December 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:13374] Re: licensed-letter from ARRL
by Andy Oppel 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

Section Managers get address labels of new licensees (and apparently renewals in some cases). The idea behind that is that the SM will send out a welcome letter, introducing the new licensee to local clubs and services, and of course, soliciting membership in the ARRL. Of course, the implementation is up to the individual SM, so it's all over the map (some send personalized letters, some send form letters, some send postcards, some do nothing with the labels). I'm not at all suggesting that the SM labels are an adequate solution, but whatever we do, we have to make sure the SMs know about it -- otherwise there could be duplicated efforts and we'd look uncoordinated to the potential member. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 04:40 PM 12/1/2005, you wrote: >I'm wondering. When a VE team passes an applicant, what happens >next? Do they get a letter or QSL-type card saying, "way to go" and >by they way here's a great offer to join the ARRL, the national >association for Amateur Radio? If not, why not? What can we do to >put the ARRL before them right away? > 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13373] Re: licensed-letter from ARRL
by jfenster＠pacifier.com 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

Hi Gang, As some of you may know, this is something I've been working on for a couple of years. When my wife was licensed over a year ago, she received a packet of advertising info from the ARRL. There was really nothing about ARRL services or a good reason to join. I have been "elmering" a local new ham this year and passed on to HQ staff info he received which was more confusing than usable. This was his opinion...not mine. I convinced him to join the ARRL. He had no reason other than my work with him to join. As far as I'm concerned, we do a horrible job of communicating with new hams. It's no wonder we don't have many new ham members. What do we do to convince them to join our ranks? I for one don't see much incentive from HQ that would be an incentive to join other than a promise for a free publication. We are attracting a different breed of potential members. What worked before isn't for the most part, working now. I hear from HQ staff that "we tried that before and it didn't work." It's time we changed our strategy and tried to reach new hams in a much more proactive manner. I am sure some will disagree with these statements. However, these statements are made with input from many new hams in the NW Division. I wasn't going to raise these issues on the ODV but I feel strongly about our marketing effort (or lack thereof) and did not post the original question. Jim K9JF

1 0

licensed-letter from ARRL
by Bill Edgar 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

Greg, I help at our club's VE sessions. We give the successful candidates an envelope from the ARRL that has the pamphlet "Your Guide to ARRL Services"; self-addressed return envelope and a membership application. That's from the VE side of the fence. - Bill N3LLR _____ From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13370] licensed-letter from ARRL I'm wondering. When a VE team passes an applicant, what happens next? Do they get a letter or QSL-type card saying, "way to go" and by they way here's a great offer to join the ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio? If not, why not? What can we do to put the ARRL before them right away? 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13371] Re: licensed-letter from ARRL
by Jim Weaver,K8JE 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

Greg, I support your general idea. Exactly how to do this would be the question. I suppose, too, we'd need to ensure we would not be violating some confidentiality "or whatever" in that we are acting as a representative of the FCC through the NCVEC rather than specifically as ARRL. Backing up still one additional step, I'm still concerned we are not truly doing the best job of putting our best foot forward in our recruiting literature. As one example, I do not believe we are selling what I see as the greatest strengths ARRL offers to amateurs - the ability to pursue a favorable legislative program and to fight adverse legislative initiatives and regulatory concepts. Of course, going back still another step, I'm mostly concerned that we've never actually implemented the "grassroots" project we adopted a while back which is needed before we can trumpet these strengths. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel: 513-459-0142 ARRL Great Lakes Division ARRL, the Reason Amateur Radio is! Members, the Reason ARRL is! -----Original Message----- From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13370] licensed-letter from ARRL I'm wondering. When a VE team passes an applicant, what happens next? Do they get a letter or QSL-type card saying, "way to go" and by they way here's a great offer to join the ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio? If not, why not? What can we do to put the ARRL before them right away? 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13370] licensed-letter from ARRL
by Greg Milnes 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

I'm wondering. When a VE team passes an applicant, what happens next? Do they get a letter or QSL-type card saying, "way to go" and by they way here's a great offer to join the ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio? If not, why not? What can we do to put the ARRL before them right away? 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13369] Re: ARRL complaint re BPL database
by W3KD＠aol.com 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

