September 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12974] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by W3KD＠aol.com 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE(a)arrl.org writes: > I clearly got and understand your answers which, incidentally, are > precisely what I had hoped you’d say! Great minds think alike, Jim. Now on to your HSMM issue! 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

Joel's 3 proposals
by Greg Milnes 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Joel Thanks for your work on the NPRM matter. While I might want to see some retention of CW.it ain't gonna happen. That's clear. I also suspect the public comments will support the FCC's proposal to delete the requirement. As to option #1 (do nothing), that's a bad move. That the FCC will figure our lack of comment means their proposal is so bad it doesn't deserve comment, won't work. That's way too subtle for them. They have enough trouble figuring out the simple things. As to option #2 (Tech/Tech+ comment), I support it. That response would "keep it simple stupid." That's about all the FCC is equipped to handle, the simplest of things. As to option #3 (bring all guns to the fight on all issues), that's not a bad idea except it's too complicated for the FCC. I would simply add a teaser to option #2 and insert an entry level argument in there somehow. It is kind of like holding our place or letting us have the right to push for entry level when the order on restructuring is ready to come out. There will be a spike in licenses when Morse is dropped, but it probably won't be much. Maybe we can make some hay from the current Katrina situation. Unfortunately, I have seen very little of our involvement on the national news media (I mostly watch the FOX News channel). In fact there has been a lot of mention of communications problems and difficulties of one agency talking to another. That's what we do best but apparently so far we haven't done much or been allowed to do much. That's too bad. Thanks again for the good work. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12972] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Chris, Tnx to your obviously-superior powers of interpretation, you clearly got my questions this time. I clearly got and understand your answers which, incidentally, are precisely what I had hoped you'd say! Tnx, 73, 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: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 9:04 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12971] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Jim, obviously, I misunderstood your questions, and I apologize. Let me try again. Based upon my limited experience, I'd think some paralegal effort plus minimal supervision by you would result n a healthy filing. If we were to support this filing via a push on FCC by our members (use our grassroots program to do this), we could generate substantial, controlled pressure. I think this that in general we ought to pursue this basic plan. It is probably not going to succeed, but I think we need to pursue it for our many members on whom we in turn rely for support. This ought to leave us with something on the order of 99 44/100s percent effort for the new license project. I am certainly not short on argument in favor of retaining Morse, but the argument is not, at this point, a matter of law, but rather a matter of proper policy. If the Board wants to make an effort to keep Morse testing for the Extra Class license, I will promise you a first class argument. I don't see it succeeding, but as you say, often the right thing to do is not necessarily the one most likely of success. MY QUESTION ABOUT AVAILABLE FINAGLE ROOM What I'm wondering is just how far (from a legal position) we might be able to get in moving towards the goal of a new entry license but while still working under FCC's current regs and interpretations. For example, how much latitude do we (the Amateur Radio Community) have in developing question pools for the entry level license at time. Bluntly asked, if we were able to pull the NCVEC forces together behind us (or get all of us to join together for a common goal), could we write and expect FCC to accept a license pool of the type we think it ought to be? There are two issues, Jim, well, actually three, in considering an entry level license class. One is whether or not there will be a separate entry level license from the current technician. It is quite apparent that the FCC's mindset is to not create a new entry level license class. Can we force them to as a matter of law? Of course not. It is a matter of persuading them that it is the right thing to do. Their NPRM says that they are not proposing to create a new entry level license. So, assuming that there will not be a new entry level license, the question becomes what has to be done to the Technician Class license to make it more appealing to newcomers and more conducive to keeping newcomers once they get a Tech license. As we have argued, the Technician Class license has two fundamental flaws, and we can, I think, demonstrate this empirically. First, the examination is overly comprehensive, and needs to be made less so. That is ENTIRELY within the VECs authority. If NCVEC is unwilling to work with us to make that happen, we can create our own question pool, as