April 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: One member's view of RM11306
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

I certainly disagree, Jim. The analogy is ridiculous. Most of the problems arose because of misrepresentations made, either deliberately or otherwise, by Skip Teller and a couple of others. However, Skip now says he will support a bandwidth petition as long as the concerns about the proliferation of semi-automatic operation are addressed. Dave K1ZZ/6 ________________________________ From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Sun 4/29/2007 9:05 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: One member's view of RM11306 >From a member: The management of "Regulation by Bandwidth" was terrible in every respect. The ARRL blaming its failure on the community's "widespread misconceptions" is outrageous; I don't think anyone's sunk that low since Nixon resigned due to "lack of support in Congress". Does anyone disagree? Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

1 0

[arrl-odv:15507] Re:RE: RE 11306 WHY?
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

Frank, the Op-Ed in May 2004 QST by N5RFX and the September 2004 QST editorial answer the question "Why." One thing the Board did subsequently, at the July 2005 Board Meeting, was to change the bandwidth definition from occupied to necessary bandwidth. That was an important change but its significance may not be universally recognized. It should have reassured anyone who was worried about having to measure the bandwidth of their transmitted signal or about being accused of being too broad when using an analog mode. The "other" petition was withdrawn after the FCC expanded the 75-meter phone band. 73, Dave K1ZZ/6 ________________________________ From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Sun 4/29/2007 2:13 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15498] Re: RE 11306 WHY? Interesting discussion. But, what I see as missing from the dialog is WHY we need to get "regulation by bandwidth"? At this point we need to motivate the members and me. And I think I was very involved and awake for the last four years as we developed this idea and the proposal, but recently I have started to blink. What is so wrong with the current "regulation by mode" system that we need to risk ARRL's already damaged image to force this idea down the throats of the ham radio world? Will the ham radio world fall apart without it? I think we have a lot to loose if we are not successful with our second attempt.at a bandwidth proposal. SO, .... We need to answer those question first before we move forward, I feel. Is there a strong believable and compelling reason for doing this? Will the ham radio community understand that view and agree with us? I do not think that we have the answers to those questions yet. I have not seen them or heard them. I need to see them and hear them before I risk getting 2600 negative comments and almost no agreeing comments a second time around. I do believe that we all agreed that it was going to be much more difficult second time around with this idea. So why put ourselves in that position again for no good reason? The other problem I have is that I just do not trust Bill Cross and the others at the FCC to do the right thing here. Their recent performance record in this area is worse than bad. I find it hard to accept this leap of faith that they really want to do this and are on our side. I keep remembering what Cross recently did to the CW and digital regulations on 80 meters. We also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is another regulation by bandwidth proposal out there in the wings which has not been withdrawn. That proposal essentially asks for deregulation of any mode regulations. Looking at the FCC track record in all areas in recent years I think the great minds at FCC are going to find that concept very attractive. My fear is that at the end of the day those who control Cross' strings will have him go with that idea. I just do not trust the FCC to do the right thing here or to do it the ARRL way. 73 de Frank...N2FF.......

1 0

[arrl-odv:15510] Re: RE 11306 WHY?
by w3kd＠aol.com 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

Tom is correct. RM-11305 WAS withdrawn, after the release of the R&O in Docket 05-235. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye(a)pcnet.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 9:51 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:15499] Re: RE 11306 WHY? At 09:13 AM 4/29/2007, Frank Fallon wrote: >We also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is another regulation by bandwidth proposal out there in the wings which has not been withdrawn. That proposal essentially asks for deregulation of any mode regulations. Looking at the FCC track record in all areas in recent years I think the great minds at FCC are going to find that concept very attractive. I think RM-11305 (brand X, free for all) was withdrawn after the FCC action last fall. But we aparently never announced it anywhere. -- 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 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

PSC April 21st Meeting Minutes
by John Bellows 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

