October 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:18198] Fwd: Fw: ***W6AGO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NET NOTICE*** 22 October 2009
by Richard J. Norton 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

FYI - Thought this is interesting enough to pass along. 73, Dick, MJ/N6AA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William C Wysock <William.C.Wysock(a)aero.org> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM Subject: Fw: ***W6AGO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NET NOTICE*** 22 October 2009 To: n6aa(a)arrl.org Dick, I just received this and thought it appropriate to pass on to you. Bill Wysock-N6UXW ----- Forwarded by William C Wysock/West/Aerospace/US on 10/22/2009 01:07 PM ----- From: David A Cooley/West/Aerospace/US To: William C Wysock/West/Aerospace/US@Aerospace Cc: Date: 10/22/2009 12:46 PM Subject: Re: ***W6AGO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NET NOTICE*** 22 October 2009 ------------------------------ Hi All, Out of curiosity, I sent an email to William Cross for clarification of our position... >From the source itself: From: William Cross <William.Cross(a)fcc.gov> Subject: RE: Emergency preparedness net To: n5xmt(a)n5xmt.org Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 8:13 AM Probably not--Checking into a net so there is a list of amateurs that are available in case of an emergency is not "participating in government-sponsored disaster drills," or transmitting communications “in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, *including communications on behalf of an employer,*” which is what the Public Notice addressed. ------------------------------ *From:* Dave Cooley [*mailto:n5xmt@n5xmt.org* <n5xmt(a)n5xmt.org>] * Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:09 AM* To:* William Cross* Subject:* Emergency preparedness net Mr. Cross, I have received FCC bulletin DA 09-2259 dated October 20, 2009. I have a question, as I am not clear on my position. I am a paid employee of the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, CA. My Position is as a UNIX system administrator. I am also a licensed amateur radio operator, N5XMT. My Confusion is this: I am not paid by the company for any Disaster Preparedness drills etc, and I am a member of the Aerospace Amateur Radio Association. In the Mornings, We would like to have a net where we check in so there is a list of amateurs that are available in case of an emergency. Even in the event of an emergency, we are not paid by our employer for any amateur communications. Would our net fall under the prohibition spelled out in bulletin DA 09-2259? Thank you in advance *_______________________________* *David A. Cooley* *Messaging and Identity Management* *310-336-0862 (Office)* *310-343-1857 (Cell)* *A3-1023B M1-149* From: William C Wysock/West/Aerospace/US To: Cc: Date: 10/22/2009 05:39 AM Subject: ***W6AGO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NET NOTICE*** 22 October 2009 ------------------------------ ****W6AGO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NET NOTICE**** *CLUB WEB SITE:**http://www.aeaclubs.org/w6ago/*<http://www.aeaclubs.org/w6ago/> *147.510 simplex & 445.240 (pl 88.5) WB6VMV rptr.* To all: Please follow this link and read the FCC Public Notice dated October 20. 2009 *very carefully.* *http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf*<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf> As I read this notice, it basically says that we, (FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operators), are *NOT ALLOWED* to operate on FCC assigned amateur radio frequencies for the purpose of conducting our daily emergency preparedness nets. This is due to the fact that we are *PAID EMPLOYEES *of the Aerospace Corporation and these nets, which have enjoyed a long and honorable history of supporting Aerospace Security, have always been conducted on *company time.* I will not utilize this communication to express my personal feelings about this notice. I will, however, be on the air on both frequencies this morning at 8 a.m. and will only use my own personal FCC license call sign *N6UXW.* Anyone who wishes to make contact with me may do so. We can have a short exchange (QSO) and I will make note of who has made contact with me. There will be no mention of "Emergency Preparedness" or the "Aerospace Corporation" in these short exchanges (QSO's). You will hear me say *"N6UXW monitoring..."* This will be your que to make contact over the air with me. For today and tomorrow, let's see how this works. I invite feedback from each one of you about this new development and any suggestions on where we should go from here. *It* *certainly will be the main topic* *of our October Club meeting on October 29.* '73. Bill Wysock-N6UXW AEA Amateur Radio Club Vice President

1 0

[arrl-odv:18197] Re: RE: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS!
by Greg Sarratt 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

