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

RE: LoTW WAS status
by Joel Harrison 23 Dec '05

23 Dec '05

To quote Mr. Burns' (of Simpson's fame) favorite phrase: EXCELNT ! ZN -----Original Message----- From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B [mailto:wj1b@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:52 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Bloom, Jon, KE3Z Subject: FW: LoTW WAS status A couple of Board Members have asked me about this so here is the latest LOTW - WAS Progress Report: Work has slowed this week since Tom Hogerty has been out sick and Jon Bloom had to pick up the Web site slack. But the LoTW development system is now able to generate WAS award credits from QSL records, and work is proceeding on the award application and management parts of the system. Having it ready for January 1 is looking a bit dicey, but if not on January 1, it should be within a week or so of that date. 73, Harold WJ1B

1 0

FW: LoTW WAS status
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

A couple of Board Members have asked me about this so here is the latest LOTW - WAS Progress Report: Work has slowed this week since Tom Hogerty has been out sick and Jon Bloom had to pick up the Web site slack. But the LoTW development system is now able to generate WAS award credits from QSL records, and work is proceeding on the award application and management parts of the system. Having it ready for January 1 is looking a bit dicey, but if not on January 1, it should be within a week or so of that date. 73, Harold WJ1B

1 0

Report of the Chief Technology Officer
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Dec '05

22 Dec '05

I am pleased to forward to you Paul Rinaldo's report to the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Board. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<13 CTO.doc>>

1 0

RE: Board of Section Managers proposal
by John Bellows 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

If the Manager of F&ES is responsible for managing and administering the ARES program it would seem he is the best person to assume overall coordination of a mass multi-section emergency communications effort. SM's are familiar with and best suited to address those emergencies localized to a Section or small geographic area. When a major disaster occurs, that ability can quickly lose effectiveness, particularly where the local ARES participants are victims and in no position to render communications assistance to others. As Andy noted HQ staff did a great job with the Katrina and Rita responses, both at HQ and at the marshalling sites. Moreover, that experience was invaluable in learning, what went right, what went wrong and how to better respond in the future. Let's build on that success, not build more bureaucracy. I agree with Wade and Rev this is a non-starter. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy_oppel@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re: Board of Section Managers proposal I agree that it's a bad idea, but there is a message in here that we should listen to. We need national leadership and coordination for ARES. This was evident during the past hurricane season -- as soon as a communications emergency spans sections, our ability to present a coordinated response to our served agencies falls apart. I'm not being critical of HQ staff here because they did a great job with the Katrina and Rita responses, including quickly setting up a resource database and so forth. However, we can do better next time if we have a person who knows emergency communications and the response expectations of our served agencies in a position to assume overall coordination of the ARRL's response (which is a lot different than the day-to-day work that F&ES does to administer the basic ARES program). -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 12:30 PM 12/21/2005, you wrote: >Wade: I could not agree with you more. It is bad idea and I feel it >will indeed go no where. Rev WS7W > >On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:43 +0000 > walstrom(a)mchsi.com wrote: >>Hi Gary! >>This is not a Board proposal. This sounds like someones pet idea >>that will go no where. >>73, >>Wade W0EJ >> >>>Anybody look over that Board of Section Managers proposal from Allan >>>Handforth, KC6VJL? >>>The first thing that comes to mind is where is the ARRL Board in all this, >>>and where does the Board of Section Managers get any authority, or are they >>>advisory to the BOD or what?!? He talks about having 15 SM directors, one >>>each for the 15 divisions, with most of their meetings in chat rooms. But if >>>you are going to do that, why not have ALL the SMs in on the discussions? >>>Does this place an additional layer between the SMs and the ARRL field >>>organization? Why do that? >>>Seems kind of off the wall to me. >>> >

1 0

RE: Board of Section Managers proposal
by Jim Weaver,K8JE 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

I agree with Rev and Wade that the KC6VJL proposal is poor. Conversely, I don't think we ought to dismiss it summarily. Instead, it would seem to be a sound idea to include this proposal in a thorough, timely review of ARES and where we'd like to go with this operation in the future. A lot is happening among our served agencies regarding how they are preparing to meet future major disasters. Whether this is FEMA's proposed, mandated switch to all-digital communication or some other change(s), we can easily be left out in the proverbial cold unless we stick tightly to the same page as them. Let's be sure we don't ill advisedly toss out important ideas simply because they are clothed in a poorly conceived and prepared proposal. 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: warren morton [mailto:mortonwg@bresnan.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re: Board of Section Managers proposal Wade: I could not agree with you more. It is bad idea and I feel it will indeed go no where. Rev WS7W On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:43 +0000 walstrom(a)mchsi.com wrote: > Hi Gary! > > This is not a Board proposal. This sounds like someones pet idea that will >go > no where. > > 73, > > Wade W0EJ > > >> >> Anybody look over that Board of Section Managers proposal from Allan >> Handforth, KC6VJL? >> >> The first thing that comes to mind is where is the ARRL Board in all this, >> and where does the Board of Section Managers get any authority, or are they >> advisory to the BOD or what?!? He talks about having 15 SM directors, one >> each for the 15 divisions, with most of their meetings in chat rooms. But if >> you are going to do that, why not have ALL the SMs in on the discussions? >> Does this place an additional layer between the SMs and the ARRL field >> organization? Why do that? >> >> Seems kind of off the wall to me. >> >> >> >

