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

[ARRL-ODV:11478] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition
by Joel Harrison 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Jim, The EC will be making an informal presentation to the Board on Thursday evening to review and go over the rationale behind the proposal, answer questions and discuss options, so that during the board meeting we can take some final action, similar to what we did with our restructuring petition. So, from my understanding of our discussion this past weekend, the answer to both of your questions is YES. If another one of the EC members has a different understanding, I'm sure they'll speak up! I don't, however, expect that there will be anything other than maybe a little further "fine tweaking" of the current proposal, but that is just my opinion. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:08 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11475] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition All, I have two questions and a suggestion regarding the present fine tuning of the regulating by bandwidth proposal. QUESTIONS 1. Do I understand correctly that it is not yet being hammered into a formal petition? The title of the message might suggest it is. 2. Do I understand correctly that we will have an opportunity to review and, if deemed appropriate, make further changes in the proposal at the January meeting? SUGGESTION 1. I think it would be a good idea openly to thank (in no uncertain terms) the members who shared comments with us for the time, effort and dedication they clearly showed in sharing these comments with us. I see absolutely no downside to going just a bit out of the way to humanize this effort and tell the membership we like it when they and us collaborate to achieve a common goal on behalf of Amateur Radio. Tnx, 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11477] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments
by Dennis Bodson 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Dave: Thanks Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:39 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11473] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Dennis, I asked Dave Patton about this. We're seeing a few comments to that effect, but it's not something that can be readily addressed. At the present time, digital signals of any bandwidth can legally be used in that portion of the band. Under our proposal, only signals of 200 Hz bandwidth or less would be allowed. Since narrow digital signals (such as PSK31) pose no greater interference potential than CW signals and since it is relatively easy to dodge them (move 200 Hz one way or the other) the potential problem seems very small -- and in any case is considerably less than the potential problem posed by the status quo. The only other solution would be to abandon bandwidth regulation altogether in those segments and just label them "CW only." This doesn't seem like a step forward to me. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11374] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Dave: There is one issue I don't see and that is many CW people want only CW in the lower 25kHz portion of each band. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11371] October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Approximately 530 responses containing comments (i.e., not including those that just asked questions) have been sent to the "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" email address and/or to Directors who in turn forwarded them to HQ. Dave Patton, NN1N, has tallied the responses as follows. Breakdown of responses by Division: Atlantic 31 Central 30 Dakota 7 Delta 20 Great Lakes 47 Hudson 15 Midwest 28 New England 40 Northwestern 49 Pacific 35 Roanoke 31 Rocky Mountain 17 Southeastern 41 Southwestern 35 West Gulf 46 Foreign 58 General topics (Dave's interpretations) and number of responses (total exceeds tallies above because some respondents listed multiple issues): Lack of sufficient Digital b/w on 10 MHz 168 "It ain't broke"/do nothing/withdraw petition 153 Overall OK, but... (each Winlink/30M comment can go here also, but is not included) 50 Digital interference with CW and phone 49 Nice work/support this 43 Restrict semi-auto stations to certain band segs 24 Too much catering to digital guys 24 This is overregulation 22 Too complicated/confusing 19 Disagree with eliminating automated stations 18 Not enough room for phone/SSB 13 Enforcement issues 13 222 and VHF/UHF weak signal protection 11 40 Meter issues 10 If AM gets 9 kHz then SSB gets 9 kHz 10 80 Meter issues 8 Band plans won't match DX 7 Get rid of AM 7 Use mode sub-banding instead 6 Wants narrow b/w segment on 160 M 5 Forces a speed limit on CW 5 Can't measure b/w 4 Digital b/w too small 4 Don't add modes on top of b/w 4 Create experimenters' areas 4 Let members vote and decide this 3 OOs and OO issues 3 Has problems w/ARRL and methods 3 Disagree w/no digi voice below 29 MHz 3 Move 29 MHz AM/FM lower in the band/QRM on 10 3 Disagree with 100 kHz wide b/w on 2 meters 3 Contradictory information in proposal 2 Disagree with continuous test emissions 2 "You haven't given us data" 2 RTTY issues 2 Wants just one b/w below 29 MHz 1 500 hz digital is too wide 1 SSTV issues 1 Use guard bands/channelize 1 97.309 wording 1 "The footnotes could disappear" 1 We will provide the Executive Committee with a list of issues and options for the October 16 meeting. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11476] Interesting web site
by Tuck Miller NZ6T 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

