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

[arrl-odv:15429] Re: More propaganda from Skip Teller
by w3kd＠aol.com 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

Skip Teller is simply wrong, Andy. Our bandwidth petition proposed to delete redundant language in 97.309. No encryption limits are deleted at all. Here is an excerpt from an encryption memo prepared by me for the HSMM last year. Joel has a correspondent who asked about this, and I am preparing a response to try to insert some sanity into this process. Gee, this process is painful when the uninformed speak so positively and raise the fear level in people who have the opportunity to think for themselves, but don't. Chris W3KD Until recently, FCC rules prohibited the transmissions of messages in codes or ciphers which are intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided in the FCC Part 97 Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 97.113(a)(4). That rule also prohibited the use of “false or deceptive messages, signals, or identification.” The rule section was revised by an FCC Report and Order, DA 06-79, released January 19, 2006. That Report and Order amended numerous rule sections in Part 97 to conform to the current language of the International Radio Regulations, which were amended substantially at WRC-03. Article 25.2A was one of the provisions of the Radio Regulations that changed at WRC-03.[1] Previously, Article 25.2 stated "When transmissions between amateur stations of different countries are permitted, they shall be made in plain language and shall be limited to messages of a technical nature relating to tests and to remarks of a personal character for which, by reason of their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service is not justified."[2] Article 25.2A, as adopted at WRC-03, now states "Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur satellite service."[3] In order to conform Section 97.113(a)(4) to the amended Radio Regulations, FCC dropped the “codes and ciphers” language, and amend the rule to prohibit amateur stations exchanging messages with amateur stations in other countries from making transmissions that are encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service. With regard to the exception in the Radio Regulations for encoded control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service, we note that this exception is already set forth in the Commission's Rules.[4] The FCC, in that January, 2006 Report and Order, also revised Section 97.117 of the Commission’s Rules[5] to reflect the current language of Article 25.2 of the Radio Regulations.[6] Article 25.2, as revised at WRC-03, now states "Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service, as defined in No. 1.56 [which defines the amateur service] and to remarks of a personal character."[7] Section 97.117 of the Commission’s Rules formerly stated that "transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be made in plain language and shall be limited to messages of a technical nature relating to tests, and, to remarks of a personal character for which, by reason of their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service is not justified." In order to conform Section 97.117 to the amended Article 25.2 of the Radio Regulations, the FCC amended Section 97.117 to state that amateur stations may transmit communications “incidental to the purposes of the amateur service and to remarks of a personal character.” So, the “plain language” provision is gone internationally and domestically. [1] WRC-03 Final Acts, Article 25.2A. [2] 2000 Radio Regulations, Article 25.2. [3] WRC-03 Final Acts, Article 25.2A. [4] Specifically, this exception is codified in Section 97.211(b), which provides that an Amateur Radio Station that is controlling an amateur service space station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages transmitted to the space station. [5] 47 C.F.R. § 97.117. [6] See WRC-03 Final Acts, Article 25.2. [7] Id. -----Original Message----- From: andy(a)andyoppel.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:50 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:15427] More propaganda from Skip Teller Mr. Teller has started a new thread on QRZ - this time he is going after use of encryption on the amateur bands. http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=152634 Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15427] More propaganda from Skip Teller
by Joel Harrison 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

Yes, I've seen it Andy. I received an email today from one of the thread contributors. I'm preparing a response and will forward it to everyone. Skip obviously has nothing but an intense desire to bash and discredit the League at any cost, including the spread of false information. Remember, we brought him in to work on one of our committees. He was the lone opponent to what the committee decided and rather than continue to work within our structure he got mad, quit and has been vocally anti-ARRL ever since. That is a shame. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy@andyoppel.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15427] More propaganda from Skip Teller Mr. Teller has started a new thread on QRZ - this time he is going after use of encryption on the amateur bands. http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=152634 Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:15427] More propaganda from Skip Teller
by Andy Oppel 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

Mr. Teller has started a new thread on QRZ - this time he is going after use of encryption on the amateur bands. http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=152634 Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:15426] Re: RM-11306
by w3kd＠aol.com 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

Tom, there was no memo to the EC. There was a telephone discussion of some length. I know, I was sitting in my car during the whole thing. 73, Chris W3KD/7 -----Original Message----- From: frenaye(a)pcnet.com To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:57 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:15423] Re:RM-11306 At 11:35 AM 4/13/2007, John Bellows wrote: >In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote. Jay's lengthy comments parallel most of my own thinking and questions, and he said it better than I would have. Can we have a copy of whatever memo might have been sent to the EC prior to their action (from Chris, Dave or Joel?)? I also think we will take a very big PR hit if we withdraw the petition. It still might be worth doing but I'd like to hear more. Is there a bit more information about the EC discussions pro/con available? Thinking about it last night I was ready to vote "no" but if that will cause the FCC to deny the petition it would take several years before the issue could reasonably be brought to them again. Why couldn't we urge them to come out with a NPRM based on our "drop back and punt" presentation to have regulation by bandwidth from 28 Mhz and up? Or, why couldn't the FCC be asked to issue a Notice of Inquiry, based on the questions raised by the various comments. They must also understand that regulation by bandwidth is getting somewhat mixed up in a "digital vs analog" war, and a "resistance to change" attitude in general. I'd like to hear more discussion. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15423] Re:RM-11306
by Joel Harrison 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

