pactor robots Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:08:47 -0400 From: "Patton, David NN1N" <nn1n(a)arrl.org> To: "Isely, Dick (Dir, Central)" <grisely(a)speakeasy.net> Not acked, just checking to see if you want to follow up with this? -----Original Message----- From: Joseph.A.Genovese(a)abbott.com [mailto:Joseph.A.Genovese@abbott.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:53 PM To: bandwidth Subject: pactor robots I'm totally against it. Why don't you guys work other issues, i.e ant. regs. BPL etc. Joe WA9KOD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11392] FW: Reply to letter to Bob Vallio
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Bob Vallio asked me to reply to this member. His letter is atached. Maybe it will be of some help to others of you. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:44 PM To: 'k6dgw(a)arrl.net' Cc: Vallio, Bob (Dir, Pacific) Subject: Reply to letter to Bob Vallio Fred C Jensen, K6DGW 670 Old Airport Rd Auburn, CA 95603-9567 Dear Fred: Bob Vallio has forwarded your thoughtful September 4 letter to me and has asked me to reply. First, I am glad that you recognize the need for some changes in the rules. Simply leaving things the way they are and hoping for the best is not a responsible position for us to take as the national organization for Amateur Radio. The present rules were written at a time when virtually all amateur communication was analog. Provisions regarding digital emissions have been grafted on and are an inadequate guide as amateurs explore a wider range of digital possibilities. At present, with a few exceptions, there is no limit to the bandwidth that an amateur digital signal may occupy. The principal exception with regard to HF is that automatically controlled stations operating outside the narrow subbands designated for RTTY or data emissions under automatic control are limited to 500 Hz. Aside from that, the FCC rules permit them to operate anywhere in the CW/RTTY/data subbands, at any bandwidth, as long as the technical characteristics are documented publicly. The rules are also silent with regard to the bandwidth of a digital voice emission. While some amateurs may want to try digital voice similar to DRM (10 kHz bandwidth monaural, 20 kHz stereo), most would look askance at a single amateur station occupying that much of a limited HF resource. So, bandwidth limits are needed. Reasonable people can differ on what the limits should be and how much spectrum should be designated for which bandwidths. Another thing on which reasonable people can differ is how much should be determined by regulation and how much by "good practice" as a subset of the regulations. For example, you are quite right that analog and digital signals are poor co-channel sharing partners. On the other hand, federal regulations cannot be changed very quickly or easily to accommodate changes in operating patterns. The trend toward greater use of digital modes is likely to continue. Subbands are essentially a form of rationing. If subbands are established based on present operating patterns, activities that otherwise would grow in popularity will be starved for spectrum. On the other hand, if they are based on assumptions about future operating patterns they will still be wrong since the assumptions are unlikely to be entirely accurate. One of our self-imposed ground rules for the development of the draft bandwidth petition was that we would not reconsider decisions made by the ARRL Board with regard to "refarming" of the Novice bands, including the phone band expansions proposed at that time (and since proposed by the FCC in its NPRM in WT Docket 04-140). To address your specific questions: 1. This initiative began with the ARRL Board's direction at the July 2002 meeting "that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." Input was not limited to the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee, nor were all of that committee's recommendations reflected in the initial draft that was circulated to the ARRL Board members in January 2004. Other groups are working within the ARRL on different aspects of new technologies, under the umbrella of the Technology Task Force; these include the Digital Voice Working Group and the High-Speed and Multimedia (HSMM) Working Group. 2. The synopsis is not the complete petition. A draft petition does exist, but is the work product of our General Counsel and has not yet been released outside the ARRL Board. However, every rule change contemplated in the draft has been published with the synopsis. 3. Yes. 4. There is no proposal to change the definition of "Phone." It would remain as defined in 97.3(c)(5). 5. Permitting bandwidths of 100 kHz would allow higher data rates, an objective of the HSMM Working Group. Whether that could actually be accommodated in a given area would depend on local conditions. 6. Membership input is solicited in different ways depending on the situation. In this case, the Board had adopted a broad principle in July 2002. Practical application of the principle is very complex and raises a number of issues. Therefore, the Executive Committee felt that a thorough explanation should be shared with members before the petition is filed. The membership input is being digested and reviewed, and I'm sure will result in some changes before the petition goes forward. Finally, with regard to Vic Poor's transmittal letter, I must tell you that I do not read it the same way you do. But in any case, the synopsis of the petition stands on its own. The Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee's report was just one input. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer, ARRL

