December 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:15006] Re: 05-235
by Andy Oppel 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

I think that's a terrific idea. We also need to work on getting that Elmer program working as discussed in the past. For many, HF is a lot more intimidating. -- Andy, N6AJO At 08:26 AM 12/22/2006, Joel Harrison wrote: >All good points, Dave. > >I'd like to think that the new HF operating privileges for Technicians will >generate interest and encourage many to try their hand at CW. > >Maybe we should promote a Technician HF operating event similar to the old >"Novice Roundup" to get these guys on the air. > >Something to think about over the holidays. > >Merry Christmas to all. > >Joel W5ZN > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:59 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235 > >I think having a 5-wpm requirement has been more damaging to the future of >CW than eliminating the requirement will be. > >Learning Morse so as to get past the current exam is hardly better than the >old Boy Scout "learning by sight" that set back so many aspiring hams. It >provides no foundation on which to build real proficiency. > >For 2007 I'd like to see those of us who love CW make a conscious effort to >SLOW DOWN, at least for some special events (and I don't mean just Straight >Key Night), and give folks who aren't as fluent an opportunity to make some >QSOs. The speeds we use routinely on the air are pretty intimidating to the >vast majority of hams. > >73, MX es HNY > >Dave K1ZZ Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235
by Joel Harrison 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

All good points, Dave. I'd like to think that the new HF operating privileges for Technicians will generate interest and encourage many to try their hand at CW. Maybe we should promote a Technician HF operating event similar to the old "Novice Roundup" to get these guys on the air. Something to think about over the holidays. Merry Christmas to all. Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:59 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235 I think having a 5-wpm requirement has been more damaging to the future of CW than eliminating the requirement will be. Learning Morse so as to get past the current exam is hardly better than the old Boy Scout "learning by sight" that set back so many aspiring hams. It provides no foundation on which to build real proficiency. For 2007 I'd like to see those of us who love CW make a conscious effort to SLOW DOWN, at least for some special events (and I don't mean just Straight Key Night), and give folks who aren't as fluent an opportunity to make some QSOs. The speeds we use routinely on the air are pretty intimidating to the vast majority of hams. 73, MX es HNY Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:15003] Wayne Mills
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

Hi, It is with regret that I must inform everyone that Wayne Mills is resigning his position as Membership Services Manager, effective January 16tth. Thanks to Wayne for all of his contributions to the Member Services Department and we wish him good luck in his future endeavors. Harold 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/ hkramer(a)arrl.org

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235
by Joel Harrison 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

By the way, I will be looking for everyone in SKN, as usual, I will be operating WN5IGF, my old Novice callsign, from my vintage radio station; 75A4 receiver and whatever xmtr I choose for the evening....hopefully not the one with the "chirp" so I can avoid getting an OO notice like I did last time! You can see a picture of the station on QRZ.com by looking up WN5IGF. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:59 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235 I think having a 5-wpm requirement has been more damaging to the future of CW than eliminating the requirement will be. Learning Morse so as to get past the current exam is hardly better than the old Boy Scout "learning by sight" that set back so many aspiring hams. It provides no foundation on which to build real proficiency. For 2007 I'd like to see those of us who love CW make a conscious effort to SLOW DOWN, at least for some special events (and I don't mean just Straight Key Night), and give folks who aren't as fluent an opportunity to make some QSOs. The speeds we use routinely on the air are pretty intimidating to the vast majority of hams. 73, MX es HNY Dave K1ZZ

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235
by Joel Harrison 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

