June 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10793] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION
by Jim K8JE 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Joel, Well said. As concerns Dayton of the past, weve been lucky to have gotten anything at all from the yahoos who previously ran it as their own test tube baby. I believe we have the opportunity to continue turning the attitude in our favor as well as to get something out it we never could have expected in the past. 73 Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communication system in the world. -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 2:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10791] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION Jay, In my 17 years on this board, there have been numerous and multiple discussions about the "National Convention". There have also been a number of ad-hoc committees appointed to look at how we do things with the national convention. Obviously, a number of the venues from previous years wanted to be an "ARRL National Convention" to give their little hamfest some notoriety.....I'm serious about saying this because we have had some that were really just that, a little hamfest. But the local hamfest committee was able to convince us they had a big deal when in reality they had convinced themselves they would have a big show, and would continue to have in future years, if they could just have a national convention. Of course, history has proved that to be nothing but dreams. We used to have a national every year somewhere, and there was a period there in the 90s that it just got out of hand in my opinion. That is when the last "national convention committee" looked at things and we scaled back. We've looked at a number of things, even holding our own national convention outside of a regularly scheduled hamfest. That was scrapped and rightly so. We could never put on our own event. The staff resources it would take and cost involved could never be paid for in admission and other fees.....or at least a fee that hams would pay! So, we've been left with what we have now in the By-Laws and the majority of the decision and guidance left up the the board, and there is just not much that can be put in writing. I agree with you completely. If someone is going to use the name of the League to enhance their deal, we ought to get something out of it. To date, we haven't and I think that is wrong, especially for a big show like the Hamvention. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: JBellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10789] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION There doesnt seem to be much guidance in the Rules and Regulations regarding the when where or why ARRL has a national convention. The Rules attached to the Bylaws simply state: 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Board of Directors may authorize or direct upon such terms as it may prescribe, the holding, as a National Convention, of a meeting of persons interested in Amateur Radio from throughout the operating territory of the League. The President will assign a member of the Board to work with the staff to evaluate National Convention applications and negotiate ARRL participation. The management, program and financial plans of every such convention shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. I understand why the folks at the Hamvention would like us to designate the 2005 Hamvention an ARRL National Convention. Before voting on this I would like to know if there really is some substance and purpose to a national convention. Im not necessarily opposed to the idea but if the purpose is simply to give the Hamvention (or any other event) a little window dressing it concerns me that we may appear to be renting out the name of the League. If the term ARRL National Convention is to have any meaning we need to identify some substantial and distinguishing features or aspects of the event peculiarly identified with ARRL and of particular benefit to ARRL and its members. That may be challenging, particularly in the context of an event as large and multifaceted as the Hamvention but we ought to try. Perhaps this is fodder for Thursday evening pre-meeting discussion. Jay, KØQB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10792] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION
by Jim K8JE 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Jay, Excellent considerations. Why have a National Convention? Its purpose? In my opinion, a National Convention out to showcase the whats, whys and hows of ARRL in its quest to support Amateur Radio. Provided we do this adequately, the Convention, in turn, ought to bring us more members as well as more dedicated members. I also think that if we go into a National with the idea merely of hanging our name onto something already there, it is a waste of time. This is the reason weve included words including: ACTION: Upon adoption of this motion, CEO Sumner is instructed to take actions as are appropriate through Staff to implement the Convention and President Haynie is instructed to designate such persons as may be appropriate to work with the Hamvention Committee to coordinate developing the program and other ARRL aspects of the combined event. Staff is especially instructed to explore and develop means to leverage the Hamvention-Convention to take advantage of an expected heightened presence of ARRL to enhance sales of membership and publications. as part of the motion and its directives. I am fully confident that we have good and dedicated folks at HQ who can and will form an ARRL skunk works that will come up with unique and aggressive ideas for promoting the League. I also think that members of the Board Family can join with Staff to facilitate and enhance their work. This, then, is the principal why a National Convention in my opinion. There may be additional benefits, but these are relatively minor, I think. I agree that a bit of discussion on this topic should be worthwhile. If nothing else, we may find ways to stretch our efforts in R&R still further. 