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

[arrl-odv:12804] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Bruce Frahm KØBJ 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> ....... > I also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the NWS to be very positive (and vice versa). I think it'd be a good move for us to publicly state that we do not support S.786. I do know of one APRS node op. who is bitter about APRS wx activity that he sees as "captive" to NWS, and also their reliance on FM voice spotters which he views as "regular comms facilitating business". And I know there are a few others who are less vocal but share similar views. However I don't share those views and agree with Tom and Frank. Just wanted to point out that the good feelings for NWS are not universal among hams. BTW here in the midwest the support of hams from NWS in terms of facilitating equipment upgrades with $, and licensing NWS personnel to take VHF spotting reports, has been remarkable the past decade. I recently got a nebulous indication that with a change in key personnel at NWS, that close association may not be as strong in future. 73 Bruce

1 0

[arrl-odv:12803] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Frank Fallon 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

I would like to second Tom's suggestion here. I think we need to go public here and I do not see any downside from this action. But I do think there could be a downside if we do not take a position; our members expect it. Even if we think the bill is going to go nowhere, which I hope it will, I think we need to be on the record as opposing this bill. Frank...N2FF..... Tom Frenaye wrote: > >I also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the NWS to be very positive (and vice versa). I think it'd be a good move for us to publicly state that we do not support S.786. > > -- Tom > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12802] NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Tom Frenaye 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

I thought we spent a little time at the recent Board meeting talking about Senate Bill 786 (regarding weather information), introduced by Senator Santorum. Couldn't find any reference to it in the minutes so I guess it was a brief mention - perhaps in John Chwat's presentation. I guess the bottom line was that we (John, Chris, etc) didn't think there was a real chance if it becoming law, so we didn't take any action. I'm second-guessing that now after reading an article about it in Information World: http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165702845 I also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the NWS to be very positive (and vice versa). I think it'd be a good move for us to publicly state that we do not support S.786. -- 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:12801] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

