June 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:17870] Re:RE: Comments from VR2BG
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Brett is actually a constituent of Jim Fenstermaker's (family member as KB7G) although he doesn't live in the US. Dave K1ZZ From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:06 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Price, Brennan, N4QX Subject: [arrl-odv:17869] Re: Comments from VR2BG Chris, Thanks very much for your quick response. As far as I know, none of my constituents at this time have simply accepted the accuracy of VR2BG's statements. I did forward Brennan's comments to N5FG/K4JRB and told them to use their own discretion in forwarding Brennan's comments back to VR2BG. Perhaps VR2BG will have some additional comments to make on this matter. If I receive further information from VR2BG via my "constituents" (actually, K4JRB lives in the Southeastern Division), I will probably pass them along here on the ODV reflector. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay <mailto:w3kd@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Cc: bprice(a)arrl.org Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17868] Re: Comments from VR2BG Mickey, I took the liberty of asking Brennan Price what he knows about this, since VR2BG's statements struck me as a bit questionable (as well as overly strident and vitriolic), and because this is right up Brennan's alley. Brennan offered the following in response: "I would note that by the plain terms of Circular 159, only administrations have standing to submit reports into the ITU procedure. In fact, given the information requested by the ITU, I would suspect most amateur monitoring stations aren't well equipped enough. At any rate, during my tenure in F&ES, the FCC and State preferred to handle these situations bilaterally. In this instance, I am prepared to defer to their approach. I find the suggestion that the R2 bulletins lack ARRL input funny considering that the tabulated observations come from ARRL." So, there may be very good reason to look a bit deeper into Brett's statements, rather than for your constituents to simply accept their accuracy. Always good to get the views of the staff with expertise on an issue before accepting an indictment, right? 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: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 1:13 am Subject: [arrl-odv:17867] Comments from VR2BG ODV, FYI. VR2BG's comments below were apparently sent to Dave K4JRB in GA who, in turn, forwarded them to Floyd N5FG in MS. Floyd forwarded VR2BG's comments to me at Dave's request. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Floyd Gerald <mailto:floydgee@datasync.com> To: Mickey Cox-K5MC <mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net> Cc: David Thompson-K4JRB <mailto:thompson@mindspring.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:46 PM Subject: Fw: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Mickey Dave K4JRB, asked me to pass this on to you GL 73 Floyd ----- Original Message ----- From: David Thompson <mailto:thompson@mindspring.com> To: Floyd Gerald <mailto:floydgee@datasync.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Comments from VR2BG Brett in Hong Kong ----------------------------------------------- ARRL's intruder watch program is run from ARRL HQ. By ARRL's own admission, reports received are only sent to FCC: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/intruder.html FCC is the telecom authority for USA territory, but is perfectly capable of raising matters of intruders or harmful interference from outside its patch. The mechanism is in the ITU Radio Regulations. Is a bit too much work this early in the morning to dig them up for you, but after over a decade as our national society's president & dealing with our telecom authority, I'm rather familiar with them (familiar enough that when pushed, our TA has been told by the ITU that how they tried to interpret them was wrong & what we said they meant was right). For the past three years, I have compiled the IARU Region 3 Monitoring System report with VU2UR. During that time, ARRL has not shared any reports on intruders & appears to have not taken up with the FCC anything we've found with a connection to USA. I've been to two Regional conventions as a delegate, ARRL raised no intruder matters at them. In the decade that I was president of our IARU member-society, I can't recall anything being brought up or the sort of post-problem-solved PR that would be expected if ARRL had actually brought a case to the attention of anyone on the other side. And definitely nothing during the past three years that I've been very much involved with IARU R3 MS. Closer to home, for such a large country with so many hams who one might expect to be inclined to complain about intruders & harmful interference, there's no sign of ARRL involvement in published IARU Region 2 Monitoring System reports & very little involvement from amateurs in USA: http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=21#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=22#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=23#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=26#pdf And USA makes no contribution to the ITU Monitoring System, which does have the ability to pursue reported cases, which would be where something reported by ARRL would be pursued before would be raised directly state-to-state: http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/monitoring/ Ineffective is being polite. I reckon ARRL isn't doing squat. Heck, on that IW page they don't even correctly list which allocations are exclusive amateur & which are not. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. What they do seem to be good at is making folks think they're doing something. I know better. And we deserve better. 73, Brett/p. ________________________________ Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar <http://toolbar.aol.com/green/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000038> .

