March 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:15324] Re: Operational Update March 2007
by Tom Frenaye 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

At 04:06 PM 3/22/2007, Kramer, Harold, WJ1B wrote: >Were on a rollthats for sure. Even though you may have read most of this in IN-NEWS (thanks Lisa), heres a quick update on what is happening. Harold - Thanks for the summary of activities - sure does look awful busy! I've been tracking the number of classes in the ARRL class database as another indicator of activity. The current numbers show a 12% drop from February. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/courses/ Classes in the database Total Technician General Extra CW-only 1/3/07 105 1/25/07 127 78 36 7 6 2/21/07 143 88 44 7 4 3/24/07 126 76 39 9 2 (odd to see two sessions that are CW-only...) Anyhow, in New England the trend is similar. I would have hope to see the number continue to increase in March - it may just be that classes are more likely to start in February. There is a trend towards shorter classes as well - quite a number of them have less than five sessions. -- 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:15323] Re: My Perspective
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

As Joel mentioned, there is some hypersensitivity among CW operators because of the recent dropping of the Morse requirement and the drastic (and unanticipated) reduction in the 80-meter CW/RTTY/data band, and concerns that "the other shoe" is going to drop. They don't know what form "the other shoe" might take but they fear it's coming. Under the circumstances, rage and skepticism are understandable responses to proposals for more change. On the other hand, this is a group that should strongly support the original proposals in RM-11306; the creation of 200-Hz bandwidth subbands is the best protection CW operators will ever get. Another thread I'm seeing in comments is more problematic. I'm surprised at the number of members who speak of interference from semi-automatic digital stations not as a hypothetical, but as something they have personally experienced on repeated occasions. (Yes, it's happened to me, too -- when it does I QSY and the problem goes away.) Because the operators being interfered with rarely have the equipment to identify the station causing the interference, their frustration is doubled. We need to respond affirmatively to these concerns, though not necessarily in the context of RM-11306. One thing we've already done is to include activity detection as one of the objectives of the ARRL's digital protocol inquiry, http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/22/102/?nc=1. But that's aimed at a long-term solution. Is there any virtue in our trying to collect data on semi-automatic operation to quantify the problem, at least as it may exist outside the narrow automatic control subbands listed in 97.221(b)? It may turn out that a small number of stations are the source of most of the problem. Others on ODV no doubt have more experience than I with both the positive and negative aspects of semi-automatic operation -- any thoughts? 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:15321] Re: Bandwidth Proposal
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Thanks, Coy. Rick Lindquist deserves the credit for framing the issue for the vast majority of members who haven't seen the inflammatory Web posts. We're really going to miss him. Dave ________________________________ From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] Sent: Sat 3/24/2007 11:57 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15319] Bandwidth Proposal Dave, Excellent article on the ARRL web site. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 Thanks! Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:15319] Bandwidth Proposal
by Coy Day 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Dave, Excellent article on the ARRL web site. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 Thanks! Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:15320] Re: My Perspective