The magic date is actually March 21, 1987. That's the date that old Element 3 was split into 3A and 3B. The 1991 date is the date before which the Tech license required a Morse exam. If you had a Technician license issued before that date and haven't let it expire, you can upgrade to General administratively by simply bringing the evidence to a VE session. Technician Plus is post-1987. It is no longer maintained in the FCC database. If you have a Tech Plus license and renew it, you get a Tech license back (97.21(a)(3)). It's up to you, the licensee, to maintain the evidence that you ever passed a Morse exam. Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: Oppel, Andy (Vice Dir, Pacific) Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 12:34 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12800] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News I suppose it depends on how they define Tech Plus. If the definition is any Technician class licensee who held that class before February 14, 1991, then they took the exact same written test for their license as General class licensees took at that point in time (it was the same element). That would distinguish Technician from Tech Plus because they would have taken different written tests. If the definition of Tech Plus is instead any Technician licensee who subsequently passes a code test, then the removal of the code testing requirement makes the two indistinguishable. Looking back, what they should have done is automatically moved Tech Plus up to general when they renewed. With 10 year licenses, they would have all been gone now (either expired or moved to General). I found some interesting numbers on this page: http://www.hamdata.com/fccinfo.html -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 03:44 PM 7/23/2005, you wrote: But Dave, you must be wrong. The FCC says there is/are differences between Techs and Tech + besides CW. I made a note on my copy to ask you and ODV...what is the difference in the requirements for Tech and Tech + besides CW??? I wasn't aware there were differences...but I must be wrong too. The FCC can't be wrong can they? (This question is for Rick). Some time ago I remember the FCC saying they were not going to keep track in their database of who was a Tech and who was a Tech+. If there are differences this wouldn't make sense? Since no one has accused the FCC of making sense then their position that there is a difference must make sense? What is the difference between a Tech and a Tech + besides CW? 73/Greg W7OZ ________________________________ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [ mailto:dsumner@arrl.org <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> ] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12784] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News When I first heard about the NPRM I assumed that the FCC at least had done the logical thing and proposed to give Tech Plus privileges to Techs, since the only difference between the two is Morse and they're now saying Morse isn't relevant. It was a surprise, on reading the NPRM, to discover that that's not the proposal at all. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12769] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News FCC is looking for the simplest way to address the petition from their administrative perspective. They dropped the Morse proficiency requirement because they could and because it is one less thing to have to deal with or track. What intrigues me is the apparent inconsistency of this action. By dropping a Morse requirement and retaining the current license structure Tech licensees may acquire HF access on the HF novice Morse allocations. Since there won't be any distinction between Tech's and Tech Plus or Tech with HF there doesn't appear to be any reason in the NPRM for not permitting Tech's on HF CW. Mike's point about "regulatory minutia" follows from the tendency of FCC to move from its original purpose as a independent regulatory agency to a "chamber of commerce." If FCC wants out of regulating generally and regulating Amateur Radio in particular, the tradition of self-regulation in Amateur Radio will be more important and, like it or not, we will have to continue to deal with the regulatory minutia that oils the gears of the Amateur Service. In a real sense FCC's NPRM is less a matter of "dissing" ARRL (and to some extent NCVEC and Bill Crosses hero Johnny Johnson) and more the result of an Agency that is always looking for the quick fix without considering the ramifications. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck [ mailto:k1twf@arrl.net <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net> ] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12750] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Frank, I see and agree. The message here might be: Why did we mess around with a proposal to slice things up by bandwidth? The FCC wants out of the detailed regulation business. Just get rid of all the mode and bandwidth limitations, and manage our frequencies the way most of the rest of the world does, informally. As a board, we seem to spend excessive time worrying about regulatory minutia. I understand this tendency - it's far easier to define a small problem and tackle it with details than to recognize a large one and conquer it with wisdom. Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com <http://www.mraisbeck.com/> Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:08 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12749] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Mike, I think most of us expected them to do away with CW altogether. I know I did. All we had to do to know that was coming was to read Cross in "Restructuring I" where he knocked down all the arguments for retaining CW and said the "only" reason for keeping the CW testing was the international requirement. With that gone it was a no brainer. What is a surprise is that they ignored all the ink and talk the ham US ham community spent on proposals for three license classes. That is a slap in the face. It should also wake us up to the new reality at FCC. After that experience I am inclined to think that Coy is correct. Our bandwidth proposal is probably not going to get much attention. Cross will like the "..think tank" proposal for its simplicity. Perhaps I should place some bets this time around. Frank...N2FF...... Mike Raisbeck wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I see this development quite differently than most of you (at > least, those of you who have expresses opinions so far.) The FCC is > delivering a message here that this Board has been struggling to > ignore for my entire tenure as a vice director!!! > > *CW is an antiquated, technologically uninteresting mode that is > completely irrelevant to the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio* > ** > I am myself a great fan of CW, and one who would probably come > out on the top quartile of any CW test given to the members of this > Board. But CW is like sailing - a wonderful, wonderful hobby, and a > skill that no rational person would argue should be required knowlege > to drive a power boat. > > Over the last decade we have seduced ourselves with arguments > about how wonderful CW is in a low power, high noise pinch. How many > examples can we really find of CW "saving the day"? We have invoked > the high ground of "democracy" and of "doing the will of our members", > ignoring the broader responsibility that we have to them to see and > plan for a real future for the hobby. We have allowed our ears to be > captured by a small number of vociferous crackpots (often, very > intelligent and articulate crackpots, and just possibly including a > few members of our own revered group!) > > Is the real sting in this that the FCC might be thinking that we > are becoming a bit irrelevant? > > Frankly, if this decision of the FCC is a surprise to you, you > need to take a long, hard look at yourself, your hobby, and your > relation to it. > > 73, > Mike > K1TWF > > PS - do any of you see it interesting that the notice came out a few > days AFTER the board meeting? > > > > ----------------------------------- > Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck > > Phone: (978) 250-1236 > Fax: (978) 250-0432 > Web: www.mraisbeck.com <http://www.mraisbeck.com/> > Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and > confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. > If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any > use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, > please notify us by reply email and delete this message. >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12800] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by Andy Oppel 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

