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

[arrl-odv:12167] March Financial Reports
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

The financial reports for the month of March and the first quarter of 2005 have been posted to the ODV files section (Financial Reports--2005) of the Members' Only web page. 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0

[arrl-odv:12166] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Joel Harrison 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

That is why I brought up the topic of Riley and enforcement and also mentioned it as a "top priority" of mine in looking down the road 5 to 10 years from now, as we have been recently with licensing restructuring and regulation by bandwidth. Regardless of what we finally determine our bandwidth petition will look like, the future of FCC enforcement is a separate but parallel topic we have to start working on so we don't ourselves in the shape we did a few years ago. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:31 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:12165] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by W3KD＠aol.com 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

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:12164] Re: Senate Bill To Suppress Direct Publication of NWS Data
by Kay Craigie 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Senator Santorum (R-PA) introduced this legislation. AccuWeather, a large commercial provider of weather information, was founded and is based in State College, Pennsylvania. The company web site says AccuWeather has "the largest staff of operational forecasters at one location anyplace in the world." The site says that the company "provides weather pages to more than 750 newspapers in the United States and around the world and, in addition, prepares all of the weather maps for The Associated Press." I'm sure the presence of this company in Pennsylvania has abolutely nothing to do with the Senator's introduction of this legislation. Yeah. Sure. What sort of chance does this legislation have? Could it actually be passed, or is it just a symbolic kiss-up to a big company based in the Senator's home state? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12163] Senate Bill To Suppress Direct Publication of NWS Data
by dick＠pobox.com 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

25 APR, 2005 1450 CDT This information was CC'd to me by Rick Lindquist yesterday in response to an inquiry by a Central Division member. Apparently, there is an attempt being made to suppress the free and public dissemination of National Weather Service weather data. This is being proposed to eliminate government competition to the commercial weather services. It would cripple weather spotting services and reduce the severe weather alert time for the general public. For example, last April, I watched the NWS radar on this screen as a tornado ripped up the center of Utica, Illinois resulting in the deaths of 8 people. The death toll would probably have been much worse if the provisions of proposed Senate Bill 786 were already federal law. This is insane! Is "our" federal government willing to do anything to enrich a few companies, even if it means people could die as a result? ARRL headquarters is already aware of this. So consider this message an advanced "heads up" for getting hams to contact their U.S. Senators and Congressmen. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12162] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Dennis Bodson 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Joel: Excellent summary. Thanks Dennis _____ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 6:47 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12148] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal The key factor to remember in our process and proposal is the fact that we're looking 5 to 10 years down the road. I believe we all agree it is better to not have the FCC deciding whether a particular mode is "legal" or not. That being the case, the best route to pursue is to have that decided by maximum bandwidth. The EC, as well as the entire board, has been dealing with all of the issues surrounding the draft petition for some time now. At our EC meeting in Denver, I don't recall any one person on the EC advocating a particular position on what we did, but rather we collectively looked at the matter and reached the consensus that this was the most productive route to pursue keeping in mind that we are looking 5 to 10 years down the road. Under the original draft petition and current EC recommendation, CW and other narrow modes have protection from wide modes in the 200 Hz maximum bandwidth segment, as well as the 500 Hz maximum bandwidth segment. That will still be driven by FCC rules. I understand the questions that arise regarding the 3 KHz maximum bandwidth segments and also the concern about band planning. However, I don't view band planning in the future as the monster some have indicated it has been in the past. While it has been stated we've tried it before and have never gotten anywhere with it, the same can be said about regulation by bandwidth. It has been a topic that has come up and has been batted around for the 18 years I've been on this board but to coin a phrase from the past "We've come a long way baby" in that arena. A lot of the bad taste we have over band planning comes from a failure at VHF. The VHF spectrum is much more complicated for band planning than HF, primarily because at VHF what is a good band plan in Miami is not necessarily a good band plan in Chicago, LA, Wichita Falls or Bald Knob. You not only have to deal with individual mode user groups but geographical preferences as well. HF on the other hand doesn't have the geographical complication to the extent VHF does because of the propagation characteristics at HF. As a case in point, in 1988 the MSC met in Torrance, CA for our regular meeting and the main agenda item was to develop a draft band plan for the "new" 902 MHz band. A number of "user groups" were invited to attend and participate and we collectively developed a good band plan. The problem was when it was published for comment in QST it was entitled "The Torrance 902 MHz Band plan" and everyone else that was not located on the west coast cried foul, thinking a "west coast plan" was being pushed on the rest of the country that different, local geographical arrangements. That scenario does not exist on HF. I haven't seen disagreement of that nature on HF and if our draft petition as it is now became FCC rules you would still have protection for CW and other narrow band modes due to the maximum bandwidth segments. I believe band planning will work at HF, even in the 3 KHz maximum bandwidth segments, if we seriously and aggressively pursue it. I think it works pretty well now. If you want to work SSTV you don't go sniffing around 14.175. If you want to work PSK-31 you don't call CQ on 14.030, and so on. Will there be a few bad apples that want to buck the system? Yep, but a few bad apples do that now and FCC rules aren't stopping them. In addition to band planning, we need to start working on FCC enforcement in a post Riley environment as well because when whatever we decide comes to be Riley will more than likely be retired. I don't view that negatively either because it was the League that brought back enforcement from its non-existent state a few years ago (a fact that Riley makes very clear!) and if we start now we can insure a smooth transition. The question of why "3 KHz" was selected has come up once again and that was covered in CTO Rinaldo's white paper distributed to the board in July 2004 and also covered in the Power Point presentation on Thursday evening at the January 2005 board meeting. It was based on existing modes and what is envisioned at the moment for the near future. Is it enough? Based on what we know now the answer is yes. Whether or not it will be sufficient 10 to 15 years from now one can only speculate, but one thing is for certain. It will be much, much easier to go to the FCC 10 years from now and petition to increase a segments maximum bandwidth than to wrestle with validating some new mode. So from that perspective forging ahead with what we have now paves the way to streamline the process in the future if we need to "increase" the maximum bandwidth of a segment. A number of challenging and exciting things to pursue! I'm very pleased to see the progress we've made, and very pleased to see the comments from everyone as we try to work this out in developing the best petition for filing. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12161] Re: Fire At Home
by dick＠pobox.com 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

