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

IARU Region 3 Conference - Day 2
by Joel Harrison 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

One correction I need to make to my initial report from the IARU Region 3 Conference in Christchurch, New Zealand; ARRL is a member of Region 3 by virtue of American Samoa, northern Mariana Islands and Guam, not the Marshall Islands as I noted. Day 2 (it is currently 1:45 PM Tuesday ZL time, 8:45 PM Monday EDT) is well in progress with the continuance of the Working Groups addressing the papers submitted to the conference. We are about to begin session 2 of Working Group 3, the ad-hoc group seated to address interference to amateur radio communications from sources not authorized to operate within an amateur allocation. These are situations currently handled by our Intruder Watch and under a the IARU's Monitoring Service. The issue posed is how to adequately document and report such interference matters in order to bring a quick resolution. Currently there is no uniform structure within IARU to accomplish this and a mechanism or protocol for prioritizing corrective actions to be taken in response to reports of harmful interference and intruders in the amateur bands is needed. Rod Stafford is serving as Secretary of Working Group 3. Tonight IARU/ARRL will host a reception for the Delegates and guests. This is something we customarily do at conferences such as these. Others do so as well. Last evening a dinner was hosted by NZART sponsored by Tait Electronics. Many of you knew of Angus Tait, ZL3NL (SK) and his many contributions to the electronics industry as well as amateur radio. Tomorrow night JARL will also host a dinner as well for the delegates and guests. More as the week progresses. At this point there isn't much to report since the working groups just began their assignments yesterday afternoon. 73 Joel ZL/W5ZN Christchurch, New Zealand

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18162] FCC, Part 97.113, and EMCOMM
by David A. Norris 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Hello Brian! Well this was brought up again in AR yesterday AM on our malcontent Panic and Crisis Net and our SM and I spent the better part of the day yesterday on the reflectors straightening things out. One item you all might want to refer to your SM's and SEC's is the following link as explained by N5XFW. The official (as in from SM) advice has not changed since May 22, 2009. It is still the document http://www.arkansas-aresraces.org/AresRaces/Protocol.htm prepared by John AD5FU. Please read and understand this guidance. John was asked by the FCC for permission to use this document as an example of best practices, and I think that is a pretty good endorsement. It allows for people to play in an exercise, simulating any messages that would be passed on ham radio in an actual emergency. Please incorporate this guidance into your exercise plans. This is a good reference guide and of course Dan N1ND can further expound on this should questions arise. I'm glad Kay was able to play in the VA SET and that it went off without incident! 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18162] FCC, Part 97.113, and EMCOMM Hi Everyone -- I received this from a past SEC of New Mexico suggesting that this be passed on to the entire New Mexico ARES leadership. I offered a strong word of caution since this is one FCC person's word as compared to what is actually Part 97. I think Dave and/or Chris would agree, but I'm forwarding the email below (click the link below to see the content in question) for their input and also for everyone's knowledge in case you get a "he said this even though Part 97 says that" email of your own. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM Subject: VA_EmCom : Message: RACES Participation in SET This may settle the question, at least in the short term. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VA_EmCom/message/1367

1 0

[arrl-odv:18165] Re: FCC, Part 97.113, and EMCOMM
by Tom Frenaye 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

At 04:01 PM 10/11/2009, Brian Mileshosky wrote: >Hi Everyone -- > >I received this from a past SEC of New Mexico suggesting that this be passed on to the entire New Mexico ARES leadership. I offered a strong word of caution since this is one FCC person's word as compared to what is actually Part 97. > >I think Dave and/or Chris would agree, but I'm forwarding the email below (click the link below to see the content in question) for their input and also for everyone's knowledge in case you get a "he said this even though Part 97 says that" email of your own. Hi Brian - The same thing was brought up in New England. Here's what I heard back from Dave Sumner and Dan Henderson last week. I'm not aware of any FCC action yet - and this appears to be a case where we can say much of anything until they do. -- Tom >Subject: RE: [Fwd: FCC Part 97.113] >From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> >To: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com>, "Imlay, Chris" <w3kd(a)arrl.org> >Cc: "Henderson, Dan N1ND" <dhenderson(a)arrl.org> > >Kenny spoke out of school. Theres a clarifying public notice coming from WTB shortly. > >Dave >Subject: RE: [Fwd: FCC Part 97.113] >Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:56:55 -0400 >From: "Henderson, Dan N1ND" <dhenderson(a)arrl.org> >To: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com>, > "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org>, > "Imlay, Chris" <w3kd(a)arrl.org> > >Tom > >That statement is NOT the "official clarification" of the General Counsel's office and in fact was not what happened at the meeting. Mr. Kenny and others at the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau have gotten into deep crap about this within the Commission.. First, their information being passed out is wrong, let alone not authorized. There was a meeting Monday of Bureau Chiefs and PSHSB was pretty much handed their head on a platter over this. Wireless Bureau is preparing a Public Notice on this topic and it is my understanding that the gang in PSHSB was told point blank to but out with no further "public" (and wrong") pronouncements. This post by Mr. Jordan reached FCC Friday afternoon and was a topic of email exchanges all weekend by FCC staff - leading to the Monday afternoon meeting. > >73 > > >Dan Henderson, N1ND >Regulatory Information Manager >ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio >860-594-0236 >dhenderson(a)arrl.org ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18162] FCC, Part 97.113, and EMCOMM
by Kay Craigie 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