I suppose it depends on how they define Tech Plus. If the definition is any Technician class licensee who held that class before February 14, 1991, then they took the exact same written test for their license as General class licensees took at that point in time (it was the same element). That would distinguish Technician from Tech Plus because they would have taken different written tests. If the definition of Tech Plus is instead any Technician licensee who subsequently passes a code test, then the removal of the code testing requirement makes the two indistinguishable. Looking back, what they should have done is automatically moved Tech Plus up to general when they renewed. With 10 year licenses, they would have all been gone now (either expired or moved to General). I found some interesting numbers on this page: http://www.hamdata.com/fccinfo.html -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 03:44 PM 7/23/2005, you wrote: >But Dave, you must be wrong. The FCC says there is/are differences >between Techs and Tech + besides CW. I made a note on my copy to ask you >and ODVwhat is the difference in the requirements for Tech and Tech + >besides CW??? I wasnt aware there were differencesbut I must be wrong >too. The FCC cant be wrong can they? (This question is for Rick). >Some time ago I remember the FCC saying they were not going to keep track >in their database of who was a Tech and who was a Tech+. If there are >differences this wouldnt make sense? Since no one has accused the FCC of >making sense then their position that there is a difference must make >sense? What is the difference between a Tech and a Tech + besides CW? >73/Greg W7OZ > > >---------- >From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:33 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:12784] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News > >When I first heard about the NPRM I assumed that the FCC at least had done >the logical thing and proposed to give Tech Plus privileges to Techs, >since the only difference between the two is Morse and they're now saying >Morse isn't relevant. > >It was a surprise, on reading the NPRM, to discover that that's not the >proposal at all. > >Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) >Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:32 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:12769] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News >FCC is looking for the simplest way to address the petition from their >administrative perspective. They dropped the Morse proficiency requirement >because they could and because it is one less thing to have to deal with >or track. > >What intrigues me is the apparent inconsistency of this action. By >dropping a Morse requirement and retaining the current license structure >Tech licensees may acquire HF access on the HF novice Morse allocations. >Since there wont be any distinction between Techs and Tech Plus or Tech >with HF there doesnt appear to be any reason in the NPRM for not >permitting Techs on HF CW. > >Mikes point about regulatory minutia follows from the tendency of FCC >to move from its original purpose as a independent regulatory agency to a >chamber of commerce. If FCC wants out of regulating generally and >regulating Amateur Radio in particular, the tradition of self-regulation >in Amateur Radio will be more important and, like it or not, we will have >to continue to deal with the regulatory minutia that oils the gears of the >Amateur Service. > >In a real sense FCCs NPRM is less a matter of dissing ARRL (and to some >extent NCVEC and Bill Crosses hero Johnny Johnson) and more the result of >an Agency that is always looking for the quick fix without considering the >ramifications. > >73, > >Jay, KØQB > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] >Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:37 PM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:12750] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News > > >Frank, > >I see and agree. The message here might be: > >Why did we mess around with a proposal to slice things up by >bandwidth? The FCC wants out of the detailed regulation business. Just >get rid of all the mode and bandwidth limitations, and manage our >frequencies the way most of the rest of the world does, informally. > >As a board, we seem to spend excessive time worrying about regulatory >minutia. I understand this tendency - it's far easier to define a small >problem and tackle it with details than to recognize a large one and >conquer it with wisdom. > >Mike >K1TWF > > >----------------------------------- >Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck > >Phone: (978) 250-1236 >Fax: (978) 250-0432 >Web: www.mraisbeck.com >Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net > >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential >information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have >received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, >dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please >notify us by reply email and delete this message. >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Fallon [<mailto:n2ff@optonline.net>mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] >Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:08 PM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:12749] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News > >Mike, > >I think most of us expected them to do away with CW altogether. I know I >did. All we had to do to know that was coming was to read Cross in >"Restructuring I" where he knocked down all the arguments for retaining CW >and said the "only" reason for keeping the CW testing was the >international requirement. With that gone it was a no brainer. > >What is a surprise is that they ignored all the ink and talk the ham US >ham community spent on proposals for three license classes. That is a >slap in the face. It should also wake us up to the new reality at FCC. > >After that experience I am inclined to think that Coy is correct. Our >bandwidth proposal is probably not going to get much attention. Cross >will like the "..think tank" proposal for its simplicity. Perhaps I >should place some bets this time around. > >Frank...N2FF...... > >Mike Raisbeck wrote: > > > Hello Folks, > > > > I see this development quite differently than most of you (at > > least, those of you who have expresses opinions so far.) The FCC is > > delivering a message here that this Board has been struggling to > > ignore for my entire tenure as a vice director!!! > > > > *CW is an antiquated, technologically uninteresting mode that is > > completely irrelevant to the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio* > > ** > > I am myself a great fan of CW, and one who would probably come > > out on the top quartile of any CW test given to the members of this > > Board. But CW is like sailing - a wonderful, wonderful hobby, and a > > skill that no rational person would argue should be required knowlege > > to drive a power boat. > > > > Over the last decade we have seduced ourselves with arguments > > about how wonderful CW is in a low power, high noise pinch. How many > > examples can we really find of CW "saving the day"? We have invoked > > the high ground of "democracy" and of "doing the will of our members", > > ignoring the broader responsibility that we have to them to see and > > plan for a real future for the hobby. We have allowed our ears to be > > captured by a small number of vociferous crackpots (often, very > > intelligent and articulate crackpots, and just possibly including a > > few members of our own revered group!) > > > > Is the real sting in this that the FCC might be thinking that we > > are becoming a bit irrelevant? > > > > Frankly, if this decision of the FCC is a surprise to you, you > > need to take a long, hard look at yourself, your hobby, and your > > relation to it. > > > > 73, > > Mike > > K1TWF > > > > PS - do any of you see it interesting that the notice came out a few > > days AFTER the board meeting? > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------- > > Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck > > > > Phone: (978) 250-1236 > > Fax: (978) 250-0432 > > Web: www.mraisbeck.com > > Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and > > confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. > > If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any > > use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, > > please notify us by reply email and delete this message. > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12799] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by Greg Milnes 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

