March 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:11975] Re: Martin Picked to Head FCC
by R. B. Vallio 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

Martin Picked to Head FCCWell said, Dave. Thank you. Bob Vallio -- W6RGG ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:57 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:11958] Martin Picked to Head FCC See attached for my congratulatory note to Commissioner Martin, which was faxed to his office about 5 minutes after the Associated Press story appeared.. Dave K1ZZ Martin Picked for FCC Chairman By Genaro C. Armas Associated Press Writer Wednesday, March 16, 2005; 1:43 PM President Bush on Wednesday named Kevin Martin, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, to head the agency that has recently gained notoriety for clamping down on indecency in broadcasting. Martin, who has been an FCC commissioner since 2001, replaces Michael Powell as chairman. Powell, son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, had announced in January that he was leaving this month after four years in the top post. The FCC has taken on an increasingly critical role in the life of America with the explosive growth in the telecommunications industry. Martin, 38, a Republican, was born in Charlotte, N.C. He worked at the White House for Bush as an economic adviser and served as a deputy general counsel on Bush's first campaign. His wife, Catherine, is a special assistant to the president on economic policy and previously worked as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Because he already is a member of the FCC, Martin's promotion, which had been widely expected, does not need to be confirmed by the Senate. As chairman, Martin would lead an agency that regulates phone, broadcast, Internet and other telecommunications services. Among the issues the agency will likely tackle in the near future are the digital TV transition; another stab at revising media ownership rules; whether to approve a spate of phone industry mega-mergers; and how to regulate Internet phone calls. But the agency has been prominent in the public's mind recently for tougher enforcement of the indecency guidelines that free, over-the-air radio and TV stations must follow. It probably was best known for the fine it levied on the so-called "wardrobe malfunction" involving entertainer Janet Jackson at the 2004 Super Bowl and for actions taken against bawdy radio shows and other programming deemed too racy for broadcast. Fines for indecent programming exceeded $7.7 million last year, including a total of $550,000 against 20 CBS-owned stations for the Super Bowl show. CBS is contesting the fine. Four years ago, FCC fines totaled just $48,000. Martin and Powell have not always seen eye to eye, most notably in 2003 when Martin allied with the FCC's two Democrats on a key vote over phone competition rules. Powell's final FCC meeting was last week, and he has said he wanted to clear out of his office by Friday. The White House must still nominate a commissioner to the five-member FCC, which under the current political structure has three Republican slots and two Democratic ones. The Senate would have to approve that nomination. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said Wednesday he has recommended his former aide, Earl Comstock to the White House for the open slot. Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher -- who is also head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration -- was considered another possibility for FCC chief and might still be considered to become the third Republican commissioner. Gallagher already is one of Bush's top advisers on telecommunications policy. Other names that have been mentioned include former Texas utilities regulator Rebecca Armendariz Klein and Pat Wood, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. © 2005 The Associated Press <<Martin.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:11974] Re: IRLP Contest
by R. B. Vallio 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

[arrl-odv:11966] Re: IRLP ContestYou wrote: "The fact that guys would spend time kvetching about it is a sadder commentary than anything I can think of." It may very well be sad, and the crawl may have dropped from sight, but neither of those items lead me to believe that we should not be sorry that it happened, or that the concerns of some of our members should be brushed aside in such a cavalier manner. Bob -- W6RGG ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:34 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:11968] Re: IRLP Contest And lest we forget, the ARRL Board named K1RFD the winner of the 2002 Technical Innovation Award for developing Echolink. Is an IRLP contest silly? Personally, I think it is. But there are a lot of things I enjoy in amateur radio that others find silly -- such as trading 599s and calling it communication. And in any case, we're not the sponsors. We provided some publicity. It's already scrolled well down the news crawl. The fact that guys would spend time kvetching about it is a sadder commentary than anything I can think of. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 11:09 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:11966] Re: IRLP Contest Bob, I can't speak for Rev in terms of comments received from within my Division, but my understanding is that IRLP always requires a radio -- unlike Echolink, I can't talk to someone via my computer's microphone. I have to use some kind of RF link (namely a repeater) that then taps into the internet and pops back out as RF somewhere else. In that case, a license is always required, as is a radio. More experienced IRLP users are free to correct me if I'm in error. This is based on my limited use of IRLP and through referring to the IRLP website. In future replies to your members and those on the CQ Contest list, you might mention the above and recommend a visit to www.irlp.net in an effort to lay some of the preconceived notions to rest. I personally don't see a problem with ARRL specifically stating the contest's sponsorship, lack thereof, or not mentioning either. By putting it on our website we are, in essence, promoting "interest in Amateur Radio communications and experimentation," one of our reasons for being as stated on the "About the ARRL" page within our website. 73, Brian, N5ZGT ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, R. B. Vallio wrote: > I haven' seen anyone address this on ODV, so I will bring to everyone's > attention. Please take a look at: > > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/03/14/3/?nc=1 > > before you read further. > > This is an announcement of an IRLP contest, on our WebPages, with no > indication of any sort that sponsorship is not by the ARRL. The CQ Contest > reflector was filled with comments on March 14, the first day the > announcement appeared, and although the number is down, there are still > comments being made. > > The thought of the ARRL sponsoring a contest where entrants need not have a > radio or a license to participate, has certainly sparked some comments from > Pacific Division members. I believe that there is no harm in mentioning it, > but that a disclaimer of ARRL sponsorship should have been included. Have > any of you folks received any mail on the subject? Thanks. > > Bob -- W6RGG