Yes, unwise to ask the FCC. DA 09-2259 gives the process for requesting a waiver for government-sponsored emergency preparedness and disaster drills, if 97.113(a)(3) is touched by employees. In most government-sponsored drills and exercises volunteers operate and control amateur radios. Amateur radio sponsors many more emergency preparedness and disaster drills, and ARRL in the case of SET than government. ARRL and amateur radio sponsored events are for the benefit of amateur radio and does not need or will be issued a waiver. Still, no reason for a rule change. 73, Greg, W4OZK --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> wrote: From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:18195] Re:RE: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 9:26 AM Mickey, that’s not my test. It’s the FCC’s, dating back to the Report and Order in PR Docket 92-136: “We also will include the League’s criterion, which we have incorporated in this proceeding, that any amateur-to-amateur communication is permitted unless specifically prohibited, or unless transmitted for compensation, or unless done for the pecuniary benefit of the station control operator or his or her employer.” There’s a subtle difference between “communications on behalf of an employer” and “communications for the pecuniary benefit of an employer” but I don’t know how to describe the difference in bright-line terms. I think what this mainly shows is that it’s unwise to ask the FCC. Dave K1ZZ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:16 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18194] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Chris, Based on your comments, it sounds to me that Dave needs to make some corrections to his April 2009 QST editorial. In that editorial Dave discussed the "simple" four-part test as follows: 1. Is it expressly prohibited in the rules (music, obscenity, etc.)? 2. Is it transmitted for compensation? 3. Does the control operator have a pecuniary interest, that is, could he or she benefit financially? 4. Does the control operator's employer have a pecuniary interest? Dave then says that if the answer in each case above is "no" than the communication is acceptable to the FCC with one additional caveat: To guard against the systematic use of Amateur Radio for non-amateur purposes, there is a prohibition on "communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services." Item four in Dave's (the FCC's?) test makes it rather clear to me that pecuniary interest is the key here, not simply the vague expression "on behalf of one's employer." If push comes to shove, I think the ARRL Board should seriously consider petitioning the FCC to add some language in 97.113 similar in spirit to the RACES language that permits a limited number of hours for emergency drills. Before taking such a drastic step, however, I think we should try to convince Bill Cross that his interpretation of 97.113 is too restrictive. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18193] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Careful, now, Mickey; I agree with you that the term "on behalf of" in Section 97.113(a)(3) is different than "for the pecuniary interest of." "Pecuniary interest" is not the test when the communications are made by an employee. Rather, a communication "on behalf of" one's employer is, as it appears in the rule, an example of prohibited communications. It stands alone. Asking whether a communication "on behalf of" one's employer has any pecuniary benefit to the employer is to apply a test that is not found in the rules. I certainly concede that "on behalf of" one's employer is subject to SOME case-by-case interpretation, but not much, and not so much that if pecuniary benefit to the employer is not present, it is therefore OK. It seems to me that if the communications are with reference to the business activities of the employer, the rule prohibits the communications (absent a waiver). An employee of a hospital participating in drills that include even hypotheticals to prepare for the emergency communications involving the hospital's work is, I will assure you, in the view of the Wireless Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau, not kosher absent a grant of the waiver. 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: Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 11:35 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18192] Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! ODV, Below are some comments I emailed earlier this evening to Dale W5RXU and also forwarded to some Delta Division officials. I think the ARRL Board should show some leadership on this issue by publicly stating that communications "on behalf of one's employer" is NOT necessarily equivalent to communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest. It seems to me that the W1AW operator situation should make the ARRL Board realize that it needs to take a strong stand on this issue. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Mickey Cox To: w5rxu(a)flash.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: Re: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Dale, The new item in the FCC's public notice dated October 20 is the process in which a government entity conducting a drill can request a waiver of the rule spelled out in 97.113(a)(3). This rule prohibits an amateur station from transmitting communications "in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." In other words, communications that promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer are prohibited. My guess is that the FCC will rarely grant such waivers. My personal preference is that the FCC should not have even offered the possibility of a waiver as described. However, I continue to believe that communications during drills can be designed such that the communications do not promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. When I think of a drill such as the ARRL's Simulated Emergency Test (SET), for example, the test messages are designed to be "make believe" to start with and I don't see how such messages/communications promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. For example, let's assume I'm a ham who is also employed at ABC Hospital. If I transmit a radiogram during the SET from the ABC Hospital club station (or from my home station for that matter) signed by "Dr. John Doe" requesting XYZ medicines, how does that promote the pecuniary interest of my employer? It's simply a test message that I have made up for the drill. Communications "on behalf of one's employer" and communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the W1AW operators are paid for operating the club station at ARRL Headquarters; rule 97.113(d) allows them to be compensated and not be in violation of rule 97.113(a)(2). Surely the telegraphy practice and information bulletins transmitted by the W1AW operators are communications "on behalf of their employer" to a significant degree, but these communications do not directly promote the pecuniary interest of the ARRL. Of course, if the bulletins did include such items as encouraging one to become a League member or to donate to the League's spectrum defense fund, etc., then such communications could certainly be considered as promoting the pecuniary interests of the ARRL. (It is important to note that the exception granted in 97.113(c) and 97.113(d) is with regard to communications for hire or material compensation and not to the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer.) In conclusion, I think the FCC's public statement simply restates what is already in the rules with the exception of the new waiver provision. Reading between the lines, however, I suspect that the FCC does not fully appreciate the nature of emergency drills as these drills are commonly conducted by ARES and other amateur groups. I have a very hard time understanding how communications of the types that I envision during typical emergency drills violate the pecuniary interest rule. Feel free to forward my comments to others as you wish. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Temple To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: WOW LOOK AT THIS! http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf Hello All, Click on the above. At the Sunday morning Arkansas Razorback Emergency Training Net, 3987.5 at 7:00 AM, I was going to talk about the ARRL Board of Directors statement of policy with respect to the use of Amateur Radio entitled "The Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, the Issues. BUT, Guys and Gals the above Policy Statement by the FCC has knocked that right off the front page. Therefore, Sunday morning, October 25, 3987.5, 7:00 AM I am asking Mickey Cox, K5MD, Delta Division Director, David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Vice Director and J.M. Rowe, N5XFW, to present their position on this late breaking news. I know from past emails that J.M. and Mickey have conflicts on Sunday mornings. Therefore, I am asking both Mickey and J.M. to put their position in writing for someone to read to the Sunday morning AM Crisis and Panic Independent Voice of Arkansas Hams. David, if you also have a conflict, likewise send your position to someone to read. If any of you have conflicts Brian, WA5AM, has a web site, w5ami.net where you can click on ARETN audio clips and listen to the net and previous nets, dated for your convenience. 73 Dale

1 0

[arrl-odv:18194] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS!
by Mickey Cox 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