Yes Dave, They have denied a new entry level license BUT. The Restructuring is still to come. Hopefully they will at least make the Novice Refarming a part of the order. 73/Greg W7OZ _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:14 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12789] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Greg, much as I try to (in the words of Monty Python) "Always Look on the Sunny Side of Life" I think that's an excessively rosy view. Paragraph 30 uses the word "deny" with regard to the requests for a new introductory class of amateur license. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Milnes, Greg (Dir, NW) Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12782] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Chris I don't read that the FCC "rejected" our proposals. They did say they were not considering it in "this proceeding." They also said in footnote 7 that they had taken comment already in another NPRM. They haven't issued any orders based on that NPRM as far as I know. That all says to me they have taken a basic issue, CW, and separated it from other considerations. It seems that logically they would rule on this first (I know assigning logic to the FCC is dangerous, speculative and probably wrong). With that said, I would expect the FCC to rule on the CW issue and delete the testing requirement. Then they would eventually rule on our Restructuring II petition. This extends out the time for them to act which is a desirable FCC goal. Maybe by then the WTB will have been broken into a number of pieces and the current folks won't have to come to any conclusions. Maybe by then the current workers will have retired and they would never have to address it.just pass it off to new guys. Am I wrong in this view? 73/Greg W7OZ _____ From: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:13 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12734] FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Greetings. The FCC today released its NPRM in Docket 05-235. They did not propose to adopt our restructuring II proposal. They instead proposed only to eliminate telegraphy examination requirements completely from Amateur licensing. We are attempting to find out what the actual rationale is for this proposal, and their rejection of our carefully crafted proposal, which had substantial support. The comment date is long, and we will have plenty of opportunity to see about bringing this back on track. Here is the NPRM text in word format. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12798] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by Greg Milnes 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

