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

AES Superfest Update
by Joel Harrison 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

A few days ago I sent you my trip report from the AES Superfest. At the time, I estimated the attendance at over 1000 and ARRL memberships taken in at over 100. We now have the final numbers: Attendance greater than 1700 First time ever ARRL memberships - 25 Previous members joined - 22 Renewals - 79 Total = 126. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15388] They Think We Gave In to Negative Comments to ARRL
by Joel Harrison 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

While at the Huntsville hamfest last August, Waterman also told me that "ARRL people" had told him we didn't need any letters of support for RM-11306. He didn't identify who those people were. Of course, that is absolutely false. No ARRL people told him that and besides, why would we not seek and solicit support for our petitions? Joel -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 9:06 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15388] They Think We Gave In to Negative Comments to ARRL A fairly significant misunderstanding exists regarding the ARRL's position on the scaled back version of RM-11306. Some of those who strongly supported the original Allocation-by -Bandwidth submission believe an avalanche of negative comments directed to the ARRL, not to the FCC, convinced the League that it was in the League's best interest, as far as retaining membership, to eliminate asking for frequency allocation by bandwidth below 28 MHz. I toss out the possibility of correcting this perception. Details Yesterday, I telephoned Steve Waterman, K4CJX, to ask a few questions about Winlink, and in particular Pactor-III. I have talked with Steve a number of times in the past, and use what I've learned from him to help my responses to members complaining about "evil Winlink robots taking over the ham bands." I expected to be on the phone less than five minutes. I ended up on the phone for well over two hours, essentially defending the ARRL. I told him the League had come to the determination that what was submitted, about regulation by bandwidth, would not fly with the FCC. I'm not certain that he believes me. Somewhere in the conversation, I pointed out that it seemed that there were very few responses to the FCC supporting the League's proposal. He said that ARRL people told him that letters of support from his group were not needed. I replied that I certainly don't know if and why that would be true, and didn't know if it would have changed anything, but intuitively thought it couldn't have hurt. Steve was overly negative about essentially, "the League asking them to set up an Emcomm system, and then letting them down." He said something like, "We might as well close Winlink down, and do something else." What I basically said was, although things are not as perfect as you would like them to be, you guys still have a significant system that has done a lot of good. There are many of us in the ARRL that support your work. As essentially a CW contester, I am the natural enemy of Winlink. I forwarded Steve a couple of E-mail responses that I sent to contesters, responding to E-mail reflector postings prompted by Skip Teller, KH6TY. I basically defend Winlink. Steve asked permission to forward them to his community to show them that part of the ARRL is on their side. I suspect a lot more of the ARRL is on their side than just me. If someone who knows Steve better than I do were to also tell them that the League didn't cave in to Teller-prompted comments, but simply succumbed to the reality of the moment, we might regain what I perceive is an important good friend. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA PS: For those that may not remember, I voted against the "Regulation by Bandwidth" motion. I favored the same governmental mode regulation that Canadians and amateurs in almost every other country in the world enjoy.