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communication system in the world. -----Original Message----- From: JBellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10789] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION There doesnt seem to be much guidance in the Rules and Regulations regarding the when where or why ARRL has a national convention. The Rules attached to the Bylaws simply state: 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Board of Directors may authorize or direct upon such terms as it may prescribe, the holding, as a National Convention, of a meeting of persons interested in Amateur Radio from throughout the operating territory of the League. The President will assign a member of the Board to work with the staff to evaluate National Convention applications and negotiate ARRL participation. The management, program and financial plans of every such convention shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. I understand why the folks at the Hamvention would like us to designate the 2005 Hamvention an ARRL National Convention. Before voting on this I would like to know if there really is some substance and purpose to a national convention. Im not necessarily opposed to the idea but if the purpose is simply to give the Hamvention (or any other event) a little window dressing it concerns me that we may appear to be renting out the name of the League. If the term ARRL National Convention is to have any meaning we need to identify some substantial and distinguishing features or aspects of the event peculiarly identified with ARRL and of particular benefit to ARRL and its members. That may be challenging, particularly in the context of an event as large and multifaceted as the Hamvention but we ought to try. Perhaps this is fodder for Thursday evening pre-meeting discussion. Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:05 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10759] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION Kay, Ive inserted my comments into your note. You raise valid and interesting points. I think I can answer most of them. Let me know if you have further questions, please. 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communication system in the world. -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:wt3p@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10755] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION Joel has expressed many of my concerns very well. We must be very specific and very realistic about what is in it for the ARRL to have a National Convention ... at Dayton or anywhere. When we had the National at Dayton before, several people came to the booth and asked me, "So, how is this Dayton any different from other Daytons?" The answer I could give them, "There are more ARRL-related forums than in other years," didn't impress them much. It didn't impress me much, either, come to think of it. The allure of getting to go to Dayton at no personal expense should not distract us from asking hard questions about what the League will gain in concrete, measurable benefits from having a National. WITH THE COOPERATION GARY DES COMBES HAS GUARANTEED TO ME, IT WILL BE LARGELY UP TO US TO COME UP WITH IDEAS TO DISTINGUISH THIS CONVENTION FROM THE HAMVENTION. ESPECIALLY IF HQ DOES THEIR JOBS IN DEVELOPING PROGRAMS THAT LEVERAGE THE DISTINCT POTENTIAL VALUE OF HAVING 20,000 OR SO HAMS IN ONE PLACE, WE CAN AND MUST DO THE JOB. IF WE DONT DO OUR PART, WE WILL FAIL. I WOULD NOT INTEND FOR US TO FAIL. It's true that travel expenses for Directors and Officers come from their existing budgets. However, if you spend Division budget money going to a National, that's money you don't have available to spend on membership contact within your Division. This presents a choice to Directors: go to a National where you may not be interacting with many of your members, or skip the National and do your customary in-Division travel, or do it all and over-spend your budget. Any of these choices has down-sides for the organization. If we have so much money allocated to Governance that Divisions can absorb a Director's trip to a National without cutting back on other activity that year, then that raises interesting questions, doesn't it? YOU BET IT RAISES INTERESTING ISSUES. PLEASE NOTICE THAT EVEN AFTER WE CUT DIVISION BUDGETS IN JANUARY, MOST DIVISIONS STILL DO NOT COME CLOSE TO SPENDING THEIR BUDGET ALLOCATIONS EACH YEAR. I WAS VERY SURPRISED WHEN I GOT THE FIGURES FROM COY WHO IN TURN GOT THEM FROM BARRY. IM ALSO SURPRISED THAT WE ALLOW PEOPLE SO MUCH FISCAL FREEDOM THAT THEY WILLY NILLY OVERSPEND BUDGETS. I INADVERTENTLY OVERSPENT MINE BY A COUPLE OR THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS LAST YEAR AND FELL OFF MY CHAIR WHEN I WAS NOT CHASTISED FOR THIS. I HAD EXPECTED THAT IF I OVERSPENT, THE OVERAGE WOULD BE DENIED. WHY WASNT IT? There's something else I want to bring into the discussion of