each VEC is authorized to do (though FCC does "expect" that there will be a single question pool for each examination element, it is not mandatory by any rule or statutory requirement). So, yes, the exam can be "fixed" without any FCC involvement at all. The question pools are no longer blessed by FCC or subject to their criticism. They are out of the picture on that entirely. The second problem with the Technician Class license is the privileges. That FCC has to fix itself, of course, and that, I think, is where we should focus our efforts in the comments in this docket proceeding. Absent a victory on the overall question of a new entry level license, to what degree theoretically is the NCVEC at liberty to mold the current Tech license format toward that we believe would best serve Amateur Radio. They are 100 percent at liberty to "mold" the question pools and the examinations. They can't affect anything else about the Tech license, of course. Can he NCVEC unilaterally change the Tech question pool to become one essentially that would mimic a "new Novice" pool? If NCVEC has this latitude, following this tactic just might be useful if all else fails. Yes. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12971] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by W3KD＠aol.com 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Jim, obviously, I misunderstood your questions, and I apologize. Let me try again. Based upon my limited experience, I’d think some paralegal effort plus minimal supervision by you would result n a healthy filing. If we were to support this filing via a push on FCC by our members (use our grassroots program to do this), we could generate substantial, controlled pressure. I think this that in general we ought to pursue this basic plan. It is probably not going to succeed, but I think we need to pursue it for our many members on whom we in turn rely for support. This ought to leave us with something on the order of 99 44/100s percent effort for the new license project. I am certainly not short on argument in favor of retaining Morse, but the argument is not, at this point, a matter of law, but rather a matter of proper policy. If the Board wants to make an effort to keep Morse testing for the Extra Class license, I will promise you a first class argument. I don't see it succeeding, but as you say, often the right thing to do is not necessarily the one most likely of success. MY QUESTION ABOUT AVAILABLE FINAGLE ROOM What I’m wondering is just how far (from a legal position) we might be able to get in moving towards the goal of a new entry license but while still working under FCC’s current regs and interpretations. For example, how much latitude do we (the Amateur Radio Community) have in developing question pools for the entry level license at time. Bluntly asked, if we were able to pull the NCVEC forces together behind us (or get all of us to join together for a common goal), could we write and expect FCC to accept a license pool of the type we think it ought to be? There are two issues, Jim, well, actually three, in considering an entry level license class. One is whether or not there will be a separate entry level license from the current technician. It is quite apparent that the FCC's mindset is to not create a new entry level license class. Can we force them to as a matter of law? Of course not. It is a matter of persuading them that it is the right thing to do. Their NPRM says that they are not proposing to create a new entry level license. So, assuming that there will not be a new entry level license, the question becomes what has to be done to the Technician Class license to make it more appealing to newcomers and more conducive to keeping newcomers once they get a Tech license. As we have argued, the Technician Class license has two fundamental flaws, and we can, I think, demonstrate this empirically. First, the examination is overly comprehensive, and needs to be made less so. That is ENTIRELY within the VECs authority. If NCVEC is unwilling to work with us to make that happen, we can create our own question pool, as each VEC is authorized to do (though FCC does "expect" that there will be a single question pool for each examination element, it is not mandatory by any rule or statutory requirement). So, yes, the exam can be "fixed" without any FCC involvement at all. The question pools are no longer blessed by FCC or subject to their criticism. They are out of the picture on that entirely. The second problem with the Technician Class license is the privileges. That FCC has to fix itself, of course, and that, I think, is where we should focus our efforts in the comments in this docket proceeding. Absent a victory on the overall question of a new entry level license, to what degree theoretically is the NCVEC at liberty to mold the current Tech license format toward that we believe would best serve Amateur Radio. They are 100 percent at liberty to "mold" the question pools and the examinations. They can't affect anything else about the Tech license, of course. Can he NCVEC unilaterally change the Tech question pool to become one essentially that would mimic a “new Novice” pool? If NCVEC has this latitude, following this tactic just might be useful if all else fails. Yes. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12970] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Chris, I obviously did not make myself clear. 