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11391] Re: Manassas Journal Messenger article
by R. B. Vallio 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Manassas Journal Messenger articleGreat job, Dave. Is there a way that we can get copies of the article into the hands of every Senator and Representative on the hill? I can't believe the BS his staff offered to the press. Bob -- W6RGG ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:22 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11388] Manassas Journal Messenger article Feds hear pitch for Internet by power lines By SARI KRIEGER skrieger(a)potomacnews.com Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell visited Manassas Tuesday to view the city's Broadband over Power Line technology, just days before the FCC will vote on BPL's future. Powell and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Patrick Wood praised the technology for its communications and utility uses. The commissioners and others heard a presentation at the Manassas Utility building, and visited the Oaks of Wellington retirement community to see a resident using BPL and to hear him discuss its benefits. Manassas became the first American locality to implement the technology city-wide last year. By plugging a modem into any city electrical outlet, subscribers can gain high-speed Internet access starting at $27 per month, approximately half of what cable and DSL providers charge. Manassas City receives between 10 percent and 40 percent of the BPL subscription fees. Approximately 900 residents have signed up for BPL, and the city has made it available to approximately 3,000 to 4,000 homes by adding a device to existing city electrical transformers. The entire city should be outfitted by January, said Manassas Utilities Department Director Allen Todd. Short wave radio users have feared the technology would infringe on their radio frequencies, and render things like amateur radios, citizens' band radios and international radio stations inaudible. The Federal Emergency Management Agency also issued a statement opposing BPL for its potential to interfere with emergency communications. The business and FCC representatives acknowledged Tuesday that BPL can cause interference. BPL signal interferes with short wave radio by radiating off power lines. Powell and industry representatives assured officials that the problem can be fixed, and both technologies can coexist by "notching," or blocking certain frequencies. "That's one of the many viable engineering methods," Powell said. But notching doesn't always work, said Amateur Radio Relay League Chief Executive Officer David Sumner. "Notching is unfortunately one of those things that looks good on paper, but doesn't work in practice, because they can't notch it deeply enough to eliminate the interference," Sumner said. The FCC has been extensively testing interference issues at its Columbia, Md., lab, Powell said. Power Line Communications Association President Alan R. Shark said he has worked with the ARRL on BPL issues. Both sides have agreed a lot of misinformation exists, Shark said. But Sumner said that's just not true, and that the ARRL has put out nothing but factual information about BPL. Shark called the Manassas system superior, which Sumner also refutes. Main.net, the company that provides some of the equipment to Manassas BPL franchisee Communication Technologies, was found by a British Broadcasting Company study in Scotland to cause more interference than other BPL technology companies. But the technology has improved since the study was completed and continues to improve to include faster Internet access, according to Main.net Chief Executive Officer J. Mark Elliott. BPL is currently governed under the FCC's Part 15, or unlicensed rules, which disallow interference with any other licensed operations, including amateur radios. The FCC will decide Thursday what rules to make for BPL, after receiving comment from a variety of parties. "They'll decide whether or not to adopt rules to facilitate BPL," said FCC Spokesman Bruce Romano. "This would be our way of saying you have to avoid interference. We have concerns, too. That's the point of this whole rule making process." The FCC officials shouldn't have even appeared in Manassas on Tuesday, according to their own rules regarding influence seven days before the rule-making decision, Sumner said. "I can't pick up the phone and call Chairman Powell right now, we are prohibited by law from discussing (BPL)," Sumner said. "It's just mind boggling that he would have done that, despite our pointing out Friday that he would be in violation of the Commission's rules." But because Powell didn't have any dialogue about specific BPL policies, he didn't break the rules, said FCC Spokesman David H. Fiske. ARRL's attorney filed a formal complaint Tuesday afternoon with the Inspector General. "Because Commission Chairman Powell intentionally participated in the BPL presentation by the City of Manassas, Virginia, and because he either knew or should have known that his participation in that presentation