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

[arrl-odv:14784] Federal Register
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

Today's Federal Register has the Part 97 Omnibus rules: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.go… The effective date is December 15. Dave K1ZZ

1 1

[arrl-odv:14788] AD perks
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

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

Omnibus R&O scheduled for tomorrow's Federal Register
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Dan Henderson has spotted the FCC's Part 97 Omnibus R&O (FCC 06-149) on the list for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register. Presumably this would set the effective date for the new rules as December 15 or thereabouts, and means that we should decide sometime soon after Thanksgiving what, if anything, to do about petitioning for reconsideration of the 75/80 meter dividing line. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:14782] Re: BPL Appeal, additional information
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Thanks, Chris. I have advised Ron Haraseth at APCO of the intervenors on our side. Dave -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:13 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Hare, Ed W1RFI Subject: [arrl-odv:14781] BPL Appeal, additional information There was a flurry of activity at WilmerHale and here late yesterday. WilmerHale had not received a copy of the Motion for Leave to Intervene by Duke Energy that I had received, and neither of us had received until very late yesterday one additional Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Ambient Corporation (perhaps the most evil of the BPL companies) filed by its lawyer, George Wheeler. So there are four intervenors on FCC's side, to our two. All filed documents were corrected last evening to list all parties, so all is well. 73, Chris W3KD _____ <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht…> 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

[arrl-odv:14781] BPL Appeal, additional information
by w3kd＠aol.com 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

There was a flurry of activity at WilmerHale and here late yesterday. WilmerHale had not received a copy of the Motion for Leave to Intervene by Duke Energy that I had received, and neither of us had received until very late yesterday one additional Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Ambient Corporation (perhaps the most evil of the BPL companies) filed by its lawyer, George Wheeler. So there are four intervenors on FCC's side, to our two. All filed documents were corrected last evening to list all parties, so all is well. 73, Chris W3KD ________________________________________________________________________ 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

[arrl-odv:14780] Re: Red Cross Background Checks
by w3kd＠aol.com 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Just FYI, the current MOU (actually called an "SOU", a term lawyers like to use) with the American National Red Cross, signed by Haynie, is dated September 17, 2002. It provides, at Section IX, that it will terminate on September 16, 2007. That section also provides that six months prior to termination (i.e. on March 16, 2007) the parties "shall meet" to review the progress and success of the SOU and determine whether it shall be extended for an additional five years. Of course, it also provides in that same section that the SOU may be terminated by either party by written notification by one party to the other.... 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: w5zn(a)arrl.org To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:04 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14778] Red Cross Background Checks The Red Cross matter has generated about as much, if not more, email that the Morse issue! I’ve received about 200 emails since our web story was released. In each response, I have copied the responsible Director so you will be aware of the comments from the members in your division. 95% of the emails have been supportive and complimentary of our advising our membership of exactly what the requirements are so they could make an informed decision about their future service to the Red Cross. 4% couldn’t read, and thought I was telling people to not volunteer to the Red Cross. The other 1% just wanted to fight. Since the topic has arisen here in our discussion, I will tell you I have not intention of talking to the Red Cross about this matter right now. There is no need. We have brought their requirement to the attention of our members, we educated our members as to exactly what the Red Cross’ requirements are, we have advised our members as to exactly what MBC is requiring of them, and we have followed up and posted a statement and clarification from the Red Cross. There is no need to do anything else right now. This is the Red Cross’ requirement, not ours. Now, down the road there will be a time to renew our MOU (SOU) with Red Cross. Between now and then we can think about how we should address the impact of this requirement on our members who volunteer amateur radio communications services to the Red Cross, we will have time to hear and act on the report from the NERPC and gain any other helpful insight into how we should approach future MOU’s with served agencies. 73 Joel W5ZN ________________________________________________________________________ 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:14778] Red Cross Background Checks
by Jim Weaver 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Agree. 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:04 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14778] Red Cross Background Checks The Red Cross matter has generated about as much, if not more, email that the Morse issue! I've received about 200 emails since our web story was released. In each response, I have copied the responsible Director so you will be aware of the comments from the members in your division. 95% of the emails have been supportive and complimentary of our advising our membership of exactly what the requirements are so they could make an informed decision about their future service to the Red Cross. 4% couldn't read, and thought I was telling people to not volunteer to the Red Cross. The other 1% just wanted to fight. Since the topic has arisen here in our discussion, I will tell you I have not intention of talking to the Red Cross about this matter right now. There is no need. We have brought their requirement to the attention of our members, we educated our members as to exactly what the Red Cross' requirements are, we have advised our members as to exactly what MBC is requiring of them, and we have followed up and posted a statement and clarification from the Red Cross. There is no need to do anything else right now. This is the Red Cross' requirement, not ours. Now, down the road there will be a time to renew our MOU (SOU) with Red Cross. Between now and then we can think about how we should address the impact of this requirement on our members who volunteer amateur radio communications services to the Red Cross, we will have time to hear and act on the report from the NERPC and gain any other helpful insight into how we should approach future MOU's with served agencies. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:14778] Red Cross Background Checks
by Joel Harrison 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