Nationals: I believe the Board needs to develop guidelines for the Director's Workbook suggesting what Directors and Officers should do at Nationals that we attend. Otherwise, it seems to me like we are getting to go to Dayton -- or wherever -- on the membership's nickel to shop, shmoose with our friends, and enjoy ourselves without being expected to do any particular work on behalf of the League. Walking around all day with a red badge on and stopping by the booth for 15 or 20 minutes doesn't fill the bill for me. Now I am not saying we should have to fill out some kind of dumb-ass time cards saying how many hours we did this and how many times we did that. I am suggesting, however, that as a body the volunteer members of the Board should come to an agreement about what work we expect ourselves to do for the League in return for the privilege of attending a National Convention at the membership's expense. Then we put it in the Director's Workbook and leave it to the honor and conscience of individuals to live up to the guidelines we've set for ourselves. I WILL SUPPORT SUCH A MOTION. IN FACT, IF YOU WANT ME TO WORK WITH YOU, ILL BE HAPPY TO PRESENT JUST SUCH A MOTION. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10796] Re: PLANNED MOTION
by Joel Harrison 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

That would definitely be a good starting point !! Joel >To me, the real question about Dayton as a national convention site for 2005 is not what they will do for us, but what we want to do for ourselves. Then we can see if it works >>for those running the show in Dayton.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10794] Re: PLANNED MOTION
by Tom Frenaye 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

I guess we don't track our history very carefully. This is from early 2001... >Report of the Ad Hoc National Convention Committee > >The charter of the ad hoc committee on National Conventions is derived from >the following minute item from the Minutes of the July, 2000, meeting of the >Board of Directors which is repeated here: > >30. On motion of Mr. Race, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was unanimously VOTED >that an Ad Hoc Committee on National Conventions shall be appointed by the >President. The task of this committee shall be to articulate the purposes >and goals for holding ARRL National Conventions and to identify appropriate >ways to measure the success of National Conventions. The committee will >submit its report to the Board at the Annual Meeting in January, 2001. > >To this end, President Haynie appointed the following to this committee: >Wade Walstrom (Chair), Evelyn Gauzens, and Gary Johnston. > >The committee met several times via conference call to determine what the >purposes and goals for holding National Conventions. > >The committee offers the following statement of purpose and goals. > >PURPOSE: >Establish the ARRL as a visible entity representing the interests of amateur >radio to members, non-members, and the general public. > >Discussion: A national convention is an opportunity for the ARRL to touch >more hams directly and for the membership and the rest of the ham community >to meet the HQ staff, the ARRL officers, and the directors. > >GOALS: >The committee recommends, as a minimum, the following as goals for an ARRL >National Convention: >1. An ARRL National Convention should be held every three (3) years. >Discussion: If the time between conventions is longer than three years, >interest in the convention dwindles. If they occur more often, they tend to >be taken for granted and interest dwindles. > >2. The site selected for a National Convention should be an established >convention/hamfest with a demonstrated two (2) year attendance historical >average of at least 10,000. >Discussion: The committee discussed this goal at length. This stated goal >would essentially limit the site of future National Conventions to one >location and would exclude all other locations from hosting a National >Convention. However, for a National Convention to be where the major >equipment manufacturers will be present, a location with proven attendance >is essential. > >3. An ARRL National Convention should host activities that are unique to a >National Convention and nowhere else. >Discussion: The committee makes that the following recommendations to >achieve this goal: >a) Establish the National Convention as a gathering where cutting edge >technological forums are presented. >1) Include presentations by the top technical authors who have been recently >published in QST, QEX, etc. >2) Present an award for technical excellence to the best technical >presentation at a National Convention. >b) Establish and present National Awards for exemplary achievement of >volunteers in all phases of amateur radio, such as Club of the Year, Section >Manager of the Year, Emergency Coordinator of the Year, QST Article of the >Year, etc >c) Insure the presence of exhibits of all major amateur radio manufacturers >and dealers. > >4. An ARRL National Convention should maintain an atmosphere that will cause >members to take pride in their ARRL membership and, hopefully, inspire >non-members to become members. >Discussion: The committee makes that the following recommendations to >achieve this goal: >a) Continue and enhance forums on the use and benefits of amateur radio in >education, amateur radio in space, new operating modes, public service, etc. >b) Continue to encourage participation by the FCC, but expand to include >sample state and local agencies on