is in clear violation of Section 1.1203 of the Commission's Rules ... "ARRL therefore respectfully requests that Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell recuse himself from any further participation in this proceeding, and that he not participate in the deliberations concerning this matter at the Open Meeting on October 14, 2004," the complaint read. Shark suggested the FCC work with the ARRL to create a formal dispute resolution process for BPL, so if interference does occur, an efficient process can exist to correct the problem. Local amateur radio operators have already worked with Manassas utilities officials in correcting interference problems in Manassas, but that has largely been helped by much of Manassas' power system existing underground, some say. Both local amateur radio users and the utility officials have praised their current working relationship. Oaks of Wellington resident Aaron Frishman showed the group Tuesday how he uses BPL in his apartment. "I can plug it in like a microwave and it works," Frishman said. "They had cable (modems), but this was so easy." Commissioner Wood couldn't understand why American utilities have been slow to embrace this technology that can monitor power outages down to the individual home level, as well as provide security camera capabilities to local police departments, he said. But Sumner understands why. "The technology is not competitive with what the other broadband services will be doing two years from now, particularly wireless broadband," Sumner said. Sumner described how residents in Grand Haven, Mich. can use wireless Internet citywide, even from their boats on Lake Michigan. "Anybody that doesn't have a stake in BPL realizes this, that it's simply a dead end." Sumner said. This story can be found at: <http://www.manassasjm.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MJM/MGArticle/WPN_Basi…>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11390] Re: Cheap Airfares For the January Baord Meeting
by Andy Oppel 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

I recall an e-mail thread discussing the possibility of holding the meeting in Dallas instead of Hartford. I only mention this because I'd hate to see someone buy a ticket to the wrong city. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 11:13 AM 10/13/2004, you wrote: >13 OCT, 2004 - 1305 CDT > >Being an AAdvantage member, I receive weekly email "netsaaver" fare >notices and various larger fare sale notices. I'm sure the other >airlines also do similar promotions. However, the Chicago Fall Sale >notice I received a few minutes ago is the best deal I have seen on >American Airlines in quite some time. The posted fares are a bit >lower than what I can normally obtain with my retired employee 20 >percent discount. > >I'm sure there are similar fare sales posted for all of American's >major domestic locations. There are the usual holiday black-out >periods and the tickets must be purchased by 22 OCT. Many of us can >save the ARRL quite a few dollars on travel to the January board meeting >and you should be able to lock-in your desired seat, rather than being >stuck in a middle coach seat. Check this out at www.aa.com . > >- Dick, W9GIG > >========================================================================== >Chicago Fall Sale > >Dear George Isely, > >The Chicago Fare Sale is in full swing. Right now, you'll find reduced >rates from Chicago to some of our most popular destinations around the >globe. To take advantage of these fares, book now through October 22, >2004, and travel anytime from October 20, 2004, to February 28, 2005. This >fall, choose the airline that offers low fares, an extensive schedule, the >world's largest frequent flyer program and convenient online booking. > >Pay no online fees and earn up to ><http://info.aa.com/Key=42416.946.M.yg3kC>1,000 AAdvantage bonus miles** >bonus miles when you book your next flight now. > >Below we've listed some sample round-trip Fall Sale fares to a few of our >most popular domestic and international destinations. Visit our Chicago >Fall Sale page on <http://info.aa.com/Key=42416.946.C.Nf8JPf>www.aa.com to >find out more details, to see more great savings or to make your >reservation today. > >Remember to purchase your tickets on AA.com by October 22, 2004, to take >advantage of these great savings! > >Here are just a few sample off-peak round-trip fares which are now >available on AA.com:

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11389] Re: Cheap Airfares For the January Board Meeting
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Not on the same issue, but.... I have been checking flights to the UK for Christmas and found that Virgin, which my wife likes to fly, had flights between $790 and $890 depending on when we flew. Then my daughter who lives in England got into the picture and asked us to wait a day to see if she could get a better deal though a friend who flies for Virgin. A few hours ago we booked a flight on Virgin for the two of us for only $643 return. We are flying off December 9 so I can be there for the ARRL Ten Meter Contest. I think all of the above numbers are lower than what we paid last year for the same time spread. Considering oil prices, these are all much lower than I would expect. Depending on what happens November 2nd will determine if we return. (Half joking.) Frank...N2FF.......