This was passed along from another ham here in San Diego. It is a search for pictures on the web. Enter your call sign, name, whatever, and see what happens. One thing for sure, our Pres, Jim sure does not need a publicist.... http://www.picsearch.com -- ************************************************ ARRL The national association for Amateur Radio Remember, Helping Others....Always Worthwhile!! Southwestern Division Vice Director Are you a member yet? If not, please join! Check out the Convention web site at: http://www.hamradio2004.com/swdc2004/

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11475] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition
by Jim K8JE 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

All, I have two questions and a suggestion regarding the present fine tuning of the regulating by bandwidth proposal. QUESTIONS 1. Do I understand correctly that it is not yet being hammered into a formal petition? The title of the message might suggest it is. 2. Do I understand correctly that we will have an opportunity to review and, if deemed appropriate, make further changes in the proposal at the January meeting? SUGGESTION 1. I think it would be a good idea openly to thank (in no uncertain terms) the members who shared comments with us for the time, effort and dedication they clearly showed in sharing these comments with us. I see absolutely no downside to going just a bit out of the way to humanize this effort and tell the membership we like it when they and us collaborate to achieve a common goal on behalf of Amateur Radio. Tnx, 73, 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: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11470] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition ARRL Board: At last Saturday's Executive Committee meeting I was asked to draft a summary of the discussion of the bandwidth petition, run it past the EC, and then to share it with the Board before releasing it to members (and others). Here is what we plan to release. Dave K1ZZ P.S. to EC members: I changed the wording of the first two "bullets" from the draft you saw earlier. I made the changes because I sensed some of you thought the wording needed some clarification. _____ The ARRL Executive Committee devoted much of its October 16 meeting to a discussion of comments received on the draft petition to the FCC to seek regulation of subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. In response to a synopsis of the petition and the proposed rules changes being available on the ARRL Web site, several hundred comments have been received from ARRL members and other amateurs from around the world. The Executive Committee found considerable support for the concept of the petition, along with constructive suggestions for revisions to reduce both the impact of the changes on current amateur operations, as well as possible unintended consequences. The Executive Committee agreed to submit to the ARRL Board of Directors, for consideration at its January meeting, several recommended amendments to the proposed rules changes. These include: * Restoration of the existing rules that permit automatically controlled digital stations in narrow HF subbands. In other words, these rules would remain the same, and automatic packet (and other digital modes) could continue. * A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation (automatic control, but only in response to a communication initiated by a "live" operator) on frequencies where phone is permitted below 28 MHz. This addresses the concern that "robot" digital stations might take over the phone bands. * A segment for 3-kHz bandwidth (no phone) of 10.135-10.150 MHz to accommodate existing and planned future digital operations. * Deletion of the word "continuous" from the description of test transmissions that are authorized on most frequencies above 51 MHz. * Simplification of proposed changes to §97.309 to clarify that FCC-licensed amateur stations may use any published digital code as long as other rules are observed. These recommendations are not intended to be the final word on the draft petition, but are intended to address the major issues raised to date. The Executive Committee members expressed their appreciation for the constructive input that has been received, and the hope that these recommendations will broaden the support for proceeding with the filing of a petition sometime in 2005.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11474] Re: Some more BPL press coverage
by Jim K8JE 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

And, gee, I'd already promised my relatives in rural NW Indiana they'd have BPL by Christmastime! What a revolting development this is. 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: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:51 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11466] Some more BPL press coverage Some of the BPL press coverage has taken an interesting turn; the business case for BPL is increasingly being called into question. For example, an article in yesterday's Columbia (MO) Daily Tribune http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2004/oct/20041019busi003.asp even quotes Alan Shark of the PLCA as saying that BPL as prohibitively expensive in sparsely settled areas. Links to this and other recent stories are at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/other-articles.html Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11473] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