Controversy and confusion about 97.113 were stirred up in Virginia by the current Section leadership in an apparent effort to torpedo a major exercise (Operation Hazel II) organized by a former Section Manager. The drill, in which I participated, was successfully held last weekend. Dan Henderson is aware of the correspondence referred to in Brian's e-mail. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

IARU Region 3 Conference
by Joel Harrison 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

As Dave has previously noted, International Affairs Vice President Rod Stafford, Dave Sumner and I are attending the IARU Region 3 Conference in Christ Church, New Zealand. IARU Region 3 covers Southeast Asia (Japan, Korea, China, etc) and most of the pacific including Australia & New Zealand as well as India & Pakistan. ARRL is a member of Region 3 due to our FCC's administration over American Samoa and the Marshall Islands. Unlike Region 2, where ARRL is the largest and most dominant society, we play a small part in Region 3 with the Japan Amateur Radio League being the largest society here. As such, we are very active in Region 3 and participate in the conference, but not to the extent we do in Region 2. You will recall IARU is divided into three regions: Region 1 - Europe, Africa and the Middle East Region 2 - North, Central & South America and the Caribbean Region 3 - as defined above Each of the regions elects it's own officers and directors that serve the member societies and have meetings annually. A regional conference, however, is held every three years in each of the regions. We have no "status" in Region 1 and therefore do not have or attend the conferences with delegate status. We do so in Region 2. Being the largest and most dominant society in the region we have a representative that holds elected office as Director and on occasions our area representative has served as an officer. Region 2 is divided into "areas" with Area B comprising the United States, therefore the Area B Director is pretty much who we decide we want. The Area Director still has to be "elected" at the conference every three years, but with ARRL being the only society in Area B it comes down to basically who we want. Rod Stafford has served as our Director for the past several years, but in previous years others have served in this capacity. In Region 3 we could do the same, however it is very important for ARRL to not be viewed as attempting the dominate the region and therefore we do not seek to hold any officer or director position. There are a number of valid reasons, first and foremost being that JARL is the largest society in the region, provides significant resources in support of Region 3, relates much better than we could to the geographical & ethnic configuration of the region and JARL and ARRL have worked together successfully for years to facilitate amateur radio's best interests in the international arena. With that said, we do have official delegate status at the conferences, participate in the committees and working groups at the conference and vote on the issues that come before the conference, thus the need for our attendance. In addition, the world amateur radio community looks to ARRL for advice and guidance on many issues so while it is most often not prudent for us to get directly involved in "local" amateur radio issues with Region 3 the issues involving amateur radio as a whole are and by far the large majority of societies seek our advice. An IARU regional conference is not unlike our board meeting. A meeting book is prepared that contains all of the conference documents, the conference begins with a formal opening plenary session with various speeches from amateur radio and government officials after which committee meetings occur to address the topics contained in papers that have been submitted to the conference. The committee structure varies from region to region. In all three there is a Credentials & Elections Committee charged with verify the official status of societies and overseeing the election of Officers & Directors and there is a Finance Committee. In Region 3, two working group committees are seated to address "Policy & Procedures" and "Operational & Technical" issues. This year, a third ad-hoc committee is being seated to address the international monitoring system. Following the opening plenary, the committees break up into individual groups to hash out the business, just like our committees, then on Friday there will be a "Final Plenary" where the committees will present the results of their work along with any motions or recommendations to be considered for adoption. As I type this, it is just after 2 PM Monday afternoon Christchurch time and 9 PM Sunday east coast USA time. I am attending the Committee 2 meeting (Operational & Technical) and yes, I am paying attention to the discussion which at the moment pertains to third party traffic during emergencies. Interestingly, the emergency communications concern of the pacific rim countries at the moment relates to tsunamis! Societies, other than ARRL, attending the conference include: WIA (Australia) NZART (New Zealand) CSRA (Chinese Radio Sport Association) KARL (Korean Amateur Radio League) SARTS (Singapore) HARTS (Hong Kong) ARSI (India) ORARI (Indonesia) JARL (Japan) Societies are allowed to hold once proxy from a society that is unable to attend. For this conference we hold the proxy of RSGB who, like ARRL, plays a small roll in Region 3 but is a dominant society in Region 1. Also attending the conference as observers are IARU President Tim Ellam VE6SH, IARU Vice President Ole Garpestad LA2RR, IARU Region 1 Chairman Hans Blondeel-Timmerman PB2T and IARU Region 2 Secretary Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK. One interesting note. Now in Indonesia in order to obtain your amateur radio license from the government you must be a member of ORARI. That would be nice if that were the rule in the U.S! There aren't, at least at this point, any controversial issues before the conference, however the week has just begun. I have attached a few photos from this mornings plenary session. The societies are seated around the table alphabetically. As the society "delegate" I get to sit at the front table next to where Rod is sitting (he's not asleep!!!). 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:18162] FCC, Part 97.113, and EMCOMM
by Brian Mileshosky 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Hi Everyone -- I received this from a past SEC of New Mexico suggesting that this be passed on to the entire New Mexico ARES leadership. I offered a strong word of caution since this is one FCC person's word as compared to what is actually Part 97. I think Dave and/or Chris would agree, but I'm forwarding the email below (click the link below to see the content in question) for their input and also for everyone's knowledge in case you get a "he said this even though Part 97 says that" email of your own. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM Subject: VA_EmCom : Message: RACES Participation in SET This may settle the question, at least in the short term. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VA_EmCom/message/1367