1 0

[arrl-odv:17869] Re: Comments from VR2BG
by Mickey Cox 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Chris, Thanks very much for your quick response. As far as I know, none of my constituents at this time have simply accepted the accuracy of VR2BG's statements. I did forward Brennan's comments to N5FG/K4JRB and told them to use their own discretion in forwarding Brennan's comments back to VR2BG. Perhaps VR2BG will have some additional comments to make on this matter. If I receive further information from VR2BG via my "constituents" (actually, K4JRB lives in the Southeastern Division), I will probably pass them along here on the ODV reflector. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Imlay To: arrl-odv Cc: bprice(a)arrl.org Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17868] Re: Comments from VR2BG Mickey, I took the liberty of asking Brennan Price what he knows about this, since VR2BG's statements struck me as a bit questionable (as well as overly strident and vitriolic), and because this is right up Brennan's alley. Brennan offered the following in response: "I would note that by the plain terms of Circular 159, only administrations have standing to submit reports into the ITU procedure. In fact, given the information requested by the ITU, I would suspect most amateur monitoring stations aren't well equipped enough. At any rate, during my tenure in F&ES, the FCC and State preferred to handle these situations bilaterally. In this instance, I am prepared to defer to their approach. I find the suggestion that the R2 bulletins lack ARRL input funny considering that the tabulated observations come from ARRL." So, there may be very good reason to look a bit deeper into Brett's statements, rather than for your constituents to simply accept their accuracy. Always good to get the views of the staff with expertise on an issue before accepting an indictment, right? 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: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 1:13 am Subject: [arrl-odv:17867] Comments from VR2BG ODV, FYI. VR2BG's comments below were apparently sent to Dave K4JRB in GA who, in turn, forwarded them to Floyd N5FG in MS. Floyd forwarded VR2BG's comments to me at Dave's request. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Floyd Gerald To: Mickey Cox-K5MC Cc: David Thompson-K4JRB Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:46 PM Subject: Fw: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Mickey Dave K4JRB, asked me to pass this on to you GL 73 Floyd ----- Original Message ----- From: David Thompson To: Floyd Gerald Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Comments from VR2BG Brett in Hong Kong ----------------------------------------------- ARRL's intruder watch program is run from ARRL HQ. By ARRL's own admission, reports received are only sent to FCC: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/intruder.html FCC is the telecom authority for USA territory, but is perfectly capable of raising matters of intruders or harmful interference from outside its patch. The mechanism is in the ITU Radio Regulations. Is a bit too much work this early in the morning to dig them up for you, but after over a decade as our national society's president & dealing with our telecom authority, I'm rather familiar with them (familiar enough that when pushed, our TA has been told by the ITU that how they tried to interpret them was wrong & what we said they meant was right). For the past three years, I have compiled the IARU Region 3 Monitoring System report with VU2UR. During that time, ARRL has not shared any reports on intruders & appears to have not taken up with the FCC anything we've found with a connection to USA. I've been to two Regional conventions as a delegate, ARRL raised no intruder matters at them. In the decade that I was president of our IARU member-society, I can't recall anything being brought up or the sort of post-problem-solved PR that would be expected if ARRL had actually brought a case to the attention of anyone on the other side. And definitely nothing during the past three years that I've been very much involved with IARU R3 MS. Closer to home, for such a large country with so many hams who one might expect to be inclined to complain about intruders & harmful interference, there's no sign of ARRL involvement in published IARU Region 2 Monitoring System reports & very little involvement from amateurs in USA: http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=21#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=22#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=23#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=26#pdf And USA makes no contribution to the ITU Monitoring System, which does have the ability to pursue reported cases, which would be where something reported by ARRL would be pursued before would be raised directly state-to-state: http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/monitoring/ Ineffective is being polite. I reckon ARRL isn't doing squat. Heck, on that IW page they don't even correctly list which allocations are exclusive amateur & which are not. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. What they do seem to be good at is making folks think they're doing something. I know better. And we deserve better. 73, Brett/p. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar.

