March 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10324] Re: May QST editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

Jim, on March 1 I distributed what had been drafted with the observation that I wasn't satisfied with the "boiler plate" sample letters. The problem is with what we're proposing that members ask their Congressional representatives to do: "to contact the FCC and express your concern over the potential for BPL interfering with important over-the air radio services." We know exactly what will happen as a result of that. The Congressional staff will put a buck slip on the letter and ship it over to the FCC's legislative relations office. In turn they will ship back a form letter over Ed Thomas's signature assuring the Congressman that the public comment period is open and that the constituent's concerns have been made a part of the record. The Congressional staff will put a cover letter on it and send it to the constituent -- and as far as they're concerned, "mission accomplished." There is some small potential benefit to be gained from perhaps getting the interference issue on the radar screen of the Congressional office. On the other hand, there is also some risk that the FCC's letter back, touting the virtues of BPL and its claimed potential for extending the reach of broadband services and reducing the cost to consumers through competition, will be more persuasive. Maybe this risk is worth it if what we're trying to accomplish with the grassroots kit is to head off counterproductive approaches by members who are anxious to write to Congress. However, since March 1 we have developed a very good strategy for our comments on the NPRM and for our in-person pitch to FCC commissioners and staff. We're promoting that strategy to members, largely for the same reason: to try and head off counterproductive filings. Right now that should be our grassroots focus, rather than Congress. That doesn't mean we're ignoring the Hill. We're pursuing the possibility of a hearing, but there are a couple of hoops Greg Walden wants us to jump through before we can reasonably expect him to make that happen: the April 2 "coalition" meeting and a subsequent meeting with his staff and BPL proponents. With regard to Minute 56, what hasn't yet been done is to share the grassroots package with Section Managers. Before we do that we need to go back through the material and bring it into line with the strategy, which has been fleshed out a bit since the March 1 "Why is the ARRL Concerned" paper was written. Even then, for the above reasons I'm dubious that this is the "appropriate time" to launch a grassroots Congressional campaign. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL) Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10298] Re: May QST editorial Dave, Good editorial, as usual. I have one question, though. Where do "we" stand regarding the BPL lobby kit to distribute to members? The last I heard, it had been drafted and you and Chris and probably Jim were discussing the release timing for it. When can we expect to see this available to our members? Because the future availability of the packet was mentioned in a Board minute, I advised the members in GLD they should expect it quite soon. This was over two weeks ago and a number have asked me during the last few days when they will receive it. Tnx, Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040-9660, Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail k8je(a)arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10323] Re: May QST editorial
by Dennis Bodson 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

Dave: Outstanding editorial. Dennis _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10294] May QST editorial May QST goes to the printer today. The attached editorial deals, of course, with BPL and the FCC's NPRM. The editorial follows the strategy laid out in my memo to the Executive Committee that I sent to ODV on March 18. It is fairly specific, within the space limitations of page 9 (we had to use a pretty small font this month), as to what we will be seeking in our comments on the NPRM. Because the editorial offers guidance on what members should say in their own comments, I plan to make it available on the Web sometime tomorrow. There is one aspect of our planned filing on which we'll need to make a decision, but the decision point isn't imminent. President Haynie and I have kicked it around a bit, and I think it's appropriate to raise the subject here so you can begin to think about it if you haven't already. When we have the radiated emission limit that is required in order to protect mobiles, we will need to decide whether to seek this limit for the entire spectrum or just for the ham bands. According to Jim and Chris, Ed Thomas is at least somewhat receptive to notching the ham bands. On the other hand, if we actively seek that we're more or less abandoning our potential coalition partners. Leaving aside the federal government HF interests, who presumably are capable of fending for themselves, about the only potential coalition partners who come to mind as having been much heard from are shortwave listeners and broadcasters, some public safety folks with low-band VHF interests, and RC modelers (the Academy of Model Aeronautics). ARINC's reply comments were very supportive of our position, but at present they are under a cloud because the FCC Enforcement Bureau says ARINC's description of a specific interference incident is at odds with the facts; we've sought clarification from ARINC. NAB's position was essentially "not in our back yard" (i.e., not in the lower TV channels) which wasn't especially helpful to us. If we're not going to get more help from non-amateur sources than we have up to now, there is a strong temptation to go for notching. On the other hand, if we could sell the idea of a stricter limit across the whole spectrum it would make BPL a less attractive venture. The problem is, it probably would be much more difficult to sell to the FCC. We have called another meeting of the "coalition" for Friday, April 2. After that meeting I hope to have more information about what sort of non-amateur support we can expect to receive, so we will be in a better position to make an informed decision. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<qs0405.doc>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10322] Re:
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