1 0

[arrl-odv:15406] Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Coy Day 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Dave, I don't have a problem with letting the P&SC handle this. That's why we pay them the big bucks. However, I think we need to keep a sense of urgency about this. We must discourage the dxpeditions from using this band. I think there is a real possibility of us losing it if we are not "friendly" users of the shared channels. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > WAC is an IARU award, and I can safely say that the IARU will not issue a > single-band 60-meter award (at least until there is an international > allocation). > > I have mixed feelings about WAS. On the one hand, it's certainly true that > we don't want the few channels that are available to be clogged with > awards-chasing. On the other, we do want to encourage people to equip > their stations for 60 meters and to gain operating experience there so > that they will be able to use the frequencies effectively when need > arises. I was pretty disappointed that there was no reported use of 60 > meters in the Katrina aftermath. Of course, it's debatable that offering > an award like WAS is the best way to address that. > > Probably it would be best to let P&SC discuss it at their meeting and > formulate a recommendation. > > Dave K1ZZ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:09 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:15403] Re:RE: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX] > > > After further consideration, I think I want to word my proposal a little > differently. Maybe it should read: Awards and contest credit for QSO's on > 60 meters will be given consideration only after an international > allocation is made and then only for QSO's made after that date. > > Bob Vallio reminded me that we have folks that chase WAC, WAS, etc. So we > need a catch all statement. > > Coy > -- > Coy Day, N5OK > 20685 SW 29 > Union City, OK 73090 > 405-483-5632 > > John Bellows wrote: >> FWIW PSC has this question on its April 21st meeting agenda as an >> Awards item. >> >> In the event this is viewed as a question better addressed directly by >> the Board or administratively by the MVP staff or the Awards Committee >> we can pull the agenda item. >> >> Jay, KØQB >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] >> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:27 PM >> To: arrl-odv >> Cc: arrl-odv >> Subject: [arrl-odv:15401] Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX] >> >> Dave, >> >> I been thinking about this and I think Dave has the solution. I might >> have worded it a little differently. I think I would like for it to >> read >> something like this: DXCC/Challenge credit for QSO's on 60 meters will >> be >> given consideration after an international allocation is made and then >> only for QSO's made after that date. >> >> Coy >> >> -- >> Coy Day, N5OK >> 20685 SW 29 >> Union City, OK 73090 >> 405-483-5632 >> >> Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >>> It might be useful to emphasize that Challenge credit will only be >> given >>> for QSOs dated after an international allocation is made. That's a >> policy >>> decision but it's a fairly obvious one. >>> >>> Dave K1ZZ >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] >>> Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 10:37 PM >>> To: arrl-odv >>> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >>> >>> >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> >>> >>> Tnx for the discussion. It is helpful, of course. >>> >>> >>> >>> Coy pointed out I misread Ken's recommendation. In rereading it, it >> is >>> obvious I over interpreted his comment on "never" issuing credits for >> 60M >>> Qs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director >>> >>> ARRL Great Lakes Division >>> >>> 5065 Bethany Rd. >>> >>> Mason, OH 45040 >>> >>> E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> ; Tel.: 513-459-0142 >>> >>> ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! >>> >>> Members - The Reason ARRL Is! >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:38 PM >>> To: arrl-odv >>> Subject: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >>> >>> >>> >>> Jim, we have never accepted 60 meter QSOs for contest credit. I can't >>> imagine that we ever would, given that we don't for 30, 17 and 12 >> meters, >>> and I don't think it's an issue in anyone's mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> It has been pretty much a moot point to now with regard to DXCC, but >> N8S >>> had the potential to change that. The caution we put out seems to have >>> been pretty well received. >>> >>> >>> >>> The rules already prohibit 60-meter QSOs for the Challenge. I'm sure >> there >>> are people collecting countries on 60 meters. It's human nature. >> However, >>> the DXCC program, being international, should not grant DXCC Challenge >>> credit for 60 meter QSOs until such time as there is an international >>> allocation. There is no prohibition on basic DXCC credit -- that is, >>> credit toward mixed or phone DXCC on the basis of a legal 60-meter QSO >> -- >>> nor does there need to be since few people will work a country on 60 >>> meters that they don't already have on another band. >>> >>> >>> >>> Worked All States is another matter. We have already had an inquiry as >> to >>> whether we would issue a 60-meter WAS. I have asked Dave Patton to >> refer >>> it to P&SC. There are pros and cons, but WAS is unlikely to get out of >>> hand the way chasing countries would. It would be more likely to >> evolve >>> into a controlled net like the various 75-meter WAS nets that have >>> existed. >>> >>> >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Dave K1ZZ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] >>> Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 8:52 PM >>> To: arrl-odv >>> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >>> >>> I, too, received a forward of the 60M proposal from one of my members. >> I >>> believe there is merit in the basic reco. I think he goes overboard >> in >>> wanting a firm statement that we will NEVER accept 60 M QSOs for >>> awards/contests, but this is a detail that could be worked. A simple >>> statement that 60M QSOs do not count for DXCC and contests should be >>> enough. >>> Assuming we are successful at getting a true 60M "band" in the future, >>> this >>> position could be reviewed. >>> >>> Not being on 60, I've not paid much attention to the band. Have we >>> accepted >>> Qs for DXCC and contest credit in the past? If we have, we would need >> to >>> figure out how to handle these. >>> >>> 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: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] >>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:05 AM >>> To: arrl-odv >>> Subject: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Thought I would forward Ken's note as I had the same feelings when >> Dave >>> put out the caution on 60 meters earlier in the week. I'm afraid that >> if >>> we don't take action we may lose a very valuable band for EmComm. >>> >>> Coy >>> -- >>> Coy Day, N5OK >>> 20685 SW 29 >>> Union City, OK 73090 >>> 405-483-5632 >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------- Original Message >> ---------------------------- >>> Subject: 60M DX >>> From: "Ken - K5KC" <k5kc(a)suddenlink.net> >>> Date: Fri, April 6, 2007 09:50 >>> To: n5ok(a)arrl.org >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- >>> >>> Hi Coy, >>> >>> I'm actually writing on "business" (hi)!! >>> >>> I've read at least two warnings / concerns from ARRL about DXing on >> 60M. >>> It all makes perfect sense - and I agree with it - BUT, the request >> (in my >>> opinion) is without teeth, will likely influence only minor behavior >>> changes, and has the potential to REALLY upset some DXers. Let me >> explain >>> and make a suggestion. >>> >>> First, the suggestion: ARRL should decree right away that 60M is NOT >> a DX >>> band and, as such, QSOs made will NOT now or in the future count >> toward >>> the Challenge or 60M DXCC or anything else from ARRL. IF AND WHEN >> THIS >>> CHANGES, ARRL will notify us all that only as of some future date will >>> QSOs count toward the ARRL DX program. >>> >>> Now, the explanation. You have surely noticed that a few heavyweight >>> DXers have begun to show up in the spots on 60. And, of course, there >> are >>> many DX commoners also chasing DX there. THEY ARE COVERING THEIR >> TAILS so >>> they are not behind if and when 60M is added to the Challenge list. I >>> cannot blame them. If left alone, they will continue to (carefully) >> chase >>> DX and rack up the countries. Suppose some ham DOES take ARRL's >> request >>> seriously and does NOT use 60M for DXing. They are going to be madder >>> than $%^&* if ARRL later does allow DX QSOs being made now to count. >> If >>> that were to happen, I could not blame them for being mad. >>> >>> Since I am writing to you in your capacity as a BoD member, feel free >> to >>> send this input along to whomever - if you think it represents a >> rational >>> line of thought. >>> >>> 73 Ken K5KC >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:15405] Re:RE: RE: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

