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

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

29 Apr '07

>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:15499] Re: RE 11306 WHY?
by Tom Frenaye 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

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lost sight of the fact that there is another regulation by bandwidth proposal out there in the wings which has not been withdrawn.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 I think RM-11305 (brand X, free for all) was withdrawn after the FCC action last fall.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

1 0

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

29 Apr '07

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

RE: [arrl-odv:15495] RE: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306
by Jim Weaver 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

I've remained quiet during recent days on the issues that still surround RM-11306, but I have been emotionally pulled into the discussion by recent exchanges. First, I fully agree with Tom. If we remain so arrogant as to think we can successfully promote our ideas by limiting our avenues of communication to our own, we are likely to continue to lose the PR battle. The way to reach the greatest number of people is to go to where these people "are." Preaching to the choir, primarily, may make us feel warm and fuzzy, but it ignores relatively huge number of folks. Lets assume that 30% of amateurs are relatively pro-ARRL, that another 10% are firmly anti-ARRL, that 0.1% are the Teller's of the country, that 30% don't give fiddly squat about the League and, finally, that the rest are no longer involved in Amateur Radio. By restricting our message to ARRL web sites and publications, we abandon the rest of the web to the 0.1% to spread their malicious distortions and lies to the 30% of "uncommitted" hams and the 10% anti-ARRL folks. With no effort by us to spread the true and accurate word, we've already lost in any show of hands for or against our initiatives. This is not the way a consumer product organization works to ensure its products are accepted by the public. As I mentioned before, the only difference in selling an automobile, shampoo, computer, etc. and selling our primary produce is that our primary products consist of ideas. Why is the US auto industry in tough shape these days -- because after WW2, it ignored a philosophy of manufacturing and development developed by a guy from Michigan. The Japanese paid attention to him. US industry is still playing catch up. Why has ARRL lost attempt after attempt to forestall FCC initiatives and to have our initiatives adopted -- because we are still operating under the delusion the Amateur Radio community remains willing to accept what we say through our historic channels and in our historic sterile manner as gospel. Times have changed. I join with others who suggest we should promote our ideas and philosophies through any legitimate means available. I also suggest we should learn how to word and frame our messages using language typical amateurs these amateurs not only understand, but find comfortable. Comfort leads to trust. 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:46 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: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306
by Jim Weaver 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

Andy, You may not be aware of it, but there are flying pigs in the riverfront park in Cincinnati. We also have an annual, very successful Flying Pig Marathon. What is it you were saying about flying pigs? 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: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy@andyoppel.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306 While I agree that debate in a chat room is most often not productive, and I know that arguing with a closed mind is like trying to teach a pig to fly, when we ignore the chat room threads and do absolutely nothing in response, there is a group that believes what they read. Perhaps once we posted the complete story on our web site, we could just drop a short response into these threads that says something like "if you want to read the ARRL response, go here: (URL of the ARRL story)." That gives the readers who actually have an open mind another opinion (or in many cases the **facts**) for consideration without requiring the poster (such as a director or vice director) to write a bullet-proof and error-free response. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 01:10 PM 4/28/2007, Joel Harrison wrote: >I believe the support is there as well, Karl. > >I base that on the fact that it is not an issue (or at least hasn't been yet >to date) at hamfests, conventions and club meetings where you can talk to >people face to face about it. It will be interesting to see the comments at >Dayton in a few weeks. > >There are only a handful of agitators that hide in a dark corner in their >house behind their computer screen that are League bashers and opposed to >anything we propose, regardless of the topic, that have an avenue via the >chat rooms to spew their venom. > >I have no problem whatsoever with people offering different opinions or >suggestions. I welcome it. It provides healthy debate and makes our >proposals better. The group I'm referring to, unfortunately, does not want >to provide anything constructive and in no way can we obtain any positive >results by debating them via the chat rooms. During the recent ODV emails >about "communicating better" with our members this was suggested, but it >just won't work. It would require a full time effort and would do no good. I >can relate several examples over the past few weeks of hams I've engaged >with email discussion from the chat rooms and it turned in to an endless >loop and a couple have even turned vicious. Dave is still engaged with one >guy that just won't accept there is a difference of opinion. > >Someone suggested that Jim Haynie had productively engaged the chat rooms, >but that sure wasn't Jim's assessment of the effort. Jim concluded it was >wasted time because the group did not want to reach any conclusions >whatsoever, they just wanted to argue. Jim felt it was much better to use or >own media to get our message out effectively to our members and non-members >alike. I agree with him. Our website alone averages 500,000 unique visitors >per month.....that's huge and tells us something about the power of our >website! > >I know there has been some comment from within that we do not do a good job >of communicating with our members. I will be the first to say we can always >do better and should strive to that end. That just doesn't fall on the HQ >staff via QST, ARRLWeb, the ARRL Letter, etc, but with each and every one of >us as well. Each of the Officers, Directors and Vice Directors is required >and has an obligation to stay in touch with the members in their division. >Some do an outstanding job, some do a good job but unfortunately there are a >few who don't communicate with the members at all. The process of doing >better has to start with us. > >I look forward to working with each of you in the coming months to improve >this process. > >On May 9 Dave, Chris, Paul and I will meet to put together a draft plan for >moving forward with this matter. I then want the Officer's to review the >plan and make any revisions, etc. We will then forward it to the Directors >and Vice Directors for review several weeks before the July board meeting >for discussion leading into the board meeting where we will decide our next >move. As we move forward with this process, please engage your members and >educate them about this topic. You can't commit to any specific course of >future action obviously, as that won't be decided until July when the >Directors will make the final decision, but you obviously can express your >own position. > >More later as we move forward. > >73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Karl Bullock [mailto:karl@bullock.org] >Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:12 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306 > >There's an interesting poll on arnewsline.org where visitors are asked >to vote in favor of or in opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth. >Currently it's running nearly 2:1 in favor with nearly 1100 voting. >Scientific? No. Interesting? I thought so. > >I think the support is there once we redo this proposal and keep it, >this time, from being demagogued to death! > >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 Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:15495] RE: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306
by Tom Frenaye 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

