July 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12642] CAC Report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Here is the CAC Report to the Board (Document #31). Dave K1ZZ <<31 CAC report.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12641] COO Board Report
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

Here is a copy of my Board Report. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 73, Harold, WJ1B Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 860 594 0220 www.arrl.org/

1 0

[arrl-odv:12640] CTO Report to Board
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

Here is Paul Rinaldo';s report to the Board. Note that there are four files: the basic report, a separate report on a survey of users of the 60-meter band, and two Excel spreadsheets on the survey. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<13 CTO report.doc>> <<Document 13A-1.doc>> <<Document 13A-2.xls>> <<Document 13A-3.xls>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12639] Report of the Chief Financial Officer
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is the Report of the Chief Financial Officer, Document #11, for the upcoming Board meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. Additionally, as we are still working on the monthly financial reports, the June 30 reports will be distributed to you upon your arrival. 73, Barry, N1VXY <<CFO Report Second Meeting 2005.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12638] Development Report for the July Board Meeting
by Hobart, Mary K1MMH 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

Good afternoon, Attached is the Development Report for your review. I look forward to seeing you all on July 15 if not before. Travel safely. 73, Mary K1MMH Mary M. Hobart, K1MMH Chief Development Officer The American Radio Relay League 225 Main Street Newington CT 06111-1494 Telephone: 860-594-0397 Fax: 860-594-0259 email:mhobart@arrl.org BE A JEWEL...consider an annual contribution to the ARRL Diamond Club. The Diamond Club includes all the benefits of ARRL Membership. Join today at www.arrl.org/diamondclub . We need YOU for a stronger ARRL!

1 0

[arrl-odv:12637] Correction: Upgrade to Server
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

There was a typo in the earlier message on this subject. The upgrade will take place beginning Wenesday, July 6th and extend through the morning of Thursday, July 7th. I apologize for the error. 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0

[arrl-odv:12636] Upgrade to the HQ E-mail Server
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

As part of the 2005 Plan, we had planned to replace the Headquarters e-mail server and upgrade the e-mail software to a newer version, later in the year. This is our sole e-mail server which supports all HQ e-mail and is part of the delivery chain for our e-mail reflector lists and arrl.org e-mail that is forwarded to other, external addresses. Due to a recent situation involving storage and on-going compatibility issues with the older software version currently in use on the machine, we have accelerated our plans to complete this particular project. We will begin the upgrade next Wednesday, July 7th, at 5 pm. The entire operation is expected to take 18 to 20 hours. During this time, the sever will be off line and there will be no e-mail either in or out of the building. Inbound e-mail during this time will be stored at our ISP and delivered for distribution once the new server is on-line around noon on Thursday, July 8th. There is never a good time to go through this process in a single server environment as there is always a disruption in service. In selecting this specific timeframe, we are trying to find an equitable balance between the cost of the process and the overall needs of the organization. Implementing the upgrade over a weekend would result in the same disruption but, due to the nature of our support contracts with several vendors, it could cost up to $8,000 over one completed mostly during the normal business week. We appreciate your understanding and want to thank you in advance for your cooperation. Have a wonderful holiday weekend. 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0

Bandwidth Proposal - Southwestern Division Membership Response
by Richard J. Norton 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