1 0

[arrl-odv:11973] Re: IRLP Contest
by Greg Milnes 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

I thought "IRLP" was the sound I made the last time I went up in a helicopter and filled up one of those air-sickness bags. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:11971] Re: IRLP Contest
by Jim K8JE 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

Bob, Although I'm much, much, much too young to remember this, I'm told the change from spark to CW was viewed by many hams of the day as be far beneath the level of being called Amateur Radio. The big shift to SSB from AM came during my very early days as an amateur and many of the brethren carped against this as being "un-ham-like." The bottom line, regardless of who favors or opposes anything new, hams are a bunch "if-it-wasn't-here-when-I-got-my-license-it ain't-real-ham radio" people. Disclaimer: If anyone likes what I just said, I wrote it. If anyone does not like it, I'll assist in the search for the illusive dastardly author. 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: k5ur(a)aol.com [mailto:k5ur@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:11965] Re: IRLP Contest Bob: Yes, I have gotten a complaint. Also, I am going to club meeting Saturday where I'm told that I'll be asked to explain "How the ARRL can sponsor such a contest, and what's next? Will such contacts be good for DXCC?" 73, K5UR -----Original Message----- From: R. B. Vallio <w6rgg(a)sbcglobal.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:31 -0800 Subject: [arrl-odv:11963] IRLP Contest I haven' seen anyone address this on ODV, so I will bring to everyone's attention. Please take a look at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/03/14/3/?nc=1 before you read further. This is an announcement of an IRLP contest, on our WebPages, with no indication of any sort that sponsorship is not by the ARRL. The CQ Contest reflector was filled with comments on March 14, the first day the announcement appeared, and although the number is down, there are still comments being made. The thought of the ARRL sponsoring a contest where entrants need not have a radio or a license to participate, has certainly sparked some comments from Pacific Division members. I believe that there is no harm in mentioning it, but that a disclaimer of ARRL sponsorship should have been included. Have any of you folks received any mail on the subject? Thanks. Bob -- W6RGG

1 0

[arrl-odv:11972] Re: IRLP Contest
by Jim K8JE 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

Joel, To qualify for the Antique IRLP contest your telephone must be powered by two of those old 1.4 (?) v. dry cell batteries. 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:11967] Re: IRLP Contest I'm waiting for the antique ILRP contest where the equipment I'll whip out and use will be my old rotary telephone and make some calls (Q's). ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:11970] Re: IRLP Contest
by Kay Craigie 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

There is no indication that the event is sponsored by the ARRL, and the entries are not sent to addresses having anything to do with the ARRL. As far as I can see, it's a news story about a new operating event. As I understand it, IRLP is not accessible to non-hams. I don't think we should be shaking in our shoes every time somebody beefs about a topic we cover that's not their cup of tea. If we avoided mentioning every subject that somebody thinks is dumb or somebody doesn't approve of, we'd have an awful lot of white space in QST and a very empty web site. If everything in ham radio that *somebody* hates were to be done away with, we'd all have to go take saxophone lessons or start breeding schnauzers. There wouldn't be any more ham radio. It's a free country. People who don't like the IRLP thing don't have to participate in it. IRLP and Echolink don't interest me one bit, personally, but so -- in the great cosmic scheme of things -- what? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:11968] Re: IRLP Contest
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