RE: Dick's message, I apologize for duplicating it by hitting "send" when I was aiming for a different button. I don't view our strategy as seeking a compromise. What we're doing is setting out what we need in order to be able to coexist with BPL. If either the FCC or the industry can't deliver that, the next step is to make sure it's their problem, not ours, that they can't. The guys who are on the front lines are those who are actually dealing with active BPL installations. The gang in Raleigh, for example, is doing a very good job on a continuing basis. Progress Energy is tying up a lot of resources trying (so far unsuccessfully) to resolve the ongoing interference issues down there. Here's a dispatch just received from Gary Pearce, KN4AQ. Dave K1ZZ Hi, Jen The WSJ article did SOME good... a reporter at the Raleigh News & Observer had been toying with doing a general ham radio feature for some time, and then started picking up bits and pieces of the BPL story. When the WSJ story broke, she said "That's my story!" When she saw the mention of our talk with Chairman Powell, she recognized a local angle that put her back in the game. Tom N4TAB and I had a 3 hour interview on Wednesday, including a drive to the BPL trial sites, which cooperated nicely in covering up some ham transmissions on 20 meter phone and giving the reporter a headache (a 2 kHz tone will do that). They need to take some pix, and talk to some young hams, so publication date isn't set. No guarantee it won't be a rerun of the WSJ article, but I sure didn't get that impression. I imagine it will include Mat Oja's "what's the big problem/whip into a frenzy" comments (we made some fun of that, as Tom did get heated up a bit). We'll see. I'll let you know when I learn a publication date. Pass this message to anyone who needs to know. 73, Gary KN4AQ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10321] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ
by Joel Harrison 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

Thanks Dave....appreciate the info. Joel

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10319] Re: A GREAT READ - May QST Editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

-----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10318] Re: A GREAT READ - May QST Editorial 26 MAR, 2004 - 1000 CST Gentlemen... I too think Rich Moseson's letter to the WSJ reporter, Ken Brown, is a great read. But I don't really give a damn, one way or the other, about his comment on ARRL membership. I don't question another fire-fighter's source of water when it's trained on the same fire we are struggling to put out, or at least contain. IMHO, our strategic goal has to be to put out this fire, even though we may have to tactically settle for containment right now. Therefore, I applaud Dave Sumner's next QST editorial on BPL, but urge caution lest we appear to be seeking a compromise that will ultimately bite us in the backside. We are walking a razor-edged beam on this issue and I hate to contemplate the damage if we fall off of it. I also think the font size for this editorial should be as large as practical - even if it means flowing to the next page. This is a critical editorial coming shortly before the BPL NPRM comments deadline and we should make it as easily read as we can. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10320] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ
by W3KD＠aol.com 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

In a message dated 3/26/2004 9:26:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: > > While we may not like to hear Moseson’s comment, there is more than a grain > of truth in it. The challenge is re-casting those perceptions. I do wonder > however, how Rich explains the continuing decline in CQ subscribers. > > > It must be how the magazine is perceived. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10318] Re: A GREAT READ - May QST Editorial
by dick＠pobox.com 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

26 MAR, 2004 - 1000 CST Gentlemen... I too think Rich Moseson's letter to the WSJ reporter, Ken Brown, is a great read. But I don't really give a damn, one way or the other, about his comment on ARRL membership. I don't question another fire-fighter's source of water when it's trained on the same fire we are struggling to put out, or at least contain. IMHO, our strategic goal has to be to put out this fire, even though we may have to tactically settle for containment right now. Therefore, I applaud Dave Sumner's next QST editorial on BPL, but urge caution lest we appear to be seeking a compromise that will ultimately bite us in the backside. We are walking a razor-edged beam on this issue and I hate to contemplate the damage if we fall off of it. I also think the font size for this editorial should be as large as practical - even if it means flowing to the next page. This is a critical editorial coming shortly before the BPL NPRM comments deadline and we should make it as easily read as we can. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10317] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