1 0

Re: Board of Section Managers proposal
by Andy Oppel 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

I agree that it's a bad idea, but there is a message in here that we should listen to. We need national leadership and coordination for ARES. This was evident during the past hurricane season -- as soon as a communications emergency spans sections, our ability to present a coordinated response to our served agencies falls apart. I'm not being critical of HQ staff here because they did a great job with the Katrina and Rita responses, including quickly setting up a resource database and so forth. However, we can do better next time if we have a person who knows emergency communications and the response expectations of our served agencies in a position to assume overall coordination of the ARRL's response (which is a lot different than the day-to-day work that F&ES does to administer the basic ARES program). -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 12:30 PM 12/21/2005, you wrote: >Wade: I could not agree with you more. It is bad idea and I feel it >will indeed go no where. Rev WS7W > >On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:43 +0000 > walstrom(a)mchsi.com wrote: >>Hi Gary! >>This is not a Board proposal. This sounds like someones pet idea >>that will go no where. >>73, >>Wade W0EJ >> >>>Anybody look over that Board of Section Managers proposal from Allan >>>Handforth, KC6VJL? >>>The first thing that comes to mind is where is the ARRL Board in all this, >>>and where does the Board of Section Managers get any authority, or are they >>>advisory to the BOD or what?!? He talks about having 15 SM directors, one >>>each for the 15 divisions, with most of their meetings in chat rooms. But if >>>you are going to do that, why not have ALL the SMs in on the discussions? >>>Does this place an additional layer between the SMs and the ARRL field >>>organization? Why do that? >>>Seems kind of off the wall to me. >>> >

1 0

Re: Board of Section Managers proposal
by warren morton 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

Wade: I could not agree with you more. It is bad idea and I feel it will indeed go no where. Rev WS7W On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:43 +0000 walstrom(a)mchsi.com wrote: > Hi Gary! > > This is not a Board proposal. This sounds like someones pet idea that will >go > no where. > > 73, > > Wade W0EJ > > >> >> Anybody look over that Board of Section Managers proposal from Allan >> Handforth, KC6VJL? >> >> The first thing that comes to mind is where is the ARRL Board in all this, >> and where does the Board of Section Managers get any authority, or are they >> advisory to the BOD or what?!? He talks about having 15 SM directors, one >> each for the 15 divisions, with most of their meetings in chat rooms. But if >> you are going to do that, why not have ALL the SMs in on the discussions? >> Does this place an additional layer between the SMs and the ARRL field >> organization? Why do that? >> >> Seems kind of off the wall to me. >> >> >> >

1 0

FW: [RAC-Bulletin] 05-023: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220 - 222 MHz.
by w6rod＠comcast.net 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

I know some of you get the RAC electronic bulletins but for those that don't you might be interested in this little bit of news. 73, Rod -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "rachq" <rachq(a)eton.ca> To: "w6rod(a)comcast.net" w6rod(a)comcast.net Subject: [RAC-Bulletin] 05-023: Canadian Amateurs to Lose 220 - 222 MHz. Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:52:59 +0000 Effective 25 January, 2006, despite the protests and the efforts of Radio Amateurs of Canada, the Canadian Amateur Service will lose the 220 - 222 MHz portion of the 220 - 225 MHz band. Details are contained in Canada Gazette Notice DGTP-004-05, "Proposals and Changes to the Spectrum in Certain Bands Below 1.7 GHz" available on the Industry Canada web site at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf08494e.html ---------- Send comments to: rachq(a)rac.ca This Bulletin is being sent to you because you asked to be added to the RAC robot mailing list. For more information about the robot, or to be removed from the list please visit: http://rac.eton.ca/racbullemail.htm

1 0

RE: BPL for Dallas-Fort Worth in 2006
by Kay Craigie 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

Thanks, Dave. Well, then, I'll say "happy new year" again in an entirely different tone of voice! 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: BPL for Dallas-Fort Worth in 2006
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 21 Dec '05

21 Dec '05

Tnx Kay. If TXU is going to do BPL it's good they went with Current, whose Cincinnati deployment has not caused the hams there any difficulty to this point. Recall that TXU had a pilot with Amperion that was generating severe interference in Irving, TX, not far from the Marriott we use there. Had they decided to go with Amperion there would be cause for serious concern, not only because Amperion is clueless when it comes to interference but also because it would have meant TXU was not concerned about interference mitigation. Current's Cincinnati deployment meets the requirements of the rules we have proposed in our petition for further rulemaking. They weren't as cooperative initially as we would have liked (and as they ought to have been for their own self-interest) but we have good communication with them now on a technical level. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:27 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: BPL for Dallas-Fort Worth in 2006 TXU Electric Delivery, in cahoots with Current Communications Group, says they will roll out BPL in Dallas-Ft. Worth in 2006. I am told there was a story about it in yesterday's WSJ, and the announcement also appears on bizjournals.com at http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/high_tech/internet/2005/12/19/austin_d aily11.html Happy New Year? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0