Chris, Based on your comments, it sounds to me that Dave needs to make some corrections to his April 2009 QST editorial. In that editorial Dave discussed the "simple" four-part test as follows: 1. Is it expressly prohibited in the rules (music, obscenity, etc.)? 2. Is it transmitted for compensation? 3. Does the control operator have a pecuniary interest, that is, could he or she benefit financially? 4. Does the control operator's employer have a pecuniary interest? Dave then says that if the answer in each case above is "no" than the communication is acceptable to the FCC with one additional caveat: To guard against the systematic use of Amateur Radio for non-amateur purposes, there is a prohibition on "communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services." Item four in Dave's (the FCC's?) test makes it rather clear to me that pecuniary interest is the key here, not simply the vague expression "on behalf of one's employer." If push comes to shove, I think the ARRL Board should seriously consider petitioning the FCC to add some language in 97.113 similar in spirit to the RACES language that permits a limited number of hours for emergency drills. Before taking such a drastic step, however, I think we should try to convince Bill Cross that his interpretation of 97.113 is too restrictive. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18193] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Careful, now, Mickey; I agree with you that the term "on behalf of" in Section 97.113(a)(3) is different than "for the pecuniary interest of." "Pecuniary interest" is not the test when the communications are made by an employee. Rather, a communication "on behalf of" one's employer is, as it appears in the rule, an example of prohibited communications. It stands alone. Asking whether a communication "on behalf of" one's employer has any pecuniary benefit to the employer is to apply a test that is not found in the rules. I certainly concede that "on behalf of" one's employer is subject to SOME case-by-case interpretation, but not much, and not so much that if pecuniary benefit to the employer is not present, it is therefore OK. It seems to me that if the communications are with reference to the business activities of the employer, the rule prohibits the communications (absent a waiver). An employee of a hospital participating in drills that include even hypotheticals to prepare for the emergency communications involving the hospital's work is, I will assure you, in the view of the Wireless Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau, not kosher absent a grant of the waiver. 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: Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 11:35 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18192] Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! ODV, Below are some comments I emailed earlier this evening to Dale W5RXU and also forwarded to some Delta Division officials. I think the ARRL Board should show some leadership on this issue by publicly stating that communications "on behalf of one's employer" is NOT necessarily equivalent to communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest. It seems to me that the W1AW operator situation should make the ARRL Board realize that it needs to take a strong stand on this issue. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Mickey Cox To: w5rxu(a)flash.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: Re: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Dale, The new item in the FCC's public notice dated October 20 is the process in which a government entity conducting a drill can request a waiver of the rule spelled out in 97.113(a)(3). This rule prohibits an amateur station from transmitting communications "in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." In other words, communications that promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer are prohibited. My guess is that the FCC will rarely grant such waivers. My personal preference is that the FCC should not have even offered the possibility of a waiver as described. However, I continue to believe that communications during drills can be designed such that the communications do not promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. When I think of a drill such as the ARRL's Simulated Emergency Test (SET), for example, the test messages are designed to be "make believe" to start with and I don't see how such messages/communications promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. For example, let's assume I'm a ham who is also employed at ABC Hospital. If I transmit a radiogram during the SET from the ABC Hospital club station (or from my home station for that matter) signed by "Dr. John Doe" requesting XYZ medicines, how does that promote the pecuniary interest of my employer? It's simply a test message that I have made up for the drill. Communications "on behalf of one's employer" and communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the W1AW operators are paid for operating the club station at ARRL Headquarters; rule 97.113(d) allows them to be compensated and not be in violation of rule 97.113(a)(2). Surely the telegraphy practice and information bulletins transmitted by the W1AW operators are communications "on behalf of their employer" to a significant degree, but these communications do not directly promote the pecuniary interest of the ARRL. Of course, if the bulletins did include such items as encouraging one to become a League member or to donate to the League's spectrum defense fund, etc., then such communications could certainly be considered as promoting the pecuniary interests of the ARRL. (It is important to note that the exception granted in 97.113(c) and 97.113(d) is with regard to communications for hire or material compensation and not to the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer.) In conclusion, I think the FCC's public statement simply restates what is already in the rules with the exception of the new waiver provision. Reading between the lines, however, I suspect that the FCC does not fully appreciate the nature of emergency drills as these drills are commonly conducted by ARES and other amateur groups. I have a very hard time understanding how communications of the types that I envision during typical emergency drills violate the pecuniary interest rule. Feel free to forward my comments to others as you wish. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Temple To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: WOW LOOK AT THIS! http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf Hello All, Click on the above. At the Sunday morning Arkansas Razorback Emergency Training Net, 3987.5 at 7:00 AM, I was going to talk about the ARRL Board of Directors statement of policy with respect to the use of Amateur Radio entitled "The Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, the Issues. BUT, Guys and Gals the above Policy Statement by the FCC has knocked that right off the front page. Therefore, Sunday morning, October 25, 3987.5, 7:00 AM I am asking Mickey Cox, K5MD, Delta Division Director, David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Vice Director and J.M. Rowe, N5XFW, to present their position on this late breaking news. I know from past emails that J.M. and Mickey have conflicts on Sunday mornings. Therefore, I am asking both Mickey and J.M. to put their position in writing for someone to read to the Sunday morning AM Crisis and Panic Independent Voice of Arkansas Hams. David, if you also have a conflict, likewise send your position to someone to read. If any of you have conflicts Brian, WA5AM, has a web site, w5ami.net where you can click on ARETN audio clips and listen to the net and previous nets, dated for your convenience. 73 Dale

2 1

[arrl-odv:18195] Re:RE: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS!
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