In the Southwestern Division at club meetings and other gatherings, I find essentially no member support of the proposed subband regulation by bandwidth. After spending time explaining the bandwidth-regulation concept to groups, I am usually able to gather some support. However, there is usually still more opposition remaining than support. There is significantly more support for completely doing away with government-subband-regulation, usually way over 50 percent. In fact, if government regulation is retained in the 40 and 20 meter bands, support for government-regulated subband elimination becomes even greater. I do not interpret a lack of receiving comments about the bandwidth proposal, while I am passively present at an event, as being implied support. I actively engage the groups in discussion on the issue. The previous message gives a picture of a typical interchange. Typical groups that I've addressed include: Southern California DX Club - 45 present - 100% HF RV Service Net (a 40-meter phone net) - 23 present - 100% HF Crescenta Valley Radio Club - 18 present - 30% HF Inland Empire Council of Amateur Radio Organizations - 35 present - 55% HF Supersystem Repeater Group - 27 present - 40% HF Visalia DX Convention Contest Forum - 200+ present - 100% HF Response to initial questions shown in previous E-mail: 2.1 HF operation? - Varies by group. See above for percentages. 2.2 - Familiar with bandwidth proposal? - Usually over 80%. 2.3 - Initially support for bandwidth proposal? - Exactly one person (at the Crescenta Valley Club) was in favor. There were none initially in support at any other meeting! 2.4 - Opposed to bandwidth proposal? - Generally way over 50%, up to 100%. 2.5 - Inadequate information? - Generally close to 100%. Summary: Essentially nobody involved in any of these bandwidth-regulation discussions starts off being in favor of the ARRL proposal. Responses to Questions Asked After the Bandwidth Discussion: 12.1 - After discussions, how many are in favor of the bandwidth proposal? - Typically some support. Rarely over 50% support. 12.2 - After discussions, how many oppose? - Usually over 50%. 12.3 - Did the discussion change your opinion at all? - Some positive response. Typically 20%. 12.4 - Support for elimination of all government-regulated subbands? - Significantly greater than support for bandwidth regulation. One exception, at the Inland Empire Council, 12 were in favor of bandwidth and 8 were in favor of total subband regulation elimination. More typical would be the Southern California DX Club, where about 8 were in favor of bandwidth and 35 were in favor of elimination. It would be greater than 35 in favor if "CW bands" were preserved on 20 and 40 meters. The other bands were not believed to need government-regulation. 12.5 - Support for concept of somehow adjusting for changes in band use such as in the 15-meter novice band? - Essentially unanimous. 12.6 - Support for FCC regulations that effectively provide QRM-free foreign phone bands? - Absolutely zero. I have not found a single person supporting restricting USA phone operation in a way that will provide foreign phone bands. --------------------- Summary: Even after the bandwidth-regulation proposal has been explained, support for it is at best lukewarm, and opposition is generally higher. Given the response I've received, I would be surprised to find that there is significant support in the other divisions. Alternate Approaches: If, instead of prefacing my initial questions with "I am not sure if I will support this proposal at the Board meeting," I had said, "This bandwidth-regulation proposal is a really good idea," possibly some of the voters might have been swayed to respond in favor of it. If I left out the discussion about the rest of the world not having any subband regulation, it might have changed the post-discussion poll outcome. I don't believe either of those two options would have resulted in a more equitable poll. Other Member Inputs: I do not recall having received a single E-mail saying, "The ARRL bandwidth-regulation proposal is a great idea. Please support it." I have received a number of E-mails in opposition. Conclusion: Even if the bandwidth-regulation proposal is an outstanding idea, it is not presently supported by our membership. Advancing it without some serious selling has the potential to upset a significant number of our members. More comments on the proposal will follow. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0

Bandwidth Regulation - Club Presentation Outline
by Richard J. Norton 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