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: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306
by Joel Harrison 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

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 "anti" bunch is already poo-pooing our news release and making reference to it on QRZ.com by saying such things as "Please read the ARRL news release and see the bitterness in the words from the ARRL officials. Sad. Truly sad!" One positive thing I've seen in the last 24 hours is that people are now rationally discussing regulation by bandwidth.....with the exception of Skip Teller who is saying no way will he ever be in favor of semi-automatic operation anywhere as he believes it is not permitted in the amateur service because the "traffic" can be handled by commercial services. That's a pretty ridiculous argument because 99.9% of the traffic that was handled via NTS could have been as well. 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. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy@andyoppel.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:19 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306 While I agree that debate in a chat room is most often not productive, and I know that arguing with a closed mind is like trying to teach a pig to fly, when we ignore the chat room threads and do absolutely nothing in response, there is a group that believes what they read. Perhaps once we posted the complete story on our web site, we could just drop a short response into these threads that says something like "if you want to read the ARRL response, go here: (URL of the ARRL story)." That gives the readers who actually have an open mind another opinion (or in many cases the **facts**) for consideration without requiring the poster (such as a director or vice director) to write a bullet-proof and error-free response. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 01:10 PM 4/28/2007, Joel Harrison wrote: >I believe the support is there as well, Karl. > >I base that on the fact that it is not an issue (or at least hasn't been yet >to date) at hamfests, conventions and club meetings where you can talk to >people face to face about it. It will be interesting to see the comments at >Dayton in a few weeks. > >There are only a handful of agitators that hide in a dark corner in their >house behind their computer screen that are League bashers and opposed to >anything we propose, regardless of the topic, that have an avenue via the >chat rooms to spew their venom. > >I have no problem whatsoever with people offering different opinions or >suggestions. I welcome it. It provides healthy debate and makes our >proposals better. The group I'm referring to, unfortunately, does not want >to provide anything constructive and in no way can we obtain any positive >results by debating them via the chat rooms. During the recent ODV emails >about "communicating better" with our members this was suggested, but it >just won't work. It would require a full time effort and would do no good. I >can relate several examples over the past few weeks of hams I've engaged >with email discussion from the chat rooms and it turned in to an endless >loop and a couple have even turned vicious. Dave is still engaged with one >guy that just won't accept there is a difference of opinion. > >Someone suggested that Jim Haynie had productively engaged the chat rooms, >but that sure wasn't Jim's assessment of the effort. Jim concluded it was >wasted time because the group did not want to reach any conclusions >whatsoever, they just wanted to argue. Jim felt it was much better to use or >own media to get our message out effectively to our members and non-members >alike. I agree with him. Our website alone averages 500,000 unique visitors >per month.....that's huge and tells us something about the power of our >website! > >I know there has been some comment from within that we do not do a good job >of communicating with our members. I will be the first to say we can always >do better and should strive to that end. That just doesn't fall on the HQ >staff via QST, ARRLWeb, the ARRL Letter, etc, but with each and every one of >us as well. Each of the Officers, Directors and Vice Directors is required >and has an obligation to stay in touch with the members in their division. >Some do an outstanding job, some do a good job but unfortunately there are a >few who don't communicate with the members at all. The process of doing >better has to start with us. > >I look forward to working with each of you in the coming months to improve >this process. > >On May 9 Dave, Chris, Paul and I will meet to put together a draft plan for >moving forward with this matter. I then want the Officer's to review the >plan and make any revisions, etc. We will then forward it to the Directors >and Vice Directors for review several weeks before the July board meeting >for discussion leading into the board meeting where we will decide our next >move. As we move forward with this process, please engage your members and >educate them about this topic. You can't commit to any specific course of >future action obviously, as that won't be decided until July when the >Directors will make the final decision, but you obviously can express your >own position. > >More later as we move forward. > >73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Karl Bullock [mailto:karl@bullock.org] >Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:12 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306 > >There's an interesting poll on arnewsline.org where visitors are asked >to vote in favor of or in opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth. >Currently it's running nearly 2:1 in favor with nearly 1100 voting. >Scientific? No. Interesting? I thought so. > >I think the support is there once we redo this proposal and keep it, >this time, from being demagogued to death! > >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 Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:15492] RE: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306
by Andy Oppel 29 Apr '07

