November 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:14817] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by Henry R. Leggette 20 Nov '06

20 Nov '06

Hi Tom, If you have a very quick procedure/means of sorting the comments, send me the ones from the Delta Division. I can go thru and manually read them all. Thanks! Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:18 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14808] Re: Petition to Reconsider > At 06:23 PM 11/16/2006, dick(a)pobox.com wrote: >>16 NOV 2006 - 1720 CST >> >>So far, it has been very quiet in the Central Division. I have not >>received any comments (email or verbal), pro or con. I think most of the >>members around here consider the FCC's Report & Order to be a done deal. >> >>Perhaps I will receive some comments this coming Saturday at the Ft. Wayne >>Hamfest. > > I'm pretty surprised at Dick's comments (above) and Coy's comments > earlier. Remember - our web article asked members to send in comments via > an e-mail address. We expected comments to deal with the bandplanning > issues resulting from WT 04-140. I noted, most input had nothing to do > with band planning and everything to do with 04-140. That's why I sent > out the message and file a few days ago - most of those messages were > comments about WT 04-140 - some happy, some not. > > The comments were not one-sided. I counted 46 from Central Division > members and 35 from West Gulf members. Maybe it was too much trouble to > go through the file I sent out? Separately I'm forwarding a file with > just the Central comments to Dick and the WG comments to Coy. I've done > that for several other Directors also. Happy to do it for anyone else > wanting to review just the comments from their Division. > > -- 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:14816] Election results
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

The Committee of Tellers has certified the result of the Roanoke Division Vice Director election: Patricia Hensley, N4ROS, 2280 Les Shattuck, K4NK, 996 Pat Hensley is declared elected. David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:14815] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by Andy Oppel 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

When you arrive at the Hamfest, if you see cauldrons of oil and bags of feathers in the parking lot, just keep driving... At 03:23 PM 11/16/2006, dick(a)pobox.com wrote: >16 NOV 2006 - 1720 CST > >So far, it has been very quiet in the Central Division. I have not >received any comments (email or verbal), pro or con. I think most >of the members around here consider the FCC's Report & Order to be a done deal. > >Perhaps I will receive some comments this coming Saturday at the Ft. Wayne >Hamfest. > >I plan to be active in ARRL SweepStakes this weekend. If you hear me, >please work me. > >- Dick, W9GIG >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14814] Re: Federal Register
by Andy Oppel 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Yep, that's what I was looking for. My apologies -- I'm way behind in my reading so I had not seen it as yet. Too many 60 and 70 hour work weeks. Thanks for writing it -- it is just what we need to make sure we have our facts correct when challenged. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 02:24 PM 11/16/2006, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >Andy, this was a motivation for the December QST editorial. > >Dave > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy_oppel@earthlink.net] >Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:04 PM >To: arrl-odv >Cc: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:14797] Re: Federal Register > >Unfortunately, I'm learning not to expect much of anything from Mr. Cross. > >I believe we have some damage control to do with this one. I've >been approached by several local hams who wanted to tell me how much >the ARRL messed this up (they used stronger words). They were >stunned when I told them that the actions the FCC took were quite >different than what the ARRL asked for. (I think they were in the >4% that Joel cited as "can't read".) The next reaction (after the >deer in the headlights look I got from them) was that the FCC always >follows what the ARRL asks for, so I had to be mistaken. I wonder >how many other hams out there are blaming the league instead of the >real culprit? > >I guess I'm now on the hook to visit the club with the ARRL filings >and what the FCC ordered so I can show them the difference. Or is >it possible that those details have already been written about >somewhere? I know Rick wrote some great pieces covering what the >FCC ordered, but I don't recall seeing a comparison (in simple terms >if that's possible) between what we asked for and what we got. > >-- Andy Oppel, N6AJO > Pacific Division Vice Director > >At 03:26 PM 11/15/2006, Bob Vallio wrote: >>Am I mistaken, or did we expect more of a correction from Cross >>than what was published? >> >>Bob -- W6RGG >> >> >> >>On 11/15/06, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ < >><mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: >>Chris is on his way to Puerto Rico, so here is a quick analysis of >>the Federal Register version of the new rules. >>(1) The effective date and time are Friday, December 15, 12:01 AM EST. >>(2) The FCC fixed two errors that were in the original release of >>the R&O, clarifying that the 80/75 meter band split is the same in >>all three regions and that FCC licensees in Region 2 can continue >>to use RTTY/data emissions in the 7.075-7.100 MHz band. >>(3) The FCC did not make any other changes, so the three >>controversial aspects of the proceeding -- the expansion of the 75 >>meter phone band all the way down to 3600 kHz (thus reducing >>RTTY/data privileges of everyone, and CW privileges of Generals and >>Advanced), the elimination of J2D of more than 500 Hz bandwidth >>(thus making PACTOR III at full capability illegal) and the >>elimination of access to the automatic control RTTY/data subband at >>3620-3635 kHz -- remain unchanged. >>W1AW needs a new RTTY/data frequency on 80 meters. We will announce >>one shortly. >>Dave K1ZZ >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ >>Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:47 AM >>To: <mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org>arrl-odv(a)arrl.org >>Subject: Federal Register >> >>Today's Federal Register has the Part 97 Omnibus rules: >> >><http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.go…>http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.go… >> >> >>The effective date is December 15. >> >>Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:14813] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by dick＠pobox.com 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