how amateur radio plays a part in their >operations. >c) Emphasize ARRL efforts preserving and expanding frequency allocation, >establishing relief from public and private antenna restrictions, protection >of the amateur radio spectrum, etc. >d) Use every means possible to allow current members to keep their ARRL >membership current and encourage non-members to become members. > >SUCCESS MEASUREMENT: >If the stated purpose and goals are met, the National Convention will be a >success. >If the attendees leave the National Convention talking about how "awesome" >the convention was, the new technology that presented, the award they >received, or how they are already looking forward to the next National >Convention, the National Convention is a success. > >An additional recommendation that the committee presents is that in the >intervening years between ARRL National Conventions, the ARRL sponsor at >least one "regional" convention, moving the location to different parts of >the country. A "regional" convention would not necessarily be bound by >Section or Division boundaries and would have the same stated purpose as the >National Convention, but with appropriately scaled back goals. > >Respectfully submitted: > >Wade Walstrom >Evelyn Gauzens >Gary Johnston At the January 2001 Board meeting the following was noted: >18. Mr. Race, as Chairman, presented the report of the Volunteer Resources Committee. He described the committee's work on the terms of reference for ARRL's three technical awards, the Certification program, and Section Manager guidance, as well as guidance for other volunteers in the field. He yielded the floor to Mr. Walstrom, who, as Chairman, described the report of the Ad Hoc National Convention Committee which sets forth recommended minimum requirements for an established convention/hamfest to be considered as a possible site for an ARRL National Convention. So, the report was not formally adopted, though it appears to have some good guidance. I believe there was an earlier report (maybe 1998?) on the same subject, and that's when we chose not to have a national convention every year. What could we do at Dayton next year that would be special? To do something special we have to be ready and willing to spend more money than usual - maybe $20k or so. A separate BPL educational display/seminars/demo would have been the right thing this year. Maybe next year should be the year for getting hams really involved with their state and Congressional representatives. In really poor countries where there are lots of people who don't know how to read or write, there are entrepreneurs who make a good living by writing letters. You go to the village letter-writer, tell him (usually a him) what your problem is and they write the letter for you and make sure it gets mailed to the right place. Today, in the USA, we pay lawyers lots of money to do similar things when we have a serious dispute. How about some kind of on-the-spot letter-writing booth to promote our legislative and FCC agendas? Maybe a germ of an idea there... To me, the real question about Dayton as a national convention site for 2005 is not what they will do for us, but what we want to do for ourselves. Then we can see if it works for those running the show in Dayton. -- Tom ===== 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:10791] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION
by Joel Harrison 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

MessageJay, In my 17 years on this board, there have been numerous and multiple discussions about the "National Convention". There have also been a number of ad-hoc committees appointed to look at how we do things with the national convention. Obviously, a number of the venues from previous years wanted to be an "ARRL National Convention" to give their little hamfest some notoriety.....I'm serious about saying this because we have had some that were really just that, a little hamfest. But the local hamfest committee was able to convince us they had a big deal when in reality they had convinced themselves they would have a big show, and would continue to have in future years, if they could just have a national convention. Of course, history has proved that to be nothing but dreams. We used to have a national every year somewhere, and there was a period there in the 90s that it just got out of hand in my opinion. That is when the last "national convention committee" looked at things and we scaled back. We've looked at a number of things, even holding our own national convention outside of a regularly scheduled hamfest. That was scrapped and rightly so. We could never put on our own event. The staff resources it would take and cost involved could never be paid for in admission and other fees.....or at least a fee that hams would pay! So, we've been left with what we have now in the By-Laws and the majority of the decision and guidance left up the the board, and there is just not much that can be put in writing. I agree with you completely. If someone is going to use the name of the League to enhance their deal, we ought to get something out of it. To date, we haven't and I think that is wrong, especially for a big show like the Hamvention. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: JBellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10789] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION There doesnt seem to be much guidance in the Rules and Regulations regarding the when where or why ARRL has a national convention. The Rules attached to the Bylaws simply state: 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Board of Directors may authorize or direct upon such terms as it may prescribe, the holding, as a National Convention, of a meeting of persons interested in Amateur Radio from throughout the operating territory of the League. The President will assign a member of the Board to work with the staff to evaluate National Convention applications and negotiate ARRL participation. The management, program and financial plans of every such convention shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. I understand why the folks at the Hamvention would like us to designate the 2005 Hamvention an ARRL National Convention. Before voting on this I would like to know if there really is some substance and purpose to a national convention. Im not necessarily opposed to the idea but if the purpose is simply to give the Hamvention (or any other event) a little window dressing it concerns me that we may appear to be renting out the name of the League. If the term ARRL National Convention is to have any meaning we need to identify some substantial and distinguishing features or aspects of the event peculiarly identified with ARRL and of particular benefit to ARRL and its members. That may be challenging, particularly in the context of an event as large and multifaceted as the Hamvention but we ought to try. Perhaps this is fodder for Thursday evening pre-meeting discussion. Jay, KØQB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10790] Re: FD report
by Joel Harrison 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

Thanks for working the W5ZN gang.....I just happened to be at the "key" when you called. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:40 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10786] FD report K1TWF and K1KI each took a "little" time to drive to Field Day sites in New England this past weekend. Mike "wins" with 13 sites in EMA WMA VT and NH, plus 667 miles his the odometer. I had 12 sites in CT [actually, one was 2 miles inside ENY] and 460 miles driven. Mike managed a bunch of 2m FM QSOs while mobile, I caught about 350 QSOs mobile on 20 and 40m. Both cars had the new ARRL magnetic "Radio Communication" sign on the side and it was well received - now I need one for the other side of my car. About 3/4 of the FD operations we visited had Get On The Air Stations. Nice to work W0CP and W5ZN on Sunday! -- Tom ===== 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:10789] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION
by JBellows 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

There doesnt seem to be much guidance in the Rules and Regulations regarding the when where or why ARRL has a national convention. The Rules attached to the Bylaws simply state: 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Board of Directors may authorize or direct upon such terms as it may prescribe, the holding, as a National Convention, of a meeting of persons interested in Amateur Radio from throughout the operating territory of the League. The President will assign a member of the Board to work with the staff to evaluate National Convention applications and negotiate ARRL participation. The management, program and financial plans of every such convention shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. I understand why the folks at the Hamvention would like us to designate the 2005 Hamvention an ARRL National Convention. Before voting on this I would like to know if there really is some substance and purpose to a national convention. Im not necessarily opposed to the idea but if the purpose is simply to give the Hamvention (or any other event) a little window dressing it concerns me that we may appear to be renting out the name of the League. If the term ARRL National Convention is to have any meaning we need to identify some substantial and distinguishing features or aspects of the event peculiarly identified with ARRL and of particular benefit to ARRL and its members. That may be challenging, particularly in the context of an event as large and multifaceted as the Hamvention but we ought to try. Perhaps this is fodder for Thursday evening pre-meeting discussion. Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:05 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10759] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION Kay, Ive inserted my comments into your note. You raise valid and interesting points. I think I can answer most of them. Let me know if you have further questions, please. 73, Jim W. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communication system in the world. -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:wt3p@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10755] Re: PLANNED MOTION CONCERNING A 2005 ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION Joel has expressed many of my concerns very well. We must be very specific and very realistic about what is in it for the ARRL to have a National Convention ... at Dayton or anywhere. When we had the National at Dayton before, several people came to the booth and asked me, "So, how is this Dayton any different from other Daytons?" The answer I could give them, "There are more ARRL-related forums than in other years," didn't impress them much. It didn't impress me much, either, come to think of it. The allure of getting to go to Dayton at no personal expense should not distract us from asking hard questions about what the League will gain in concrete, measurable benefits from having