1 0

[arrl-odv:18160] BPL Reply Comments Exhibit A as filed
by Chris Imlay 09 Oct '09

09 Oct '09

And here is Exhibit A to the Reply Comments. 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

1 0

[arrl-odv:18159] BPL Reply Comments as filed
by Chris Imlay 09 Oct '09

09 Oct '09

Greetings. I sent the following message, but it hasn't made it through the server since this morning, so perhaps the two files together are too large. I will try them separately. Attached to this message are the BPL reply comments. Separately, I will send Exhibit A, and hope for the best. ? 73, Chris W3KD ? ? ? Greetings. Yesterday, the deadline for BPL reply comments in Docket 04-37, we filed ours. A copy is attached, along with a copy of Exhibit A, a technical study well-prepared by Ed Hare. ? Thanks to the Executive Committee, and especially Dave Sumner and Jay Bellows, for helpful edits to these, and Jon Siverling came up with some important material that we used in addressing the Brazil study of signal decay with distance.?Our reply comments?are persuasive,?we believe. The tone of these, like that of the initial comments, is harsh, but that continues a theme here. We are alone in urging additional restrictions on BPL, and we have caught the FCC in a classic coverup. Some righteous indignation is amply justified here.? ? Unlike many rulemaking proceedings, the filing of?comments and reply comments?is not sufficient in this case. The BPL advocates saved most of their ammunition for their reply comments, filed yesterday, so that we wouldn't have any chance to rebut their arguments fair and square. Ambient, for example, filed no comments at all, but came up at the last second of the reply comment period?with 400 pages of studies of signal decay with distance. Typical of the ethics of the BPL companies. By contrast,?ARRL took the?high road, and put ARRL's studies out for all?to see in comments and reply comments.? ? So, the real?reply comment period, for us, begins now. We will have to do?some extensive ex parte filings which Ed Hare is working on already. We are setting up appointments for President Harrison and EVP Sumner and me with FCC Commissioners. And we will probably have to make?at least one direct presentation to the scoundrels at OET, bringing Ed Hare in. The Executive Committee will evaluate our strategy from here at its upcoming meeting on October 24. ? If you don't mind frustrating yourselves in the meantime, I urge?you to go to the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at the FCC web site, and look at the recently filed reply comments (other than ours)?in ET Docket 04-37. You will see what we have to deal with here going forward.?I think you will get a sense, however, that we have drawn some blood, given the tenor of the reply comments, most of which are pretty much straight denials of ARRL's arguments. Several of the reply comments (like several of the comments) are merely repetitions of the comments of HomePlug, and read almost identically.?? ? 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 ?