The Red Cross matter has generated about as much, if not more, email that the Morse issue! I've received about 200 emails since our web story was released. In each response, I have copied the responsible Director so you will be aware of the comments from the members in your division. 95% of the emails have been supportive and complimentary of our advising our membership of exactly what the requirements are so they could make an informed decision about their future service to the Red Cross. 4% couldn't read, and thought I was telling people to not volunteer to the Red Cross. The other 1% just wanted to fight. Since the topic has arisen here in our discussion, I will tell you I have not intention of talking to the Red Cross about this matter right now. There is no need. We have brought their requirement to the attention of our members, we educated our members as to exactly what the Red Cross' requirements are, we have advised our members as to exactly what MBC is requiring of them, and we have followed up and posted a statement and clarification from the Red Cross. There is no need to do anything else right now. This is the Red Cross' requirement, not ours. Now, down the road there will be a time to renew our MOU (SOU) with Red Cross. Between now and then we can think about how we should address the impact of this requirement on our members who volunteer amateur radio communications services to the Red Cross, we will have time to hear and act on the report from the NERPC and gain any other helpful insight into how we should approach future MOU's with served agencies. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: Minimization of DOC and PDF Attachments in ODV Postings
by Joel Harrison 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Dick, While I'm respectful of your situation, I write my reports in Word and then print them to Acrobat and will continue to do so. Net etiquette may be one thing, but professional etiquette in writing and sending reports is another. This is how I handle all of my reports professionally not only internally within my company but with my clients as well, who are located all over the world. I will continue to prepare and send my reports in that manner. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Minimization of DOC and PDF Attachments in ODV Postings This is a request to those posting to this ODV E-mail reflector to minimize use of .DOC and .PDF files when conveying information that is in English language text. This is common net etiquette, and in fact many E-mail reflectors would not even permit such postings. Look up any of the results returned from searching for "net etiquette attachments" on Google for instance to confirm this. I suspect that the computers of those posting these messages are virus-free, but even if they are, it is still an imposition on 40 or so readers of these postings to require them to open up word processors to read the content. It is possible to compose the messages in Microsoft Word to use whatever features are desired. The text can then be gathered, and pasted into the body of the E-mail message. If you feel that the word processing format adds something to the presentation, please put the text content into the E-mail, and also attach the .DOC document. This request also applies to the "IN-News." Note that the "ARRL Letter" that is sent to the membership is already always posted as a basic text E-mail, and is a fine example of similar content posted in text form. The boxes around the IN-News fill-in-the-box-scores are not needed to convey the content. The usefulness or appropriateness of such box scores can be the subject of another topic. Some of you may sit at powerful computers with the latest versions of word processors. On the other hand, I just spent a few weeks in Australia where at times I was paying $2 for 15 or 20 minutes of computer time on, possibly on a computer that would not let me open an attachment if I wanted to. The net result was that sometimes attachments were not read. Thank for your consideration of this request. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0

[arrl-odv:14776] ARRL V. FCC, an update on the case
by w3kd＠aol.com 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

MEMORANDUM To: Officers, Directors and Vice Directors; Ed Hare, W1RFI From: Chris Imlay, W3KD Re: ARRL v. FCC; Status of Case Date: November 13, 2006 Greetings. The following is a short update on the BPL appeal in the United States Court of Appeals. As you recall, our appeal (called a Petition for Review) was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on October 10. We filed early, both to nail down the D.C. Circuit as the venue, in case any BPL entity or other appellant decided to file in some other circuit, and to make sure that ARRL was the lead Petitioner for Review. Our appellate counsel, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP was of the view that this appeal required the expertise of the D.C. Circuit, which hears probably 95% of all agency appeals. We have actively lobbied public safety entities and broadcasters to file appeals as well, or intervene, or file at least “friend of the court” (amicus curiae) briefs, on our side. We didn’t want to be perceived as being all alone in opposing BPL interference, because that creates a difficult perception (hobby group versus nationwide broadband rollout, etc. etc.). We were not successful in getting others to file petitions for review of their own, but November 9, 2006 was the deadline for intervenors on either FCC’s side or ours, and the broadcasters came out on our side. Here is the list of intervenors, which I believe is now complete: For ARRL: For FCC: National Association of Broadcasters Current Technologies, LLC Association of Maximum Service Television United Telecom Council Duke Energy It is unclear whether NAB and MSTV will file their own brief(s) or adopt ours. It doesn’t matter in any case, as their appearance in this case is an indication that they are concerned about the root issue: FCC’s willingness to elevate the status of Part 15 devices and systems and change the interference metric that has been in place for a long time, without a reasoned justification for doing so, or even an admission that FCC is doing so. The broadcasters' intervention is indeed good news for us. The list of intervenors for FCC is not overly long, and that is good news also. We may have some additional support from APCO or NPSTC as well. Dave Sumner has been in contact with APCO’s senior staff, and Paul Rinaldo will attend the NPSTC Board meeting this week in New York to see about the interest of the public safety community in joining with us, at least as amicus curiae. Today, we filed a non-binding statement of issues to be raised, and as well some preliminary documents of no real importance. The briefing schedule is not yet set. However, now that the parties are firmed up, we will start to see our brief take shape. Ed Hare and I are working on helping WilmerHale with the 40 dB/decade extrapolation factor argument. More when I know it. 73, Chris W3KD ________________________________________________________________________ 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