a National. WITH THE COOPERATION GARY DES COMBES HAS GUARANTEED TO ME, IT WILL BE LARGELY UP TO US TO COME UP WITH IDEAS TO DISTINGUISH THIS CONVENTION FROM THE HAMVENTION. ESPECIALLY IF HQ DOES THEIR JOBS IN DEVELOPING PROGRAMS THAT LEVERAGE THE DISTINCT POTENTIAL VALUE OF HAVING 20,000 OR SO HAMS IN ONE PLACE, WE CAN AND MUST DO THE JOB. IF WE DONT DO OUR PART, WE WILL FAIL. I WOULD NOT INTEND FOR US TO FAIL. It's true that travel expenses for Directors and Officers come from their existing budgets. However, if you spend Division budget money going to a National, that's money you don't have available to spend on membership contact within your Division. This presents a choice to Directors: go to a National where you may not be interacting with many of your members, or skip the National and do your customary in-Division travel, or do it all and over-spend your budget. Any of these choices has down-sides for the organization. If we have so much money allocated to Governance that Divisions can absorb a Director's trip to a National without cutting back on other activity that year, then that raises interesting questions, doesn't it? YOU BET IT RAISES INTERESTING ISSUES. PLEASE NOTICE THAT EVEN AFTER WE CUT DIVISION BUDGETS IN JANUARY, MOST DIVISIONS STILL DO NOT COME CLOSE TO SPENDING THEIR BUDGET ALLOCATIONS EACH YEAR. I WAS VERY SURPRISED WHEN I GOT THE FIGURES FROM COY WHO IN TURN GOT THEM FROM BARRY. IM ALSO SURPRISED THAT WE ALLOW PEOPLE SO MUCH FISCAL FREEDOM THAT THEY WILLY NILLY OVERSPEND BUDGETS. I INADVERTENTLY OVERSPENT MINE BY A COUPLE OR THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS LAST YEAR AND FELL OFF MY CHAIR WHEN I WAS NOT CHASTISED FOR THIS. I HAD EXPECTED THAT IF I OVERSPENT, THE OVERAGE WOULD BE DENIED. WHY WASNT IT? There's something else I want to bring into the discussion of Nationals: I believe the Board needs to develop guidelines for the Director's Workbook suggesting what Directors and Officers should do at Nationals that we attend. Otherwise, it seems to me like we are getting to go to Dayton -- or wherever -- on the membership's nickel to shop, shmoose with our friends, and enjoy ourselves without being expected to do any particular work on behalf of the League. Walking around all day with a red badge on and stopping by the booth for 15 or 20 minutes doesn't fill the bill for me. Now I am not saying we should have to fill out some kind of dumb-ass time cards saying how many hours we did this and how many times we did that. I am suggesting, however, that as a body the volunteer members of the Board should come to an agreement about what work we expect ourselves to do for the League in return for the privilege of attending a National Convention at the membership's expense. Then we put it in the Director's Workbook and leave it to the honor and conscience of individuals to live up to the guidelines we've set for ourselves. I WILL SUPPORT SUCH A MOTION. IN FACT, IF YOU WANT ME TO WORK WITH YOU, ILL BE HAPPY TO PRESENT JUST SUCH A MOTION. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10788] Good news from Cedar Rapids
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

Rick Lindquist is putting the finishing touches on a story for the ARRL Web site about some good news from the Cedar Rapids BPL trial area. Alliant Energy has decided to end its trial early. Congratulations to Wade and Jim Spencer and the others who patiently worked with the utility and helped them come to this conclusion. Details below. 73, Mark K1RO _________ Utility Cuts Short BPL Trial that was Target of Amateur Complaints NEWINGTON, CT, Jun 15, 2004--Alliant Energy has called an early end to its broadband over power line (BPL) pilot project in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The "evaluation system" went live March 30, and plans were for it to remain active until August or September. Alliant shut it down June 25. Ongoing, unresolved HF interference from the system to retired engineer Jim Spencer, W0SR, and other amateurs prompted the ARRL to file a complaint to the FCC on Spencer's behalf demanding it be shut down. Spencer said he was happy with Alliant's decision, and was gracious in expressing appreciation to the utility for working with him on the interference issues. "And thanks also to the ARRL and the Cedar Rapids BPL Steering Committee for their knowledge and efforts in making a truly professional evaluation," he added. Alliant Energy's BPL Project Leader Dan Hinz says the ARRL complaint "certainly was a factor" in the utility's decision to pull the plug prematurely but "not the overriding factor." More to the point, he said, was that Alliant also was able to "accomplish the majority of its objectives" ahead of schedule. The primary purpose of the Cedar Rapids evaluation was to gain an understanding of BPL technology and what issues might be involved in a real-world deployment, Hinz explained, adding that regulatory uncertainty and other unspecified technical issues also factored into the choice to end the pilot early. Hinz said Alliant is "moshing the data" to compile a written evaluation of the Cedar Rapids pilot, but the company has no plans at this point to move forward with BPL. Alliant did not partner with a broadband services provider, and it has no other BPL test systems in operation. The system used Amperion BPL equipment. According to Spencer, five fixed Amateur Radio stations within proximity of the BPL evaluation system and two mobile stations formally reported BPL interference on HF. "The radio amateurs and Alliant Energy cooperated by