24 APR, 2005 - 1200 CDT Rod, I'm sorry for your loss and the hassle you now have to go through to get the damage repaired and personal property replaced. Thank God there were no personal injuries or deaths. Except for photographs and original correspondence, most things can be replaced. Judy and I wish you and your family a speedy recovery. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12160] Re: Fire At Home
by James McCobb 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod, I was very sorry to hear of your loss, but sounds like the really important made it thru ---you, your family, the ham equipment and hopefully pictures and camera equipment. All the rest will be aggravating but replacement will occur. Wish you well. 73, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: <w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home > Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. > > All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. > > About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. > > Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! > > 73, Rod W6ROD > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12159] Re: Fire At Home
by Brian Mileshosky 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod, I'm sad to hear of your unfortunate ordeal -- thankfully, however, everyone is safe. Keep your chin up! 73, Brian, N5ZGT > -----Original Message----- > From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:w6rod@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home > > Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the > garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time > I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire > moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some > errands. > > All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet > where she was hiding. > > About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house > that contains the radio gear was spared. > > Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance > company!! > > 73, Rod W6ROD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12158] Re: Fire At Home
by Dennis Bodson 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Rod: Thank God, all are okay. I am very sorry about the family cat. With regards to the smoke smeel, you may be amazed at what they can do today. The odds are that they will be able to get the smoke smell out of the house. Best wishes. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com [mailto:w6rod@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:12 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12149] Fire At Home Well Saturday morning I opened the garage door from the family room into the garage to go out and discovered there was a fire in the garage. By the time I got my son out of the house the garage was just about gutted and the fire moved into the family room and dining room. My wife was out doing some errands. All were safe except the family cat. She didn't make it out the closet where she was hiding. About half the house is totaled. The good news is the side of the house that contains the radio gear was spared. Oh what joy there will be the next few months dealing with the insurance company!! 73, Rod W6ROD

1 0