April 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12188] Dayton Hamvention Transportation
by dick＠pobox.com 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

26 APR, 2005 - 2205 CDT I have been attending the Dayton Hamvention for many years and have been staying at the Holiday Inn - Dayton, North. However, I will be staying at the Dayton Marriott this year and will have a car to assist in getting people to and from the Hamvention site. If any of you are flying into Dayton, I will be picking up my rental car at the Avis counter at the Dayton airport around 4:30 PM EDT on Thursday. I will have room for up to three people going to the Marriott. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12187] Re: Fire At Home
by Greg Milnes 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Rod Just got your missive. Bummer! I know the feeling. In 1987 about 3/4 of my house burned down. Of course guys on the radio were saying how sorry they were about my new 781 going up in flames. As it turned out my radio room was spared and the 781 was only in my dreams ( and theirs). After spending months dealing with Farmers and trying to put values on things, they gave up and just totaled every thing. We lived in a motel for a couple weeks and then moved to a rental house 10 blocks away or so. The up side was that no one was hurt (except we lost a dog, we got new stuff, the wood work went from dark walnut to lighter oak etc, etc. Even after all these years we sometimes wonder where something is and whether it was a prefire thing we no longer have. Good luck! 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12186] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Jim K8JE 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Chris, I think your assessment is largely correct if not right on the bulls eye. Something to be on guard against. 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: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:27 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12174] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal In a message dated 4/25/2005 10:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE(a)arrl.org writes: All this suggests that any new band planning we expect FCC to adopt will need to be rather simple to enforce using only minimal staffing. Jim, your summary of Riley's remarks is of great concern. It would appear that he has concluded that upon his retirement, there will not be anyone as dedicated to the cause as he is. As to "minimal staffing", clearly we are there. The FCC does do "split jobs" in some cases, and Riley is not spending all his time on Amateur Radio enforcement. He does land mobile enforcement also. So it is hard to imagine FCC devoting "less" resources to Amateur Radio enforcement than it does now, and there is, almost by definition, no method to make band plans self-enforcing; hence my stated concern of yesterday. This has very little to do with the bandwidth regulation issue, I think. I view the enforcement situation as distinct, separate and much broader an issue, and something to which we should turn our attention in the very near term. Perhaps we should have Riley address the Board again, as he has done on several occasions, and strategize with him. As Rod Stafford will attest, having been the ARRL's point person in the FCC's return to enforcement in the Amateur Service, we rely on deterrence almost exclusively. Riley has not been as "active" in doing actual enforcement as he has been visible and omnipresent. FCC in-your-face works wonders with very little resources expended. That was Richard Lee's strategy and Riley adopted it. Somehow, that concept has to continue going forward post-Riley-retirement. Otherwise, we will slump back into the dark times. As Joel Harrison has said correctly many times, the real Godfather of Amateur Radio enforcement was Richard Lee, who is still at FCC and in need of a job. That option needs exploring. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12185] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Jim K8JE 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Kay, I agree with you that a simple statement of strategy does not signify the fight is nearing an end. On the other hand, Riley very directly said the coming several months would find him focusing on the 75M (and elsewhere) frequency hogs (e.g. those who insist their net "owns" a frequency) as well as those who continually use the frequencies to bash others. Without naming anyone specifically, he said one of the next cleanups would involve a ham in the NE US who uses 20M for his soap box. This to me is different from what Riley has generalized in the past. I could be wrong, of course. 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: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12171] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal For what it's worth, Riley has been using the "first we nail the big bad guys, then we do maintenance level enforcement" line ever since he was given the enforcement task several years ago. So this expression in itself doesn't signal a winding-down on his part. Nevertheless, with his retirement coming sooner rather than later, I hope we have plans to convince the FCC that enforcement should not depart along with him. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12184] Re: Fw: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Rod, It was Philadelphia, actually. But with all you have gone through lately, you are excused. I hope things are getting better. Frank...N2FF.... w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > I sent this earlier this morning but didn't get a copy of it back. If this turns > out to be a duplicate message sorry for the inconvenience. 73, Rod W6ROD > > > -----Forwarded Message----- > From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com > Sent: Apr 26, 2005 6:22 AM > To: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org > Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:12171] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal > > Those of you who were around "pre-Riley" can remember we didn't have ANY > enforcement for several years. The famous Enforcement Task Force meeting in > Baltimore (I think) when Richard Lee of the FCC attended was when the FCC > finally started generating some enforcement. > > Riley came along at just the right time. He had, and has had for several years, > a seemingly genuine desire to try to clean up the ham bands after much neglect > by the FCC. He also liked the publicity he received and the attention > he received from the "enforcement starved" amateur community. He hit the > streets at the right time and it has worked pretty well for several years now. > The FCC enforcement "higher-ups" felt a little embarrassed I think in having > allowed the ham bands to be neglected for quite a while and were willing to let > Riley devote a lot of time and energy to make up lost ground. He has done > that. At least the impression among most hams is that we have a reasonable > amount of enforcement now. There are obviously pockets of trouble where > problems exist like So. California but I think in general the enforcement > landscape is much different than it was was when Chris Imlay and I were trying > to get them to do ANYTHING in the mid-90's. > > Chris will certainly recall in our talks with the FCC we were just hoping for > that elusive "maintenance level" of enforcement! Any enforcement would have > been an improvement. > I think it is correct that we need to start planning for the "post-Riley" > enforcement era. While Riley is still around and an available resource it might > be a good idea to have another "task force -type" committee working on a plan > and meeting with FCC officials to see what changes can be made in the reporting > and evidence gathering process to make things go along smoothly. Even if the > overall work of the committee doesn't result in any significant changes to the > process we have at least made it known to the FCC ( and involved them in the > process) that we still very much interested in enforcement. It is sort of like > our legislative effort for a long period of time. We knew that we might not get > exactly what we wanted but the "legislative project" gave us an opportunity to > keep talking about what we wanted. It was pretty hard to forget us when we kept > coming to see them. > > 73, Rod W6ROD > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Craigie > Sent: Apr 26, 2005 5:31 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:12171] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal > > For what it's worth, Riley has been using the "first we nail the big bad guys, > then we do maintenance level enforcement" line ever since he was given the > enforcement task several years ago. So this expression in itself doesn't signal > a winding-down on his part. Nevertheless, with his retirement coming sooner > rather than later, I hope we have plans to convince the FCC that enforcement > should not depart along with him. 73 - Kay N3KN >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12183] Re: Change in remailer headers
by R. B. Vallio 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Change in remailer headersPlease ignore my rant on this subject. I am still trying to catch up on my mail, and answering them in the order received does not allow for discovering changes in subsequent posts. Sorry. Bob Vallio -- W6RGG ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12143] Change in remailer headers We have received complaints from quite a few Board members about the change in the remailer settings that caused the "FROM" line to change from the name of the individual sending the message to the name of the group. The change was made because the other way of doing it was causing problems for a few people using a particular email program. However, it is pretty clear that far more people are negatively affected by the change. So we're changing it back. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12182] Message Headers
by R. B. Vallio 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