Mickey, that's not my test. It's the FCC's, dating back to the Report and Order in PR Docket 92-136: "We also will include the League's criterion, which we have incorporated in this proceeding, that any amateur-to-amateur communication is permitted unless specifically prohibited, or unless transmitted for compensation, or unless done for the pecuniary benefit of the station control operator or his or her employer." There's a subtle difference between "communications on behalf of an employer" and "communications for the pecuniary benefit of an employer" but I don't know how to describe the difference in bright-line terms. I think what this mainly shows is that it's unwise to ask the FCC. Dave K1ZZ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:16 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18194] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Chris, Based on your comments, it sounds to me that Dave needs to make some corrections to his April 2009 QST editorial. In that editorial Dave discussed the "simple" four-part test as follows: 1. Is it expressly prohibited in the rules (music, obscenity, etc.)? 2. Is it transmitted for compensation? 3. Does the control operator have a pecuniary interest, that is, could he or she benefit financially? 4. Does the control operator's employer have a pecuniary interest? Dave then says that if the answer in each case above is "no" than the communication is acceptable to the FCC with one additional caveat: To guard against the systematic use of Amateur Radio for non-amateur purposes, there is a prohibition on "communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services." Item four in Dave's (the FCC's?) test makes it rather clear to me that pecuniary interest is the key here, not simply the vague expression "on behalf of one's employer." If push comes to shove, I think the ARRL Board should seriously consider petitioning the FCC to add some language in 97.113 similar in spirit to the RACES language that permits a limited number of hours for emergency drills. Before taking such a drastic step, however, I think we should try to convince Bill Cross that his interpretation of 97.113 is too restrictive. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay <mailto:w3kd@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18193] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Careful, now, Mickey; I agree with you that the term "on behalf of" in Section 97.113(a)(3) is different than "for the pecuniary interest of." "Pecuniary interest" is not the test when the communications are made by an employee. Rather, a communication "on behalf of" one's employer is, as it appears in the rule, an example of prohibited communications. It stands alone. Asking whether a communication "on behalf of" one's employer has any pecuniary benefit to the employer is to apply a test that is not found in the rules. I certainly concede that "on behalf of" one's employer is subject to SOME case-by-case interpretation, but not much, and not so much that if pecuniary benefit to the employer is not present, it is therefore OK. It seems to me that if the communications are with reference to the business activities of the employer, the rule prohibits the communications (absent a waiver). An employee of a hospital participating in drills that include even hypotheticals to prepare for the emergency communications involving the hospital's work is, I will assure you, in the view of the Wireless Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau, not kosher absent a grant of the waiver. 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: Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 11:35 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18192] Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! ODV, Below are some comments I emailed earlier this evening to Dale W5RXU and also forwarded to some Delta Division officials. I think the ARRL Board should show some leadership on this issue by publicly stating that communications "on behalf of one's employer" is NOT necessarily equivalent to communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest. It seems to me that the W1AW operator situation should make the ARRL Board realize that it needs to take a strong stand on this issue. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Mickey Cox <mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net> To: w5rxu(a)flash.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: Re: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Dale, The new item in the FCC's public notice dated October 20 is the process in which a government entity conducting a drill can request a waiver of the rule spelled out in 97.113(a)(3). This rule prohibits an amateur station from transmitting communications "in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." In other words, communications that promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer are prohibited. My guess is that the FCC will rarely grant such waivers. My personal preference is that the FCC should not have even offered the possibility of a waiver as described. However, I continue to believe that communications during drills can be designed such that the communications do not promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. When I think of a drill such as the ARRL's Simulated Emergency Test (SET), for example, the test messages are designed to be "make believe" to start with and I don't see how such messages/communications promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. For example, let's assume I'm a ham who is also employed at ABC Hospital. If I transmit a radiogram during the SET from the ABC Hospital club station (or from my home station for that matter) signed by "Dr. John Doe" requesting XYZ medicines, how does that promote the pecuniary interest of my employer? It's simply a test message that I have made up for the drill. Communications "on behalf of one's employer" and communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the W1AW operators are paid for operating the club station at ARRL Headquarters; rule 97.113(d) allows them to be compensated and not be in violation of rule 97.113(a)(2). Surely the telegraphy practice and information bulletins transmitted by the W1AW operators are communications "on behalf of their employer" to a significant degree, but these communications do not directly promote the pecuniary interest of the ARRL. Of course, if the bulletins did include such items as encouraging one to become a League member or to donate to the League's spectrum defense fund, etc., then such communications could certainly be considered as promoting the pecuniary interests of the ARRL. (It is important to note that the exception granted in 97.113(c) and 97.113(d) is with regard to communications for hire or material compensation and not to the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer.) In conclusion, I think the FCC's public statement simply restates what is already in the rules with the exception of the new waiver provision. Reading between the lines, however, I suspect that the FCC does not fully appreciate the nature of emergency drills as these drills are commonly conducted by ARES and other amateur groups. I have a very hard time understanding how communications of the types that I envision during typical emergency drills violate the pecuniary interest rule. Feel free to forward my comments to others as you wish. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Temple <mailto:w5rxu@flash.net> To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: WOW LOOK AT THIS! http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf Hello All, Click on the above. At the Sunday morning Arkansas Razorback Emergency Training Net, 3987.5 at 7:00 AM, I was going to talk about the ARRL Board of Directors statement of policy with respect to the use of Amateur Radio entitled "The Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, the Issues. BUT, Guys and Gals the above Policy Statement by the FCC has knocked that right off the front page. Therefore, Sunday morning, October 25, 3987.5, 7:00 AM I am asking Mickey Cox, K5MD, Delta Division Director, David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Vice Director and J.M. Rowe, N5XFW, to present their position on this late breaking news. I know from past emails that J.M. and Mickey have conflicts on Sunday mornings. Therefore, I am asking both Mickey and J.M. to put their position in writing for someone to read to the Sunday morning AM Crisis and Panic Independent Voice of Arkansas Hams. David, if you also have a conflict, likewise send your position to someone to read. If any of you have conflicts Brian, WA5AM, has a web site, w5ami.net where you can click on ARETN audio clips and listen to the net and previous nets, dated for your convenience. 73 Dale

1 0

[arrl-odv:18193] Re: Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS!
by Chris Imlay 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