Tom, There was no written memo to the EC. The memo that was sent to the board contains, in its entirety, what was verbally presented to the EC. The EC members each asked questions; mostly what has been asked by you and Jay, and my response is in line with what I told the EC. As always, the EC members are free to speak up if they want to add anything. As I said in my response to Jay, yes there will be those that will want to talk negatively about ARRL if we withdraw the petition, but again how do we lose if continue to be responsive to concerns? Granted, there comes a time when you have addressed all of the concerns you can and you can no longer be productive so you just have to move forward. The board could decide in July to urge the FCC to issue an NOI if they want, but I'm not sure the FCC would do that. I have nothing to base that on, just a feeling. This is already a digital -vs- analog war. That unfortunately started with our original petition and I don't know, right now, how to further address it. We can't get around that, it is something we will just have to deal with and manage. The resistance to change gang is always difficult to deal with. I believe we will have to get these two points across to the FCC when we meet with the Mobility Division after July. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:57 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15423] Re:RM-11306 At 11:35 AM 4/13/2007, John Bellows wrote: >In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote. Jay's lengthy comments parallel most of my own thinking and questions, and he said it better than I would have. Can we have a copy of whatever memo might have been sent to the EC prior to their action (from Chris, Dave or Joel?)? I also think we will take a very big PR hit if we withdraw the petition. It still might be worth doing but I'd like to hear more. Is there a bit more information about the EC discussions pro/con available? Thinking about it last night I was ready to vote "no" but if that will cause the FCC to deny the petition it would take several years before the issue could reasonably be brought to them again. Why couldn't we urge them to come out with a NPRM based on our "drop back and punt" presentation to have regulation by bandwidth from 28 Mhz and up? Or, why couldn't the FCC be asked to issue a Notice of Inquiry, based on the questions raised by the various comments. They must also understand that regulation by bandwidth is getting somewhat mixed up in a "digital vs analog" war, and a "resistance to change" attitude in general. I'd like to hear more discussion. -- 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: Re RM15416
by Joel Harrison 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

Jay, Chris & Dave can chime is as well if they have other comments in response to your questions, but here are mine. a. We are still convinced the FCC wants to work with us to achieve a regulation by bandwidth environment. There is no requirement whatsoever on their part to contact us and continue to open the door for us to further tweak this proposal as they are doing, in fact in my 20 years on the board this has never happened. You are correct that the FCC has previously done what they wanted to do, however in those cases they have not had such a large negative comment filing to deal with as they had with the original filing. b. We will never satisfy everyone. There were some negative comments in this matter that were expressed over the internet or filed that were done so just simply because it was the ARRL that filed them. One very important fact now is that our ex-parte filing has brought to light a number of the benefits of the original proposal. These people will still be here, however now that greater attention has surfaced about this matter, and we know more about what people are opposed to, we can better manage the comments and also work to ensure supporters file as well. c. The existing petition is not flawed but in my opinion neither is the original one. Withdrawing the existing petition for the purpose of reviewing the comments and addressing them as best we can in a refiling doesnt cause us to loose anything. Sure, there will be a few scream that we dont know what were doing, but taking one more shot to address misunderstandings or concerns will be of benefit to us. As to what we will specifically do next time, I assume you are referring to what we will do if we withdraw the petition. First, we immediately explain in a web story exactly what we are doing and why, and that we will be revisiting the matter in July. Between now and July we begin to publicly state the issues that have arisen since the original filing and address them, emphasizing the history of our publicity and surveys in this matter. In July we will discuss all of this at length and it will be up to the board as to how we proceed. We meet with the FCC Mobility Division and reach an understanding that we have to move forward on this matter, one way or the other and impress upon them the length of time we have spent in developing our filing from within the amateur community. While I dont have a specific proposal now of what we would file because that will be developed by the board, I would propose re-filing something similar to the original proposal that addresses the issues that have been raised since then, ensure we solicit support (I dont think we did that with the original filing) and let it go. I consider this our last shot at moving forward with this in the near future, regardless of how it falls. No more negotiating or re-evaluation. Sure, there will be some that will shout screams of joy at prevailing, but those are the exact same people who said we should withdraw this petition and revisit it, so where does that leave them? It leaves us as being responsive, as we have always been throughout this entire process, and working to arrive at the best possible solution. I trust I have addressed all of your questions, Jay. If not, you now how to reach me (hi!) 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re RM15416 In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote. The EC Recommendation is a bit of a surprise since except for the recent spate of direct emails from Winlink2K aficionados I was under the impression from recent ODVs that there was little ongoing discussion on the ex parte effort to change RM11306. We are being asked to approve withdrawal of our Regulation by Bandwidth Petition with the expectation we will subsequently re-file the Petition or a near clone. The reason is that FCC apparently is very much inclined to support regulation by bandwidth, but is limited in their ability to do so by the public record, which constrains them because virtually all the comments filed are negative. Our purpose in taking this step would be to eliminate existing very negative and incendiary Record of Comments in the filing, many of which are based on misunderstanding. I can support this action. but I first need to first clarify why: a. We feel the feedback and suggestions from FCC are reliable; b. We believe a refilling will satisfy the highly polarized concerns of those who have previously filed the negative and incendiary comments; c. The existing Petition is flawed In the past FCC has not been troubled by a lack of support for its actions. The decision to provide a medical waiver for Morse exams above 5 wpm and the recent substantial increase of the 75 Meter phone allocation are but two examples. In each instance FCC ordered a significant change on the basis of less than a handful of comments regarding issues that deeply divided the Amateur Service. It seems FCC can do pretty much whatever it chooses despite the record. Do the letters BPL ring a bell. So why is it reluctant to act here if it truly supports the Regulation by Bandwidth model? Prior to filing the RM11306 Petition the Board went through a multi year process of developing a proposal, presenting it (twice) to the members and Amateur community at large and receiving and evaluating feedback. What specifically will we do next time? Again, what specifically will we do next time? We need to recognize that withdrawing this petition will cause those who have opposed Regulation by Bandwidth and the Winlink2K folks to believe they prevailed and become even more hardened in their positions and beliefs. If we think it was tough this time; next time around will be twice as hard and maybe even twice as ugly. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