Dennis, I asked Dave Patton about this. We're seeing a few comments to that effect, but it's not something that can be readily addressed. At the present time, digital signals of any bandwidth can legally be used in that portion of the band. Under our proposal, only signals of 200 Hz bandwidth or less would be allowed. Since narrow digital signals (such as PSK31) pose no greater interference potential than CW signals and since it is relatively easy to dodge them (move 200 Hz one way or the other) the potential problem seems very small -- and in any case is considerably less than the potential problem posed by the status quo. The only other solution would be to abandon bandwidth regulation altogether in those segments and just label them "CW only." This doesn't seem like a step forward to me. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11374] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Dave: There is one issue I don't see and that is many CW people want only CW in the lower 25kHz portion of each band. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11371] October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Approximately 530 responses containing comments (i.e., not including those that just asked questions) have been sent to the "bandwidth(a)arrl.org" email address and/or to Directors who in turn forwarded them to HQ. Dave Patton, NN1N, has tallied the responses as follows. Breakdown of responses by Division: Atlantic 31 Central 30 Dakota 7 Delta 20 Great Lakes 47 Hudson 15 Midwest 28 New England 40 Northwestern 49 Pacific 35 Roanoke 31 Rocky Mountain 17 Southeastern 41 Southwestern 35 West Gulf 46 Foreign 58 General topics (Dave's interpretations) and number of responses (total exceeds tallies above because some respondents listed multiple issues): Lack of sufficient Digital b/w on 10 MHz 168 "It ain't broke"/do nothing/withdraw petition 153 Overall OK, but... (each Winlink/30M comment can go here also, but is not included) 50 Digital interference with CW and phone 49 Nice work/support this 43 Restrict semi-auto stations to certain band segs 24 Too much catering to digital guys 24 This is overregulation 22 Too complicated/confusing 19 Disagree with eliminating automated stations 18 Not enough room for phone/SSB 13 Enforcement issues 13 222 and VHF/UHF weak signal protection 11 40 Meter issues 10 If AM gets 9 kHz then SSB gets 9 kHz 10 80 Meter issues 8 Band plans won't match DX 7 Get rid of AM 7 Use mode sub-banding instead 6 Wants narrow b/w segment on 160 M 5 Forces a speed limit on CW 5 Can't measure b/w 4 Digital b/w too small 4 Don't add modes on top of b/w 4 Create experimenters' areas 4 Let members vote and decide this 3 OOs and OO issues 3 Has problems w/ARRL and methods 3 Disagree w/no digi voice below 29 MHz 3 Move 29 MHz AM/FM lower in the band/QRM on 10 3 Disagree with 100 kHz wide b/w on 2 meters 3 Contradictory information in proposal 2 Disagree with continuous test emissions 2 "You haven't given us data" 2 RTTY issues 2 Wants just one b/w below 29 MHz 1 500 hz digital is too wide 1 SSTV issues 1 Use guard bands/channelize 1 97.309 wording 1 "The footnotes could disappear" 1 We will provide the Executive Committee with a list of issues and options for the October 16 meeting. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11471] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition
by Andy Oppel 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

This is great work! It clearly demonstrates that we are responsive to our constituents, and it truly addresses most of the concerns raised. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director At 10:50 AM 10/20/2004, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >ARRL Board: > >At last Saturday's Executive Committee meeting I was asked to draft a >summary of the discussion of the bandwidth petition, run it past the EC, >and then to share it with the Board before releasing it to members (and >others). > >Here is what we plan to release. > >Dave K1ZZ > >P.S. to EC members: I changed the wording of the first two "bullets" from >the draft you saw earlier. I made the changes because I sensed some of you >thought the wording needed some clarification. >_____ > >The ARRL Executive Committee devoted much of its October 16 meeting to a >discussion of comments received on the draft petition to the FCC to seek >regulation of subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. In >response to a synopsis of the petition and the proposed rules changes >being available on the ARRL Web site, several hundred comments have been >received from ARRL members and other amateurs from around the world. The >Executive Committee found considerable support for the concept of the >petition, along with constructive suggestions for revisions to reduce both >the impact of the changes on current amateur operations, as well as >possible unintended consequences. > >The Executive Committee agreed to submit to the ARRL Board of Directors, >for consideration at its January meeting, several recommended amendments >to the proposed rules changes. These include: > > * Restoration of the existing rules that permit automatically > controlled digital stations in narrow HF subbands. In other words, these > rules would remain the same, and automatic packet (and other digital > modes) could continue. > > * A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation > (automatic control, but only in response to a communication initiated by > a "live" operator) on frequencies where phone is permitted below 28 MHz. > This addresses the concern that "robot" digital stations might take over > the phone bands. > > * A segment for 3-kHz bandwidth (no phone) of 10.135-10.150 MHz > to accommodate existing and planned future digital operations. > > * Deletion of the word "continuous" from the description of test > transmissions that are authorized on most frequencies above 51 MHz. > > * Simplification of proposed changes to §97.309 to clarify that > FCC-licensed amateur stations may use any published digital code as long > as other rules are observed. > >These recommendations are not intended to be the final word on the draft >petition, but are intended to address the major issues raised to date. The >Executive Committee members expressed their appreciation for the >constructive input that has been received, and the hope that these >recommendations will broaden the support for proceeding with the filing of >a petition sometime in 2005.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11470] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