by Henry R. Leggette 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Joel, Thanks! Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 11:17 PM Subject: My Perspective Greetings, I want to give you my perspective on the recent issue that has emerged regarding our regulation by bandwidth subset proposal. This email is for Officers, Directors and Vice Directors. I do not expect it to be forwarded outside this group. I'm sure you are receiving several emails pertaining, once again, to our attempt at regulation by bandwidth. I've been flooded with over 200 emails complaining about our most recent submission to the FCC which has been generated by the person who originated the "great robot scare" during the last round. This time, through a flaming thread on QRZ.com he has convinced the world that, because of our recent filing, CW is now doomed at the hands of ARRL. That, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. The bright tune is that once I further explain what we are proposing about 95% have responded with a "thank you" for setting the record straight with factual information. The remaining five percent don't want to understand the facts and after checking have not been ARRL members for many years. In fact, about half of the emails I have received have been from non-members. I find that interesting. Some of the emails have gotten very personal and have made some pretty disturbing accusations and threats toward me. I'm a big boy and can handle them; it is just disheartening to know that fellow radio amateurs are resorting to such measures. I have copied the respective Director on each of my replies. On Friday Dave sent each of you a number of talking points that laid out the factual, chronological detail of our effort. What we have now proposed is nothing new, but rather a subset of the original proposal. I trust that was beneficial in corresponding with your members. Concern expressed in some of the email originates from no information about our latest proposal being posted on ARRLWeb before today. You will recall at our meeting in January we discussed the matter in response to a private inquiry from the FCC, an opportunity that presented itself that we couldn't afford to ignore. At that time, because of the nature of the request, it was imperative that we keep it confidential until sometime after our formal meeting in Washington. That meeting occurred on February 13. Immediately after that meeting, Chris filed the required ex-parte paperwork with the FCC along with our proposal and the meeting became a matter of public record. On March 3 the EC met and discussed the meeting and filing further. At that same time the EC discussed whether or not we should publish an updated story about our regulation by bandwidth subset proposal. The consensus of the EC was that there was no rush to do so, the meeting and proposal was a matter of public record, what we were proposing was a subset of our original proposal so there was no need for a big story on the issue. Dave was of the opinion that we should publish something because sooner or later it would hopefully become part of an NPRM, but he accepted the wishes of the EC. And there really wasn't an issue with the subset we proposed until it came to light that an error existed in what had been submitted to the FCC regarding automatic operation that was contrary to what the Board actually instructed. It is regretful that it didn't get caught, but Part 97 is complicated. That is a bigger part of the real need to further clarify the rules which would occur under our regulation by bandwidth petition. There is one thing you must understand that I trust you do, and this is very important, at no time, NO time did any Officer, Director or staff person seek to hide information on what we were doing, mislead or misrepresent our intent whatsoever! If anyone suggests such they are just flat wrong. If that had been the case we would not be dealing with the issue now as it was pick up from the FCC public record we knew existed. Part of the problem we have is this is a complicated issue and most people don't understand it, and don't understand that there is currently no restriction on digital signal bandwidth in the CW bands currently. So, if you are concerned with us not putting something out via our channel sooner then I am the guy responsible. That was my call. I still believe it was the right thing to do after our board meeting prior to our meeting with the FCC. After our meeting with the FCC, it was a judgment call. Of course, at the time we were unaware the error regarding automatic operation existed in the filing and that possibly would have put a different viewpoint into perspective. In any event, if you are concerned about not going public with it sooner then please direct that to me, not Dave or anyone else. I made the call. I still strongly believe we are doing the right thing based on our years of research, surveys and member input on this matter beginning almost five years ago, and the current situation is being agitated by people who dislike anything ARRL does and are playing on the fears of members who are CW enthusiasts that are still either sore or bitter from the recent FCC decision to eliminate Morse as a licensing requirement. I'm confident we'll get through this and amateur radio will be better because of it. As always, I will be more than pleased to discuss this matter with any of you individually. 73 Joel W5ZN ARRL President

