May 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12355] Re: Bandwidth petition talking points
by Frank Fallon 15 May '05

15 May '05

An interesting development here this weekend: I had an e-mail from a member who wanted a detailed response as to why I had voted for the "regulation by bandwidth proposal" at Denver. His message was long and covered all too many points to answer in an e-mail. I also sensed that whatever I said would be all over QRZ within hours. I asked him to call me and gave him my number which is in QST and offered to make the call on ARRL's dime if he provided me with a number. He answered back that he wanted to be able to keep track of the discussion so he did not want to do it via telephone. At almost the same time I had an e-mail for none other than Skip Teller, KH6TY, "the sole dissenting ARRL Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee member, " as he identified himself. He told me that my member had forwarded him my message and he wanted to talk to me via telephone. I told him nicely, no. I guess I was correct about my e-mail message winding up on QRZ. Part of Skip's message to me had quotes from a much earlier message (two months old) I put in the RTTY reflector after someone there went on an anti ARRL tirade. Here was my answer to both of them sent in one message as Skip had cced my member: Skip, I have read your comments previously. It's obvious that Rich does not want to have a discussion with me but rather wants some material to post on the Internet. As Hudson Division Director I am not supposed to discuss policy issues with folks not in my division and who I do not represent. I have read both of your comments. Thanks for them. 73 de Frank...N2FF....

1 0

[arrl-odv:12354] Re: To 3 kHz or not to 3 kHz
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 May '05

15 May '05

Jim, this is the reason for the explanation in my May 13 paper. Q. Is the proposed bandwidth limit of 3 kHz (with an exception for double-sideband AM) too restrictive for SSB? A. The intent is to be a bit less restrictive than the present rules. According to the present FCC rules, the necessary bandwidth of a commercial quality SSB signal is 2.7 kHz. On the five 60-meter channels, amateurs are permitted 2.8 kHz. The proposed limit of 3 kHz was intended to allow a bit of additional leeway. Because of the questions that have been raised, ARRL technical staff is taking another look. The present Part 97 definition of "bandwidth" is also being reviewed. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL) Sent: Sat 5/14/2005 3:02 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12339] To 3 kHz or not to 3 kHz I have a couple of folks out here in the “true Midwest” pounding on me over the acceptability of our 3 kHz maximum bandwidth on some of the bands. This is apparently unrelated to the desire of many folks to expand the bandwidth to accept wider signals from digital. The issue is that good SSB transmitters and older rigs often exceed 3 kHz in their normal use. Not being as technically-sound as many of you, I’m somewhat at a loss to explain why the 3 kHz should not be expanded a bit. I assume there is some technical latitude that does not require measurements down to the finest degree of exactitude before the tail of the slope is considered out of specs. I’ll appreciate a good description of how this shakes out. Tnx 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:12353] Re: Background on bandwidth
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 May '05

15 May '05

Rev, I don't know which paper Greg is referring to as I sent one out on May 12 and another on May 13, but don't think I sent anything on this subject on May 5. Be that as it may, you all should certainly feel free to use anything I have distributed to you. The only request I had made with regard to the June QST editorial -- a request which now is being overtaken by events as the issue is reaching people's mailboxes -- was not to "scoop" QST by distributing the editorial intact. The point that I guess needs to be made again and again is that the Board hasn't adopted a final position. We're in receive mode for intelligent input. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Morton, Warren G,WS7W ( Dir, RM) Sent: Sat 5/14/2005 3:30 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12349] Re: Background on bandwidth Dave: Greg brings up a good point, can we send the document out to the angry folks? By the way the paper, document , call it what you want, was very helpful to me also. Rev On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:17:26 -0700 "Greg Milnes" <w7oz(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Dave > Nice job on the Bandwidth document of May 5. It cleared up some >questions I had. I assume that I can forward this document to some of the >reluctant/angry folks in the NW Division. > 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12352] Re: Subcommittee Request
by James McCobb 15 May '05

15 May '05

Thanks Dennis for your input. 73, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Bodson To: arrl-odv Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:28 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:12351] Re: Subcommittee Request Jim: I am not in favor of one in-person board meeting per year. There are many items that need to be discussed face-to-face. We cannot, in my opinion, do this via email or teleconference. As to the cost of a meeting, 55K may be right. However, if we meet in Newington, then we don't have to pay for ten staff members or so to come to the meeting. Holding it in Newington also provides me the opportunity to meet with other staff members and to conduct business I can't when we meet somewhere else. The bottom line is that I do not support this idea. Thanks Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: James McCobb [mailto:w1llu@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:48 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12319] Subcommittee Request Hi All, Attached is a memo from the Subcommittee assigned to study the viability of one in-person Board meeting per year instead of two. If you would take a look at it and respond if you have any comments we would appreciated it. Likewise, if you have any questions, please let me know. The Subcommittee is by the way comprised of Bernie Fuller, Dave Sumner and yours truly. 73 and thanks, Jim W1LLU