The minutes of the April 21, 2007 Programs and Services Committee Meeting are attached. Enjoy1 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:15506] Dayton Donor Reception
by Hobart, Mary K1MMH 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope that you have all received an invitation to join us at the annual Donor Reception on the evening of Thursday May 17 to thank some of our most generous donors for their support of ARRL. If you have not already responded to Development Associate Margie Bourgoin with your plans, please do so this week. As you respond, please advise us of the name of your guest and whether or not you will be traveling to the event on the transportation we are providing from the Dayton Marriott to the event and back. Thank you. Mary Mary M. Hobart, K1MMH Chief Development Officer The American Radio Relay League 225 Main Street Newington CT 06111-1494 Telephone: 860-594-0397 Fax: 860-594-0259 email:mhobart@arrl.org Honor your call sign by placing a brick in the new Diamond Terrace at ARRL. Call 860-594-0397 for details on this new Diamond Club project.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15495] RE: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306
by Joel Harrison 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

Tom, I'm open to any specific suggestions you have. If I left you (and anyone else) with the impression that I only think we should use or web site then I did not get my point across. As I said in my general response to Karl's post, I firmly believe we can do better and we must work to that end. That includes using everything possible and a variety of media and means and you have my commitment to fully support and participate in whatever we decide to pursue. I do not, however, believe that should include confronting the people that rant in the chat rooms directly in the chat rooms. That was the point I was trying to get across. We can see who the people are that get involved in the chat rooms and I would encourage the Directors to engage in some one-on-one conversation with those members from their division....some "grassroots" effort if you will, to help resolve any issues a person may have. I think the "local" touch would go a long way. If you and Andy want to jump in to the chat rooms you're welcome to do so, I don't have a problem with you doing so, I just believe there is a better use of our time and talents in more effective areas. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:46 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15495] RE: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306 At 09:29 PM 4/28/2007, Joel Harrison wrote: >They already know what we post on our web site, Andy. They visit our website >daily and look at the posts and make reference to them. >The guys in the chat rooms see our posts. We just need to stay focused and >get our factual message and educational material out via our medium. I completely agree with Andy, not Joel, on this one. We need to look beyond our own web site. One of the reasons we're in such a bad situation on the bandwidth issue is because we're too ivory tower. We have to risk something by trying to use all of the options we have available. Why would the ARRL be different than any other company? The others understand the value of advertising and use many outlets. I hope we'll be using some PR expertise in our self-evaluation - we have a PR manager and an incredibly talented PR Committee. From what I've seen they haven't been involved in any part of the process with the bandwidth issue. -- 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

Re: One member's view of RM-11306
by dick＠pobox.com 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

29 APR 2007 - 1635 CDT I'm still working through my email back log that built up during my six day absence. However, I have received a scattering of additional RM-11306 comments from Central Division members plus the mass-emailed comments from the usual suspects. Below, is a message from a member who supports RM-11306. I'm guessing he may be a reasonable Winlink 2000 or other wide band digital user. His message shows me that if we really reach out to both members and non-members alike, we should be able to generate a number of supporting comments next time around that will swamp out the League bashers and extreme special interests. - Dick, W9GIG ========================================================================== To: gkstemple(a)aol.com Subject: Comments on RM-11306; Regulation by Bandwith Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:17:28 -0700 From: Gary Stemple <gkstemple(a)aol.com> I fully support RM-11306; Regulation by Bandwidth and the deletion of 97.221C(2). The FCC should reject the widespread promotional efforts of a very few who use false data and scare tactics to keep the Amateur Radio service from moving forward. Vision and courage are needed to create the regulatory environment which both enables and encourages the Amateur Radio service to develop and deploy modern digital communications; a proven and important capability for emergency communications. Due to the growth of digital communications in its role as a proven and effective method of supplementing emergency communications, especially where normal infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, I am most concerned that there is no reasonable provisions for such operations in the current unreasonable band spaces now offered in 97.221 C (2) for "local or remote control." Gary Stemple, KC9DJQ