1 0

[arrl-odv:18161] [arrl-odv:18157] BPL Reply Comments and Exhibit as-filed
by Chris Imlay 09 Oct '09

09 Oct '09

Greetings. Yesterday, the deadline for BPL reply comments in Docket 04-37, we filed ours. A copy is attached, along with a copy of Exhibit A, a technical study well-prepared by Ed Hare. Thanks to the Executive Committee, and especially Dave Sumner and Jay Bellows, for helpful edits to these, and Jon Siverling came up with some important material that we used in addressing the Brazil study of signal decay with distance.?Our reply comments?are persuasive,?we believe. The tone of these, like that of the initial comments, is harsh, but that continues a theme here. We are alone in urging additional restrictions on BPL, and we have caught the FCC in a classic coverup. Some righteous indignation is amply justified here.? Unlike many rulemaking proceedings, the filing of?comments and reply comments?is not sufficient in this case. The BPL advocates saved most of their ammunition for their reply comments, filed yesterday, so that we wouldn't have any chance to rebut their arguments fair and square. Ambient, for example, filed no comments at all, but came up at the last second of the reply comment period?with 400 pages of studies of signal decay with distance. Typical of the ethics of the BPL companies. By contrast,?ARRL took the?high road, and put ARRL's studies out for all?to see in comments and reply comments.? So, the real?reply comment period, for us, begins now. We will have to do?some extensive ex parte filings which Ed Hare is working on already. We are setting up appointments for President Harrison and EVP Sumner and me with FCC Commissioners. And we will probably have to make?at least one direct presentation to the scoundrels at OET, bringing Ed Hare in. The Executive Committee will evaluate our strategy from here at its upcoming meeting on October 24. If you don't mind frustrating yourselves in the meantime, I urge?you to go to the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at the FCC web site, and look at the recently filed reply comments (other than ours)?in ET Docket 04-37. You will see what we have to deal with here going forward.?I think you will get a sense, however, that we have drawn some blood, given the tenor of the reply comments, most of which are pretty much straight denials of ARRL's arguments. Several of the reply comments (like several of the comments) are merely repetitions of the comments of HomePlug, and read almost identically.?? 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

1 0

[arrl-odv:18156] Re:RE: S 1755
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 09 Oct '09

09 Oct '09

Marty, John's present thinking is that the bill should move through the Senate committee pretty quickly. After that we'll assess the need for letters. Some members are already writing; there's no need to discourage them from doing so. Dave ________________________________ From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Fri 10/9/2009 1:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18155] Re: S 1755 Thansk, Dave. At what point should we gear up a letter-writing campaign to seek support and co-sponsorship? Would Chwat & Co. handle the delivery of such letters as they did on the House side? Have a productive trip to ZL. Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:53 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:18149] S 1755 John Chwat has been working hard to line up a Senate counterpart to HR 2160. He has been working with both the majority and minority staffs of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The staffs stressed the importance of its being introduced on a bipartisan basis, and in that regard - with considerable assistance from ARRL officials and members in Maine - we hit a home run: the sponsor and original cosponsor are, respectively, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee! This virtually guarantees that it will move through the Committee. The text of the bill, S. 1755, is slightly different from the House version, in large part in order to make its referral to this committee (rather than Commerce) appropriate. John is working with the staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the original sponsor, Rep. Jackson-Lee (who sits on that committee) to get the House's treatment of the bill to align with the Senate's. Attached is an unofficial, but presumably final, version of the Senate bill. Thomas (thomas.loc.gov) should have the official text in a couple of days. John Chwat and his staff deserve a big hand for their work. It hasn't been easy getting to this point; there were several potential pitfalls along the way that John was able to navigate around. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<radio op final.pdf>> S.1755 Title: A bill to direct the Department of Homeland Security to undertake a study on emergency communications. Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@…> [CT] (introduced 10/6/2009) Cosponsors <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:55:./temp/~bduQks:@@@P> (1) Latest Major Action: 10/6/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

1 0