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

[arrl-odv:12963] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

I forgot to insert a question a discussion of the Question Pool raises in my mind. This is, "Should we take a good look at our position regarding NCVEC in this new era of NCVEC leadership and FCC recalcitrance?" It might be worth reviewing precisely what the ARRL relationship is with the NCVEC as starters. 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: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 3:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12956] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Joel, I thought we could, with the assistance of the rest of the NCVEC do quite a bit the with question pool. Although achieving an "appropriate" pool will not gain everything we feel is necessary, it cold go a long way toward making the entry level exam more attractive to newcomers. I suspect that Harold's HQ committee is looking into this aspect of the situation. 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 3:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12953] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Jim, Of course, Chris and everyone else can speak as they wish, but we do have some latitude with the question pool through NCVEC, but from what I read of the NCVEC reaction with NPRM 05-235 and comments from their recent meeting they are not going to pursue any further license changes. What is available to us regarding question pool content will be addressed in my next paper that I previously referenced that will further discuss Options 2 and 3. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12943] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Coy, I agree there is the probability of the proverbial snow ball's chance in hell of success on the code issue, but I think we have no real choice but to try. I think we must make a viable attempt to preserve code because of he reasons I mentioned previously On the other hand, I agree that the hottest part of the situation as regards the future of Amateur Radio is modifying he entry level license. I personally would not care if this is done by achieving changes under current regulation (without changing regulation) or by convincing FCC to toss out the existing scheme and implement a new one (this latter via NPRM). 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 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: n5ok(a)arrl.org [mailto:n5ok.ok@att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:11 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12943] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Joel, I'm looking forward to your expanded versions of options 2 and 3. I personally don't see any need to persue the Morse testing issue further. I think we need to put all our eggs in the entry level license basket. Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12962] Re: Shelby Hamfest thoughts
by Jim K8JE 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Gus, I'll give you a big "yee-haa" on this one. Of course, I don't know how to spell country words. ;-) 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: 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:12960] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Rick, Will you please remind me the degree of esteem in which you hold the FCC? I keep forgetting. 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: K5ur(a)aol.com [mailto:K5ur@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:03 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12942] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Joel: Good job. You and Chris were prepared. Thank you. 1.) Page 1, 5th paragraph - FCC's reference to 200k hams. That reply was typical FCC pooey. A good indication of their motivation, perhaps, .... numbers. Like you said, that does not equate to better efficiency of spectrum. 2.) Page 2, 2nd paragraph - FCC's comment about 300k Techs to upgrade. No way. I'm not sure it will even be the 100k you mentioned. 3.) Page 2, 2nd paragraph - FCC was not thinking long term. I agree. Obvious they weren't, given their responses. 4.) Page 2, 3rd paragraph - Good counterpoint ya'll made. 5.) Page 3, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs - Another good point, but doesn't it make you scratch your head wondering why they don't get it. Did I ever tell you what I think of the FCC? 6.) Page 3, 4th full paragraph - Regarding thanking Cross about 40 mtrs, oh, I'll bet you hated doing that. (hi) 7.) Page 4 - I prefer Option 3. Not option 1. Not option 2. No blend between options 2 and 3. Our proposal was a good proposal. It was the right proposal. This is important. We should do a full court press. Again, thanks to you and Chris for taking the time to prepare and meet with the FCC. Good job. 73, Rick - K5UR In a message dated 9/3/2005 9:31:18 AM Central Standard Time, w5zn(a)arrl.org writes: The attached report is an ARRL Board Confidential matter. It is not to be distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors, and Vice Directors. As previously communicated to you, Chris Imlay and I met with Mike Wilhelm 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

[arrl-odv:12961] Shelby Hamfest thoughts
by Gilgal 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

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:12959] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 04 Sep '05

