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

[arrl-odv:12793] Re: Web Meetings
by Andy Oppel 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

For those of concerned about cameras and special equipment and such, that's not how these meetings work. They take place using your web browser. The presenter can share documents or their entire desktop with the attendees (and there is a provision to pass the presenter role to someone else when needed). It's very easy to go through word or powerpoint documents -- and everyone can see amendments as they are made. You use a conference call or VOIP for audio. There are lots of other features including interactive chat, note taking, saving the presentation for subsequent review, etc. I'm in WebEx meetings several times a week (my primary office is at home even though I have a fulltime job with a large corporation that requires a lot of interaction with coworkers), and it sure beats spending all that time and expense absorbed in traveling to get to the meeting. I've even been in some all-day WebEx meetings (that's where a telephone headset or speakerphone with mute comes in handy). While a high-speed internet connection (DSL or cable) is best for these meetings, I have done them on dial-up. It all depends on how much content is being presented and how quickly the presenter changes pages or slides. I agree with Harold that a committee meeting would be the best place to start. If any of you want to try a demo, go to <http://www.webex.com/>http://www.webex.com<http://www.webex.com/>/ and click on the "Join the Live Demo" option. This has the potential to save us a lot of money and a lot of travel time. -- Andy Oppel Pacific Division Vice Director At 10:43 AM 7/22/2005, Kramer, Harold, WJ1B wrote: >Hi, > >At the Board meeting, I was asked to research using web software for >conducting on-line meetings. Vice Director Andy Oppel and I discussed >this and we both recommend Webex. We have both used this type of software >and we have found it to be an incredible product. Here is the web site >where you can learn more about it. > ><http://www.webex.com/>http://www.webex.com/ > > >I am willing find out the technical requirements, pricing and other >details, if the Board would like to pursue it. I would suggest starting >with a Committee meeting using this type of product to see how we like >it. There is even a VOIP option that could possibly save us some money >over our current technology. > >Anyway, take a look at their site and let me know what you think. > >73, > >Harold > >Harold Kramer, WJ1B >Chief Operating Officer >ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio >225 Main Street >Newington, CT 06111 >860 594 0220 ><http://www.arrl.org/>www.arrl.org/ >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12792] September QST editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

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

[arrl-odv:12791] Web Meetings
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

Hi, At the Board meeting, I was asked to research using web software for conducting on-line meetings. Vice Director Andy Oppel and I discussed this and we both recommend Webex. We have both used this type of software and we have found it to be an incredible product. Here is the web site where you can learn more about it. http://www.webex.com/ I am willing find out the technical requirements, pricing and other details, if the Board would like to pursue it. I would suggest starting with a Committee meeting using this type of product to see how we like it. There is even a VOIP option that could possibly save us some money over our current technology. Anyway, take a look at their site and let me know what you think. 73, Harold 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:12790] Re: FW: UTC Industry Intelligence - July 21, 2005
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

Reshuffling the cards does not remove the jokers from the deck. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Imlay, Chris (ARRL Counsel) Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12788] Re: FW: UTC Industry Intelligence - July 21, 2005 Actually, Paul Rinaldo and I have discussed in the past, while re-creating the world in our own image, how much better off we would be if OET handled Amateur Radio, which makes some sense, inasmuch as Amateur Radio is in essence an experimental radio service. BPL and Part 15 issues notwithstanding, we would be far better off, I think, with OET regulating Part 97 than we are with certain unnamed morons in the WTB. Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12789] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

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:12788] Re: FW: UTC Industry Intelligence - July 21, 2005
by W3KD＠aol.com 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

Actually, Paul Rinaldo and I have discussed in the past, while re-creating the world in our own image, how much better off we would be if OET handled Amateur Radio, which makes some sense, inasmuch as Amateur Radio is in essence an experimental radio service. BPL and Part 15 issues notwithstanding, we would be far better off, I think, with OET regulating Part 97 than we are with certain unnamed morons in the WTB. Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12787] Martin reorganizing FCC? WTB to be disbanded?
by W3KD＠aol.com 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

This was forwarded to us from the NPSTC folks. It is from an RCR article, and apparently Communications Daily had a similar piece yesterday (7/21). > > Speculation abounds about whether > Martin plans to revamp FCC > > By Heather Forsgren Weaver > Jul 19, 2005 > > WASHINGTON > > FCC Chairman Kevin Martin appears to be reorganizing the Federal > Communication Commission, a move that could disband the FCC's > Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, moving its functions to various > other bureaus including a new Homeland Security Bureau. > > The FCC declined to comment > > A reorganization would answer the question of why Martin, who arrived > in mid-March, has yet to announce a chief for the wireless bureau. > The departure of John Muleta, the former wireless bureau chief, > coincided with the departure of former FCC Chairman Michael Powell. > > Speculation is that the reorganization would create Homeland-Security > Bureau with the functions performed by the public-safety and > critical-infrastructure division of the wireless bureau and other > homeland-security functions scattered about in the agency in the > Office of Planning and Policy and the Consumer & Governmental Affairs > Bureau. A new Spectrum Bureau would be created with the functions of > the wireless bureau licensing division and the FCC's Office of > Engineering & Technology. The wireless bureau's policy functions > would largely move to the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. > > It is not unusual for new chairmen to reorganize the agency to fit > their policy objectives, but Martin has yet to name his priorities > except for general statements about broadband and homeland security. > > Rumors have circulated for months about who might be named to lead > the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with many names being > batted down as having conflicts. Anyone with clients or > responsibilities in the wireless industry, the wireline industry or > the media industry would be conflicted because of the various issues > handled either directly or indirectly by the wireless bureau. By > creating a Homeland-Security Bureau and a Spectrum Bureau, Martin > would apparently solve this conflicts-of-interest issue. > > Source: > http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=23458 >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12786] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by W3KD＠aol.com 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

In a message dated 7/22/2005 4:31:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, w5zn(a)arrl.org writes: > > > Hi Brian, > > Not speaking for Chris, but of my own opinion, it should have no > ramifications as the two are not related. > > Chris, however, may have a different view. > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > I am just getting this message. Sorry for the delay, Brian and Joel. No, I think there is no connection at all between our B/W petition plan and the restructuring plan in the small aggregate mind of the FCC. Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12785] Final Minutes, July 2005 Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

Here are minutes of last week's meeting in final form, with typos corrected thanks to Tom Frenaye. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<2005 Second Meeting Minutes FINAL.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12784] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Jul '05

22 Jul '05

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] 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