100% EFFORT ON NEW ENTRY LEVEL CLASS I wasn't even going "here" in my most previous note, but lets do. I continue to agree we need a 100.0% approach toward obtaining a "new Novice" or whatever one calls it entry level license. I, however, cannot believe that taking what I perceive to be a minimal amount of time to attempt to protect code can take much, if anything, away from this 100.0%. Based upon my limited experience, I'd think some paralegal effort plus minimal supervision by you would result n a healthy filing. If we were to support this filing via a push on FCC by our members (use our grassroots program to do this), we could generate substantial, controlled pressure. I think this that in general we ought to pursue this basic plan. It is probably not going to succeed, but I think we need to pursue it for our many members on whom we in turn rely for support. This ought to leave us with something on the order of 99 44/100s percent effort for the new license project. MY QUESTION ABOUT AVAILABLE FINAGLE ROOM What I'm wondering is just how far (from a legal position) we might be able to get in moving towards the goal of a new entry license but while still working under FCC's current regs and interpretations. For example, how much latitude do we (the Amateur Radio Community) have in developing question pools for the entry level license at time. Bluntly asked, if we were able to pull the NCVEC forces together behind us (or get all of us to join together for a common goal), could we write and expect FCC to accept a license pool of the type we think it ought to be? Absent a victory on the overall question of a new entry level license, to what degree theoretically is the NCVEC at liberty to mold the current Tech license format toward that we believe would best serve Amateur Radio. Can he NCVEC unilaterally change the Tech question pool to become one essentially that would mimic a "new Novice" pool? If NCVEC has this latitude, following this tactic just might be useful if all else fails. Tnx. I hope I've clarified my question vs. muddying the water still further. 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: W3KD(a)aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 4:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12968] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting In a message dated 9/4/2005 2:15:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE(a)arrl.org writes: I'd be interested to learn Chris' and others' assessment of the degree of latitude we might theoretically have to effect functional change in the licensing structure through NCVEC and such inroads we've made to date. Jim, I personally think the full court press option of Joel's is the best one, but I also thought Joel's memo is right on. There is very little, actually virtually no, interest on the part of the WTB in doing anything else in this docket proceeding except as proposed in the NPRM. What allies and recourse do we have? Well, we are riding high right now on the visibility from Katrina. That tends to be short-lived, but the Chairman is hearing plenty about the good work of hams. We started this restructuring process with a "top-down" lobbying strategy, which seemed to be working. We went to Congress first and got a letter signed by the two ham members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, both of whom are now on the House Telecom Subcommittee, which has oversight jurisdiction over FCC. Since this issue is of no consequence to Kevin Martin, why wouldn't he be subject to some further input from Walden and Ross? I think we have to get out of the WTB box, which is difficult because there is at present no WTB Chief. The best we can do is Cathy Seidel, who is the pipeline to the Chairman. But we should go to the Chairman soon, if we are going to attempt to change the firm (yet apparently feeble) minds in the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division. So we could lobby them, Martin, and we could keep the pressure on Wilhelm. As to NCVEC, they are not fighters. They have pretty much declared that they are not pursuing the restructuring matter further, as I understand their position. Neither do they carry much weight, apparently, since I could not persuade Cross that they have any expertise in anything but examination administration; an interesting slight, coming from Cross, who, like his predecessor, is always looking for an alternative (or at least additional) source of input other than ARRL. In my view, the further pursuit of the retention of Morse telegraphy as an examination element for any class of license is impractical and unachievable given the regulatory climate at FCC and looking at the comments filed thus far. Our pursuit of that effort would, I believe, detract from our already difficult goal of obtaining either a new entry level license or a modification of the de facto entry level license to make it more encouraging and more of a path to upgrading and involvement in Amateur Radio. Please note, Jim, that I am speaking only from a practical standpoint, not an ethical one, because you asked about practicalities. I agree with Joel's assessments 100 percent, and I believe he did a fantastic job of advocacy at what was a somewhat difficult meeting. The Board's views were very well represented by Joel indeed. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12968] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by W3KD＠aol.com 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