I have to slow down for SKN ??? -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:59 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235 I think having a 5-wpm requirement has been more damaging to the future of CW than eliminating the requirement will be. Learning Morse so as to get past the current exam is hardly better than the old Boy Scout "learning by sight" that set back so many aspiring hams. It provides no foundation on which to build real proficiency. For 2007 I'd like to see those of us who love CW make a conscious effort to SLOW DOWN, at least for some special events (and I don't mean just Straight Key Night), and give folks who aren't as fluent an opportunity to make some QSOs. The speeds we use routinely on the air are pretty intimidating to the vast majority of hams. 73, MX es HNY Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Karl Bullock [mailto:karl@bullock.org] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14996] 05-235 Greetings, and Merry Christmas! Like all of you, I've had my share of comments on the Morse elimination, and in our particular area of Creation, sentiment is strong against its elimination, not that it matters any more. Like many of you, as well, I took my first exams under an FCC examiner, some of who couldn't give a hoot whether you passed or not. I remember one particular examiner in Memphis who took delight in announcing the word "FAILED!" in a particularly loud voice. Needless to say it was an intimidating atmosphere. Yes, the exams today are tougher in content, but in those days, I, at least, didn't have a clue what would be on the test. Now, we're given exact wording in advance - which to me, basically puts todays exams on a par with those of yesteryear. More to the point, the thing that most are concerned about appear to fall into two categories: (1) Possible loss of CW as a mode entirely, and (2) CBerization (yep, my word) of Ham Radio. To the first point, I usually respond that CW will simply fall into line with the rest of the modes. It, like PSK, RTTY, ATV, and others, has an allure of its own, so I just don't see CW dying, though it may "fall from grace" somewhat since you don't need any particular skills to use the other modes. I've done a lot of thinking about the second point, though. Many looked at CW as the great equalizer. If you 'really' wanted to be a ham, CW was not a brick wall, and after all, humans tend to treasure that which they've had to work for. To whatever extent that may have been true, I think the written exams will serve as the filter for those who just want another CB. Loss of the CW testing requirement is not equal to loss of CW. It's still here. We just won't test people on it any more. As to the integrity of the service, hasn't that always been up to us anyway? If we really want to maintain the integrity of the service, we'll maintain it. If we compromise, we'll lose. It is no different than life in general. So, now we face a bold new future, both from a calendar perspective, and from the perspective of the future of our service in general. It is therefore incumbent upon us [licensees] to ensure that the folks we bring into the service are educated in its traditions, its rules, and its fraternity. Whatever side of the CW religious argument you were on, it has always been that way. The League must lead the way. From 5 acres on County Road 458 at the foot of Stubb's hill in Tippah County, North Mississippi, N5TBB and I wish all of you a Joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year. We'll see y'all in January. 73, Karl, WA5TMC -------------------------------------- "Of, By, and For..." - Not just words! Karl Bullock, WA5TMC ARRL Vice Director - Delta Division 321 CR 458 Ripley, MS 38663 662 512-8053

1 0

[arrl-odv:15001] Re: 05-235
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