Careful, now, Mickey; I agree with you that the term "on behalf of" in Section 97.113(a)(3) is different than "for the pecuniary interest of." "Pecuniary interest" is not the test when the communications are made by an employee. Rather, a communication "on behalf of" one's employer is, as it appears in the rule, an example of prohibited communications. It stands alone. Asking whether a communication "on behalf of" one's employer has any pecuniary benefit to the employer is to apply a test that is not found in the rules. I certainly concede that "on behalf of" one's employer is subject to SOME case-by-case interpretation, but not much, and not so much that if pecuniary benefit to the employer is not present, it is therefore OK. It seems to me that if the communications are with reference to the business activities of the employer, the rule prohibits the communications (absent a waiver). An employee of a hospital participating in drills that include even hypotheticals to prepare for the emergency communications involving the hospital's work is, I will assure you, in the view of the Wireless Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau, not kosher absent a grant of the waiver. 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: Mickey Cox <mcoxk5mc(a)bellsouth.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 11:35 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18192] Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS! ODV, Below are some comments I emailed earlier this evening to Dale W5RXU and also forwarded to some Delta Division officials. I think the ARRL Board should show some leadership on this issue by publicly stating that communications "on behalf of one's employer" is NOT necessarily equivalent to communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest. It seems to me that the W1AW operator situation should make the ARRL Board realize that it needs to take a strong stand on this issue. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Mickey Cox To: w5rxu(a)flash.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: Re: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Dale, The new item in the FCC's public notice dated October 20 is the process in which a government entity conducting a drill can request a waiver of the rule spelled out in 97.113(a)(3). This rule prohibits an amateur station from transmitting communications "in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." In other words, communications that promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer are prohibited. My guess is that the FCC will rarely grant such waivers. My personal preference is that the FCC should not have even offered the possibility of a waiver as described. However, I continue to believe that communications during drills can be designed such that the communications do not promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. When I think of a drill such as the ARRL's Simulated Emergency Test (SET), for example, the test messages are designed to be "make believe" to start with and I don't see how such messages/communications promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. For example, let's assume I'm a ham who is also employed at ABC Hospital. If I transmit a radiogram during the SET from the ABC Hospital club station (or from my home station for that matter) signed by "Dr. John Doe" requesting XYZ medicines, how does that promote the pecuniary interest of my employer? It's simply a test message that I have made up for the drill. Communications "on behalf of one's employer" and communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the W1AW operators are paid for operating the club station at ARRL Headquarters; rule 97.113(d) allows them to be compensated and not be in violation of rule 97.113(a)(2). Surely the telegraphy practice and information bulletins transmitted by the W1AW operators are communications "on behalf of their employer" to a significant degree, but these communications do not directly promote the pecuniary interest of the ARRL. Of course, if the bulletins did include such items as encouraging one to become a League member or to donate to the League's spectrum defense fund, etc., then such communications could certainly be considered as promoting the pecuniary interests of the ARRL. (It is important to note that the exception granted in 97.113(c) and 97.113(d) is with regard to communications for hire or material compensation and not to the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer.) In conclusion, I think the FCC's public statement simply restates what is already in the rules with the exception of the new waiver provision. Reading between the lines, however, I suspect that the FCC does not fully appreciate the nature of emergency drills as these drills are commonly conducted by ARES and other amateur groups. I have a very hard time understanding how communications of the types that I envision during typical emergency drills violate the pecuniary interest rule. Feel free to forward my comments to others as you wish. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Temple To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: WOW LOOK AT THIS! http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf Hello All, Click on the above. At the Sunday morning Arkansas Razorback Emergency Training Net, 3987.5 at 7:00 AM, I was going to talk about the ARRL Board of Directors statement of policy with respect to the use of Amateur Radio entitled "The Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, the Issues. BUT, Guys and Gals the above Policy Statement by the FCC has knocked that right off the front page. Therefore, Sunday morning, October 25, 3987.5, 7:00 AM I am asking Mickey Cox, K5MD, Delta Division Director, David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Vice Director and J.M. Rowe, N5XFW, to present their position on this late breaking news. I know from past emails that J.M. and Mickey have conflicts on Sunday mornings. Therefore, I am asking both Mickey and J.M. to put their position in writing for someone to read to the Sunday morning AM Crisis and Panic Independent Voice of Arkansas Hams. David, if you also have a conflict, likewise send your position to someone to read. If any of you have conflicts Brian, WA5AM, has a web site, w5ami.net where you can click on ARETN audio clips and listen to the net and previous nets, dated for your convenience. 73 Dale

1 0

[arrl-odv:18192] Fw: WOW LOOK AT THIS!
by Mickey Cox 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

ODV, Below are some comments I emailed earlier this evening to Dale W5RXU and also forwarded to some Delta Division officials. I think the ARRL Board should show some leadership on this issue by publicly stating that communications "on behalf of one's employer" is NOT necessarily equivalent to communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest. It seems to me that the W1AW operator situation should make the ARRL Board realize that it needs to take a strong stand on this issue. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Mickey Cox To: w5rxu(a)flash.net Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: Re: WOW LOOK AT THIS! Dale, The new item in the FCC's public notice dated October 20 is the process in which a government entity conducting a drill can request a waiver of the rule spelled out in 97.113(a)(3). This rule prohibits an amateur station from transmitting communications "in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." In other words, communications that promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer are prohibited. My guess is that the FCC will rarely grant such waivers. My personal preference is that the FCC should not have even offered the possibility of a waiver as described. However, I continue to believe that communications during drills can be designed such that the communications do not promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. When I think of a drill such as the ARRL's Simulated Emergency Test (SET), for example, the test messages are designed to be "make believe" to start with and I don't see how such messages/communications promote the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer. For example, let's assume I'm a ham who is also employed at ABC Hospital. If I transmit a radiogram during the SET from the ABC Hospital club station (or from my home station for that matter) signed by "Dr. John Doe" requesting XYZ medicines, how does that promote the pecuniary interest of my employer? It's simply a test message that I have made up for the drill. Communications "on behalf of one's employer" and communications in which the control operator's employer has a pecuniary interest are not necessarily the same thing. For example, the W1AW operators are paid for operating the club station at ARRL Headquarters; rule 97.113(d) allows them to be compensated and not be in violation of rule 97.113(a)(2). Surely the telegraphy practice and information bulletins transmitted by the W1AW operators are communications "on behalf of their employer" to a significant degree, but these communications do not directly promote the pecuniary interest of the ARRL. Of course, if the bulletins did include such items as encouraging one to become a League member or to donate to the League's spectrum defense fund, etc., then such communications could certainly be considered as promoting the pecuniary interests of the ARRL. (It is important to note that the exception granted in 97.113(c) and 97.113(d) is with regard to communications for hire or material compensation and not to the pecuniary interest of the control operator's employer.) In conclusion, I think the FCC's public statement simply restates what is already in the rules with the exception of the new waiver provision. Reading between the lines, however, I suspect that the FCC does not fully appreciate the nature of emergency drills as these drills are commonly conducted by ARES and other amateur groups. I have a very hard time understanding how communications of the types that I envision during typical emergency drills violate the pecuniary interest rule. Feel free to forward my comments to others as you wish. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Temple To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: WOW LOOK AT THIS! http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2259A1.pdf Hello All, Click on the above. At the Sunday morning Arkansas Razorback Emergency Training Net, 3987.5 at 7:00 AM, I was going to talk about the ARRL Board of Directors statement of policy with respect to the use of Amateur Radio entitled "The Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, the Issues. BUT, Guys and Gals the above Policy Statement by the FCC has knocked that right off the front page. Therefore, Sunday morning, October 25, 3987.5, 7:00 AM I am asking Mickey Cox, K5MD, Delta Division Director, David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Vice Director and J.M. Rowe, N5XFW, to present their position on this late breaking news. I know from past emails that J.M. and Mickey have conflicts on Sunday mornings. Therefore, I am asking both Mickey and J.M. to put their position in writing for someone to read to the Sunday morning AM Crisis and Panic Independent Voice of Arkansas Hams. David, if you also have a conflict, likewise send your position to someone to read. If any of you have conflicts Brian, WA5AM, has a web site, w5ami.net where you can click on ARETN audio clips and listen to the net and previous nets, dated for your convenience. 73 Dale