And lest we forget, the ARRL Board named K1RFD the winner of the 2002 Technical Innovation Award for developing Echolink. Is an IRLP contest silly? Personally, I think it is. But there are a lot of things I enjoy in amateur radio that others find silly -- such as trading 599s and calling it communication. And in any case, we're not the sponsors. We provided some publicity. It's already scrolled well down the news crawl. The fact that guys would spend time kvetching about it is a sadder commentary than anything I can think of. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) Sent: Wed 3/16/2005 11:09 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:11966] Re: IRLP Contest Bob, I can't speak for Rev in terms of comments received from within my Division, but my understanding is that IRLP always requires a radio -- unlike Echolink, I can't talk to someone via my computer's microphone. I have to use some kind of RF link (namely a repeater) that then taps into the internet and pops back out as RF somewhere else. In that case, a license is always required, as is a radio. More experienced IRLP users are free to correct me if I'm in error. This is based on my limited use of IRLP and through referring to the IRLP website. In future replies to your members and those on the CQ Contest list, you might mention the above and recommend a visit to www.irlp.net in an effort to lay some of the preconceived notions to rest. I personally don't see a problem with ARRL specifically stating the contest's sponsorship, lack thereof, or not mentioning either. By putting it on our website we are, in essence, promoting "interest in Amateur Radio communications and experimentation," one of our reasons for being as stated on the "About the ARRL" page within our website. 73, Brian, N5ZGT ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, R. B. Vallio wrote: > I haven' seen anyone address this on ODV, so I will bring to everyone's > attention. Please take a look at: > > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/03/14/3/?nc=1 > > before you read further. > > This is an announcement of an IRLP contest, on our WebPages, with no > indication of any sort that sponsorship is not by the ARRL. The CQ Contest > reflector was filled with comments on March 14, the first day the > announcement appeared, and although the number is down, there are still > comments being made. > > The thought of the ARRL sponsoring a contest where entrants need not have a > radio or a license to participate, has certainly sparked some comments from > Pacific Division members. I believe that there is no harm in mentioning it, > but that a disclaimer of ARRL sponsorship should have been included. Have > any of you folks received any mail on the subject? Thanks. > > Bob -- W6RGG

1 0

[arrl-odv:11969] Re: WHO HAS - - -
by jfenster＠pacifier.com 17 Mar '05

17 Mar '05

I'll hand carry my card. Jim K9JF/KH6 > That is super, Jim. That will get the immediate attention of the QSL > manager, for sure. Since they made so few contacts, you should have your > card in no time! > > 73, Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim K8JE > To: arrl-odv > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:04 PM > Subject: [arrl-odv:11954] Re: WHO HAS - - - > > > Bob, I'm really sunk, now. I QSL'd KH8SI using my Director card. Think > it might be burned on arrival? > > > > 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: R. B. Vallio [mailto:w6rgg@sbcglobal.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:43 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:11951] Re: WHO HAS - - - > > > > You probably need to clear that with JA1BK and K1ER... > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jim K8JE > > To: arrl-odv > > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:36 PM > > Subject: [arrl-odv:11950] WHO HAS - - - > > > > THE PROBLEM > > > > I had worked FO/N6JA, sent QSL (to N6JA) for the QSO and it has just > been returned as undeliverable. > > > > I rechecked his address through several sources, including FCC > records. These all had the same address I had used unsuccessfully. > > > > In checking the ARRL members on ODV I learned he has moved to Tahiti. > Problem solved. > > > > QUESTION > > > > This leads me to wonder which, if any of our directors has > responsibility for French Polynesia. If none of us have this region > of the world, I think this is a deplorable situation that should be > rectified. I feel so intently about this that I am willing to make > the sacrifice of establishing a second QTH and taking on this daunting > task. > > > > > > 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! > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:11967] Re: IRLP Contest
by Joel Harrison 16 Mar '05

16 Mar '05

I'm waiting for the antique ILRP contest where the equipment I'll whip out and use will be my old rotary telephone and make some calls (Q's). ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:11966] Re: IRLP Contest
by Brian Mileshosky 16 Mar '05

16 Mar '05

Bob, I can't speak for Rev in terms of comments received from within my Division, but my understanding is that IRLP always requires a radio -- unlike Echolink, I can't talk to someone via my computer's microphone. I have to use some kind of RF link (namely a repeater) that then taps into the internet and pops back out as RF somewhere else. In that case, a license is always required, as is a radio. More experienced IRLP users are free to correct me if I'm in error. This is based on my limited use of IRLP and through referring to the IRLP website. In future replies to your members and those on the CQ Contest list, you might mention the above and recommend a visit to www.irlp.net in an effort to lay some of the preconceived notions to rest. I personally don't see a problem with ARRL specifically stating the contest's sponsorship, lack thereof, or not mentioning either. By putting it on our website we are, in essence, promoting "interest in Amateur Radio communications and experimentation," one of our reasons for being as stated on the "About the ARRL" page within our website. 73, Brian, N5ZGT ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, R. B. Vallio wrote: > I haven' seen anyone address this on ODV, so I will bring to everyone's > attention. Please take a look at: > > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/03/14/3/?nc=1 > > before you read further. > > This is an announcement of an IRLP contest, on our WebPages, with no > indication of any sort that sponsorship is not by the ARRL. The CQ Contest > reflector was filled with comments on March 14, the first day the > announcement appeared, and although the number is down, there are still > comments being made. > > The thought of the ARRL sponsoring a contest where entrants need not have a > radio or a license to participate, has certainly sparked some comments from > Pacific Division members. I believe that there is no harm in mentioning it, > but that a disclaimer of ARRL sponsorship should have been included. Have > any of you folks received any mail on the subject? Thanks. > > Bob -- W6RGG

1 0