I think having a 5-wpm requirement has been more damaging to the future of CW than eliminating the requirement will be. Learning Morse so as to get past the current exam is hardly better than the old Boy Scout "learning by sight" that set back so many aspiring hams. It provides no foundation on which to build real proficiency. For 2007 I'd like to see those of us who love CW make a conscious effort to SLOW DOWN, at least for some special events (and I don't mean just Straight Key Night), and give folks who aren't as fluent an opportunity to make some QSOs. The speeds we use routinely on the air are pretty intimidating to the vast majority of hams. 73, MX es HNY Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Karl Bullock [mailto:karl@bullock.org] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14996] 05-235 Greetings, and Merry Christmas! Like all of you, I've had my share of comments on the Morse elimination, and in our particular area of Creation, sentiment is strong against its elimination, not that it matters any more. Like many of you, as well, I took my first exams under an FCC examiner, some of who couldn't give a hoot whether you passed or not. I remember one particular examiner in Memphis who took delight in announcing the word "FAILED!" in a particularly loud voice. Needless to say it was an intimidating atmosphere. Yes, the exams today are tougher in content, but in those days, I, at least, didn't have a clue what would be on the test. Now, we're given exact wording in advance - which to me, basically puts todays exams on a par with those of yesteryear. More to the point, the thing that most are concerned about appear to fall into two categories: (1) Possible loss of CW as a mode entirely, and (2) CBerization (yep, my word) of Ham Radio. To the first point, I usually respond that CW will simply fall into line with the rest of the modes. It, like PSK, RTTY, ATV, and others, has an allure of its own, so I just don't see CW dying, though it may "fall from grace" somewhat since you don't need any particular skills to use the other modes. I've done a lot of thinking about the second point, though. Many looked at CW as the great equalizer. If you 'really' wanted to be a ham, CW was not a brick wall, and after all, humans tend to treasure that which they've had to work for. To whatever extent that may have been true, I think the written exams will serve as the filter for those who just want another CB. Loss of the CW testing requirement is not equal to loss of CW. It's still here. We just won't test people on it any more. As to the integrity of the service, hasn't that always been up to us anyway? If we really want to maintain the integrity of the service, we'll maintain it. If we compromise, we'll lose. It is no different than life in general. So, now we face a bold new future, both from a calendar perspective, and from the perspective of the future of our service in general. It is therefore incumbent upon us [licensees] to ensure that the folks we bring into the service are educated in its traditions, its rules, and its fraternity. Whatever side of the CW religious argument you were on, it has always been that way. The League must lead the way. From 5 acres on County Road 458 at the foot of Stubb's hill in Tippah County, North Mississippi, N5TBB and I wish all of you a Joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year. We'll see y'all in January. 73, Karl, WA5TMC -------------------------------------- "Of, By, and For..." - Not just words! Karl Bullock, WA5TMC ARRL Vice Director - Delta Division 321 CR 458 Ripley, MS 38663 662 512-8053

1 0

[arrl-odv:15000] Re: Manassas Broadband Over Power Line Interference Complaints
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

Chris is en route to the Cayman Islands today, so let me take a stab at responding. If there is no response -- and frankly, I don't expect one other than for them to "correct" the letter so as to include the W1CRO complaint in the dismissal -- then the next step is to file a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the test results and any FCC memos relating to the Commission's tests. In parallel we're working with the local amateurs to determine the extent of the continuing interference (it's better than it was, but certainly not eliminated). We want to get video/audio showing that there continues to be interference that any reasonable person would regard as harmful and unacceptable, which we will then make available as widely as possible (including on the Hill) to show that the FCC's rules and enforcement are inadequate. We're also continuing to look for instances of interference to fixed stations in the City of Manassas. It always has been our Achilles' Heel that we have been unable to get any of the 20 or so ARRL members or other amateurs who live in the City to file a complaint. Technicians getting HF privileges may help. But in all candor, I don't see a criminal case arising from BPL interference in Manassas. That's outside the range of available remedies. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Bob Vallio [mailto:rbvallio@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 12:14 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv; Hare, Ed W1RFI Subject: Fwd: Manassas Broadband Over Power Line Interference Complaints Well done, Chris. If the Commission does not respond to this filing, how long do we wait before pursuing criminal prosecution? That question is neither rhetorical, nor intended to be humorous, as I'm sure you are well aware. 73, Bob On 12/21/06, w3kd(a)aol.com < w3kd(a)aol.com> wrote: Greetings. I have just now sent the following, with the attachment, to the FCC Enforcement Bureau, copies, as indicated, to include all commissioners. This filing was edited by President Harrison, EVP Sumner, CTO Rinaldo, and Lab Supervisor Ed Hare. We have the cooperation of the hams in Manassas on this as well. Let me konw any questions you have. I will be out of the office until the 29th of December, however. Happy Holidays to all. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com To: Kris.Monteith(a)fcc.gov; Kathryn.Berthot(a)fcc.gov; Katherine.Power(a)fcc.gov; Riley.Hollingsworth(a)fcc.gov Cc: K4GVT(a)comcast.net; n3oh(a)arrl.net; W4HJL(a)aol.com; W1CRO(a)TheHamShack.us; wc4j(a)arrl.net; da(a)agnew.us; dsumner(a)arrl.org; w5zn(a)arrl.org; Michael.Copps(a)fcc.gov; Kevin.Martin(a)fcc.gov; Jonathan.Adelstein(a)fcc.gov; Robert.Mcdowell(a)fcc.gov; Deborah.Tate(a)fcc.gov Sent: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:27 PM Subject: Manassas Broadband Over Power Line Interference Complaints Greetings. Attached, on behalf of ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, and on behalf of numerous individual complainants in the City of Manassas, Virginia, is a PDF copy of a letter being filed today by courier, regarding the Enforcement Bureau's December 14, 2006 dismissal of several, but not all, of the long-pending interference complaints of harmful interference to Amateur Radio Service licensees caused by the Broadband over Power Line system in Manassas, Virginia. Kindly direct any questions with respect to this to undersigned counsel. Yours very truly, Christopher D. Imlay _____ <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:14999] Re: Cycle 24
by Henry R. Leggette 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