I should have waited two more minutes before hitting "send." CQ's most recent circulation statement is in the December 2003 issue, page 8. Average circulation for the previous 12 months: Mail subscriptions 23,158 Sales through dealers and news agents 12,806 Other classes mailed 225 Total paid 36,189 Free distribution 341 Total distribution 36,530 The only figure that might be open to some question is sales through dealers and new agents. To have that many actual sales they would have to have a sellthrough of 66%, which would be quite amazing. However, I wouldn't challenge it in public. These figures coupled with the readex survey suggest that CQ's pass-along readership might be slightly higher than ours, which would to stand to reason because they have far fewer subscribers than we have members and therefore a larger potential pass-along audience. Of course, they don't generate any direct revenue. But Joel asked what time it was, and here I am explaining how to build a watch.... Dave -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:55 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10316] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ Joel, we'll dig up CQ's most recent sworn circulation statement. In addition to the sworn circulation statement, here are data points from the 1992 and 2003 readex surveys. According to the two readex surveys, between 1992 and 2003 CQ readership went from 113,803 down to 51,950. QST readership during the same period went from 195,763 down to 189,551. By the way, in the same period Worldradio readership went UP from 40,506 to 44,145. Readership includes pass-along and so is higher than the actual circulation. The amateur radio magazine that is most widely read by non-members of the ARRL is QST. These figures imply a greater degree of precision than the surveys actually possess, of course. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:46 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10311] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ Or that his "subscriber" base is mucho mucho less than our "membership". Dave/Mark - Just curious, what is CQ's current subscriber base? Joel -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:24 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10308] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ While we may not like to hear Moseson's comment, there is more than a grain of truth in it. The challenge is re-casting those perceptions. I do wonder however, how Rich explains the continuing decline in CQ subscribers. Jay -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:10 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10306] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ The American Radio Relay League's membership may have fallen sharply in the past decade, but that has more to do with how the organization is perceived by many hams than with the number or licensed or even active hams. Thanks, Rich Moseson, that is very helpful. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10316] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

Joel, we'll dig up CQ's most recent sworn circulation statement. In addition to the sworn circulation statement, here are data points from the 1992 and 2003 readex surveys. According to the two readex surveys, between 1992 and 2003 CQ readership went from 113,803 down to 51,950. QST readership during the same period went from 195,763 down to 189,551. By the way, in the same period Worldradio readership went UP from 40,506 to 44,145. Readership includes pass-along and so is higher than the actual circulation. The amateur radio magazine that is most widely read by non-members of the ARRL is QST. These figures imply a greater degree of precision than the surveys actually possess, of course. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:46 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10311] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ Or that his "subscriber" base is mucho mucho less than our "membership". Dave/Mark - Just curious, what is CQ's current subscriber base? Joel -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:24 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10308] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ While we may not like to hear Moseson's comment, there is more than a grain of truth in it. The challenge is re-casting those perceptions. I do wonder however, how Rich explains the continuing decline in CQ subscribers. Jay -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:10 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10306] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ The American Radio Relay League's membership may have fallen sharply in the past decade, but that has more to do with how the organization is perceived by many hams than with the number or licensed or even active hams. Thanks, Rich Moseson, that is very helpful. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10315] Re: May QST editorial
by Joel Harrison 26 Mar '04

26 Mar '04

May QST editorialDon't misunderstand my comment - it is a very good editorial. I especially liked the comment about the drunken neighbor! Staying on one page is good in that you don't have to wander through the journal searching for the rest of it, which tends to lose readers. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:16 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10313] Re: May QST editorial Joel, I know the font is pushing the limit. I cut about 100 words to get it down to the size it is, and wish I could have found another 150 to cut. Continuing onto another page is indeed a possibility, although it would require the writer of page 9 to submit his copy earlier. Thanks for your observations about notching. At the moment I'm inclined to spec the ham bands and leave it to others to figure out what protection they need; if they want to extrapolate from our work, that would be fine. Dave

1 0