1 0

[arrl-odv:18191] IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 21 Oct '09

21 Oct '09

<<102109.doc>> IN-Newsletter <<Microsoft Word Picture>> Vol. 32, No. 42 October 21, 2009 -- Covers the period October 11-17. Upcoming Meetings and Events Executive Committee Meeting October 24 @ 9:00am - Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX Ballot Counting for Director/Vice Director Elections November 20 -- ARRL HQ Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on Amateur Auxiliary November 20 -- ARRL HQ Administration &Finance Committee November 21 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Programs & Services Committee November 21 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ CEO Dave Sumner spent the week in Christchurch, New Zealand where he served as Chairman and Secretary of Working Group 1 (Policy Matters) of the IARU Region 3 Conference. The conference was followed by a two-day meeting of the IARU Administrative Council where he served as Recording Secretary. The ARRL hosted a week long class sponsored by the USTTI (United Sates Telecommunications Training Institute) to teach Amateur Radio Administration. The countries that the students traveled from this year where Ghana, Zambia, Mauritius, Philippines and Sri Lanka. Brennan Price headed up the class this year with the assistance from Lisa Kustosik. Pleasantly one of the students from Ghana, Yaw Ampofo Kwarteng, passed the Technician exam and received the call sign KJ4PVL. Next week we will acknowledge a number of staff members who have reached significant milestones in terms of years of service to the ARRL: Linda Kleinschmidt (40 years); Jon Bloom, Joe Carcia, John Proctor, Cathy Scharr, and Lisa Tardette (all 25 years); and Kathy Allison, Margie Bourgoin, Ann Figat, Dave Patton, and Jon Siverling (10 years). Congratulations to all! Regulatory Information Reported by Dan Henderson, N1ND The questions continue to come in regarding the Board's statement on appropriate use, though the number has declined. We have also spoken with the FCC and are awaiting a Public Notice on the topic, which hopefully will help put a stop to several unauthorized "interpretations" given by FCC staffers in other Bureaus who are not authorized to make statements or interpretations on Amateur Radio. This has been the source of significant discussion among several high-ranking FCC officials, including the Chairman's office. The teleconference with Air Force Space Command and the 85th EIS testing unit on discrepancies in the latest PAVE PAWS identifications was help October 15 with Lab Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and Dan Henderson, N1ND, participating for the ARRL. The Air Force has agreed to provide further information, including files confirming station identifications. The confusion over the differences in the number of repeaters previously identified but which neither the ARRL nor FCC could find on previous requests was explained to our satisfaction. The Air Force raised their concern over a significant number of repeaters that are no longer transmitting IDs. The ARRL suggested that such claims should be directly handled between the Air Force and the FCC. The basis for this suggestion is that while those repeaters may be affecting the radar, the lack of proper station identification was a different rules violation. The RIB manager presented a tour of ARRL HQ as part of the introduction for the USTTI, pinch-hitting for Technical Relations Manager Brennan Prize, N4QX, who was delayed in returning from Geneva. Later during the USTTI sessions, the RIB manager also did the formal presentation on the Amateur service rules and testing, working with VEC Manager Maria Somma, AB1FM and Assistant Manager Perry Green, WY1O. Also on October 14-15, we also hosted Bob Heil, K9EID, for a few hours while here on an unofficial visit. Media & Public Relations Reported by Allen Pitts, W1AGP Connecticut Public TV is planning a show on the blizzard of 1978. Pictures and contact information with radio amateurs who were working emergency response communications have been shared with Jennifer Boyd, the producer. Also, working with HP Computers' Kris Sager, we provided information and aid in a special "HP in real Life" article about DXing and Andrew Vavra VE2DXY. Links to it can be found at ARRL's http://wedothatradio.wordpress.com/category/computers-and-amateur-radio/ and HP's http://www.hp.com/go/hamradiostory. The results of the web polling asking about knowledge of PR-101 (under 12% of the respondents knew of it) will result in renewed efforts to inform people about it while, despite several good attempts by PIOs to get noticed, outside of the Rocky Mountain regions of the country JOTA appears to have gotten little media coverage in non-ham publications this month. Much like the earlier Field Day release, parts and pieces of the fill-in-the-blank release provided for SET events has shown up in media coverage indicating that groups are customizing it to their own local situations as intended. The tragedy (3 deaths) at the home of Barbara Tenn, KJ4KFF, highlighted the dangers of overhead power lines. In the days afterward, intensive media surveillance was done and it was noted that the press reinforced the dangers of the electric lines, but not one story was seen incorrectly claiming the danger was in some way with Amateur Radio. Development Reported by Mary Hobart, K1MMH The Spectrum Defense campaign is in the mail this week. We hope to see returns by the middle or end of next week. The follow ups will be sent the week of November 3. We were pleased to participate in the 10-year celebration here at HQ that included marking the 10 years of service of our own Margie Bourgoin, KB1DCO. Production/Editorial Reported by Joel Kleinman, N1BKE The December 2009 issue of QST will be released to the printer on October 22. Khrystyne Keane wrote and distributed The ARRL Letter, Vol. 28, No. 41, for October 15, 2009. She also voiced and produced ARRL Audio News for October 15. Membership & Volunteer Programs Reported by Dave Patton, NN1N Contest Branch The log submission deadline for the September VHF QSO Party has passed. We have received 594 logs. We have received a mere 61 logs for the 2009 10 GHz Contest. The log submission deadline is two days away. Unless there is a massive influx of logs in the next 48 hours, this will be the lowest level of participation in the 10 GHz Contest since 1989. Adjudicated data for the August UHF contest has been received from the scorer. All tables have been generated and sent to the results author. 244 logs were received for this one, the highest total since 1994. The Contest Branch continues to receive comments regarding the elimination of the assisted class in the EME Contest and the perceived abuse of the Rover categories in the VHF+ contests by a group of pack rovers in southern California. I continue to forward those comments to the VUAC. Certificates for the 2008 ARRL 160 Meter Contest will go out this week; 2008 10 Meter certificates will follow shortly, probably late next week. CW Sweepstakes is less than three weeks away. We have an infrastructure in place to handle the 15-day log submission deadline and get results online in 60 days, as we have promised. Field Organization/Public Service Team Leona Adams updated field appointment lists and sent out several OO test packets. Leona reports that Gary Stratton, K5GLS has been nominated to run for Section Manager for the Louisiana section for the term beginning April 1, 2010. Chuck Skolaut compiled and sent out the monthly OO Summary to all OOs, OOCs, and SMs. Documentation was forwarded to the FCC which was received from two North Carolina Official Observers regarding operation on a 75 meter frequency. Updated information was also sent to the FCC regarding unlicensed 2 meter activity in West Virginia. Intruder reports this week included a steady carrier on 14000 and an unidentified "buzz" type signal on 7251, both were forwarded to our monitors to investigate. Ron Cady K1RKD and Debra Johnson K1DMJ joined Chuck in operating from W1AW for the JOTA event this weekend. Over 60 contacts were made and several young scouts worked on their Merit Badge. Emergency Preparedness & Response Reported by Dennis Dura, K2DCD Attended and participated in the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD) Fall national members meeting. A brief presentation on the need for communication planning and operations for catastrophic events and the coordination required between NVOAD members was made. Discussion followed between the national members in attendance and it was agreed that NOVAD should have a plan and place amateur radio resources at the ready for its member organizations. I was appointed the Chair of the working group to develop this activity. Participating NVOAD members also showing interest on the group are the Adventist Community Services, American Red Cross, Convoy of Hope and The salvation Army. Sincerely Compiled by, Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ Assistant to the CEO Staff Absentee List All Staff 11/26-11/27 Holiday `` 12/25 Holiday Kathy Allison 10/19-10/23 Vacation Steve Capodicasa 10/23 Vacation `` 11/13 Vacation `` 11/23-11/25 Vacation Dennis Dura 10/21-10/23 Emergency Management Crisis Comm. Conference, MO Steve Ewald 10/15-10/26 Vacation Scott Gee 12/7-12/8 Vacation `` 12/23-12/24 Vacation `` 12/31 Vacation Joel Hallas 11/19-11/20 North Fulton ARL, Atlanta, GA `` 11/30 Vacation Dan Henderson 11/23-11/25 Vacation `` 12/21-12/31 Vacation Khrystyne Keane 10/26 Vacation Joel Kleinman 10/23 Vacation `` 11/11 Vacation `` 11/24 Vacation Diane Petrilli 10/30 Vacation `` 12/21-12/28 Vacation Brennan Price 11/4-11/13 Vacation Dave Sumner 10/23-10/25 Executive Committee Meeting, Dallas, TX