Re RM15416
by John Bellows 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote. The EC Recommendation is a bit of a surprise since except for the recent spate of direct emails from Winlink2K aficionados I was under the impression from recent ODVs that there was little ongoing discussion on the ex parte effort to change RM11306. We are being asked to approve withdrawal of our Regulation by Bandwidth Petition with the expectation we will subsequently re-file the Petition or a near clone. The reason is that FCC apparently is very much inclined to support regulation by bandwidth, but is limited in their ability to do so by the public record, which constrains them because virtually all the comments filed are negative. Our purpose in taking this step would be to eliminate existing very negative and incendiary Record of Comments in the filing, many of which are based on misunderstanding. I can support this action. but I first need to first clarify why: a. We feel the feedback and suggestions from FCC are reliable; b. We believe a refilling will satisfy the highly polarized concerns of those who have previously filed the negative and incendiary comments; c. The existing Petition is flawed In the past FCC has not been troubled by a lack of support for its actions. The decision to provide a medical waiver for Morse exams above 5 wpm and the recent substantial increase of the 75 Meter phone allocation are but two examples. In each instance FCC ordered a significant change on the basis of less than a handful of comments regarding issues that deeply divided the Amateur Service. It seems FCC can do pretty much whatever it chooses despite the record. Do the letters BPL ring a bell. So why is it reluctant to act here if it truly supports the Regulation by Bandwidth model? Prior to filing the RM11306 Petition the Board went through a multi year process of developing a proposal, presenting it (twice) to the members and Amateur community at large and receiving and evaluating feedback. What specifically will we do next time? Again, what specifically will we do next time? We need to recognize that withdrawing this petition will cause those who have opposed Regulation by Bandwidth and the Winlink2K folks to believe they prevailed and become even more hardened in their positions and beliefs. If we think it was tough this time; next time around will be twice as hard and maybe even twice as ugly. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:15423] Re:RM-11306
by Tom Frenaye 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

At 11:35 AM 4/13/2007, John Bellows wrote: >In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote. Jay's lengthy comments parallel most of my own thinking and questions, and he said it better than I would have. Can we have a copy of whatever memo might have been sent to the EC prior to their action (from Chris, Dave or Joel?)? I also think we will take a very big PR hit if we withdraw the petition. It still might be worth doing but I'd like to hear more. Is there a bit more information about the EC discussions pro/con available? Thinking about it last night I was ready to vote "no" but if that will cause the FCC to deny the petition it would take several years before the issue could reasonably be brought to them again. Why couldn't we urge them to come out with a NPRM based on our "drop back and punt" presentation to have regulation by bandwidth from 28 Mhz and up? Or, why couldn't the FCC be asked to issue a Notice of Inquiry, based on the questions raised by the various comments. They must also understand that regulation by bandwidth is getting somewhat mixed up in a "digital vs analog" war, and a "resistance to change" attitude in general. I'd like to hear more discussion. -- 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:15421] Re:K0BJ RM-11306
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

I vote Yes on the EC motion to withdraw our RM-11306 as amended. If this passes I hope we can effectively get the word out, particularly to Winlink users, that we will be readdressing regulation by bandwidth via a cleaner path in the near term. Surely more of those who like the idea will file supportive comments next time. Also in the meantime we need to continue to show the average ham the MANY advantages of reg. by bandwidth, and impress upon them that as time goes by regulation by mode will become more unworkable. Bruce K0BJ

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:15416] RM-11306
by Jim Weaver 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

In the question posed by the EC to the Board regarding withdrawing RM-11306, I vote Aye. Jim Weaver 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: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15416] RM-11306 Greetings, Tuesday evening, April 10, the Executive met via teleconference to discuss RM-11306. The minutes of the telecom are attached. Also attached is a memo from myself and General Counsel Imlay. Please review the two documents as your input is required. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0