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

RE: [arrl-odv:14803] Re: Petition to Reconsider?
by Jim Weaver 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Coy, I don't know how most of the folks who wrote to me feel about a possible appeal of parts of the R&O, but one of them most definitely would oppose an appeal of the 3600 kHz lower fone band limit. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:56 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14803] Re: Petition to Reconsider? Jim, On the contrary, I have received only e-mail that advise me not to appeal it. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Jim Weaver wrote: > 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:14806] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by William Sawders 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

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 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:14805] Re: Petition to Reconsider
by dick＠pobox.com 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

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:14804] Re: Federal Register
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

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 < 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: 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:14803] Re: Petition to Reconsider?
by Coy Day 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Jim, On the contrary, I have received only e-mail that advise me not to appeal it. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Jim Weaver wrote: > 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

RE: AD perks
by Kay Craigie 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

When I became Atlantic Division Director, I inherited a whole bunch of AD's several of whom had been appointed by my predecessor's predecessor's predecessor and none of whom had been asked to *do* anything in fifteen years other than annually confirm that they were still alive and getting the ARRL Letter. W3ABC saw no useful purpose in having AD's but didn't want to offend the people on the list, even the ones who were jerks, and so he just let their numbers shrink by natural processes. Upon becoming Director I wrote to the AD's and told them that I intended to ask more of them than W3ABC had done -- I was going to ask them for input on important issues, for example, and I might call upon them in other ways as well. That led several of them to resign on the spot. At the end of my first year as Director, I sent the remaining ones a questionnaire about their activities and asking for some input on whatever were the hot topics of the day. Some didn't reply. They got follow-up notes indicating that the questionnaire was an expectation, not an option. Those who still didn't return the questionnaire received letters thanking them for their past service as AD's and informing them that the appointment was no longer in force. I continued doing that annually. Most of the dead wood was thus pruned off the roster. I decided to use AD's as advisors on subject matters about which neither the Vice Director nor I had sufficient personal expertise, and I appointed several new AD's on that basis. The remaining inherited ones were useful in that advisory capacity, too. This turned out well for me. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:14801] Re: Petition to Reconsider?
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Jim, see arrl-odv message number 14690. The only thing that's different is that the FCC did not fix the J2D 500 Hz error, so that should be added to the list of potential reconsideration petition topics. I've been trying to come up with some interim fixes but need to talk to Chris before airing any ideas -- I don't want to raise expectations inappropriately. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:56 PM To: arrl-odv 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

RE: [arrl-odv:14799] Petition to Reconsider?
by Joel Harrison 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

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:14799] Petition to Reconsider?
by Jim Weaver 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

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:14798] Re: AD perks
by Henry R. Leggette 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Joel and all, I am involved with AD right now. I have used some of the ones Rick used and I have appointed several others. As Coy said, he depend upon them for areas without immediate contact or ready available contact. I also have one to work on the Delta Division Web site and another one who is a digital expert. Then there is just one or so that want to wear the badge saying I am an AD. Yes, I did get them all a letter signed by Dave Sumner and a certificate. I am writing some data and I asking them to give me input from their areas what the average ham is saying about AR background checks. I view that position as one to assist the Director and that is the way I am using it. Bruce, I hope this helped. 73, Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:13 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:14788] AD perks Hi Bruce, I wonder what the value of an "Assistant Director" is today, given the communication capabilities we now have. Now, I'm not suggesting there is a problem with our current arrangement or advocating any change, I'm just asking the question as it has been several years since I was a Director and had direct involvement with AD's and I really don't know how you guys use them these days. Coming up with a "perk" can be tough. Obviously if they serve the League we want to acknowledge that service with something, but beyond a League callsign badge, certificate and the ARRL Letter I really don't have any thoughts on what would be appropriate. I'd also be interested in hearing what the other Directors are doing these days as well. 73 Joel W5ZN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Bruce Frahm K0BJ [mailto:bfrahm@st-tel.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:06 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14788] AD perks I'm making some Assistant Director changes after Wade's passing. Now that the ARRL Letter is widely available, one of the past perks of being an AD is no longer anything special. In fact, is there much more than the appointment itself that is inherently of value and received by all ADs? I've been thinking it might be good to send them copies of IN. This would be somewhat equivalent to reception of the ARRL Letter in the past. This could be accomplished by manually forwarding to them, or maybe we could and would want to set it up to occur automatically from Hq. Do we have any policies or reasons for NOT spreading IN beyond the staff and board family? Also I'd be interested in hearing of any things you do especially for ADs, either here or offline to bfrahm(a)st-tel.net 73 Bruce K0BJ

1 0