04 Sep '05

Mike, I cold not agree with you more in philosophy. We must not waste our resources. These are limited. I also agree that we are here to vote the best interest of the amateur Radio Service, not individual members. However. this too must be tempered by viewing all aspects of just "what it is that is best." If "doing best" needlessly involves the lost of significant numbers of members, it is not "best." We need the income even though saying this does not sound altruistic. Anything we do requires money. The point where I am at this moment is that we need to find out what the tradeoffs are that we can exercise. What would be involved in an "all out" effort to protect CW? I may be quite naïve, but I can't envision this as being an all-consuming effort. We've been doing this at varying levels of intensity for many years and I don't envision we would want to underwrite a "million ham" march on the Commission (yeh this is a parabolic comment). Similarly, what would be involved in an all-out effort to gain a new entry level license? I don't know this, either. I believe none o us really has the answer to these questions at this moment, but that we need to get them pretty quickly to enable logical, conscious decisions to be made, strategies formed and operating plans developed and implemented. 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: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 3:55 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12958] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Hi Jim et al. I agree that the effort to defend a code requirement for Extras is minimal. However, there is hidden cost!! 1 - if we fight a feeble battle to preserve a code requirement, it will be obvious to our members who wanted the code requirement, and we will, quite rightly, be subject to criticism by them for talking the talk without walking the walk. 2 - if we fight a strenuous battle, it will use up resources better applied elsewhere. 3 - either way, we will almost certainly lose the fight. Every time we lose such a fight, we use up some of our political capital. We've lost a few fights lately, and I believe that our account of political capital is, as a consequence, now severly depleted. This harkens back to an argument that I make every six months or so on this reflector, that is, we are NOT elected to vote the way our members would. We ARE elected to use our judgment for the good of the League and the Service, based on a degree of consideration and reflection that most of our members cannot themselves afford to invest. But, in any case, we all seem to agree that this is not as important as a credible entry level license class. 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: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 2:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12952] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Mike, How could n otherwise highly intelligent person such as you disagree with me?! Hi! I understand very clearly what you and Coy and probably others by now have said. Being the member-oriented person I am, my concern is not over what we may do with the FCC (I don't think it would make a tinker' dam to them), but is rather over the continual degradation in the perception many, many of our members would have if we were simply to row way from the sinking CW ship. What would ARRL lose by waging a losing battle with FCC to save CW requirements? I don't believe anything at all. On the other hand, I believe we would strengthen our support among members. Like it or not, it is our members who support the League. Having said the above, I would not at all back away from the effort to modify the entry level license. This is where I'd think the bulk of our effort should go. It cannot take too much effort for too long to continue to support 5 WPM for Extras. The remainder of the effort could support a new entry level license. ?? 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: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:11 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12945] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Re Jim's comments: >> Full-blown action toward maintaining Morse for Extra (only) should be a safe position to >> adopt. The No-Coders won't be churned up over this effort and the Know-Coders will love us >> for it. It may be a safe position, but is it the right position? I think not. Morse is a dead issue as far as the FCC is concerned, as far as the public is concerned, and as far as a great number of hams are concerned. Most of those who do think that there should be any code requirement will be drooling in their oatmeal in another 20 years. It's time to dump this issue. By clinging to it at all, we're fostering the image that we're a bunch of old fools who are stuck "back in the days of vacuum tubes." While this may be true, it isn't an image we want to perpetuate ;-)) Let's concentrate on the entry class license and leave the Morse debates behind once and for all. 73, Mike K1TWF

1 0

[arrl-odv:12958] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Mike Raisbeck 04 Sep '05

04 Sep '05

Hi Jim et al. I agree that the effort to defend a code requirement for Extras is minimal. However, there is hidden cost!! 1 - if we fight a feeble battle to preserve a code requirement, it will be obvious to our members who wanted the code requirement, and we will, quite rightly, be subject to criticism by them for talking the talk without walking the walk. 2 - if we fight a strenuous battle, it will use up resources better applied elsewhere. 3 - either way, we will almost certainly lose the fight. Every time we lose such a fight, we use up some of our political capital. We've lost a few fights lately, and I believe that our account of political capital is, as a consequence, now severly depleted. This harkens back to an argument that I make every six months or so on this reflector, that is, we are NOT elected to vote the way our members would. We ARE elected to use our judgment for the good of the League and the Service, based on a degree of consideration and reflection that most of our members cannot themselves afford to invest. But, in any case, we all seem to agree that this is not as important as a credible entry level license class. 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: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 2:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12952] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Mike, How could n otherwise highly intelligent person such as you disagree with me?! Hi! I understand very clearly what you and Coy and probably others by now have said. Being the member-oriented person I am, my concern is not over what we may do with the FCC (I don't think it would make a tinker' dam to them), but is rather over the continual degradation in the perception many, many of our members would have if we were simply to row way from the sinking CW ship. What would ARRL lose by waging a losing battle with FCC to save CW requirements? I don't believe anything at all. On the other hand, I believe we would strengthen our support among members. Like it or not, it is our members who support the League. Having said the above, I would not at all back away from the effort to modify the entry level license. This is where I'd think the bulk of our effort should go. It cannot take too much effort for too long to continue to support 5 WPM for Extras. The remainder of the effort could support a new entry level license. ?? 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: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:11 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12945] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Re Jim's comments: >> Full-blown action toward maintaining Morse for Extra (only) should be a safe position to >> adopt. The No-Coders won't be churned up over this effort and the Know-Coders will love us >> for it. It may be a safe position, but is it the right position? I think not. Morse is a dead issue as far as the FCC is concerned, as far as the public is concerned, and as far as a great number of hams are concerned. Most of those who do think that there should be any code requirement will be drooling in their oatmeal in another 20 years. It's time to dump this issue. By clinging to it at all, we're fostering the image that we're a bunch of old fools who are stuck "back in the days of vacuum tubes." While this may be true, it isn't an image we want to perpetuate ;-)) Let's concentrate on the entry class license and leave the Morse debates behind once and for all. 73, Mike K1TWF