1 0

RE: FCC Public Notice DA-09-2259A1
by Joel Harrison 20 Oct '09

20 Oct '09

Harold, Please have someone with SM reflector access send them the public notice. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:54 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: FCC Public Notice DA-09-2259A1 Today the FCC release a public notice clarifying the application of the Section 97.113 prohibition on communications on behalf of one's employer. This is the result of the infighting and attempted coup d'etat that the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau attempted to pull recently that has horribly confused the situation we were trying to calm with our guidelines paper. We have been aware of this battle for some time. Supposedly, Enforcement (Laura Smith) and Wireless Bureau (Cross and Stone) prevailed and the interpretation will be theirs, rather than the open door interpretation of PSHSB. The release is straight forward, saying that Amateur communications by an employee on behalf of the employer is not allowed. It also creates some waiver process, approved only in advance by WTB, that would allow some limited participation by (individual) employees when participating in government-sponsored and administered drills. The public notice is attached. An ARRLWeb story will be posted in a couple of hours. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

FCC Public Notice DA-09-2259A1
by Joel Harrison 20 Oct '09

20 Oct '09

Today the FCC release a public notice clarifying the application of the Section 97.113 prohibition on communications on behalf of one's employer. This is the result of the infighting and attempted coup d'etat that the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau attempted to pull recently that has horribly confused the situation we were trying to calm with our guidelines paper. We have been aware of this battle for some time. Supposedly, Enforcement (Laura Smith) and Wireless Bureau (Cross and Stone) prevailed and the interpretation will be theirs, rather than the open door interpretation of PSHSB. The release is straight forward, saying that Amateur communications by an employee on behalf of the employer is not allowed. It also creates some waiver process, approved only in advance by WTB, that would allow some limited participation by (individual) employees when participating in government-sponsored and administered drills. The public notice is attached. An ARRLWeb story will be posted in a couple of hours. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:18188] IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