In a message dated 11/30/2005 8:50:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, rbvallio(a)gmail.com writes: > > Perhaps I am naive. What more proof is needed, other than his commission of > the string of acts I see as qualifying to be investigated. I don't care how > nice he is, or how he carries out the orders of his superiors -- only that > he is exhibiting the behavior I consider meritorious of action. How long do > we roll over for these bozos? Am I the only one who cares? > Bob, you are certainly not the only one who cares. The problem is that Franca, though he has failed to respond to several pieces of our correspondence, simply takes a different view than we do. There is nothing that we can point to that establishes that he is either derelict in his duty (other than the FOIA fiasco that was actually his predecessor's action, and that is in the Reconsideration Petition we have filed, and is a matter of public record) or has affirmatively taken unlawful or unethical steps. We know he is strongly biased in favor of BPL, but that is merely a reflection of former Chairman Powell's political position, which Franca is still echoing, not apparently having received any contrary instructions from Martin so far. We don't, in short, have enough evidence to jump on Franca individually, and it would be reckless and short-sighted to do that. We can be and have been aggressive, more so than ever before, on the issue, but when the battle gets personal with FCC staff, you had better be able to win, or the consequences for the future are dire. Surely enough, it is arguable that we have little to lose, as FCC seems to take a contrary position to ours every time we turn around, but we really do have to continue to stand our ground on the issues that we believe in and use the Rod Stafford strategy of continuing to push (which of course ultimately worked in the enforcement issue, and it is, in the big picture, working in the BPL area. Regulatory uncertainty is a death knell for BPL, and we are, pretty much alone, sustaining that uncertainty. The statistics Dave just cited prove that. BPL is going nowhere, and we are helping it get there fast. It isn't necessary to kick Franca in the shins (or elsewhere), and we couldn't make it hurt enough to make a difference. Chris