sharing interference information," he said. "Alliant Energy turned the BPL evaluation system off twice to allow collection of extensive BPL frequency and signal level data--with and without BPL." He said Alliant and Amperion tried various "notching" schemes to rid amateur frequencies of the BPL interference with only limited success. The system included both overhead and underground BPL links to feed 2.4 GHz wireless "hot spots" for end user access. Hinz said the area's topography presented some challenges, especially with the system's wireless links. In hindsight, he suggested, Cedar Rapids might have not have been the best place to test BPL. "I think in the end, we actually over-challenged ourselves with this specific pilot location." Despite "substantial progress" in interference mitigation, Hinz said, Alliant decided at this point that "it wasn't worth the extra effort" to resolve the thornier technical issues. As for the broader implications of Alliant's decision, Hinz says he's always viewed BPL as a "strategic deployment technology," not one a company could roll out just anywhere and expect to be competitive with existing broadband services such as cable and DSL. "At least that's how we were looking at it.," he said. "You have to find the right areas with the right topography with the right concentration of certain types of customers," he said. "And from our test standpoint, we didn't necessarily give perhaps as much merit to some of those criteria as we should have." "It's never been in my mind that BPL has to compete with the speeds of cable today," Hinz added. "It has to compete with the speeds of cable and the next best thing tomorrow as well, if it's going to be usable well into the future." Cedar Rapids already has established broadband providers. Hinz said the Alliant system was a test-stand operation that never reached the point of signing up any real customers, and its technology was "fixed in time." Other companies have gone beyond what Alliant was able to accomplish in Cedar Rapids, he asserted, and plan to move ahead with BPL. He hinted that Alliant might want to take another look at BPL once the FCC has put BPL rules and regulations into place, and the technology has further evolved. Spencer and Hinz agree that the BPL situation was resolved without any rancor. Still outstanding are some chronic power line noise problems Spencer has experienced. "There's been ongoing dialogue," Hinz said "He helps keep our lines pretty clear up there." The ARRL's formal complaint to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon called on the Commission not only to close down Alliant's BPL field trial system but to fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC Part 15 rules. In late May, ARRL Midwest Division Director Wade Walstrom, W0EJ, also called on Alliant Energy to shut down its BPL system "without delay" and not resume operation until "any and all interference issues have been fully resolved." The ARRL became involved in Spencer's case after United Power Line Council <http://www.uplc.org> President William R. Moroney invited the League in mid-March to keep his organization in the loop on any cases of BPL interference that were not being satisfactorily addressed. For additional information, visit the "Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) and Amateur Radio" page on the ARRL Web site. To support the League's efforts in this area, visit the ARRL's secure BPL Web site.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10787] Re: UPLC's BPL Assininity
by W3KD＠aol.com 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

In a message dated 6/25/2004 3:46:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, dick(a)pobox.com writes: > > The United Power Line Council (UPLC) has filed it's BPL reply comments. > Below is the UPLC URL page that describes in this organizations' own > words what it thinks about Amateur Radio and the other groups that are > opposing the FCC's BPL proposal. > > Yes, we got hammered in the Manassas reply comments also. They are questioning our engineering tests of their system. We need to prepare an ex parte filing dealing with the worst of these; especially the fact-based filing of Manassas. With UPLC, they are just spewing, which indicates to me that they think we hurt them. The real problem is that Commissioner Abernathy is now saying that she is "cautiously optimistic" that the interference issue can be resolved. It can't, and we need to show her why. These days, as I have mentioned before, the filing of comments and reply comments is often just the beginning of the battle. This is one of those dockets. But we need to move fast, because a Report and Order is now being drafted, for anticipated release in October. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10786] FD report
by Tom Frenaye 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

K1TWF and K1KI each took a "little" time to drive to Field Day sites in New England this past weekend. Mike "wins" with 13 sites in EMA WMA VT and NH, plus 667 miles his the odometer. I had 12 sites in CT [actually, one was 2 miles inside ENY] and 460 miles driven. Mike managed a bunch of 2m FM QSOs while mobile, I caught about 350 QSOs mobile on 20 and 40m. Both cars had the new ARRL magnetic "Radio Communication" sign on the side and it was well received - now I need one for the other side of my car. About 3/4 of the FD operations we visited had Get On The Air Stations. Nice to work W0CP and W5ZN on Sunday! -- Tom ===== 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