This message is from W6RGG... After reading Barry's explanation of the change instituted, I am left with the impression that there is one person with a problem with his ISP, and the rest of us must read a message to the signature line to determine from whom it came. I for one am not satisfied with this type of service from our reflector software and management thereof. I say fix the problem, or change the policy. Enough is enough. Bob Vallio -- W6RGG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12180] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Andy Oppel 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Chris, I agree completely. Now if the U.S. Attorney and the FCC will get out there and make a poster child of that clown in Southern California, including highly publicized jail time, it will go a long, long way. I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that it's not the severity of punishment but the certainty of punishment that is a deterrent to crime. (Or perhaps that's one of the urban legends). But it's true. For example, running traffic lights was a local sport in San Francisco. They doubled the fines not once, but twice, with no effect. They put automated cameras in and it all but stopped. Without some certainty of enforcement, the miscreants are going to turn the amateur bands into chaos. And I fear the same if we adopt a bandplan with no enforcement teeth in it. Look what has happened to repeater coordination in some parts of the country. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director At 06:27 AM 4/26/2005, W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 4/25/2005 10:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, >K8JE(a)arrl.org writes: > > >> >> >>All this suggests that any new band planning we expect FCC to adopt will >>need to be rather simple to enforce using only minimal staffing. >> >> > > >Jim, your summary of Riley's remarks is of great concern. It would appear >that he has concluded that upon his retirement, there will not be anyone >as dedicated to the cause as he is. As to "minimal staffing", clearly we >are there. The FCC does do "split jobs" in some cases, and Riley is not >spending all his time on Amateur Radio enforcement. He does land mobile >enforcement also. So it is hard to imagine FCC devoting "less" resources >to Amateur Radio enforcement than it does now, and there is, almost by >definition, no method to make band plans self-enforcing; hence my stated >concern of yesterday. > >This has very little to do with the bandwidth regulation issue, I think. I >view the enforcement situation as distinct, separate and much broader an >issue, and something to which we should turn our attention in the very >near term. Perhaps we should have Riley address the Board again, as he has >done on several occasions, and strategize with him. > >As Rod Stafford will attest, having been the ARRL's point person in the >FCC's return to enforcement in the Amateur Service, we rely on deterrence >almost exclusively. Riley has not been as "active" in doing actual >enforcement as he has been visible and omnipresent. FCC in-your-face works >wonders with very little resources expended. That was Richard Lee's >strategy and Riley adopted it. Somehow, that concept has to continue going >forward post-Riley-retirement. Otherwise, we will slump back into the dark >times. > >As Joel Harrison has said correctly many times, the real Godfather of >Amateur Radio enforcement was Richard Lee, who is still at FCC and in need >of a job. That option needs exploring. > >73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12179] Re: Fw: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by w6rod＠ix.netcom.com 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

