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

[arrl-odv:12223] Re: Bandwidth confusion
by K5ur＠aol.com 02 May '05

02 May '05

Rgr, Tom. Yep, good pt. 73, K5UR In a message dated 5/1/2005 8:40:26 PM Central Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: The good news is that the FCC is working so slowly on previous petitions that so far there's no reason to file the one on bandwidth... so we have time to keep working on a plan to make it work.

1 0

[arrl-odv:12222] Re: Bandwidth confusion
by Tom Frenaye 02 May '05

02 May '05

At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005, you wrote: >Oh, now that's funny, Tom. >Uh, wasn't it your motion that started all this? Don't worry, I'm still sure it's the right thing to do. The devil is in how we do it. The good news is that the FCC is working so slowly on previous petitions that so far there's no reason to file the one on bandwidth... so we have time to keep working on a plan to make it work. -- Tom >In a message dated 5/1/2005 8:07:32 PM Central Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: >My first reaction is to resist change (typical ham). ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:12221] Re: Bandwidth confusion
by K5ur＠aol.com 02 May '05

02 May '05

Oh, now that's funny, Tom. Uh, wasn't it your motion that started all this? (hi) 73, K5UR In a message dated 5/1/2005 8:07:32 PM Central Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: My first reaction is to resist change (typical ham).

1 0

[arrl-odv:12220] Re: Bandwidth confusion
by Tom Frenaye 02 May '05

02 May '05

At 07:03 PM 5/1/2005, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >Tom, in terms of what the FCC rules would permit, the answer is that they would permit SSB anywhere 3 kHz is permitted. Including the automatic control subbands. > >As far as the FCC rules would be concerned, 3 kHz is 3 kHz. Analog or digital. Doesn't matter. > >Which is why we would need a good band planning mechanism in order for this to work. That's all much more of a change than I realized was the end result of the EC's deliberations. Wish it had been more clearly stated and pointed out in the web story. Now I understand the real concern and sensitivity about band plan issues from several days ago. Will have to ponder all that for a few days now... My first reaction is to resist change (typical ham). -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:12219] Re: Bandwidth confusion
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 01 May '05

01 May '05

Tom, in terms of what the FCC rules would permit, the answer is that they would permit SSB anywhere 3 kHz is permitted. Including the automatic control subbands. As far as the FCC rules would be concerned, 3 kHz is 3 kHz. Analog or digital. Doesn't matter. Which is why we would need a good band planning mechanism in order for this to work. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE) Sent: Sat 4/30/2005 5:05 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12207] Bandwidth confusion Just when I thought I had it figured out, I don't. Hope someone can help me. Looking at the summary charts in the original bandwidth proposal made public in August 2004: http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html And the one most recently announced: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1 I'm confused. In particular, where will SSB (3 kHz) be permitted? And will digital SSB (3 kHz) be in the same segments or will it get more? The August 04 proposal said the limits for 3 kHz (digital and analog) would be: (with no automatic control) 1800-2000 3725-4000 5 (6 - 2.8 kHz channels) 7125-7300 10 (none) 14150-14350 18110-18168 21200-21450 24930-24990 28300-29700 The recent EC version has limits for 3 kHz and 3 kHz with automatic control. I've been assuming that 3 kHz means digital or analog, maybe I'm not understanding it. The chart at the bottom of the newest article doesn't make it clear that 3 kHz with automatic control means digital only (no SSB). Some people see that and think SSB will be allowed in those segments. Also - see the notes below. 1800-2000 3 kHz 3620-3635 3 kHz w/auto control 3635-4000 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 3635 instead of 3725 *** 5 (6 - 2.8 kHz channels) 7100-7105 3 kHz w/auto control 7105-7300 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 7105 instead of 7125 *** 10135-10140 3 kHz 10140-10150 3 kHz w/auto control 14100-14112 3 kHz w/auto control 14112-15350 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 14112 instead of 14150 *** 18110-18168 3 kHz 21150-21160 3 kHz w/auto control 21160-21450 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 21160 instead of 21200 *** 24930-24990 3 kHz 28120-28189 3 kHz w/auto control 28189-29700 3 kHz *** this suggests SSB goes down to 28189 instead of 28300 *** QRV some clarification. (and whatever the answer, I think the web article needs to be clearer) Thanks! -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:12218] Re: ART BELL SHOW
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 01 May '05