WAC is an IARU award, and I can safely say that the IARU will not issue a single-band 60-meter award (at least until there is an international allocation). I have mixed feelings about WAS. On the one hand, it's certainly true that we don't want the few channels that are available to be clogged with awards-chasing. On the other, we do want to encourage people to equip their stations for 60 meters and to gain operating experience there so that they will be able to use the frequencies effectively when need arises. I was pretty disappointed that there was no reported use of 60 meters in the Katrina aftermath. Of course, it's debatable that offering an award like WAS is the best way to address that. Probably it would be best to let P&SC discuss it at their meeting and formulate a recommendation. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:09 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15403] Re:RE: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX] After further consideration, I think I want to word my proposal a little differently. Maybe it should read: Awards and contest credit for QSO's on 60 meters will be given consideration only after an international allocation is made and then only for QSO's made after that date. Bob Vallio reminded me that we have folks that chase WAC, WAS, etc. So we need a catch all statement. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 John Bellows wrote: > FWIW PSC has this question on its April 21st meeting agenda as an > Awards item. > > In the event this is viewed as a question better addressed directly by > the Board or administratively by the MVP staff or the Awards Committee > we can pull the agenda item. > > Jay, KØQB > > -----Original Message----- > From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:27 PM > To: arrl-odv > Cc: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:15401] Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX] > > Dave, > > I been thinking about this and I think Dave has the solution. I might > have worded it a little differently. I think I would like for it to > read > something like this: DXCC/Challenge credit for QSO's on 60 meters will > be > given consideration after an international allocation is made and then > only for QSO's made after that date. > > Coy > > -- > Coy Day, N5OK > 20685 SW 29 > Union City, OK 73090 > 405-483-5632 > > Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >> It might be useful to emphasize that Challenge credit will only be > given >> for QSOs dated after an international allocation is made. That's a > policy >> decision but it's a fairly obvious one. >> >> Dave K1ZZ >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] >> Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 10:37 PM >> To: arrl-odv >> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >> >> >> >> Dave, >> >> >> >> Tnx for the discussion. It is helpful, of course. >> >> >> >> Coy pointed out I misread Ken's recommendation. In rereading it, it > is >> obvious I over interpreted his comment on "never" issuing credits for > 60M >> Qs. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director >> >> ARRL Great Lakes Division >> >> 5065 Bethany Rd. >> >> Mason, OH 45040 >> >> E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> ; Tel.: 513-459-0142 >> >> ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! >> >> Members - The Reason ARRL Is! >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:38 PM >> To: arrl-odv >> Subject: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >> >> >> >> Jim, we have never accepted 60 meter QSOs for contest credit. I can't >> imagine that we ever would, given that we don't for 30, 17 and 12 > meters, >> and I don't think it's an issue in anyone's mind. >> >> >> >> It has been pretty much a moot point to now with regard to DXCC, but > N8S >> had the potential to change that. The caution we put out seems to have >> been pretty well received. >> >> >> >> The rules already prohibit 60-meter QSOs for the Challenge. I'm sure > there >> are people collecting countries on 60 meters. It's human nature. > However, >> the DXCC program, being international, should not grant DXCC Challenge >> credit for 60 meter QSOs until such