1 0

RE: One member's view of RM11306
by Jim Weaver 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

I don't think anyone disagrees there was widespread miscommunication; however, it seems to me that the widespread communication was caused by our inability to justify or sell the proposal to our members. Thinking of it this way, a simple statement that we withdrew it because of "widespread miscommunication" tends to put the onus on "imperceptive" members whereas acknowledging that we didn't do a good job of "informing" these members of the value of the proposal puts the onus back on us who are the ones who actually messed up. The "customer" may not always be right, but he is always the customer. It is our job to sell to him, not his job to buy from us. Disclaimer: Much of what I've been saying lately can sound as though I'm really bashing the Board and officers, and upper management. I don't really intend to do this. What I intend is to stimulate a learning process which won't happen unless people accept their parts of the failures. To answer your question directly, the member, in my opinion, is more correct that we are. Removing the his rhetoric, he certainly is much more perceptive than we've shown ourselves to be. 73, 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 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:12 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: One member's view of RM11306 Does anyone disagree that it was due to widespread misconceptions or does anyone disagree with your member's opinion??? _____ From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:06 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: One member's view of RM11306 >From a member: The management of "Regulation by Bandwidth" was terrible in every respect. The ARRL blaming its failure on the community's "widespread misconceptions" is outrageous; I don't think anyone's sunk that low since Nixon resigned due to "lack of support in Congress". Does anyone disagree? Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

1 0

RE: One member's view of RM11306
by Joel Harrison 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

Does anyone disagree that it was due to widespread misconceptions or does anyone disagree with your member's opinion??? _____ From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:06 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: One member's view of RM11306 >From a member: The management of "Regulation by Bandwidth" was terrible in every respect. The ARRL blaming its failure on the community's "widespread misconceptions" is outrageous; I don't think anyone's sunk that low since Nixon resigned due to "lack of support in Congress". Does anyone disagree? Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15498] Re: RE 11306 WHY?
by Jim Weaver 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

Frank, On target, as usual, with the comments about "why Regulation by Bandwidth." Ya can't sell a concept/idea effectively if ya don't know why it should even exist. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:13 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15498] Re: RE 11306 WHY? Interesting discussion. But, what I see as missing from the dialog is WHY we need to get "regulation by bandwidth"? At this point we need to motivate the members and me. And I think I was very involved and awake for the last four years as we developed this idea and the proposal, but recently I have started to blink. What is so wrong with the current "regulation by mode" system that we need to risk ARRL's already damaged image to force this idea down the throats of the ham radio world? Will the ham radio world fall apart without it? I think we have a lot to loose if we are not successful with our second attempt.at a bandwidth proposal. SO, .... We need to answer those question first before we move forward, I feel. Is there a strong believable and compelling reason for doing this? Will the ham radio community understand that view and agree with us? I do not think that we have the answers to those questions yet. I have not seen them or heard them. I need to see them and hear them before I risk getting 2600 negative comments and almost no agreeing comments a second time around. I do believe that we all agreed that it was going to be much more difficult second time around with this idea. So why put ourselves in that position again for no good reason? The other problem I have is that I just do not trust Bill Cross and the others at the FCC to do the right thing here. Their recent performance record in this area is worse than bad. I find it hard to accept this leap of faith that they really want to do this and are on our side. I keep remembering what Cross recently did to the CW and digital regulations on 80 meters. We also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is another regulation by bandwidth proposal out there in the wings which has not been withdrawn. That proposal essentially asks for deregulation of any mode regulations. Looking at the FCC track record in all areas in recent years I think the great minds at FCC are going to find that concept very attractive. My fear is that at the end of the day those who control Cross' strings will have him go with that idea. I just do not trust the FCC to do the right thing here or to do it the ARRL way. 73 de Frank...N2FF.......

1 0