Since the proposed bandwidth regulation concept appears to be one of the most important topics under consideration by the Board, I've put some effort into it, discussing the issue with clubs, and formulating opinions. I'll next post some comments and statistics about Southwestern Division club-member feelings on the proposal. To familiarize you with the context in which the questions were asked, here is a rough outline of my presentation to clubs. This outline has not been strictly followed from the start, but basically evolved after a number of club meetings. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ------------------------------------------------------- Typical Presentation to a Radio Club 1.0 Introduction: 1.1 The proposed bandwidth subband regulation is one of the most important issues currently facing the ARRL Board. 1.2 It is under debate by the full Board at this time. 1.3 It was proposed and developed before my time on the Board. 1.4 I've been researching this issue extensively. 1.5 I do not know if I will support the proposal at the July Board meeting or not. 1.6 I'm here to explain the issue and gather your thoughts and opinions. 1.7 I will first ask this group some questions about your present opinions, then explain and discuss the bandwidth proposal, and conclude by again asking more opinion questions. 2.0 Initial Questions: 2.1 How many of you operate on the HF bands, as opposed to VHF only? 2.2 How many have heard of the ARRL bandwidth proposal? 2.3 How may of you support the proposal at this time? 2.4 How many currently actually oppose the proposal? 2.5 How many of you feel that you do not have adequate knowledge to form an opinion? 3.0 Bandwidth Proposal Motivation 3.1 A desire exists to encourage development and use of new digital modes. 3.2 Some frequencies, such as novice CW bands are now essentially unused. 3.3 Tedious FCC involvement is currently needed to adjust our subband allocations. 3.4 Flexibility can hopefully result in better use of our spectrum allocations. 4.0 Amateur Radio Subbands 4.1 The concept of subband regulation by bandwidth is new, and intended to enhance flexibility in the use of amateur bands. 4.2 The USA is the only country in the world that has government-regulated subbands of any kind, including delineation by mode or bandwidth. 4.3 In all other countries, radio amateurs apportion their spectral use without government-regulation, using tradition and voluntary band-planning. 4.4 For example, in Canada, HF band edges are specified, and emissions with a maximum bandwidth of 6 kHz are typically permitted. 4.4 Even in the USA, our 160 meter band and bands above 460 MHz operate successfully without any government-regulated subbands. 5.0 Conflicts Among Users 5.1 For the most part, amateurs coexist peacefully. 5.2 During some contests and operating events, when the user population increases dramatically, conflicts occur. These abate at the conclusion of the event. 5.3 It does not appear that there are any fewer of these temporary conflicts in the USA, with its government-regulated subbands. 6.0 Radio Amateur Demeanor 6.1 In general, radio amateurs are reasonably law-abiding, well-educated and good-willed. 6.2 With very few exceptions, amateurs cooperate with each other. 6.3 Having visited and operated from many parts of the world, it is my personal observation that Americans are no more or no less cooperative or well-behaved than other amateurs. 7.0 Automatic Robot Systems Including WINLINK 7.1 There is concern among some, about potential interference from automatic and semi-automatic robot stations, particularly those using WINLINK2000. 7.2 Earlier this year, ARRL Board members were subjected to a barrage of both "WINLINK is great" and "Stop evil WINLINK" E-mailings. 7.3 Consequently, I did some investigating of WINLINK myself, including speaking to a major WINLINK proponent. 7.4 WINLINK gateway station owners do manage their users to prevent commercial use and to minimize oversize messages. It appears that the HF interference from WINLINK stations is small, and unlikely to increase significantly. 7.5 Some claim that boat owners and motor home owners, who have obtained amateur radio licenses for the expressed purpose of getting free E-mail are not "real" radio amateurs. 7.6 I may even agree that there is a difference between the radio amateurs that I mostly associate with, and those using radio only as an Internet gateway. I participated in message traffic handling for people who were not radio amateurs for years. I have no problem with some "real" amateurs helping people who have made the effort to obtain licenses. 7.7 I'm interested in continuing to receive reports concerning WINLINK, and continuing dialog. 7.8 Presently, WINLINK appears to positively contribute to amateur radio, and does not appear to present a significant interference threat to other users of the amateur bands. 8.0 Foreign Phone Bands 8.1 Strangely enough, the USA with the largest number of HF amateurs, effectively has the smallest 20 meter band. 14100 to 14150 are essentially unused by US amateurs, because FCC regulations do not permit voice operation there, and the rest of the world does. 9.0 FCC Attitudes 9.1 Regardless of what the ARRL requests, nothing happens until the FCC acts. 9.2 Note that the ARRL has had a license restructuring petition at the FCC for over a year with no apparent action. 9.3 I don't see evidence that the federal government is particularly interested in expending significant resources managing details of amateur radio operations. 9.4 It is not clear what the FCC would do with a bandwidth proposal. 9.5 If anyone expects firm and speedy FCC action on small-time mode or suband conflicts, they might look at the severity of the recent Los Angeles area Jack Gerritsen case, and the speed of the eventual FCC and DOJ actions. 10.0 ARRL Executive Committee 10.1 It appears to me that the bandwidth proposal is offered in good faith by the Executive Committee. 10.2 The committee believes that it it is a desirable approach to managing our frequencies. 10.3 I request your inputs. 11.0 Questions From the Audience 11.1 Questions from the audience are answered. 12.0 Concluding Questions to the Group 12.1 After hearing today's discussion, how many of you now support the ARRL's bandwidth proposal?. 12.2 How many oppose it? 12.3 Did the discussion change your mind in any way? 12.4 How many support elimination of government-regulated subbands? 12.5 How many are in favor of reorganizing amateur allocations for such things as repopulating our 15 meter novice band? 12.6 How many support FCC restrictions that effectively provide QRM-free foreign phone bands? --------------------------------------------------

1 0