time as there is an international >> allocation. There is no prohibition on basic DXCC credit -- that is, >> credit toward mixed or phone DXCC on the basis of a legal 60-meter QSO > -- >> nor does there need to be since few people will work a country on 60 >> meters that they don't already have on another band. >> >> >> >> Worked All States is another matter. We have already had an inquiry as > to >> whether we would issue a 60-meter WAS. I have asked Dave Patton to > refer >> it to P&SC. There are pros and cons, but WAS is unlikely to get out of >> hand the way chasing countries would. It would be more likely to > evolve >> into a controlled net like the various 75-meter WAS nets that have >> existed. >> >> >> >> 73, >> >> Dave K1ZZ >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] >> Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 8:52 PM >> To: arrl-odv >> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >> >> I, too, received a forward of the 60M proposal from one of my members. > I >> believe there is merit in the basic reco. I think he goes overboard > in >> wanting a firm statement that we will NEVER accept 60 M QSOs for >> awards/contests, but this is a detail that could be worked. A simple >> statement that 60M QSOs do not count for DXCC and contests should be >> enough. >> Assuming we are successful at getting a true 60M "band" in the future, >> this >> position could be reviewed. >> >> Not being on 60, I've not paid much attention to the band. Have we >> accepted >> Qs for DXCC and contest credit in the past? If we have, we would need > to >> figure out how to handle these. >> >> 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: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:05 AM >> To: arrl-odv >> Subject: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> Thought I would forward Ken's note as I had the same feelings when > Dave >> put out the caution on 60 meters earlier in the week. I'm afraid that > if >> we don't take action we may lose a very valuable band for EmComm. >> >> Coy >> -- >> Coy Day, N5OK >> 20685 SW 29 >> Union City, OK 73090 >> 405-483-5632 >> >> >> ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- >> Subject: 60M DX >> From: "Ken - K5KC" <k5kc(a)suddenlink.net> >> Date: Fri, April 6, 2007 09:50 >> To: n5ok(a)arrl.org >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- >> >> Hi Coy, >> >> I'm actually writing on "business" (hi)!! >> >> I've read at least two warnings / concerns from ARRL about DXing on > 60M. >> It all makes perfect sense - and I agree with it - BUT, the request > (in my >> opinion) is without teeth, will likely influence only minor behavior >> changes, and has the potential to REALLY upset some DXers. Let me > explain >> and make a suggestion. >> >> First, the suggestion: ARRL should decree right away that 60M is NOT > a DX >> band and, as such, QSOs made will NOT now or in the future count > toward >> the Challenge or 60M DXCC or anything else from ARRL. IF AND WHEN > THIS >> CHANGES, ARRL will notify us all that only as of some future date will >> QSOs count toward the ARRL DX program. >> >> Now, the explanation. You have surely noticed that a few heavyweight >> DXers have begun to show up in the spots on 60. And, of course, there > are >> many DX commoners also chasing DX there. THEY ARE COVERING THEIR > TAILS so >> they are not behind if and when 60M is added to the Challenge list. I >> cannot blame them. If left alone, they will continue to (carefully) > chase >> DX and rack up the countries. Suppose some ham DOES take ARRL's > request >> seriously and does NOT use 60M for DXing. They are going to be madder >> than $%^&* if ARRL later does allow DX QSOs being made now to count. > If >> that were to happen, I could not blame them for being mad. >> >> Since I am writing to you in your capacity as a BoD member, feel free > to >> send this input along to whomever - if you think it represents a > rational >> line of thought. >> >> 73 Ken K5KC >> >> >> >> > > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:15404] ARRL v. FCC; Court of Appeals sets Briefing Dates for Appeal, but no Oral Argument date yet
by w3kd＠aol.com 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

