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

RE: [arrl-odv:15396] RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Jim Weaver 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

Dave, Making a statement about Challenge Credits is fine, but would this deter folks from fighting to become numero uno with a 60 M DXCC? In other words, should the statement relate to all 60 M Qs regarding the DX program and not just the Challenge? Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 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 6:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15396] RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX] 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: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)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:15396] RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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:15395] Re: [Fwd: 60M DX]
by k5ur＠aol.com 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

Hi All: Along the lines of what Coy and Bob have said about 60 mtrs, let me give you a personal observation on this matter. What the gentleman said to Coy is on point. There are many DXers that are waiting in the wings to start the DX runs on 60 mtrs. I am one of them. Like others, though, I have been avoiding that band. It's not suppose to be a DX band and contacts right now don't count for the DXCC Challenge Award. However, like Coy's message pointed out, more and more of the big guns are now moving stations down there. If I am going to keep up with them, and ya'll know I am slightly competitive, I'm going to start playing 60 mtrs DX myself, and I suspect that my views are no different than many others in this regard. Just this week I searched for some info on what wire to clip to allow my FT-1000 to transmit on 60 mtrs. In fact, I had planned to go clip that little wire tonight when I got home from work. Ya see, I don't want to miss the N8 on 60 mtrs! After all, I better get on there to keep up with the Jones'. The contacts may not count now, but someday they might and I don't want to play catch up on the Challenge given I'm number 6 in the standings as I run for the DeSoto Cup! (hi) Seriously, the big N8S DXpedition that's currently underway has published that it plans to get on 60 mtrs, so this issue is getting some attention right now. Just a few weeks ago another large operation tried 60 mtrs after so many asked them to move there, the J20 group. In the minds of a lot of the DXers, saying the contacts don't count now is not enough to stop the migration of the big guns to that band. They will work the stuff anyway in anticipation that someday the contacts will be backdated to count. Unless we say that contacts will not be backdated, or something like that, I can assure you the DXers will slowly but surely move there and DXpeditions will, too. Just wait until the N8 fires up down there and brings even more attention to it. So, I think the big question is whether our initial thoughts about protecting 60 mtrs are still valid. If so, then do we need to try some things to help control the situation? Seems I recall we were quite concerned about this when we asked for 60 mtrs, with potential QRM, etc. If that is still the case, then we might need to look at something a little more strong than saying contacts don't count for certain awards. Maybe we need to go ahead and say it clearly that contacts will not be backdated to count if at some future time we start to count band countries for 60 mtrs, and WAS as well, like the fellow said in Coy's email. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. This is just an observation, and timely, since I personally have been eyeing the growth in DX activity on 60 mtrs the past few weeks. Have a great Holiday weekend. 73, Rick - Kilowatt 5 Unlimited Radiation The loudest and most powerful station in America -----Original Message----- From: rbvallio(a)gmail.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Cc: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 2:26 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:15391] Re: [Fwd: 60M DX] It gives me great pleasure to endorse the recommendations of Mr. Day. He is right, and the sooner we take action, the better. Bob W6RGG On 4/6/07, Coy Day <n5ok(a)arrl.org> wrote: 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 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Jim Weaver 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)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:15393] RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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

RE: [arrl-odv:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Jim Weaver 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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:15391] Re: [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Bob Vallio 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

It gives me great pleasure to endorse the recommendations of Mr. Day. He is right, and the sooner we take action, the better. Bob W6RGG On 4/6/07, Coy Day <n5ok(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > 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:15390] [Fwd: 60M DX]
by Coy Day 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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:15389] Re: They Think We Gave In to Negative Comments to ARRL
by Henry R. Leggette 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

Dick, You should let a sleeping dog sleep. Strangely enough, I have not hear anything from Steve on this blast. Since you stirred him maybe be I should e-mail him. Notice, I said e-mail and not call him on the telephone (smile). 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 9:06 PM 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:15388] They Think We Gave In to Negative Comments to ARRL
by Richard J. Norton 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

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