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

[arrl-odv:12177] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Joel Harrison 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

If it wasn't clear the first time, I AGREE with you, OM ! ZN -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:19 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12176] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal In a message dated 4/26/2005 9:44:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, w5zn(a)arrl.org writes: 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. Well, whatever. The point is, there doesn't seem to exist a plan to replace his job function, and that is a real problem, given his M.O. which has worked reasonably well over time. I don't see any alternative to the deterrence concept, and that requires an FCC face person and some visibility. chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12176] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by W3KD＠aol.com 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

In a message dated 4/26/2005 9:44:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, w5zn(a)arrl.org writes: > > 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. > > Well, whatever. The point is, there doesn't seem to exist a plan to replace his job function, and that is a real problem, given his M.O. which has worked reasonably well over time. I don't see any alternative to the deterrence concept, and that requires an FCC face person and some visibility. chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12175] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Joel Harrison 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

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

[arrl-odv:12174] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by W3KD＠aol.com 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

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:12173] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by w6rod＠ix.netcom.com 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

1 0

[arrl-odv:12172] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Joel Harrison 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

That's been Riley's standard speech for at four years now. Not knowing what he really means by that, I'm left only to offer my own opinion that it means "I'm retiring soon, and no one will be around to write my letters and 'jawbone' the bad guys, so we'll just say its going into a maintenance period rather than a period of no enforcement". That further enforces my position that we need to start evaluating and pursuing a "post Riley" scenario now. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:43 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12170] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal ENFORCEMENT OF NEW BAND PLANS I think that comments Riley made during the GLD Convention last month are relevant to FCC's future dedication to enforcement on amateur bands. He clearly stated that the current, high level of activity by the Commission on amateur bands will be coming to a close, soon. He explained that there are relatively few, hard core "bad apples" operating, but that during the coming months these will be dealt with firmly. After the clowns have been taken care of, enforcement for us will justifiably be reduced to a maintenance level of activity. 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 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: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:31 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12165] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal While I have no quarrel whatsoever with anything that Joel said, and I think he said it well, let's make sure that, in any increased reliance on band planning, we address the enforceability of band plans once again. Perhaps we could re-address the issue of enforcement of band plans in a separate context, since bailing out the ocean in the bandwidth petition is a bad idea tactically. My concern stems from two considerations: (1) band plans have not proven easy to enforce to date, except in cases of malicious interference; and (2) Hollingsworth, who is and has been willing to push that envelope for us, will be retiring in the near future, and the future of enforcement overall is a bit cloudy at the moment. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12171] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Kay Craigie 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

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:12170] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Jim K8JE 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

ENFORCEMENT OF NEW BAND PLANS I think that comments Riley made during the GLD Convention last month are relevant to FCC's future dedication to enforcement on amateur bands. He clearly stated that the current, high level of activity by the Commission on amateur bands will be coming to a close, soon. He explained that there are relatively few, hard core "bad apples" operating, but that during the coming months these will be dealt with firmly. After the clowns have been taken care of, enforcement for us will justifiably be reduced to a maintenance level of activity. 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 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: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:31 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12165] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal While I have no quarrel whatsoever with anything that Joel said, and I think he said it well, let's make sure that, in any increased reliance on band planning, we address the enforceability of band plans once again. Perhaps we could re-address the issue of enforcement of band plans in a separate context, since bailing out the ocean in the bandwidth petition is a bad idea tactically. My concern stems from two considerations: (1) band plans have not proven easy to enforce to date, except in cases of malicious interference; and (2) Hollingsworth, who is and has been willing to push that envelope for us, will be retiring in the near future, and the future of enforcement overall is a bit cloudy at the moment. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12169] Ex K0ORB SK
by Bruce Frahm KØBJ 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Midwest ex Vice Director Larry Staples W0AIB advises that Bill McGrannahan N0ZL ex-K0ORB is SK. Bill and Larry filled out the term of Paul Grauer W0FIR SK. Larry will send the obit. when available and I will forward. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bruce Frahm KØBJ Note my new email address: bfrahm(a)st-tel.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:12168] URL
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

I forgot to include the URL for the financial reports in my last message.... http://www.arrl.org/members-only/ODV/docs/Financial%20Reports-2005/ 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0