Greetings. The Court of Appeals has, after a somewhat lengthy delay, set the briefing dates for the Court Appeal. The Court did not, in accordance with their normal policy, yet set a date for oral argument. But since the briefing of the case ends in late August, it will likely be the early Fall when the oral argument takes place. The procedural dates the Court set are as follows: May 17, 2007 ARRL Brief Due June 1, 2007 NAB and MSTV Brief Due July 2, 2007 FCC Brief Due July 17, 2007 Intervenors for FCC Joint Brief due July 31, 2007 ARRL and NAB/MSTV Reply briefs due August 7, 2007 Deferred Appendix (the items in the FCC record that either ARRL or FCC find relevant to the Court's decision) August 21, 2007 ARRL FINAL brief due (the brief filed before but with citations to the joint appendix included) Then, after all this briefing is done, the oral argument will occur. It will be set by the Court clerk's office sometime during the above timetable. More when we know it. I am now preparing ARRL's suggested edits to the draft brief for submission to the WilmerHale lawyers so that they can finalize our brief for the May 17 due date. Let me know any questions you have. 73, Chris W3KD ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15401] Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX]
by John Bellows 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

FWIW PSC has this question on its April 21st meeting agenda as an Awards item. In the event this is viewed as a question better addressed directly by the Board or administratively by the MVP staff or the Awards Committee we can pull the agenda item. Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:27 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15401] Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX] Dave, I been thinking about this and I think Dave has the solution. I might have worded it a little differently. I think I would like for it to read something like this: DXCC/Challenge credit for QSO's on 60 meters will be given consideration after an international allocation is made and then only for QSO's made after that date. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > It might be useful to emphasize that Challenge credit will only be given > for QSOs dated after an international allocation is made. That's a policy > decision but it's a fairly obvious one. > > Dave K1ZZ > > ________________________________ > > From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] > Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 10:37 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > > > Dave, > > > > Tnx for the discussion. It is helpful, of course. > > > > Coy pointed out I misread Ken's recommendation. In rereading it, it is > obvious I over interpreted his comment on "never" issuing credits for 60M > Qs. > > > > > > > > Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director > > ARRL Great Lakes Division > > 5065 Bethany Rd. > > Mason, OH 45040 > > E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> ; Tel.: 513-459-0142 > > ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! > > Members - The Reason ARRL Is! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:38 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > > > Jim, we have never accepted 60 meter QSOs for contest credit. I can't > imagine that we ever would, given that we don't for 30, 17 and 12 meters, > and I don't think it's an issue in anyone's mind. > > > > It has been pretty much a moot point to now with regard to DXCC, but N8S > had the potential to change that. The caution we put out seems to have > been pretty well received. > > > > The rules already prohibit 60-meter QSOs for the Challenge. I'm sure there > are people collecting countries on 60 meters. It's human nature. However, > the DXCC program, being international, should not grant DXCC Challenge > credit for 60 meter QSOs until such time as there is an international > allocation. There is no prohibition on basic DXCC credit -- that is, > credit toward mixed or phone DXCC on the basis of a legal 60-meter QSO -- > nor does there need to be since few people will work a country on 60 > meters that they don't already have on another band. > > > > Worked All States is another matter. We have already had an inquiry as to > whether we would issue a 60-meter WAS. I have asked Dave Patton to refer > it to P&SC. There are pros and cons, but WAS is unlikely to get out of > hand the way chasing countries would. It would be more likely to evolve > into a controlled net like the various 75-meter WAS nets that have > existed. > > > > 73, > > Dave K1ZZ > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] > Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 8:52 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > I, too, received a forward of the 60M proposal from one of my members. I > believe there is merit in the basic reco. I think he goes overboard in > wanting a firm statement that we will NEVER accept 60 M QSOs for > awards/contests, but this is a detail that could be worked. A simple > statement that 60M QSOs do not count for DXCC and contests should be > enough. > Assuming we are successful at getting a true 60M "band" in the future, > this > position could be reviewed. > > Not being on 60, I've not paid much attention to the band. Have we > accepted > Qs for DXCC and contest credit in the past? If we have, we would need to > figure out how to handle these. > > 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: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:05 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > Hi Folks, > > Thought I would forward Ken's note as I had the same feelings when Dave > put out the caution on 60 meters earlier in the week. I'm afraid that if > we don't take action we may lose a very valuable band for EmComm. > > Coy > -- > Coy Day, N5OK > 20685 SW 29 > Union City, OK 73090 > 405-483-5632 > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: 60M DX > From: "Ken - K5KC" <k5kc(a)suddenlink.net> > Date: Fri, April 6, 2007 09:50 > To: n5ok(a)arrl.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > > Hi Coy, > > I'm actually writing on "business" (hi)!! > > I've read at least two warnings / concerns from ARRL about DXing on 60M. > It all makes perfect sense - and I agree with it - BUT, the request (in my > opinion) is without teeth, will likely influence only minor behavior > changes, and has the potential to REALLY upset some DXers. Let me explain > and make a suggestion. > > First, the suggestion: ARRL should decree right away that 60M is NOT a DX > band and, as such, QSOs made will NOT now or in the future count toward > the Challenge or 60M DXCC or anything else from ARRL. IF AND WHEN THIS > CHANGES, ARRL will notify us all that only as of some future date will > QSOs count toward the ARRL DX program. > > Now, the explanation. You have surely noticed that a few heavyweight > DXers have begun to show up in the spots on 60. And, of course, there are > many DX commoners also chasing DX there. THEY ARE COVERING THEIR TAILS so > they are not behind if and when 60M is added to the Challenge list. I > cannot blame them. If left alone, they will continue to (carefully) chase > DX and rack up the countries. Suppose some ham DOES take ARRL's request > seriously and does NOT use 60M for DXing. They are going to be madder > than $%^&* if ARRL later does allow DX QSOs being made now to count. If > that were to happen, I could not blame them for being mad. > > Since I am writing to you in your capacity as a BoD member, feel free to > send this input along to whomever - if you think it represents a rational > line of thought. > > 73 Ken K5KC > > > >

