June 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:16838] Formal Call, Second 2008 Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 19 Jun '08

19 Jun '08

1 0

[arrl-odv:16837] Re: RE: Red Cross Letter -- Status?
by w3kd＠aol.com 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Right, Jim, my message was garbled, sorry. I should have said "Since the long-delayed May 2008 letter FROM the ARC was to Joel in response to his letter to the ARC last November, it seemed best for Joel to respond further.... Chris Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: JIM WEAVER, K8JE <K8JE(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 6:40 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16836] RE: [arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status? Chris, tnx for the status as it is known to you. This is all one could ask of you. I hope to hear from Joel, then, as the writer of the/an inquiry or however it may be characterized most appropriately. I may be the only director who is has meaningful concerns over how things are proceeding toward an agreed situation on background checks and the status/timing of the SOU/MOU, but I have concerns (I even elected not to get flip, here). 73, CU, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ Chairman, ARRL ad hoc Legislative Action Committee 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:05 PM To: K8JE(a)arrl.org; arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status? Let me start responding, Jim, but I don't have all the answers for your questions. I did not communicate directly with the ARC. Since the long-delayed letter to ARC was to Joel in response to his letter to ARC last November, it seemed best for Joel to respond further. So we drafted up a response letter, including further revised text for the consent form. Dave and Joel substantially edited the draft, and I believe it has been sent to ARC by now, but I am not certain. The ball is in squarely in Dennis Dura's court on initial negotiation of proposed terms for a revised MOU. I don't believe that he has yet met with Keith Robertory of the ARC staff, but I could be wrong about that. The problem seems to be that despite the ARC letter to Joel, it is not clear that ARC has actually changed the consent form to correspond with the text that they gave Joel. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: K8JE <K8JE(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 4:30 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status? Joel, Dave or Chris (whoever chooses to respond), I am curious about the status of the “redlined” inquiry Chris submitted to Red Cross to obtain clarification of it letter to Joel. Have they acknowledged the further inquiry or responded with the requested clarifications? If clarifications have been received, when can the Board expect to see these? (My in-going assumption is that we have not received clarifications and that if we had, they would have already been shared.) I would also appreciate learning the status of negotiations with RC for a new SOU? Based upon the current status, when should be expect to have an agreed SOU? What issues need to be resolved before an SOU can be put into place? Tnx, 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! Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16834] Re: Red Cross Letter -- Status?
by w3kd＠aol.com 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Let me start responding, Jim, but I don't have all the answers for your questions. I did not communicate directly with the ARC. Since the long-delayed letter to ARC was to Joel in response to his letter to ARC last November, it seemed best for Joel to respond further. So we drafted up a response letter, including further revised text for the consent form. Dave and Joel substantially edited the draft, and I believe it has been sent to ARC by now, but I am not certain. The ball is in squarely in Dennis Dura's court on initial negotiation of proposed terms for a revised MOU. I don't believe that he has yet met with Keith Robertory of the ARC staff, but I could be wrong about that. The problem seems to be that despite the ARC letter to Joel, it is not clear that ARC has actually changed the consent form to correspond with the text that they gave Joel. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: K8JE <K8JE(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 4:30 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status? Joel, Dave or Chris (whoever chooses to respond), I am curious about the status of the “redlined” inquiry Chris submitted to Red Cross to obtain clarification of it letter to Joel. Have they acknowledged the further inquiry or responded with the requested clarifications? If clarifications have been received, when can the Board expect to see these? (My in-going assumption is that we have not received clarifications and that if we had, they would have already been shared.) I would also appreciate learning the status of negotiations with RC for a new SOU? Based upon the current status, when should be expect to have an agreed SOU? What issues need to be resolved before an SOU can be put into place? Tnx, 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!

2 1

[arrl-odv:16835] Re: Red Cross Letter -- Status?
by Karl Bullock 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status?
by Joel Harrison 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Jim, My response to their letter has not been sent. Chris, Dave and I are still internally debating the draft. The three of us plus Kay will be together tomorrow in D.C. and plan to discuss it further. Joel _____ From: K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status? Joel, Dave or Chris (whoever chooses to respond), I am curious about the status of the "redlined" inquiry Chris submitted to Red Cross to obtain clarification of it letter to Joel. Have they acknowledged the further inquiry or responded with the requested clarifications? If clarifications have been received, when can the Board expect to see these? (My in-going assumption is that we have not received clarifications and that if we had, they would have already been shared.) I would also appreciate learning the status of negotiations with RC for a new SOU? Based upon the current status, when should be expect to have an agreed SOU? What issues need to be resolved before an SOU can be put into place? Tnx, 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!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16833] Red Cross Letter -- Status?
by K8JE 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