In a message dated 9/4/2005 2:15:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE(a)arrl.org writes: > > > I’d be interested to learn Chris’ and others’ assessment of the degree of > latitude we might theoretically have to effect functional change in the > licensing structure through NCVEC and such inroads we’ve made to date. > > > > Jim, I personally think the full court press option of Joel's is the best one, but I also thought Joel's memo is right on. There is very little, actually virtually no, interest on the part of the WTB in doing anything else in this docket proceeding except as proposed in the NPRM. What allies and recourse do we have? Well, we are riding high right now on the visibility from Katrina. That tends to be short-lived, but the Chairman is hearing plenty about the good work of hams. We started this restructuring process with a "top-down" lobbying strategy, which seemed to be working. We went to Congress first and got a letter signed by the two ham members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, both of whom are now on the House Telecom Subcommittee, which has oversight jurisdiction over FCC. Since this issue is of no consequence to Kevin Martin, why wouldn't he be subject to some further input from Walden and Ross? I think we have to get out of the WTB box, which is difficult because there is at present no WTB Chief. The best we can do is Cathy Seidel, who is the pipeline to the Chairman. But we should go to the Chairman soon, if we are going to attempt to change the firm (yet apparently feeble) minds in the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division. So we could lobby them, Martin, and we could keep the pressure on Wilhelm. As to NCVEC, they are not fighters. They have pretty much declared that they are not pursuing the restructuring matter further, as I understand their position. Neither do they carry much weight, apparently, since I could not persuade Cross that they have any expertise in anything but examination administration; an interesting slight, coming from Cross, who, like his predecessor, is always looking for an alternative (or at least additional) source of input other than ARRL. In my view, the further pursuit of the retention of Morse telegraphy as an examination element for any class of license is impractical and unachievable given the regulatory climate at FCC and looking at the comments filed thus far. Our pursuit of that effort would, I believe, detract from our already difficult goal of obtaining either a new entry level license or a modification of the de facto entry level license to make it more encouraging and more of a path to upgrading and involvement in Amateur Radio. Please note, Jim, that I am speaking only from a practical standpoint, not an ethical one, because you asked about practicalities. I agree with Joel's assessments 100 percent, and I believe he did a fantastic job of advocacy at what was a somewhat difficult meeting. The Board's views were very well represented by Joel indeed. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

Fwd: Appeal to the Entire ARRL Board of the Executive Committee's decision
by W3KD＠aol.com 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Relative to Mr. Stevenson's rather rambling attempt to appeal the decision of the Executive Committee to the full Board, I would note that, despite his protestations to the contrary, he has yet again threatened litigation against ARRL. See the penultimate paragraph of his e-mail. It would be wise, under the circumstances, not to communicate directly with Carl on this subject. It is also noted that the Executive Committee is of the view that its determination with respect to election candidacy is the final recourse available to someone dissatisfied with a decision of the Elections and Ethics Committee. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12967] Katrina Update Sept. 5 2005
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

To: ARRL HQ Staff ODV Daily Katrina Update Tuesday Sept. 5, 2005 1. Many ARRL Staff Members are still working hard through the Holiday Weekend to coordinate all aspects of disaster relief including Field Operations, Communications, and Public Information. 2. TV Crews were at W1AW again last night at 8:30pm for another story. W1AW has been staffed 7 x 24. Bill Moore pulled another overnight shift as net control. 3. We are still handling a very large volume of email on all disaster related topics. Thanks again to Dave Patton for keeping on top of all of this. 4. Rosalie reminded us that the Red Cross has opened 470 Shelters that need communications assistance. 5. Amateur radio operators are performing a wide variety of tasks including communications for served agencies, passing of traffic, acting as information sources and just about every other communications role inside and outside of the disaster area. For example, Jim Haynie reports that hams have been assisting with the communications for the folks who have been relocated to Texas. 6. Beginning tomorrow, we will begin further updating the web site to highlight our activities and operations here at HQ. Many things are happening and we need for our members and the overall amateur radio community to know about them. Rick L, Jon B, Tom H and Allen P will be involved. 