1 0

[arrl-odv:15318] WJ1B Out of Office
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Hi, I will be on vacation in California from March 24 (today) through the end of the week. I am then going to be one of the keynote speakers at the Communications Academy http://www.commacademy.org/ in Seattle over the weekend. I will be back in the office on Tuesday April 3. I will be on email when connectivity is available. BTW, Katie just let me know that, as of yesterday, we reached 150,000 members. 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington , CT 06111 860 594 0220 www.arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/>

1 0

My Perspective
by Joel Harrison 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Greetings, I want to give you my perspective on the recent issue that has emerged regarding our regulation by bandwidth subset proposal. This email is for Officers, Directors and Vice Directors. I do not expect it to be forwarded outside this group. I'm sure you are receiving several emails pertaining, once again, to our attempt at regulation by bandwidth. I've been flooded with over 200 emails complaining about our most recent submission to the FCC which has been generated by the person who originated the "great robot scare" during the last round. This time, through a flaming thread on QRZ.com he has convinced the world that, because of our recent filing, CW is now doomed at the hands of ARRL. That, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. The bright tune is that once I further explain what we are proposing about 95% have responded with a "thank you" for setting the record straight with factual information. The remaining five percent don't want to understand the facts and after checking have not been ARRL members for many years. In fact, about half of the emails I have received have been from non-members. I find that interesting. Some of the emails have gotten very personal and have made some pretty disturbing accusations and threats toward me. I'm a big boy and can handle them; it is just disheartening to know that fellow radio amateurs are resorting to such measures. I have copied the respective Director on each of my replies. On Friday Dave sent each of you a number of talking points that laid out the factual, chronological detail of our effort. What we have now proposed is nothing new, but rather a subset of the original proposal. I trust that was beneficial in corresponding with your members. Concern expressed in some of the email originates from no information about our latest proposal being posted on ARRLWeb before today. You will recall at our meeting in January we discussed the matter in response to a private inquiry from the FCC, an opportunity that presented itself that we couldn't afford to ignore. At that time, because of the nature of the request, it was imperative that we keep it confidential until sometime after our formal meeting in Washington. That meeting occurred on February 13. Immediately after that meeting, Chris filed the required ex-parte paperwork with the FCC along with our proposal and the meeting became a matter of public record. On March 3 the EC met and discussed the meeting and filing further. At that same time the EC discussed whether or not we should publish an updated story about our regulation by bandwidth subset proposal. The consensus of the EC was that there was no rush to do so, the meeting and proposal was a matter of public record, what we were proposing was a subset of our original proposal so there was no need for a big story on the issue. Dave was of the opinion that we should publish something because sooner or later it would hopefully become part of an NPRM, but he accepted the wishes of the EC. And there really wasn't an issue with the subset we proposed until it came to light that an error existed in what had been submitted to the FCC regarding automatic operation that was contrary to what the Board actually instructed. It is regretful that it didn't get caught, but Part 97 is complicated. That is a bigger part of the real need to further clarify the rules which would occur under our regulation by bandwidth petition. There is one thing you must understand that I trust you do, and this is very important, at no time, NO time did any Officer, Director or staff person seek to hide information on what we were doing, mislead or misrepresent our intent whatsoever! If anyone suggests such they are just flat wrong. If that had been the case we would not be dealing with the issue now as it was pick up from the FCC public record we knew existed. Part of the problem we have is this is a complicated issue and most people don't understand it, and don't understand that there is currently no restriction on digital signal bandwidth in the CW bands currently. So, if you are concerned with us not putting something out via our channel sooner then I am the guy responsible. That was my call. I still believe it was the right thing to do after our board meeting prior to our meeting with the FCC. After our meeting with the FCC, it was a judgment call. Of course, at the time we were unaware the error regarding automatic operation existed in the filing and that possibly would have put a different viewpoint into perspective. In any event, if you are concerned about not going public with it sooner then please direct that to me, not Dave or anyone else. I made the call. I still strongly believe we are doing the right thing based on our years of research, surveys and member input on this matter beginning almost five years ago, and the current situation is being agitated by people who dislike anything ARRL does and are playing on the fears of members who are CW enthusiasts that are still either sore or bitter from the recent FCC decision to eliminate Morse as a licensing requirement. I'm confident we'll get through this and amateur radio will be better because of it. As always, I will be more than pleased to discuss this matter with any of you individually. 73 Joel W5ZN ARRL President

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15311] Re: re RM-11306
by Joel Harrison 23 Mar '07

23 Mar '07

Tom, The decision to hold off our own publicity about this was mine, not Dave's or the staff. We discussed it at the EC meeting on March 3 and decided we still wanted to hold off a bit longer before we publish as web story (against Dave's recommendation). Of course, at that time we were unaware an error existed in the filing and that possibly would have put a different viewpoint into perspective. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that your point is well taken and Dave wasn't responsible for holding this off. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:05 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15311] Re: re RM-11306 At 07:00 PM 3/22/2007, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >Here is an explanation I have drafted for use in responding to complaints and inquiries. I hope you find it useful. Good summary. I had e-mail from four people about the "controversy". I decided to call each of them tonight instead of just sending an e-mail reply. I was able to reach three of them and had some good conversations, then forwarded them Dave's summary information. The one thing each of them said in one way or another is that we needed to get the word out on what we did, and in reply to the recent Internet comments. I assume there will be a web article available in the morning. I hope we'll see our information on the various e-mail groups also. As fast as we were able to handle this, I think we need to be able to respond more quickly to things like this in the future - the reality is that some real damage can be done by those who want to flame ARRL. -- 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:15314] Re: RM-11306
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 23 Mar '07

23 Mar '07

One thing that my explanation doesn't address -- because I thought it was perfectly obvious -- is that CW is not listed in the table of authorized emissions ONLY because it is covered by the blanket statement in 97.305(a): "(a) Except as specified elsewhere in this part, an amateur station may transmit a CW emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator." This isn't mentioned in RM-11306 or in the appendix to the ex parte statement because no change is proposed. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: w9gig(a)arrl.org [mailto:w9gig@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:14 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15313] Re: RM-11306 22 MAR 2007 - 2210 CDT I'm very busy with income tax returns, but I hope to find time the next day or so to incorporate Dave's fine summary into either a Central Division email or perhaps a formatted PDF newsletter for the division web site. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:15313] Re: RM-11306
by w9gig＠arrl.org 23 Mar '07

23 Mar '07

22 MAR 2007 - 2210 CDT I'm very busy with income tax returns, but I hope to find time the next day or so to incorporate Dave's fine summary into either a Central Division email or perhaps a formatted PDF newsletter for the division web site. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0