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11388] Manassas Journal Messenger article
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Feds hear pitch for Internet by power lines By SARI KRIEGER skrieger(a)potomacnews.com Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell visited Manassas Tuesday to view the city's Broadband over Power Line technology, just days before the FCC will vote on BPL's future. Powell and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Patrick Wood praised the technology for its communications and utility uses. The commissioners and others heard a presentation at the Manassas Utility building, and visited the Oaks of Wellington retirement community to see a resident using BPL and to hear him discuss its benefits. Manassas became the first American locality to implement the technology city-wide last year. By plugging a modem into any city electrical outlet, subscribers can gain high-speed Internet access starting at $27 per month, approximately half of what cable and DSL providers charge. Manassas City receives between 10 percent and 40 percent of the BPL subscription fees. Approximately 900 residents have signed up for BPL, and the city has made it available to approximately 3,000 to 4,000 homes by adding a device to existing city electrical transformers. The entire city should be outfitted by January, said Manassas Utilities Department Director Allen Todd. Short wave radio users have feared the technology would infringe on their radio frequencies, and render things like amateur radios, citizens' band radios and international radio stations inaudible. The Federal Emergency Management Agency also issued a statement opposing BPL for its potential to interfere with emergency communications. The business and FCC representatives acknowledged Tuesday that BPL can cause interference. BPL signal interferes with short wave radio by radiating off power lines. Powell and industry representatives assured officials that the problem can be fixed, and both technologies can coexist by "notching," or blocking certain frequencies. "That's one of the many viable engineering methods," Powell said. But notching doesn't always work, said Amateur Radio Relay League Chief Executive Officer David Sumner. "Notching is unfortunately one of those things that looks good on paper, but doesn't work in practice, because they can't notch it deeply enough to eliminate the interference," Sumner said. The FCC has been extensively testing interference issues at its Columbia, Md., lab, Powell said. Power Line Communications Association President Alan R. Shark said he has worked with the ARRL on BPL issues. Both sides have agreed a lot of misinformation exists, Shark said. But Sumner said that's just not true, and that the ARRL has put out nothing but factual information about BPL. Shark called the Manassas system superior, which Sumner also refutes. Main.net, the company that provides some of the equipment to Manassas BPL franchisee Communication Technologies, was found by a British Broadcasting Company study in Scotland to cause more interference than other BPL technology companies. But the technology has improved since the study was completed and continues to improve to include faster Internet access, according to Main.net Chief Executive Officer J. Mark Elliott. BPL is currently governed under the FCC's Part 15, or unlicensed rules, which disallow interference with any other licensed operations, including amateur radios. The FCC will decide Thursday what rules to make for BPL, after receiving comment from a variety of parties. "They'll decide whether or not to adopt rules to facilitate BPL," said FCC Spokesman Bruce Romano. "This would be our way of saying you have to avoid interference. We have concerns, too. That's the point of this whole rule making process." The FCC officials shouldn't have even appeared in Manassas on Tuesday, according to their own rules regarding influence seven days before the rule-making decision, Sumner said. "I can't pick up the phone and call Chairman Powell right now, we are prohibited by law from discussing (BPL)," Sumner said. "It's just mind boggling that he would have done that, despite our pointing out Friday that he would be in violation of the Commission's rules." But because Powell didn't have any dialogue about specific BPL policies, he didn't break the rules, said FCC Spokesman David H. Fiske. ARRL's