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

[arrl-odv:12234] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Andy Oppel 02 May '05

02 May '05

Well, we disagree on that point. I think you are correct that the core ARRL bashers who routinely hang out there won't read anything like that -- and they have already demonstrated that they won't allow their thinking to be clouded by facts. However, there are others who are more casual readers of such items, and at least some of those wrote to their directors, and from the feedback provided by their director in ODV, they did read the replies sent back to them by the directors, the majority found the director's response either persuasive or convincing or both. I worry about others who fall in the same category but who won't take the time to write to their director. How many membership renewals will we lose by allowing this to continue without any formal response? -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director At 10:36 AM 5/2/2005, you wrote: > >If we had a FAQ, someone could copy and paste > >it into the various forum threads (there are 3 on QRZ.com at last count) > >and that would be our official response. > >We already have an FAQ and a number of documents, material, and editorials >written about it that has been published in various places. I don't expect >any of it will be read by them regardless of how or where it is posted >because that's not what their mission is. > >Joel

1 0

[arrl-odv:12233] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Joel Harrison 02 May '05

02 May '05

>If we had a FAQ, someone could copy and paste >it into the various forum threads (there are 3 on QRZ.com at last count) >and that would be our official response. We already have an FAQ and a number of documents, material, and editorials written about it that has been published in various places. I don't expect any of it will be read by them regardless of how or where it is posted because that's not what their mission is. Joel

1 0

[arrl-odv:12232] Re: V V V Test
by R. B. Vallio 02 May '05

02 May '05

The message was received here, Dick. However, the vees were a little chirpy... Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard J Norton" <ae327(a)lafn.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:03 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:12229] V V V Test > Please excuse this test. If you receive this message in the normal ODV > format, it means that with use of a temporary work around, I am now > apparently able to participate in ODV E-mail reflector discussions. I > will be delighted to have this capability, after only slightly less than > four months on the board, and will be considering highlighting this > milestone in my next division report. > > However, if this text is received with a subject similar to "Bounce > 12345-67890," the problem still exists, as it did the last time I was > assured that it was fixed. > > I have sent messages to the ODV and PSC reflectors and they have been > returned to me with the "Bounce" subjects and the text buried in chaff. > I have never received any responses or comments, and am uncertain if > they were even received by others. > > Sadly, I have not found the the performance of this reflector or the > staff associated with it to be close to the standards I had expected. > > 73, > > Dick, N6AA >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12231] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Andy Oppel 02 May '05

02 May '05

I agree, but if we ignore them, people they talk to tend to believe the lies, half-truths, and misinformation. I fear the only way to combat this is with the facts. I'm not wild about the idea of using the same tactic they use, but there may be more numbers in those forums than just what I call the "lunatic fringe". If we had a FAQ, someone could copy and paste it into the various forum threads (there are 3 on QRZ.com at last count) and that would be our official response. I'd rather see us do that than have individuals respond to the forums, where the message could be different depending on who wrote it. And our Directors could end up spending enormous amounts of time responding to individual e-mails from people mislead by the forum (or by someone at a club meeting or on the air recanting what they read in the forum). If we ignore the on-line ARRL bashing forums, I think the problem will only get worse. And I know Jim Haynie has responded to some of them, but I also know how busy we all are, so I don't think it's fair to expect one person to respond to all of them. Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director At 08:33 AM 5/2/2005, you wrote: >Regardless of where you put an FAQ or facts about a topic, the people that >post on e-ham and qrz.com are, in my opinion, people who spend more time >hanging out in chat rooms typing on a keyboard from a dark corner of their >home rather than actually reading anything related to facts or actually >turning on a radio to see what's on the air, or they're driving by a >personal agenda to "stir the pot" and post. > >I prefer to avoid those places because I'm not convinced it is a factual, >representative position and any amateur radio group. > >73 Joel W5ZN > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] >Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 11:48 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:12216] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing > > >Dave (et al), > >Sorry I've not responded to this yet...I'm in the middle of final exam >preparation...my life will be much happier as of Tuesday evening. > >As for the FAQ, I'll look it over after exams and provide recommendations. > >Right off the bat, however, the first recommendation is to put the FAQ in >a noticeable place (like at the very top of the page, front and center), >rather than buried in a bunch of text. My view of a FAQ is something that >someone reads if they want to boil pages and pages of quotes and text down >to only concise details. Much like an abstract or executive summary of a >published paper. > >Anyhow, for what it's worth... I'll offer some additions to the FAQ later >this week. > >73, >Brian, N5ZGT > > >On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > > > Brian, we have an FAQ. It's linked directly from the story. What additions >or changes do you suggest to it? > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37 PM > > To: arrl-odv > > Subject: [arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing > > > > > > Chris (et al), > > > > I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about > > us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he > > understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, > > what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. > > > > All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this > > proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative) > > that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than > > asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through > > 4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web > > article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. > > That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web > > document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions > > members might have at this point, and kill the rumors. > > > > Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who > > receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more > > educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends > > and club members. Win-win. > > > > Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton. My gut feeling is > > that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get > > answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, > > send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above. > > > > If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm > > sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks > > without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a > > bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to > > happen with greater ease. > > > > Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am. (wink) > > > > 73, > > Brian, N5ZGT

1 0

[arrl-odv:12230] Re: V V V Test
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 02 May '05