2 1

[arrl-odv:15401] Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Coy Day 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

Dave, I been thinking about this and I think Dave has the solution. I might have worded it a little differently. I think I would like for it to read something like this: DXCC/Challenge credit for QSO's on 60 meters will be given consideration after an international allocation is made and then only for QSO's made after that date. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: > It might be useful to emphasize that Challenge credit will only be given > for QSOs dated after an international allocation is made. That's a policy > decision but it's a fairly obvious one. > > Dave K1ZZ > > ________________________________ > > From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] > Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 10:37 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > > > Dave, > > > > Tnx for the discussion. It is helpful, of course. > > > > Coy pointed out I misread Ken's recommendation. In rereading it, it is > obvious I over interpreted his comment on "never" issuing credits for 60M > Qs. > > > > > > > > Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director > > ARRL Great Lakes Division > > 5065 Bethany Rd. > > Mason, OH 45040 > > E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> ; Tel.: 513-459-0142 > > ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! > > Members - The Reason ARRL Is! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:38 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > > > Jim, we have never accepted 60 meter QSOs for contest credit. I can't > imagine that we ever would, given that we don't for 30, 17 and 12 meters, > and I don't think it's an issue in anyone's mind. > > > > It has been pretty much a moot point to now with regard to DXCC, but N8S > had the potential to change that. The caution we put out seems to have > been pretty well received. > > > > The rules already prohibit 60-meter QSOs for the Challenge. I'm sure there > are people collecting countries on 60 meters. It's human nature. However, > the DXCC program, being international, should not grant DXCC Challenge > credit for 60 meter QSOs until such time as there is an international > allocation. There is no prohibition on basic DXCC credit -- that is, > credit toward mixed or phone DXCC on the basis of a legal 60-meter QSO -- > nor does there need to be since few people will work a country on 60 > meters that they don't already have on another band. > > > > Worked All States is another matter. We have already had an inquiry as to > whether we would issue a 60-meter WAS. I have asked Dave Patton to refer > it to P&SC. There are pros and cons, but WAS is unlikely to get out of > hand the way chasing countries would. It would be more likely to evolve > into a controlled net like the various 75-meter WAS nets that have > existed. > > > > 73, > > Dave K1ZZ > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] > Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 8:52 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > I, too, received a forward of the 60M proposal from one of my members. I > believe there is merit in the basic reco. I think he goes overboard in > wanting a firm statement that we will NEVER accept 60 M QSOs for > awards/contests, but this is a detail that could be worked. A simple > statement that 60M QSOs do not count for DXCC and contests should be > enough. > Assuming we are successful at getting a true 60M "band" in the future, > this > position could be reviewed. > > Not being on 60, I've not paid much attention to the band. Have we > accepted > Qs for DXCC and contest credit in the past? If we have, we would need to > figure out how to handle these. > > 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: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:05 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] > > Hi Folks, > > Thought I would forward Ken's note as I had the same feelings when Dave > put out the caution on 60 meters earlier in the week. I'm afraid that if > we don't take action we may lose a very valuable band for EmComm. > > Coy > -- > Coy Day, N5OK > 20685 SW 29 > Union City, OK 73090 > 405-483-5632 > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: 60M DX > From: "Ken - K5KC" <k5kc(a)suddenlink.net> > Date: Fri, April 6, 2007 09:50 > To: n5ok(a)arrl.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Coy, > > I'm actually writing on "business" (hi)!! > > I've read at least two warnings / concerns from ARRL about DXing on 60M. > It all makes perfect sense - and I agree with it - BUT, the request (in my > opinion) is without teeth, will likely influence only minor behavior > changes, and has the potential to REALLY upset some DXers. Let me explain > and make a suggestion. > > First, the suggestion: ARRL should decree right away that 60M is NOT a DX > band and, as such, QSOs made will NOT now or in the future count toward > the Challenge or 60M DXCC or anything else from ARRL. IF AND WHEN THIS > CHANGES, ARRL will notify us all that only as of some future date will > QSOs count toward the ARRL DX program. > > Now, the explanation. You have surely noticed that a few heavyweight > DXers have begun to show up in the spots on 60. And, of course, there are > many DX commoners also chasing DX there. THEY ARE COVERING THEIR TAILS so > they are not behind if and when 60M is added to the Challenge list. I > cannot blame them. If left alone, they will continue to (carefully) chase > DX and rack up the countries. Suppose some ham DOES take ARRL's request > seriously and does NOT use 60M for DXing. They are going to be madder > than $%^&* if ARRL later does allow DX QSOs being made now to count. If > that were to happen, I could not blame them for being mad. > > Since I am writing to you in your capacity as a BoD member, feel free to > send this input along to whomever - if you think it represents a rational > line of thought. > > 73 Ken K5KC > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:15400] Re: 60M DX
by jfenster＠pacifier.com 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

I ditto Bob's comments. Let's make a statement that 60 meters is a band dedicated to potential emergency service. Jim K9JF > To add to some of the comments, and hopefully not duplicate some one's > remarks, I believe that DXCC, DX Challenge, WAS, and WAC awards should > not > be given for 60 meter contacts. We need to advertise that fact, and to > avoid more people like the J2 and Swains groups getting on the band, we > should clearly state that in addition to no awards now, there will no > contacts credited until the future date that we decide to allow them to be > made. That should deter those who are salting away contacts now, because > if > they won't count in the future, the reason for making the contacts before > that date will be gone. > > Bob -- W6RGG >

1 0

[arrl-odv:15399] 60M DX
by Bob Vallio 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

To add to some of the comments, and hopefully not duplicate some one's remarks, I believe that DXCC, DX Challenge, WAS, and WAC awards should not be given for 60 meter contacts. We need to advertise that fact, and to avoid more people like the J2 and Swains groups getting on the band, we should clearly state that in addition to no awards now, there will no contacts credited until the future date that we decide to allow them to be made. That should deter those who are salting away contacts now, because if they won't count in the future, the reason for making the contacts before that date will be gone. Bob -- W6RGG

1 0

[arrl-odv:15398] RE: 60M DX
by Karl Bullock 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

Well, my 2-cents worth. The League should announce that there will not be any 60-meter awards unless the regulations on our usage change, and credits towards any awards would have a start date (much like the DXCC does on some prefixes). Thus any DX contacts made on 60 before the TBD start date would be invalid. We would, of course, announce such a start date enough in advance that everyone would have a fair shot. "Unlimited Radiation" could go ahead and work N8S on 60, but it would never be any good for League awards, so why bother? Dang, I'm having enough trouble working the dudes on 20 CW as it is!!! Got 'em on 20 RTTY and 15 voice, tho. Almost had 'em on 10, but the band died. Hmmm, guess my radiation is limited..... 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