1 0

[arrl-odv:12178] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by John Bellows 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

I am having trouble separating the Bandwidth regulation proposal from a discussion of meaningful and enforceable band planning. Dont regulation and enforcement go hand in hand? Without enforcement regulations are at best a suggestion to people of good will. A commodity that is sometimes in too short supply. A central theme of the bandwidth proposal has been the FCC is too slow and unresponsive to meet our need to adjust allocation and mode changes in a rapidly evolving technological environment. An increased use of HF band plans has been suggested as a more flexible tool to establish relevant rules of the HF road in this changing environment. Either band plans are a viable, enforceable tool in the FCC environment or they arent. If they arent and we dont have a plan to make them enforceable or arent presently working on a plan to make them enforceable, why are we discussing them as part of an alternative to the present FCC regulatory system? A good case has been made that we need to be more flexible in adapting to the constant change in technology. What is less clear is whether the bandwidth allocation proposal, absent the ability to use meaningful and enforceable band plan meets that need. Without meaningful and enforceable band plan the question remains whether the bandwidth proposal exchanges the current set of problems and difficulties for a new, equally challenging and equally inflexible set of problems and difficulties based upon our guess as to the technological environment over the next 5 to 10 years. With the information at hand my crystal ball isnt clear enough to make that leap, so long as the new regulations are going to be as restrictive and inflexible as the current regulations. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:42 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12175] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Quite honestly, I don't seen a need in having Riley address the board again......I can give his speech, its the same one he has given to us each and every time he has been there. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with your comment that this has very little to do with bandwidth regulation but is a separate and much broader issue we will have to address in the near future. We need to start planning in that area and that is where we need to involve Riley, rather than another ARRL paid vacation to HQ. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:27 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12174] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal In a message dated 4/25/2005 10:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE(a)arrl.org writes: All this suggests that any new band planning we expect FCC to adopt will need to be rather simple to enforce using only minimal staffing. Jim, your summary of Riley's remarks is of great concern. It would appear that he has concluded that upon his retirement, there will not be anyone as dedicated to the cause as he is. As to "minimal staffing", clearly we are there. The FCC does do "split jobs" in some cases, and Riley is not spending all his time on Amateur Radio enforcement. He does land mobile enforcement also. So it is hard to imagine FCC devoting "less" resources to Amateur Radio enforcement than it does now, and there is, almost by definition, no method to make band plans self-enforcing; hence my stated concern of yesterday. This has very little to do with the bandwidth regulation issue, I think. I view the enforcement situation as distinct, separate and much broader an issue, and something to which we should turn our attention in the very near term. Perhaps we should have Riley address the Board again, as he has done on several occasions, and strategize with him. As Rod Stafford will attest, having been the ARRL's point person in the FCC's return to enforcement in the Amateur Service, we rely on deterrence almost exclusively. Riley has not been as "active" in doing actual enforcement as he has been visible and omnipresent. FCC in-your-face works wonders with very little resources expended. That was Richard Lee's strategy and Riley adopted it. Somehow, that concept has to continue going forward post-Riley-retirement. Otherwise, we will slump back into the dark times. As Joel Harrison has said correctly many times, the real Godfather of Amateur Radio enforcement was Richard Lee, who is still at FCC and in need of a job. That option needs exploring. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0