29 Apr '07

While I agree that debate in a chat room is most often not productive, and I know that arguing with a closed mind is like trying to teach a pig to fly, when we ignore the chat room threads and do absolutely nothing in response, there is a group that believes what they read. Perhaps once we posted the complete story on our web site, we could just drop a short response into these threads that says something like "if you want to read the ARRL response, go here: (URL of the ARRL story)." That gives the readers who actually have an open mind another opinion (or in many cases the **facts**) for consideration without requiring the poster (such as a director or vice director) to write a bullet-proof and error-free response. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 01:10 PM 4/28/2007, Joel Harrison wrote: >I believe the support is there as well, Karl. > >I base that on the fact that it is not an issue (or at least hasn't been yet >to date) at hamfests, conventions and club meetings where you can talk to >people face to face about it. It will be interesting to see the comments at >Dayton in a few weeks. > >There are only a handful of agitators that hide in a dark corner in their >house behind their computer screen that are League bashers and opposed to >anything we propose, regardless of the topic, that have an avenue via the >chat rooms to spew their venom. > >I have no problem whatsoever with people offering different opinions or >suggestions. I welcome it. It provides healthy debate and makes our >proposals better. The group I'm referring to, unfortunately, does not want >to provide anything constructive and in no way can we obtain any positive >results by debating them via the chat rooms. During the recent ODV emails >about "communicating better" with our members this was suggested, but it >just won't work. It would require a full time effort and would do no good. I >can relate several examples over the past few weeks of hams I've engaged >with email discussion from the chat rooms and it turned in to an endless >loop and a couple have even turned vicious. Dave is still engaged with one >guy that just won't accept there is a difference of opinion. > >Someone suggested that Jim Haynie had productively engaged the chat rooms, >but that sure wasn't Jim's assessment of the effort. Jim concluded it was >wasted time because the group did not want to reach any conclusions >whatsoever, they just wanted to argue. Jim felt it was much better to use or >own media to get our message out effectively to our members and non-members >alike. I agree with him. Our website alone averages 500,000 unique visitors >per month.....that's huge and tells us something about the power of our >website! > >I know there has been some comment from within that we do not do a good job >of communicating with our members. I will be the first to say we can always >do better and should strive to that end. That just doesn't fall on the HQ >staff via QST, ARRLWeb, the ARRL Letter, etc, but with each and every one of >us as well. Each of the Officers, Directors and Vice Directors is required >and has an obligation to stay in touch with the members in their division. >Some do an outstanding job, some do a good job but unfortunately there are a >few who don't communicate with the members at all. The process of doing >better has to start with us. > >I look forward to working with each of you in the coming months to improve >this process. > >On May 9 Dave, Chris, Paul and I will meet to put together a draft plan for >moving forward with this matter. I then want the Officer's to review the >plan and make any revisions, etc. We will then forward it to the Directors >and Vice Directors for review several weeks before the July board meeting >for discussion leading into the board meeting where we will decide our next >move. As we move forward with this process, please engage your members and >educate them about this topic. You can't commit to any specific course of >future action obviously, as that won't be decided until July when the >Directors will make the final decision, but you obviously can express your >own position. > >More later as we move forward. > >73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Karl Bullock [mailto:karl@bullock.org] >Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:12 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:15485] Interesting Poll on 11306 > >There's an interesting poll on arnewsline.org where visitors are asked >to vote in favor of or in opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth. >Currently it's running nearly 2:1 in favor with nearly 1100 voting. >Scientific? No. Interesting? I thought so. > >I think the support is there once we redo this proposal and keep it, >this time, from being demagogued to death! > >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 Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:15493] Re: Interesting Poll on 11306
by Karl Bullock 28 Apr '07

28 Apr '07

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15481] Re:RM-11306 Withdrawal News Story
by Joel Harrison 28 Apr '07

28 Apr '07

Dick, It was interpreted a few years ago that "mail vote" included "email". 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:23 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: dsumner(a)arrl.org; w5zn(a)arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:15481] Re:RM-11306 Withdrawal News Story Importance: High 27 APR 2007 - 1315 CDT It looks like a good presentation of the facts and rationale leading up to our withdrawal of RM-11306. However, the story says the full board voted by mail, not email. Is this an error? 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0