attorney filed a formal complaint Tuesday afternoon with the Inspector General. "Because Commission Chairman Powell intentionally participated in the BPL presentation by the City of Manassas, Virginia, and because he either knew or should have known that his participation in that presentation is in clear violation of Section 1.1203 of the Commission's Rules ... "ARRL therefore respectfully requests that Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell recuse himself from any further participation in this proceeding, and that he not participate in the deliberations concerning this matter at the Open Meeting on October 14, 2004," the complaint read. Shark suggested the FCC work with the ARRL to create a formal dispute resolution process for BPL, so if interference does occur, an efficient process can exist to correct the problem. Local amateur radio operators have already worked with Manassas utilities officials in correcting interference problems in Manassas, but that has largely been helped by much of Manassas' power system existing underground, some say. Both local amateur radio users and the utility officials have praised their current working relationship. Oaks of Wellington resident Aaron Frishman showed the group Tuesday how he uses BPL in his apartment. "I can plug it in like a microwave and it works," Frishman said. "They had cable (modems), but this was so easy." Commissioner Wood couldn't understand why American utilities have been slow to embrace this technology that can monitor power outages down to the individual home level, as well as provide security camera capabilities to local police departments, he said. But Sumner understands why. "The technology is not competitive with what the other broadband services will be doing two years from now, particularly wireless broadband," Sumner said. Sumner described how residents in Grand Haven, Mich. can use wireless Internet citywide, even from their boats on Lake Michigan. "Anybody that doesn't have a stake in BPL realizes this, that it's simply a dead end." Sumner said. This story can be found at: <http://www.manassasjm.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MJM/MGArticle/WPN_Basi…>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11387] Cheap Airfares For the January Baord Meeting
by dick＠pobox.com 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

13 OCT, 2004 - 1305 CDT Being an AAdvantage member, I receive weekly email "netsaaver" fare notices and various larger fare sale notices. I'm sure the other airlines also do similar promotions. However, the Chicago Fall Sale notice I received a few minutes ago is the best deal I have seen on American Airlines in quite some time. The posted fares are a bit lower than what I can normally obtain with my retired employee 20 percent discount. I'm sure there are similar fare sales posted for all of American's major domestic locations. There are the usual holiday black-out periods and the tickets must be purchased by 22 OCT. Many of us can save the ARRL quite a few dollars on travel to the January board meeting and you should be able to lock-in your desired seat, rather than being stuck in a middle coach seat. Check this out at www.aa.com . - Dick, W9GIG ========================================================================== Chicago Fall Sale Dear George Isely, The Chicago Fare Sale is in full swing. Right now, you'll find reduced rates from Chicago to some of our most popular destinations around the globe. To take advantage of these fares, book now through October 22, 2004, and travel anytime from October 20, 2004, to February 28, 2005. This fall, choose the airline that offers low fares, an extensive schedule, the world's largest frequent flyer program and convenient online booking. Pay no online fees and earn up to <http://info.aa.com/Key=42416.946.M.yg3kC>1,000 AAdvantage bonus miles** bonus miles when you book your next flight now. Below we've listed some sample round-trip Fall Sale fares to a few of our most popular domestic and international destinations. Visit our Chicago Fall Sale page on <http://info.aa.com/Key=42416.946.C.Nf8JPf>www.aa.com to find out more details, to see more great savings or to make your reservation today. Remember to purchase your tickets on AA.com by October 22, 2004, to take advantage of these great savings! Here are just a few sample off-peak round-trip fares which are now available on AA.com:

1 0