01 May '05

Tnx Dick. Art contacted us by email late last week. I'm scheduled to talk to him (not for airing, just a conversation with him) late Monday afternoon. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Mondro, Richard (Vice Dir,GL) Sent: Sun 5/1/2005 2:32 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12212] ART BELL SHOW I happened to turn my radio on this morning at 5 AM and the Art Bell Show was on. Art began addressing all the Amateur Radio Ops listening and played a taped demo of ESSB, Enhanced Single Sideband vs SSB. The ESSB had an FM like quality and sounded like broadcast quality, which it is. He played about a ten second sample of each, taken off the air and recorded by a friend, using his callsign W6OBB. He went on to state that the ARRL has a proposal to limit bandwidth to 3 Khz., and this would prevent experimentation of new technologies. He called it “flawed thinking” and asked everyone to write to the League. He again claimed that the FCC does not want to regulate by bandwidth and is going to allow broadcasters to use ESSB which used 3.6Khz. compared to 2.4 for conventional SSB. He played the sample recordings a second time and again asked for people to write the League in opposition to the bandwidth proposal. He indicated he would play the samples again on Sunday night (actually Monday early morning. I believe his show is on from 1 AM to 5 AM Eastern Time. I wish I were awake enough to record it but give me a break, it was 5 AM. I’m not sure if he has his facts right regarding the FCC decision, but we are going to need to prepare a good defense. I will try to record Sunday night’s show. In the mission-critical world of member services, good customer service also means having strong crisis-management skills, recognizing that no matter how good your company's work is, problems will arise at some point, so you'd better have plans in place to address them. The power of a major broadcaster, and amateur, now puts us in a crisis situation One of our major concerns should be the way we react when something breaks. It's inevitable that something is going to break, so it's imperative we react to situations that might be a crisis in the members mind. Off my soapbox. This should at least be a good sample of how many Amateurs listen to his show. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT w8fqt(a)arrl.org <mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org> Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division http://greatlakes.arrl.org <http://greatlakes.arrl.org> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005

1 0

[arrl-odv:12217] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Andy Oppel 01 May '05

01 May '05

I very much like the idea of handing them out at Dayton. It needs to fit on a single page, and I think we'll need a lot of those pages to hand out (a FAQ Stack, if you will). At 09:48 AM 5/1/2005, you wrote: >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:12216] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing
by Brian Mileshosky 01 May '05

01 May '05

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:12215] Re: More bandwidth confusion
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 01 May '05

01 May '05

Kay, good point, about reading up on the issue and be prepared at Dayton. Jim, good answer to Roy Lincoln. I have received an answered a number of my members e-mails about the evils of Winlink and protecting SSB this weekend. Nearly all were the result of folks being indoors with all the rain we had here this weekend with nothing better to do than have their brains scrambled by QRZ forms. I said almost that to one guy I answered and he confessed that it was indeed QRZ the got him to write. I answered the three or four messages I had in detail. My messages were longer and had more details than theirs. The responses I have had, three out of four, showed all had calmed down and thanked me for the detailed responses. I am not sure the last guy has sobered up enough. Somehow we will weather the storm created by Mr. Teller's big wind. Frank...N2FF.....

1 0

[arrl-odv:12214] Re: More bandwidth confusion
by Kay Craigie 01 May '05

01 May '05

Regarding the input Rick received that Winlink isn't real .... Then I guess the ARES/RACES groups all over the USA that are using the Winlink radio e-mail network for emergency preparedness -- including the portable HF/VHF digital station that's running in a room adjacent to where I am right now -- are not real, either. Just a figment of my imagination. (Hmm. Maybe I really did over-do it in the 1960's.) The last posts by Dick and Rick have a common theme: the effects of agitation and propaganda by prominent individuals, who may or may not know what they are talking about, on the opinions of hams who do not know what *we* are talking about. Opinions are so much easier to hold when they are unblemished by blunt-force contact with facts. We are within a month of our National Convention, when all of us who wear the red badge can expect to be button-holed on this proposal by a great many hams with questions, comments, rants, flames, and confusions -- some honest requests for clarification and some distorted arguments that originated in a galaxy far, far away. Whatever our personal opinions may be on the latest iteration of the proposal, each of us has to arrive in Dayton with a firm two-handed grip on the facts of the proposal as it now stands and the principal intention or concept that underlies the proposal. We can't wait until the night before the July Board meeting to try to sort this all out in our heads. That may mean re-reading the documents that led up to the current proposal as well as the last EC Minutes, reading all the stuff on our web site related to the proposal, and then asking questions -- as Tom, for instance, has done -- when something is still not adding up. I look forward to reading the response to Tom's query. I don't relish the idea of looking like a doofus about this proposal at our National Convention, and so I have studying to do to feel as sure as possible that I know what I'm talking about. Some people may need to do less homework than I do, some people may need to do more. But we all have to do it, and the clock is ticking. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0