1 0

[arrl-odv:12957] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 04 Sep '05

04 Sep '05

Probably clear, "ad nauseum!" Tnx 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 3:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12954] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Jim, Your point has been made clear. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:52 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12939] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Joel, To make my point utterly (or out in Arkansas, is it udderly?) clear, even if we think FCC will summarily ignore and reject effort by us to keep Morse requirements for Extra licensees, I firmly request we go through the drill and try to get them to change their position and keep 5 wpm for Extra. My correspondence from members clearly demonstrates that many, many non-FISTS people would feel we are abandoning them if we don't fight to maintain code. I think that ignoring the opportunity to submit strong reply comments would represent a member-relations disaster. We don't need any more of these. 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 8:40 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12939] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting QSL Wade...tnx info. I still feel strongly that we should pursue our original petition regarding an entry level license. The only thing I'm convinced FCC will refuse to change is the elimination of the Morse requirement. More later. I have another report coming to everyone within the next few days outlining Options 2 & 3 in much greater detail. Thanks again for the input. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: walstrom(a)mchsi.com [mailto:walstrom@mchsi.com] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 5:47 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12935] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting 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. 73, Wade W0EJ > > The attached report is an ARRL Board Confidential matter. It is not to be > distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors, and Vice > Directors. > > As previously communicated to you, Chris Imlay and I met with Mike Wilhelm > 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

[arrl-odv:12956] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Jim K8JE 04 Sep '05

04 Sep '05

Joel, I thought we could, with the assistance of the rest of the NCVEC do quite a bit the with question pool. Although achieving an "appropriate" pool will not gain everything we feel is necessary, it cold go a long way toward making the entry level exam more attractive to newcomers. I suspect that Harold's HQ committee is looking into this aspect of the situation. 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 3:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12953] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Jim, Of course, Chris and everyone else can speak as they wish, but we do have some latitude with the question pool through NCVEC, but from what I read of the NCVEC reaction with NPRM 05-235 and comments from their recent meeting they are not going to pursue any further license changes. What is available to us regarding question pool content will be addressed in my next paper that I previously referenced that will further discuss Options 2 and 3. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12943] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Coy, I agree there is the probability of the proverbial snow ball's chance in hell of success on the code issue, but I think we have no real choice but to try. I think we must make a viable attempt to preserve code because of he reasons I mentioned previously On the other hand, I agree that the hottest part of the situation as regards the future of Amateur Radio is modifying he entry level license. I personally would not care if this is done by achieving changes under current regulation (without changing regulation) or by convincing FCC to toss out the existing scheme and implement a new one (this latter via NPRM). 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 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: n5ok(a)arrl.org [mailto:n5ok.ok@att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:11 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12943] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Joel, I'm looking forward to your expanded versions of options 2 and 3. I personally don't see any need to persue the Morse testing issue further. I think we need to put all our eggs in the entry level license basket. Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12953] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting
by Joel Harrison 04 Sep '05

04 Sep '05

Jim, Of course, Chris and everyone else can speak as they wish, but we do have some latitude with the question pool through NCVEC, but from what I read of the NCVEC reaction with NPRM 05-235 and comments from their recent meeting they are not going to pursue any further license changes. What is available to us regarding question pool content will be addressed in my next paper that I previously referenced that will further discuss Options 2 and 3. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Jim K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12943] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Coy, I agree there is the probability of the proverbial snow ball's chance in hell of success on the code issue, but I think we have no real choice but to try. I think we must make a viable attempt to preserve code because of he reasons I mentioned previously On the other hand, I agree that the hottest part of the situation as regards the future of Amateur Radio is modifying he entry level license. I personally would not care if this is done by achieving changes under current regulation (without changing regulation) or by convincing FCC to toss out the existing scheme and implement a new one (this latter via NPRM). 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 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: n5ok(a)arrl.org [mailto:n5ok.ok@att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:11 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12943] Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Harrison/Imlay FCC Meeting Joel, I'm looking forward to your expanded versions of options 2 and 3. I personally don't see any need to persue the Morse testing issue further. I think we need to put all our eggs in the entry level license basket. Coy -- ARRL West Gulf Division Director Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29th St Union City, OK 73090 n5ok(a)arrl.org 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:12955] Re: Katrina Update Sunday Sept 4
by K5ur＠aol.com 04 Sep '05

04 Sep '05

Hams getting great publicity on FOX News right now. (2:25 pm here) Described a message that originated with a ham at a Red Cross station and then relayed through several states resulting in rescue of quite a few people in New Orleans. Didn't catch the number rescued, 15 I think plus elderly. News anchor said, "Ham Radio operators to the rescue." 73, K5UR

1 0