1 0

ARRL complaint re BPL database
by Bob Vallio 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Perhaps I am naive. What more proof is needed, other than his commission of the string of acts I see as qualifying to be investigated. I don't care how nice he is, or how he carries out the orders of his superiors -- only that he is exhibiting the behavior I consider meritorious of action. How long do we roll over for these bozos? Am I the only one who cares? Bob, W6RGG On 11/30/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > Well, much as I wish Bruce Franca saw things our way, we don't have > another Duke Cunningham situation here, and it would be really unwise of us > to float such accusations without proof. Bruce is a career FCC staffer who > is simply following the last marching orders he was given on BPL. Kevin > Martin is not Michael Powell, and on other issues he has made a point of > distancing himself from Powell. We've given him the basis to add BPL to that > list but it's a relatively small issue compared to what else is on the FCC's > plate and it probably doesn't have his full attention (although I sent him > an advance copy of the December QST editorial and received a personal > acknowledgment). > > Chris has made an appointment for me to see Mike Wilhelm on December 8 to > talk about restructuring. He tried to get me into the chairman's office the > same day to talk about BPL but there wasn't a slot available. We'll keep > trying. If we can't get in to see Chairman Martin perhaps we can get in to > see the two Democrats, who as of December 9 will be in the majority on the > FCC unless the Senate confirms Debi Tate and she takes office in the > meantime. > > In the meantime the strategy is to make sure no one thinks we're going to > go away quietly. We're working on another BPL database complaint, this time > about systems that are operating without having been put into the database. > (There are only a few such that we know of -- even more telling is that as > far as we can tell there are only 60 Zip Codes represented in the data base, > most of which are tiny trials and some of which we know have never been > activated.) > > Dave K1ZZ > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Bob Vallio [mailto:rbvallio@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thu 12/1/2005 12:41 AM > *To:* arrl-odv > *Subject:* ARRL complaint re BPL database > > Perhaps I am missing something here, but it appears to me that no matter > what proof we offer of failure to comply with the R&O, or any part of 47 CFR > to any Commission staff member, it is ignored or dismissed out of hand. Can > we suggest to someone in the Federal government that we suspect some of > these people are guilty of malfeasance or misprision? One definition of > malfeasance is "Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official;" > and one definition of misprision is "Negligence or misconduct in inferior > officers." Franca seems to fit both definitions. It's time to stop > accepting the way the ARRL is being treated by these weasels. > > Bob Vallio, W6RGG > > > > On 11/30/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > > Yesterday I received the following response from Bruce Franca, dated > > November 22, 2005, to my complaint about the BPL database [arrl-odv:13197]. > > > > Dear Mr. Sumner: > > > > This is in response to your letter dated October 14, 2005 > > regarding the Office of Engineering and Technology's announcement that > > United Telecom Council ("UTC") will serve as the Access Broadband over Power > > Line (BPL) database manager. In that letter, you charge that the BPL > > database maintained by UTC, as currently configured, fails to comply with > > Section 15.615 of the Commission's rules. (47 U.S.C. Section 15.615.) > > You specifically are concerned that inquiries by the public are limited in > > number and that access to the information in the database is available only > > by Zip Code area. You maintain that the restrictions are not consistent with > > the requirement for a "publicly available database" contained in Section > > 15.615(a) of the Commission's rules. (47 C.F.R. Section 15.615(a).) You > > ask that the Commission re-evaluate the database provided by UTC and either > > declare it noncompliant or work with UTC to fully meet the requirements for > > public access to all information in the database, free of unsupported > > restrictions. > > > > Your concern, limiting access to the database, does not > > constitute a violation of the rules. Subsection (d) of the subject rule > > clearly states that the purpose of the rule is to permit identification of > > possible sources of "harmful interference that is suspected to be caused by > > an Access BPL system." 47 C.F.R. Section 15.615(d); see also Report and > > Order in ET Docket No 04-37, 19 FCC Rcd 21300, 21301 (2004). Permitting > > individuals who are using a licensed service that operates on the same > > frequencies as are used by a BPL system to query for pertinent information > > in the geographic area of that interference fully fulfills this function. As > > the Commission concluded in the Report and Order, Zip Codes are easily > > understood and can be identified by all parties and thus provide an > > organized approach to accomplish this objective. Database queries will > > provide the information required by our rules for BPL systems deployed > > within a Zip Code. > > > > I hope this has been responsive to your concerns. If you have > > further questions, please contact me. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Bruce Franca > > Acting Chief > > Office of Engineering and Technology > > > > After coordination with Chris Imlay, this morning I sent the attached > > reply. > > > > Dave Sumner, K1ZZ > > > > <<Franca4.doc>> > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:13367] Re: ARRL complaint re BPL database
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Well, much as I wish Bruce Franca saw things our way, we don't have another Duke Cunningham situation here, and it would be really unwise of us to float such accusations without proof. Bruce is a career FCC staffer who is simply following the last marching orders he was given on BPL. Kevin Martin is not Michael Powell, and on other issues he has made a point of distancing himself from Powell. We've given him the basis to add BPL to that list but it's a relatively small issue compared to what else is on the FCC's plate and it probably doesn't have his full attention (although I sent him an advance copy of the December QST editorial and received a personal acknowledgment). Chris has made an appointment for me to see Mike Wilhelm on December 8 to talk about restructuring. He tried to get me into the chairman's office the same day to talk about BPL but there wasn't a slot available. We'll keep trying. If we can't get in to see Chairman Martin perhaps we can get in to see the two Democrats, who as of December 9 will be in the majority on the FCC unless the Senate confirms Debi Tate and she takes office in the meantime. In the meantime the strategy is to make sure no one thinks we're going to go away quietly. We're working on another BPL database complaint, this time about systems that are operating without having been put into the database. (There are only a few such that we know of -- even more telling is that as far as we can tell there are only 60 Zip Codes represented in the data base, most of which are tiny trials and some of which we know have never been activated.) Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: Bob Vallio [mailto:rbvallio@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 12:41 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: ARRL complaint re BPL database Perhaps I am missing something here, but it appears to me that no matter what proof we offer of failure to comply with the R&O, or any part of 47 CFR to any Commission staff member, it is ignored or dismissed out of hand. Can we suggest to someone in the Federal government that we suspect some of these people are guilty of malfeasance or misprision? One definition of malfeasance is "Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official;" and one definition of misprision is "Negligence or misconduct in inferior officers." Franca seems to fit both definitions. It's time to stop accepting the way the ARRL is being treated by these weasels. Bob Vallio, W6RGG On 11/30/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: Yesterday I received the following response from Bruce Franca, dated November 22, 2005, to my complaint about the BPL database [arrl-odv:13197]. Dear Mr. Sumner: This is in response to your letter dated October 14, 2005 regarding the Office of Engineering and Technology's announcement that United Telecom Council ("UTC") will serve as the Access Broadband over Power Line (BPL) database manager. In that letter, you charge that the BPL database maintained by UTC, as currently configured, fails to comply with Section 15.615 of the Commission's rules. (47 U.S.C. Section 15.615.) You specifically are concerned that inquiries by the public are limited in number and that access to the information in the database is available only by Zip Code area. You maintain that the restrictions are not consistent with the requirement for a "publicly available database" contained in Section 15.615(a) of the Commission's rules. (47 C.F.R. Section 15.615(a).) You ask that the Commission re-evaluate the database provided by UTC and either declare it noncompliant or work with UTC to fully meet the requirements for public access to all information in the database, free of unsupported restrictions. Your concern, limiting access to the database, does not constitute a violation of the rules. Subsection (d) of the subject rule clearly states that the purpose of the rule is to permit identification of possible sources of "harmful interference that is suspected to be caused by an Access BPL system." 47 C.F.R. Section 15.615(d); see also Report and Order in ET Docket No 04-37, 19 FCC Rcd 21300, 21301 (2004). Permitting individuals who are using a licensed service that operates on the same frequencies as are used by a BPL system to query for pertinent information in the geographic area of that interference fully fulfills this function. As the Commission concluded in the Report and Order, Zip Codes are easily understood and can be identified by all parties and thus provide an organized approach to accomplish this objective. Database queries will provide the information required by our rules for BPL systems deployed within a Zip Code. I hope this has been responsive to your concerns. If you have further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Bruce Franca Acting Chief Office of Engineering and Technology After coordination with Chris Imlay, this morning I sent the attached reply. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<Franca4.doc>>