1 0

[arrl-odv:12351] Re: Subcommittee Request
by Dennis Bodson 14 May '05

14 May '05

Jim: I am not in favor of one in-person board meeting per year. There are many items that need to be discussed face-to-face. We cannot, in my opinion, do this via email or teleconference. As to the cost of a meeting, 55K may be right. However, if we meet in Newington, then we don't have to pay for ten staff members or so to come to the meeting. Holding it in Newington also provides me the opportunity to meet with other staff members and to conduct business I can't when we meet somewhere else. The bottom line is that I do not support this idea. Thanks Dennis _____ From: James McCobb [mailto:w1llu@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:48 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12319] Subcommittee Request Hi All, Attached is a memo from the Subcommittee assigned to study the viability of one in-person Board meeting per year instead of two. If you would take a look at it and respond if you have any comments we would appreciated it. Likewise, if you have any questions, please let me know. The Subcommittee is by the way comprised of Bernie Fuller, Dave Sumner and yours truly. 73 and thanks, Jim W1LLU

1 0

[arrl-odv:12350] Re: Background on bandwidth
by Jim Fenstermaker, K9JF 14 May '05

14 May '05

I called one of our most "angry" and vocal critics in the NW Division (one that Greg refered to.) He was "too busy" to talk so I gave him my local phone number and asked him to call. He said to sent some info via e-mail. I told him I couldn't send anything because I don't know what his issues really are. Anyway, he has not yet, nor do I expect he will call. Some of these folks like to bitch and when confronted with a real 1:1 conversation, they back down and aren't really interested in dialogue. However, you can be sure that any e-mails we send will end up on QRZ.com (his soapbox) with comments out of context. Jim K9JF ----- Original Message ----- From: "warren morton" <mortonwg(a)bresnan.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 7:30 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12349] Re: Background on bandwidth > Dave: Greg brings up a good point, can we send the document out to the angry > folks? By the way the paper, document , call it what you want, was very > helpful to me also. Rev > > > On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:17:26 -0700 > "Greg Milnes" <w7oz(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Dave > > Nice job on the Bandwidth document of May 5. It cleared up some > >questions I had. I assume that I can forward this document to some of the > >reluctant/angry folks in the NW Division. > > 73/Greg W7OZ > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12349] Re: Background on bandwidth
by warren morton 14 May '05

14 May '05

Dave: Greg brings up a good point, can we send the document out to the angry folks? By the way the paper, document , call it what you want, was very helpful to me also. Rev On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:17:26 -0700 "Greg Milnes" <w7oz(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Dave > Nice job on the Bandwidth document of May 5. It cleared up some >questions I had. I assume that I can forward this document to some of the >reluctant/angry folks in the NW Division. > 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12348] Re: Dangerous "Real ID Bill" Passed By Congress
by Jim Fenstermaker, K9JF 14 May '05

14 May '05

Sounds like a political statement to me! Jim K9JF ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Milnes To: arrl-odv Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:06 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:12341] Re: Dangerous "Real ID Bill" Passed By Congress Thanks for the info Dick. However, anything the ACLU favors, makes it suspect or worse. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12347] Re: Response time to Subcommittee
by James McCobb 14 May '05

14 May '05

Thanks Greg for taking the time to provide the input. 73 and be seeing ya, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Milnes To: arrl-odv Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:42 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12343] Re: Response time to Subcommittee I am not one to favor a single in-person Board meeting each year. Money saving is probably its only virtue. That of course, would be helpful. But the negatives seem to me to far outweigh this money positive. The time spent both in the meetings and outside of the meetings is very valuable. I think there is no substitute for personal discussion. One dimensional email or telephone contact is just that...one dimensional. The passion and emotion is totally missing (the bandwidth is far too narrow). Unless we are totally out of money, I think there is no real substitute for personal meetings. I don't think we can do our work satisfactorily just once a year...even augmented by telephone or email. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12346] Re: BANDWIDTH FEEDBACK
by Greg Milnes 14 May '05

14 May '05

Lucky you. No bodyguards needed there. The NW Division apparently has the angry ones. This Bandwidth proposal has brought them out of the forests. I have threats to drop membership, have clubs reject or terminate their affiliation and even a proposal to boycott the League and form a new organization that doesn't have their heads where the sun don't shine. These angry ones are from all five states in the NW Division, not just one geographic area. Dick Mondro sent me some facts or opinions to help educate me. I've tried to send these on. Also Dave's recent May 5 paper should help to cool down the fires. I'm escaping to Northern California (and then to and from Dayton) for three weeks. Hopefully the NW folks will let me back in the Division in early June when I return. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0