16 NOV 2006 - 2255 CDT Hello Tom... Thanks for sorting out the responses. I look forward to going through the Central Division messages. Now, I'm going to bed. The next two days, with the Ft. Wayne Hamfest and Sweepstakes, are going to be long ones for me. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:14812] Re: Petition to Reconsider?
by Henry R. Leggette 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Hi All, I plan to reply to petition to reconsider when I return from a hamfest Friday and Saturday on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:14799] Petition to Reconsider? Jim, Nothing has been firmed up, yet. I'm waiting until I have a discussion with Dave in-person tomorrow evening and then I will have a proposal for the board to cuss, discuss, debate, etc. as a intro to deciding what we want to do. Joel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:56 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14799] Petition to Reconsider? As a result of the recent web story, I've had a few members ask me just what we are planning by way of an appeal to the R&O. The stimulus to the questions is the comment, "The ARRL Board is discussing the possibility of a petition to reconsider several items in the R&O." I realize the story did not say we are planning a petition, but this is how they've interpreted it. I just want to check to see if somewhere along the line I may have gone to sleep and missed that we are indeed planning or giving serious consideration to a petition to reconsider some parts of the R&O. Are we? Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142

1 0

[arrl-odv:14811] Miscellaneous Regulatory Detritus
by w3kd＠aol.com 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

****************************************************************** COPIES OF FULL FCC TEXTS AVAILABLE Re effects of communications towers on migratory birds: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-164A1.doc Declaring BPL to be an "information service": http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-165A1.doc ****************************************************************** 73, Chris W3KD/KP4 ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:14808] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by Jim Weaver 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Tom, I'll be happy to take you up on your kind offer to supply comments from the GLD. Incidentally, I initially saw several general comments about the R&O and used my newsletter to note the main purpose of requesting input was to get suggestions toward new band plans. In fact, I used the term "done deal" in commenting about the R&O. I added that the Comment Period had expired long ago. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:18 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14808] Re: Petition to Reconsider At 06:23 PM 11/16/2006, dick(a)pobox.com wrote: >16 NOV 2006 - 1720 CST > >So far, it has been very quiet in the Central Division. I have not >received any comments (email or verbal), pro or con. I think most of the members around here consider the FCC's Report & Order to be a done deal. > >Perhaps I will receive some comments this coming Saturday at the Ft. Wayne >Hamfest. I'm pretty surprised at Dick's comments (above) and Coy's comments earlier. Remember - our web article asked members to send in comments via an e-mail address. We expected comments to deal with the bandplanning issues resulting from WT 04-140. I noted, most input had nothing to do with band planning and everything to do with 04-140. That's why I sent out the message and file a few days ago - most of those messages were comments about WT 04-140 - some happy, some not. The comments were not one-sided. I counted 46 from Central Division members and 35 from West Gulf members. Maybe it was too much trouble to go through the file I sent out? Separately I'm forwarding a file with just the Central comments to Dick and the WG comments to Coy. I've done that for several other Directors also. Happy to do it for anyone else wanting to review just the comments from their Division. -- 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:14809] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by Huntington Howard-CADV02 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Hi Bill and All, I am not so sure CW is on a decline. Recent DXpeditions have more Qs on CW than SSB. Try the CW bands during the coming CQWW DX Contest. Of course digital is growing rapidly and soon to share the same cramped spectrum below 3600. At 40m today, with a similar arrangement 7000 to 7100, often CW and RTTY and other digital modes are tightly packed. I support the Petition for Reconsideration and believe it is right. Howie, K9KM ________________________________ From: William Sawders [mailto:k7zm@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14806] Re: Petition to Reconsider With the worldwide decline in the use of CW, it was only natural for the FCC to expand the phone bands. Being that I operate 80 meters 90% of the time, the only negative remarks I've heard are from the diehard CW traffic operators, who have already staked out new frequencies between 3525 and 3600. Most operators are familiar with the ARRL's band plan, which the FCC certainly Ignored. However, with the decline in use of the CW frequencies (worldwide), I think the FCC felt they were doing Amateur Radio operators a favor. Just my opinion from the back row. Bill Sawders, K7ZM VD NW Div. -------Original Message------- From: dick(a)pobox.com Date: 11/16/06 15:26:27 To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:14805] Re: Petition to Reconsider 16 NOV 2006 - 1720 CST So far, it has been very quiet in the Central Division. I have not received any comments (email or verbal), pro or con. I think most of the members around here consider the FCC's Report & Order to be a done deal. Perhaps I will receive some comments this coming Saturday at the Ft. Wayne Hamfest. I plan to be active in ARRL SweepStakes this weekend. If you hear me, please work me. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:14808] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by Tom Frenaye 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

At 06:23 PM 11/16/2006, dick(a)pobox.com wrote: >16 NOV 2006 - 1720 CST > >So far, it has been very quiet in the Central Division. I have not >received any comments (email or verbal), pro or con. I think most of the members around here consider the FCC's Report & Order to be a done deal. > >Perhaps I will receive some comments this coming Saturday at the Ft. Wayne >Hamfest. I'm pretty surprised at Dick's comments (above) and Coy's comments earlier. Remember - our web article asked members to send in comments via an e-mail address. We expected comments to deal with the bandplanning issues resulting from WT 04-140. I noted, most input had nothing to do with band planning and everything to do with 04-140. That's why I sent out the message and file a few days ago - most of those messages were comments about WT 04-140 - some happy, some not. The comments were not one-sided. I counted 46 from Central Division members and 35 from West Gulf members. Maybe it was too much trouble to go through the file I sent out? Separately I'm forwarding a file with just the Central comments to Dick and the WG comments to Coy. I've done that for several other Directors also. Happy to do it for anyone else wanting to review just the comments from their Division. -- 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