Joel, Dave or Chris (whoever chooses to respond), I am curious about the status of the "redlined" inquiry Chris submitted to Red Cross to obtain clarification of it letter to Joel. Have they acknowledged the further inquiry or responded with the requested clarifications? If clarifications have been received, when can the Board expect to see these? (My in-going assumption is that we have not received clarifications and that if we had, they would have already been shared.) I would also appreciate learning the status of negotiations with RC for a new SOU? Based upon the current status, when should be expect to have an agreed SOU? What issues need to be resolved before an SOU can be put into place? Tnx, 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!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16832] California hands-free cellphone law
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

The following story will be posted on the ARRL Web later this afternoon. While it applies specifically to California, the principles apply to similar legislation being offered in other states. Dave K1ZZ A new California hands-free cellular telephone law goes into effect July 1, 2008. It, like many others around the country, prohibits using mobile telephones while driving unless a hands-free device is utilized. ARRL has received numerous questions about its application to the use of mobile amateur radio stations by licensed amateurs. The law, in relevant part, states as follows: "23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving." ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay advises "The definition of prohibited behavior in California's recent statute does not include a prohibition of operating a mobile, licensed Amateur Radio station while driving because Amateur Radio transceivers are not telephones. While ARRL cannot guarantee that this statute will not be interpreted by law enforcement officers or the courts of California more broadly than that, it is our view that a fair reading of the statute excludes mobile operation of Amateur Radio equipment by licensed radio amateurs. "That said, it is obvious that drivers should pay full time and attention to driving. To the extent that operating their Amateur stations while mobile is a distraction to them, they should consider, if possible, pulling over safely to the side of the road and conducting their Amateur communications while stationary." ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson, N1ND, adds that while the statute on its face does not apply to amateur radio mobile operation, problems could still arise. "Law enforcement officers are not telecommunications experts, and may not understand or be concerned about the difference between a cellular telephone and a ham radio. If you do get stopped, be polite and state that you were operating a mobile amateur radio transmitter as specifically authorized by the FCC, and not a wireless telephone. Don't engage in an argument if the officer issues a citation - that won't help your cause. If cited, you will need to follow the instructions about contesting the citation in traffic court. As ARRL Counsel notes, the language of the statute does not appear to include Amateur mobile operation. Unfortunately you could have to go through the inconvenience of appearing in court to contest a citation." ARRL will continue to monitor the application of this statute relative to radio amateurs.

1 0

[arrl-odv:16831] RE: [arrl-odv:16829] RE: [arrl-odv:16823] Two ITU submissions
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Jun '08

14 Jun '08

Their interest is as a broadcaster. NAB and MSTV also have given us some support, though it was a bit less than we had hoped for. Dave ________________________________ From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy@andyoppel.com] Sent: Sat 6/14/2008 10:45 PM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:16829] RE: [arrl-odv:16823] Two ITU submissions Doesn't CBS own a cable operation? If so, it would be in their interest to thwart BPL deployments. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 02:29 PM 6/14/2008, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: Joe Flaherty, K2IQM is the responsible party. We know Joe. Dave ________________________________ From: Kay Craigie [ mailto:n3kn@verizon.net <mailto:n3kn@verizon.net> ] Sent: Fri 6/13/2008 2:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16823] Two ITU submissions Who at CBS do we have to thank -- discreetly of course -- for this very nice submission? Is there anything in it for the network to have made this submission? 73 - Kay N3KN Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:16830] Re: RE: Two ITU submissions
by Andy Oppel 14 Jun '08

14 Jun '08

Doesn't CBS own a cable operation? If so, it would be in their interest to thwart BPL deployments. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 02:29 PM 6/14/2008, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >Joe Flaherty, K2IQM is the responsible party. > >We know Joe. > >Dave > > >---------- >From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] >Sent: Fri 6/13/2008 2:45 PM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16823] Two ITU submissions > >Who at CBS do we have to thank -- discreetly of course -- for this >very nice submission? Is there anything in it for the network to >have made this submission? 73 - Kay N3KN > Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com andy_oppel(a)alamedanet.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:16829] RE: [arrl-odv:16823] Two ITU submissions
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Jun '08

14 Jun '08

Joe Flaherty, K2IQM is the responsible party. We know Joe. Dave ________________________________ From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Fri 6/13/2008 2:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16823] Two ITU submissions Who at CBS do we have to thank -- discreetly of course -- for this very nice submission? Is there anything in it for the network to have made this submission? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0