7. Also beginning tomorrow, the first of the donated equipment should arrive. 8. Jon B and Dave P have developed a database tool to sort and classify volunteers from the AB2M web site. 9. President Jim Haynie will try to get a statement from a government official so that hams who would like to serve and need to leave their workplace will have a document to show their employer. This would be similar to documents used by the National Guard and Red Cross for volunteer service during disasters. 10. Welcome to Bill Barrett who has rejoined us here at HQ to act as "Field Reimbursement Coordinator " (or something like that) to assist Mary in setting up a process for distributing the CNCS stipends. 11. Dennis is heading towards Mississippi with his HF station at the request of the Mississippi SM. He will be our eyes and ears on site and he will be reporting back to HQ daily and helping us to coordinate activities between the disaster areas and HQ. 12. Joe C, Norm and others continue to work on net frequency coordination and interference issues. Riley Hollingsworth has stayed in touch with HQ staff and is on top of the situation. 13. Allen continues to churn out the PR. Local SM, SEC's and PIO's have also been busy with media requests. Watch the NY Times and Wall Street Journal tomorrow for additional coverage. We have a professional videographer/ham from Atlanta who has volunteered to go into the disaster area tomorrow. He will be sending us video for PSA's and other future use. 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:12966] Re: Shelby Hamfest thoughts
by Dennis Bodson 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Les: Many thanks. Dennis _____ From: Gilgal [mailto:k4nk@wctel.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:39 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12961] Shelby Hamfest thoughts Greetings ; I have just returned from the Shelby , N.C. Hamfest . Despite the rising price of gas about 7000 showed up for a great weekend. The past attendance once topped 15,000 . I spoke to a full room at the ARRL forum and was ready to get blitzed about bandwidth issues. It did not happened ! The ARRL friendly group was more concerned about Katrina and how they could help and learn to be better communicators. Of course they want to see license issues addressed , but I think think they understand much better know how the FCC eyes us as amateurs. On the CW issue I say fight on ! We have nothing to lose and I believe the average member would like to see us go down fighting than give in and do nothing. Like the country song says " You gotta stand for something or you stand for nothing at all". 73 Les Shattuck K4NK Vice Director Roanoke

1 0

[arrl-odv:12964] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Frank Fallon 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Joel et al, I think Coy said it all: I'm looking forward to your expanded versions of options 2 and 3. I personally don't see any need to pursue the Morse testing issue further. I think we need to put all our eggs in the entry level license basket. and Wade is also correct: "I do not like Option 1 at all. I don't think it will send the message you suggest, but would be another indication of us becoming irrelevant. These clowns are too enamored with themselves to figure out a no-response means we think they are so far off base to elicit a response. I favor something between 2 and 3 and the closer to 3 the better." We are absolutely wasting our time and as Mike pointed out sacrificing some political capital in pursing the CW issue. We should not go there. I hope that most of us realized that back in 1999 the FCC signaled in "Restructuring I" that CW testing was going to go away when the international requirement went away. Please remember that they shot down all rationals for keeping CW testing and stated the "only" reason they were maintaining CW testing at that point was to fulfill that international requirement. Despite what some few of our members (those in the ostrich cage with their head in the sand) may think we should not pursue CW testing. We are going to loose on that one and it is dumb to put ourselves in a loosing position on this issue. Dropping CW testing is NOT the end of the world as we know and love it! The mode will continue if we collective stop fighting for a dying cause (testing) and seek fun, positive ways to interest new hams in the mode. Having said that I think we should fight like hell to get a meaningful entrance class license with some HF privileges. This is really important! Here I believe the FCC is way off base and missed the boat, but that doesn't surprise me with Cross at the helm. Obviously Cross in unable to chew gum and walk at the same time. But the reality is that the FCC needs to do two things at the same time here - drop CW and put a meaningful HF entrance operator class license in place. We probably need to get our friends in congress to send that same message to them again. My two cents: our eggs in basket 3. Frank......N2FF..... >at FCC on Monday, August 29 to discuss NPRM 05-235. > >My report is attached in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. If you cannot open this >document, please let me know. > >73 Joel W5ZN > >

1 0