But Dave, you must be wrong. The FCC says there is/are differences between Techs and Tech + besides CW. I made a note on my copy to ask you and ODVwhat is the difference in the requirements for Tech and Tech + besides CW??? I wasnt aware there were differencesbut I must be wrong too. The FCC cant be wrong can they? (This question is for Rick). Some time ago I remember the FCC saying they were not going to keep track in their database of who was a Tech and who was a Tech+. If there are differences this wouldnt make sense? Since no one has accused the FCC of making sense then their position that there is a difference must make sense? What is the difference between a Tech and a Tech + besides CW? 73/Greg W7OZ _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12784] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News When I first heard about the NPRM I assumed that the FCC at least had done the logical thing and proposed to give Tech Plus privileges to Techs, since the only difference between the two is Morse and they're now saying Morse isn't relevant. It was a surprise, on reading the NPRM, to discover that that's not the proposal at all. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12769] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News FCC is looking for the simplest way to address the petition from their administrative perspective. They dropped the Morse proficiency requirement because they could and because it is one less thing to have to deal with or track. What intrigues me is the apparent inconsistency of this action. By dropping a Morse requirement and retaining the current license structure Tech licensees may acquire HF access on the HF novice Morse allocations. Since there wont be any distinction between Techs and Tech Plus or Tech with HF there doesnt appear to be any reason in the NPRM for not permitting Techs on HF CW. Mikes point about regulatory minutia follows from the tendency of FCC to move from its original purpose as a independent regulatory agency to a chamber of commerce. If FCC wants out of regulating generally and regulating Amateur Radio in particular, the tradition of self-regulation in Amateur Radio will be more important and, like it or not, we will have to continue to deal with the regulatory minutia that oils the gears of the Amateur Service. In a real sense FCCs NPRM is less a matter of dissing ARRL (and to some extent NCVEC and Bill Crosses hero Johnny Johnson) and more the result of an Agency that is always looking for the quick fix without considering the ramifications. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12750] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Frank, I see and agree. The message here might be: Why did we mess around with a proposal to slice things up by bandwidth? The FCC wants out of the detailed regulation business. Just get rid of all the mode and bandwidth limitations, and manage our frequencies the way most of the rest of the world does, informally. As a board, we seem to spend excessive time worrying about regulatory minutia. I understand this tendency - it's far easier to define a small problem and tackle it with details than to recognize a large one and conquer it with wisdom. Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:08 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12749] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News Mike, I think most of us expected them to do away with CW altogether. I know I did. All we had to do to know that was coming was to read Cross in "Restructuring I" where he knocked down all the arguments for retaining CW and said the "only" reason for keeping the CW testing was the international requirement. With that gone it was a no brainer. What is a surprise is that they ignored all the ink and talk the ham US ham community spent on proposals for three license classes. That is a slap in the face. It should also wake us up to the new reality at FCC. After that experience I am inclined to think that Coy is correct. Our bandwidth proposal is probably not going to get much attention. Cross will like the "..think tank" proposal for its simplicity. Perhaps I should place some bets this time around. Frank...N2FF...... Mike Raisbeck wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I see this development quite differently than most of you (at > least, those of you who have expresses opinions so far.) The FCC is > delivering a message here that this Board has been struggling to > ignore for my entire tenure as a vice director!!! > > *CW is an antiquated, technologically uninteresting mode that is > completely irrelevant to the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio* > ** > I am myself a great fan of CW, and one who would probably come > out on the top quartile of any CW test given to the members of this > Board. But CW is like sailing - a wonderful, wonderful hobby, and a > skill that no rational person would argue should be required knowlege > to drive a power boat. > > Over the last decade we have seduced ourselves with arguments > about how wonderful CW is in a low power, high noise pinch. How many > examples can we really find of CW "saving the day"? We have invoked > the high ground of "democracy" and of "doing the will of our members", > ignoring the broader responsibility that we have to them to see and > plan for a real future for the hobby. We have allowed our ears to be > captured by a small number of vociferous crackpots (often, very > intelligent and articulate crackpots, and just possibly including a > few members of our own revered group!) > > Is the real sting in this that the FCC might be thinking that we > are becoming a bit irrelevant? > > Frankly, if this decision of the FCC is a surprise to you, you > need to take a long, hard look at yourself, your hobby, and your > relation to it. > > 73, > Mike > K1TWF > > PS - do any of you see it interesting that the notice came out a few > days AFTER the board meeting? > > > > ----------------------------------- > Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck > > Phone: (978) 250-1236 > Fax: (978) 250-0432 > Web: www.mraisbeck.com > Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and > confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. > If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any > use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, > please notify us by reply email and delete this message. >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12797] Re: Thoughts on our next submission
by Joel Harrison 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

That is a good thought, Bob, and one that Dave and I have been talking about together the past couple of days. FCC has given us some good info with their statistics (although their bad numbers to try to stand behind for their position) to turn around through back at them. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Bob Vallio [mailto:rbvallio@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:34 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Thoughts on our next submission "I think that once the Novice Refarming Report and Order and the new restructuring report an order are issued, then it might be prudent to do a nprm on a new entry level license. It might be best to present only 1 issue at a time, not a large number of items in the nprm. Also, at some point, something will have to be done about hf privileges for Techs, and expansion of General Class privileges on the phone bands. I know the Advanced class would be opposed to this, but it will have to happen as some point." I share this with all of you, as it is one of several comments in a similar vein that I have received. Bob -- Bob Vallio -- W6RGG Pacific Division Director, ARRL The national association for AMATEUR RADIO

1 0

Thoughts on our next submission
by Bob Vallio 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

"I think that once the Novice Refarming Report and Order and the new restructuring report an order are issued, then it might be prudent to do a nprm on a new entry level license. It might be best to present only 1 issue at a time, not a large number of items in the nprm. Also, at some point, something will have to be done about hf privileges for Techs, and expansion of General Class privileges on the phone bands. I know the Advanced class would be opposed to this, but it will have to happen as some point." I share this with all of you, as it is one of several comments in a similar vein that I have received. Bob -- Bob Vallio -- W6RGG Pacific Division Director, ARRL The national association for AMATEUR RADIO

1 0

September QST editorial
by Bob Vallio 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

Well said, Dave. Thanks. 73, Bob -- Bob Vallio -- W6RGG Pacific Division Director, ARRL The national association for AMATEUR RADIO On 7/22/05, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > > I had planned to devote the September QST editorial to an explanation of the > changes in the bandwidth petition. > > The FCC changed those plans Wednesday afternoon. > > Dave > > <<qs0509.pdf>> >

1 0