ARRL Board: At last Saturday's Executive Committee meeting I was asked to draft a summary of the discussion of the bandwidth petition, run it past the EC, and then to share it with the Board before releasing it to members (and others). Here is what we plan to release. Dave K1ZZ P.S. to EC members: I changed the wording of the first two "bullets" from the draft you saw earlier. I made the changes because I sensed some of you thought the wording needed some clarification. _____ The ARRL Executive Committee devoted much of its October 16 meeting to a discussion of comments received on the draft petition to the FCC to seek regulation of subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. In response to a synopsis of the petition and the proposed rules changes being available on the ARRL Web site, several hundred comments have been received from ARRL members and other amateurs from around the world. The Executive Committee found considerable support for the concept of the petition, along with constructive suggestions for revisions to reduce both the impact of the changes on current amateur operations, as well as possible unintended consequences. The Executive Committee agreed to submit to the ARRL Board of Directors, for consideration at its January meeting, several recommended amendments to the proposed rules changes. These include: * Restoration of the existing rules that permit automatically controlled digital stations in narrow HF subbands. In other words, these rules would remain the same, and automatic packet (and other digital modes) could continue. * A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation (automatic control, but only in response to a communication initiated by a "live" operator) on frequencies where phone is permitted below 28 MHz. This addresses the concern that "robot" digital stations might take over the phone bands. * A segment for 3-kHz bandwidth (no phone) of 10.135-10.150 MHz to accommodate existing and planned future digital operations. * Deletion of the word "continuous" from the description of test transmissions that are authorized on most frequencies above 51 MHz. * Simplification of proposed changes to §97.309 to clarify that FCC-licensed amateur stations may use any published digital code as long as other rules are observed. These recommendations are not intended to be the final word on the draft petition, but are intended to address the major issues raised to date. The Executive Committee members expressed their appreciation for the constructive input that has been received, and the hope that these recommendations will broaden the support for proceeding with the filing of a petition sometime in 2005.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11469] Re: Some more BPL press coverage
by walstrom＠mchsi.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

Does this mean that we are smarter than they are cuz we figured this out before they did? We may be smarter than they are, but this can't be a revelation to them! 73, Wade W0EJ > Ah HA! Now it seems too expensive to serve farmer Jones? > > Jim H. >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11468] Community Education Program Coordinator hired
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

You will recall that the ARRL has received new funding of nearly $90,000 from the Corporation for National & Community Service (CNCS) to execute a pilot program to enlighten localities about the value of Amateur Radio to community safety and security. The one-year grant will enable ARRL to develop the Community Education Project (CEP) and carry ham radio's message to a dozen communities across the US. The CEP will work through local civic organizations, news media, faith-based groups, schools, food banks and a variety of other community organizations to get Amateur Radio's message across. To implement the program, Bill Barrett, W1WJB, has been hired as our new ARRL Community Education Program Coordinator in F&ES under manager Rosalie White. The position is funded by the grant. Bill was chosen from some 44 applicants. A Connecticut native, Bill has been in ARES for more than five years, became an Emergency Coordinator in 2000, and moved up to DEC in 2002. He very actively helped plan this year's SET for his district. Barrett said his goal is to aid ARES groups and affiliated clubs in establishing ties with Citizen Corps Councils, and demonstrating ham expertise. Barrett's vocation prior to coming to Hq was producing video and film productions for corporate clients; his forte was Special Effects and Bluescreen shooting. As EC, he developed a PowerPoint presentation for local officials, to be given right at their desks; it was presented in several local towns. Barrett enjoys RTTY and traffic nets, being a regular on the Connecticut Phone Net. David Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0