1 0

ARRL complaint re BPL database
by Bob Vallio 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Perhaps I am missing something here, but it appears to me that no matter what proof we offer of failure to comply with the R&O, or any part of 47 CFR to any Commission staff member, it is ignored or dismissed out of hand. Can we suggest to someone in the Federal government that we suspect some of these people are guilty of malfeasance or misprision? One definition of malfeasance is "Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official;" and one definition of misprision is "Negligence or misconduct in inferior officers." Franca seems to fit both definitions. It's time to stop accepting the way the ARRL is being treated by these weasels. Bob Vallio, W6RGG On 11/30/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > Yesterday I received the following response from Bruce Franca, dated > November 22, 2005, to my complaint about the BPL database [arrl-odv:13197]. > > Dear Mr. Sumner: > > This is in response to your letter dated October 14, 2005 > regarding the Office of Engineering and Technology's announcement that > United Telecom Council ("UTC") will serve as the Access Broadband over Power > Line (BPL) database manager. In that letter, you charge that the BPL > database maintained by UTC, as currently configured, fails to comply with > Section 15.615 of the Commission's rules. (47 U.S.C. Section 15.615.) You > specifically are concerned that inquiries by the public are limited in > number and that access to the information in the database is available only > by Zip Code area. You maintain that the restrictions are not consistent with > the requirement for a "publicly available database" contained in Section > 15.615(a) of the Commission's rules. (47 C.F.R. Section 15.615(a).) You > ask that the Commission re-evaluate the database provided by UTC and either > declare it noncompliant or work with UTC to fully meet the requirements for > public access to all information in the database, free of unsupported > restrictions. > > Your concern, limiting access to the database, does not constitute > a violation of the rules. Subsection (d) of the subject rule clearly states > that the purpose of the rule is to permit identification of possible sources > of "harmful interference that is suspected to be caused by an Access BPL > system." 47 C.F.R. Section 15.615(d); see also Report and Order in ET > Docket No 04-37, 19 FCC Rcd 21300, 21301 (2004). Permitting individuals who > are using a licensed service that operates on the same frequencies as are > used by a BPL system to query for pertinent information in the geographic > area of that interference fully fulfills this function. As the Commission > concluded in the Report and Order, Zip Codes are easily understood and can > be identified by all parties and thus provide an organized approach to > accomplish this objective. Database queries will provide the information > required by our rules for BPL systems deployed within a Zip Code. > > I hope this has been responsive to your concerns. If you have > further questions, please contact me. > > Sincerely, > > Bruce Franca > Acting Chief > Office of Engineering and Technology > > After coordination with Chris Imlay, this morning I sent the attached > reply. > > Dave Sumner, K1ZZ > > <<Franca4.doc>> > >

1 0