<<101409.doc>> IN-Newsletter <<Microsoft Word Picture>> Vol. 32, No. 41 October 14, 2009 -- Covers the period October 4-10. Upcoming Meetings and Events United States Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI) October 12-16 - ARRL HQ Executive Committee Meeting October 24 @ 9:00am - Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX Ballot Counting for Director/Vice Director Elections November 20 -- ARRL HQ Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on Amateur Auxiliary November 20 -- ARRL HQ Administration &Finance Committee November 21 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Programs & Services Committee November 21 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ COO Formal training will begin next week on the Fathom Content Management system for the new Web Site. Team Leaders and other who need access to the new Web site will be trained here at HQ on Tuesday and Thursday. Once everyone is familiar with the content management software, we will begin placing the previously completed content into the new Web site. We had a few VIPs here at HQ this week. First, the USTTI <http://ustti.org/> has been here. Visitors included Colin Thomas, G3PSM, President of RSGB, and his wife paid us a visit, Bob Heil, K9EID, of Heil Sound <http://www.heilsound.com/amateur/> and Ken Mirabella, KM6YH, of PowerWerx. <http://www.powerwerx.com/> Development Reported by Mary Hobart, K1MMH Production for the Spectrum Defense campaign is nearing completion. The solicitation will mail the week of October 19. The follow up to major donors and previous Spectrum Defense donors will go out the Monday after Thanksgiving. For the follow up letter, the rile of previous donors will be divided into two segments with half receiving a paper letter and half receiving the letter via email. Development submitted its revenue and expense budget for 2010. Production/Editorial Reported by Joel Kleinman, N1BKE Joel Hallas gave a "Comparison of Multiband Antennas" presentation to about 60 attendees at the Connecticut State Convention on October 11, followed by a "Doctor is IN" session. Khrystyne Keane wrote and distributed The ARRL Letter, Vol. 28, No. 40, for October 8, 2009. She also voiced and produced ARRL Audio News for October 8. Sales and Marketing Reported by Bob Inderbitzen, NQ1R Handbooks Abound! The member services team and warehouse crew are busy fulfilling orders for the new 2010 Handbook. The books arrived in 3 truckloads September 30 and October 1. During the last 2 weeks, the warehouse fulfilled 3,600 packages for publication and product orders-mostly orders for the Handbook from publication dealers and individuals. Orders continue to steam-in. Response to the multi-channel publication rollout has been overwhelmingly strong. Total distribution of the new edition Handbook is predicted to exceed the distribution forecasted for its first month of sales. Buyer feedback about the publication has been excellent. Product Sales September product sales were $192,286-exceeding the sales forecast of $186,590. Direct sales were $95,120; dealer sales were $97,166. A hefty number of orders from volunteer instructors, likely planning "back to school" classes, yielded sales of $13,183. Sales of The ARRL Antenna Book are up, spurred-on by the 2010 Handbook. The member services team has been very successful encouraging up-sells with phone orders for Handbook. Membership ARRL ended September with 155,153 members -- a net loss of 193 members over August. We are up 526 members from the start of the year. 73% of September expirees paid on time, compared to 69% from last September. A large membership campaign to lapsed and 'never' members mailed on Friday. The premium for a 3-year membership is The Antenna Book. A test membership soliciting Technician licensees is being prepared for mailing during the last week in October. The winter 2009/2010 publications catalog has been released to the printer. A Handbook solicitation will accompany December's issue of QST mailed to international and Canadian members. Now Shipping: The 2010 ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications (hardcover and softcover editions) and the 2010 ARRL Amateur Radio Calendar. ARRL Conventions Date Name Division City State ARRL HQ Rep. Oct 23-25 Microwave Update WG Irving TX Nov 7-8 Georgia Section SE Lawrenceville GA Allen Pitts Nov 14 Alabama State SE Montgomery AL Nov 14-15 Indiana State CL Fort Wayne IN Ward Silver Dec 5-6 Florida State SE Palmetto FL Dennis Dura Membership & Volunteer Programs Reported by Dave Patton, NN1N Field Organization/Public Service Team The focal-point weekend for the 2009 ARRL Simulated Emergency Test was the weekend of October 3 and 4, and many SET reports have already started to arrive. Steve Ewald is receiving these reports. Steve also joined Dennis Dura in the Global Emergency Radio Coalition meeting that was held this past week here at Headquarters. Leona Adams reports that League members in Alabama, Alaska and Kansas have now begun to return their filled-out Section Manager Election ballots. Members in those sections have until November 20 to return ballots. Official Observers have documented activity on 75 meters, and they reported this to Chuck Skolaut here at HQ. The League tracked down information for an ARRL Web story that credits Official Observers for finding the source of interference on a 2 meter repeater in the Orange Section. We also continued to follow up in trying to identify radar like signals being observed in north-central California. The IARU Region 1 monitoring coordinator forwarded reports of intruders using voice on the CW portions of 20 and 40 meters. Emergency Preparedness & Response Reported by Dennis Dura, K2DCD I hosted a Global Emergency Radio Coalition meeting at ARRL HQ. Participants included representatives of the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications, The Salvation Army, SATERN (United States and Canada), National Weather Service, Mobile Maritime Service Network and the ARRL. Sincerely Compiled by, Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ Assistant to the CEO Staff Absentee List All Staff 11/26-11/27 Holiday `` 12/25 Holiday Kathy Allison 10/19-10/23 Vacation Joe Carcia 10/12-10/20 Vacation Dennis Dura 10/14-10/16 Disaster Organizations Nat'l Meeting, Chicago, IL `` 10/21-10/23 Emergency Management Crisis Comm. Conference, MO Steve Ewald 10/15-10/26 Vacation Scott Gee 12/7-12/8 Vacation `` 12/23-12/24 Vacation `` 12/31 Vacation Joel Hallas 11/19-11/20 North Fulton ARL, Atlanta, GA Dan Henderson 11/23-11/25 Vacation `` 12/21-12/31 Vacation Khrystyne Keane 10/23 Vacation Joel Kleinman 10/23 Vacation `` 11/11 Vacation Brennan Price 11/4-11/13 Vacation Steve Sant Andrea 10/16 Vacation Dave Sumner 10/9-10/20 IARU R3 Conference/AC Meeting, Christchurch, NZ `` 10/23-10/25 Executive Committee Meeting, Dallas, TX

1 0