02 May '05

Message received fine, Dick. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Richard J Norton [mailto:ae327@lafn.org] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:04 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12229] V V V Test Please excuse this test. If you receive this message in the normal ODV format, it means that with use of a temporary work around, I am now apparently able to participate in ODV E-mail reflector discussions. I will be delighted to have this capability, after only slightly less than four months on the board, and will be considering highlighting this milestone in my next division report. However, if this text is received with a subject similar to "Bounce 12345-67890," the problem still exists, as it did the last time I was assured that it was fixed. I have sent messages to the ODV and PSC reflectors and they have been returned to me with the "Bounce" subjects and the text buried in chaff. I have never received any responses or comments, and am uncertain if they were even received by others. Sadly, I have not found the the performance of this reflector or the staff associated with it to be close to the standards I had expected. 73, Dick, N6AA

1 0

[arrl-odv:12228] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Joel Harrison 02 May '05

02 May '05

Regardless of where you put an FAQ or facts about a topic, the people that post on e-ham and qrz.com are, in my opinion, people who spend more time hanging out in chat rooms typing on a keyboard from a dark corner of their home rather than actually reading anything related to facts or actually turning on a radio to see what's on the air, or they're driving by a personal agenda to "stir the pot" and post. I prefer to avoid those places because I'm not convinced it is a factual, representative position and any amateur radio group. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 11:48 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12216] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing Dave (et al), Sorry I've not responded to this yet...I'm in the middle of final exam preparation...my life will be much happier as of Tuesday evening. As for the FAQ, I'll look it over after exams and provide recommendations. Right off the bat, however, the first recommendation is to put the FAQ in a noticeable place (like at the very top of the page, front and center), rather than buried in a bunch of text. My view of a FAQ is something that someone reads if they want to boil pages and pages of quotes and text down to only concise details. Much like an abstract or executive summary of a published paper. Anyhow, for what it's worth... I'll offer some additions to the FAQ later this week. 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > Brian, we have an FAQ. It's linked directly from the story. What additions or changes do you suggest to it? > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing > > > Chris (et al), > > I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about > us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he > understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, > what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. > > All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this > proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative) > that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than > asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through > 4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web > article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. > That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web > document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions > members might have at this point, and kill the rumors. > > Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who > receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more > educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends > and club members. Win-win. > > Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton. My gut feeling is > that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get > answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, > send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above. > > If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm > sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks > without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a > bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to > happen with greater ease. > > Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am. (wink) > > 73, > Brian, N5ZGT

1 0

[arrl-odv:12227] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Joel Harrison 02 May '05

02 May '05

Jim, Once upon a time, the MSC had responsibility for bandplanning, but since our standing committee restructure that specific item was eliminated, so an ad-hoc committee is the proper place unless you, as President, want to assign it to a standing committee. Obviously we need something to start with, so my personal opinion is that the number should not be over 6. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: w5jbp(a)aol.com [mailto:w5jbp@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 10:47 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12206] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing From the April EC meeting in Denver... " More effective HF band planning mechanisms must be developed by the ARRL and the IARU so that these issues can be addressed effectively within the Amateur Radio community." We need to get started on this right away. Ad-Hoc committee? Keep it under a 100 members? (grin) 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:16:43 -0400 Subject: [arrl-odv:12203] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing Brian, we have an FAQ. It's linked directly from the story. What additions or changes do you suggest to it? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing Chris (et al), I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about us (the ODV). My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes, what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc. All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative) that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through 4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions members might have at this point, and kill the rumors. Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends and club members. Win-win. Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton. My gut feeling is that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above. If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to happen with greater ease. Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am. (wink) 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: > The need for a better explanation of "why" on regulation by bandwidth is an > interesting discussion. It strikes me that, if the draft petition that has been > circulated to the Board on more than one occasion does not adequately explain > to the satisfaction of our own Board why the paradigmatic change is > necessary, then it stands no chance of persuading the FCC and other hams. We will have > a revised version of the petition for you shortly, after EC review, and the > Board may consider critically whether it meets the litmus test of explaining > "why" in a satisfactory manner. > > 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12229] V V V Test
by Richard J Norton 02 May '05

02 May '05

Please excuse this test. If you receive this message in the normal ODV format, it means that with use of a temporary work around, I am now apparently able to participate in ODV E-mail reflector discussions. I will be delighted to have this capability, after only slightly less than four months on the board, and will be considering highlighting this milestone in my next division report. However, if this text is received with a subject similar to "Bounce 12345-67890," the problem still exists, as it did the last time I was assured that it was fixed. I have sent messages to the ODV and PSC reflectors and they have been returned to me with the "Bounce" subjects and the text buried in chaff. I have never received any responses or comments, and am uncertain if they were even received by others. Sadly, I have not found the the performance of this reflector or the staff associated with it to be close to the standards I had expected. 73, Dick, N6AA

1 0

[arrl-odv:12226] Donation
by Joel Harrison 02 May '05

02 May '05

This weekend, I attended and delivered the key note address at the Southeast VHF Society annual conference in Charlotte, NC. The group has donated $500 to our Spectrum Defense Fund (the check is in the mail, Barry). A good conference, well attended, and nothing but support for our license restructuring proposal and our effort to move toward regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode. There was a large group of not only VHF enthusiasts, but quite a large attendance from members of the Carolina DX Association as well. They didn't care about WinLink 2000, all they expressed was a desire to have a process that allowed experimentation and development of new technologies for the amateur radio service without undue Part 97 rules restrictions or FCC opinions bout whether a particular mode was "legal" or not. Yes, it was almost a lovefest! 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12225] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Joel Harrison 02 May '05

02 May '05

I don't mean to keep pouring water on the fire, Jim, but Riley has been telling us that for about 2 years now, even the last time he spoke to us Thursday evening before the board meeting a year or so ago. I'm still waiting on him for action on that! 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12185] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal 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