Coy, That is a very interesting observation. As one of the local newsmen say here in Memphis, " I will be watching!" 73, Henry - WDQ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Coy Day" <n5ok(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:59 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14995] Cycle 24 Hi All, For those that haven't seen Dr Hathaway's prediction, here is the URL. There may be some exciting days ahead. I remember cycle 19. It was unbelievable! http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm?list928837 Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632

1 0

433.92 MHz Transmitters For Sale
by Bob Vallio 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

No licenses required: <http://www.lemosint.com/scripts/radio.asp>

1 0

Fwd: Manassas Broadband Over Power Line Interference Complaints
by Bob Vallio 22 Dec '06

22 Dec '06

Well done, Chris. If the Commission does not respond to this filing, how long do we wait before pursuing criminal prosecution? That question is neither rhetorical, nor intended to be humorous, as I'm sure you are well aware. 73, Bob On 12/21/06, w3kd(a)aol.com <w3kd(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Greetings. I have just now sent the following, with the attachment, to > the FCC Enforcement Bureau, copies, as indicated, to include all > commissioners. This filing was edited by President Harrison, EVP Sumner, CTO > Rinaldo, and Lab Supervisor Ed Hare. We have the cooperation of the hams in > Manassas on this as well. > > Let me konw any questions you have. I will be out of the office until the > 29th of December, however. > > Happy Holidays to all. > > 73, Chris W3KD > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3kd(a)aol.com > To: Kris.Monteith(a)fcc.gov; Kathryn.Berthot(a)fcc.gov; > Katherine.Power(a)fcc.gov; Riley.Hollingsworth(a)fcc.gov > Cc: K4GVT(a)comcast.net; n3oh(a)arrl.net; W4HJL(a)aol.com; W1CRO(a)TheHamShack.us; > wc4j(a)arrl.net; da(a)agnew.us; dsumner(a)arrl.org; w5zn(a)arrl.org; > Michael.Copps(a)fcc.gov; Kevin.Martin(a)fcc.gov; Jonathan.Adelstein(a)fcc.gov; > Robert.Mcdowell(a)fcc.gov; Deborah.Tate(a)fcc.gov > Sent: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:27 PM > Subject: Manassas Broadband Over Power Line Interference Complaints > > Greetings. Attached, on behalf of ARRL, the National Association for > Amateur Radio, and on behalf of numerous individual complainants in the City > of Manassas, Virginia, is a PDF copy of a letter being filed today by > courier, regarding the Enforcement Bureau's December 14, 2006 dismissal of > several, but not all, of the long-pending interference complaints of harmful > interference to Amateur Radio Service licensees caused by the Broadband over > Power Line system in Manassas, Virginia. > > Kindly direct any questions with respect to this to undersigned counsel. > > Yours very truly, > > Christopher D. Imlay > > ------------------------------ > *Check out the new AOL*<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht…>. > 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