1 0

[arrl-odv:17868] Re: Comments from VR2BG
by Chris Imlay 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Mickey, I took the liberty of asking Brennan Price what he knows about this, since VR2BG's statements struck me as a bit questionable (as well as overly strident and vitriolic), and because this is right up?Brennan's alley. Brennan?offered the following in response: ? ? "I would note that by the plain terms of Circular 159, only administrations have standing to submit reports into the ITU procedure.? In fact, given the information requested by the ITU, I would suspect most amateur monitoring stations aren't well equipped enough.? At any rate,?during my tenure in F&ES, the FCC and State preferred to handle these situations bilaterally.? In this instance, I am prepared to defer to their approach. ? I find the suggestion that the R2 bulletins lack ARRL input funny considering that?the tabulated observations come from ARRL." So, there may be very good reason to?look a bit deeper into?Brett's statements, rather than for your constituents?to simply accept their accuracy. Always good to get the views of the staff with expertise on an issue before accepting an indictment, right? 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: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 1:13 am Subject: [arrl-odv:17867] Comments from VR2BG ODV, ? FYI.? VR2BG's?comments below were apparently sent to Dave K4JRB in GA who, in turn, forwarded?them to Floyd?N5FG in MS.? Floyd forwarded?VR2BG's comments?to me at Dave's request. ? 73, K5MC ? ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Floyd Gerald To: Mickey Cox-K5MC Cc: David Thompson-K4JRB Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:46 PM Subject: Fw: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Mickey Dave K4JRB, asked me to pass this on to you GL 73 Floyd ? ----- Original Message ----- From: David Thompson To: Floyd Gerald Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Comments from VR2BG Brett in Hong Kong ? ----------------------------------------------- ARRL's intruder watch program is run from ARRL HQ. By ARRL's own admission, reports received are only sent to FCC: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/intruder.html FCC is the telecom authority for USA territory, but is perfectly capable of raising matters of intruders or harmful interference from outside its patch.? The mechanism is in the ITU Radio Regulations. Is a bit too much work this early in the morning to dig them up for you, but after over a decade as our national society's president & dealing with our telecom authority, I'm rather familiar with them (familiar enough that when pushed, our TA has been told by the ITU that how they tried to interpret them was wrong & what we said they meant was right). For the past three years, I have compiled the IARU Region 3 Monitoring System report with VU2UR.? During that time, ARRL has not shared any reports on intruders & appears to have not taken up with the FCC anything we've found with a connection to USA.? I've been to two Regional conventions as a delegate, ARRL raised no intruder matters at them.? In the decade that I was president of our IARU member-society, I can't recall anything being brought up or the sort of post-problem-solved PR that would be expected if ARRL had actually brought a case to the attention of anyone on the other side.? And definitely nothing during the past three years that I've been very much involved with IARU R3 MS. Closer to home, for such a large country with so many hams who one might expect to be inclined to complain about intruders & harmful interference, there's no sign of ARRL involvement in published IARU Region 2 Monitoring System reports & very little involvement from amateurs in USA: http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=21#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=22#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=23#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=26#pdf And USA makes no contribution to the ITU Monitoring System, which does have the ability to pursue reported cases, which would be where something reported by ARRL would be pursued before would be raised directly state-to-state: http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/monitoring/ Ineffective is being polite.? I reckon ARRL isn't doing squat.? Heck, on that IW page they don't even correctly list which allocations are exclusive amateur & which are not.? They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. What they do seem to be good at is making folks think they're doing something.? I know better.? And we deserve better. 73, Brett/p.

1 0

[arrl-odv:17867] Comments from VR2BG
by Mickey Cox 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

ODV, FYI. VR2BG's comments below were apparently sent to Dave K4JRB in GA who, in turn, forwarded them to Floyd N5FG in MS. Floyd forwarded VR2BG's comments to me at Dave's request. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Floyd Gerald To: Mickey Cox-K5MC Cc: David Thompson-K4JRB Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:46 PM Subject: Fw: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Mickey Dave K4JRB, asked me to pass this on to you GL 73 Floyd ----- Original Message ----- From: David Thompson To: Floyd Gerald Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Request to send info to Mickey Cox Comments from VR2BG Brett in Hong Kong ----------------------------------------------- ARRL's intruder watch program is run from ARRL HQ. By ARRL's own admission, reports received are only sent to FCC: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/intruder.html FCC is the telecom authority for USA territory, but is perfectly capable of raising matters of intruders or harmful interference from outside its patch. The mechanism is in the ITU Radio Regulations. Is a bit too much work this early in the morning to dig them up for you, but after over a decade as our national society's president & dealing with our telecom authority, I'm rather familiar with them (familiar enough that when pushed, our TA has been told by the ITU that how they tried to interpret them was wrong & what we said they meant was right). For the past three years, I have compiled the IARU Region 3 Monitoring System report with VU2UR. During that time, ARRL has not shared any reports on intruders & appears to have not taken up with the FCC anything we've found with a connection to USA. I've been to two Regional conventions as a delegate, ARRL raised no intruder matters at them. In the decade that I was president of our IARU member-society, I can't recall anything being brought up or the sort of post-problem-solved PR that would be expected if ARRL had actually brought a case to the attention of anyone on the other side. And definitely nothing during the past three years that I've been very much involved with IARU R3 MS. Closer to home, for such a large country with so many hams who one might expect to be inclined to complain about intruders & harmful interference, there's no sign of ARRL involvement in published IARU Region 2 Monitoring System reports & very little involvement from amateurs in USA: http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=21#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=22#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=23#pdf http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=26#pdf And USA makes no contribution to the ITU Monitoring System, which does have the ability to pursue reported cases, which would be where something reported by ARRL would be pursued before would be raised directly state-to-state: http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/monitoring/ Ineffective is being polite. I reckon ARRL isn't doing squat. Heck, on that IW page they don't even correctly list which allocations are exclusive amateur & which are not. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. What they do seem to be good at is making folks think they're doing something. I know better. And we deserve better. 73, Brett/p.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17864] Petition for Writ of Mandamus -Filed
by K8JE 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Chris, Joel, Jay, Well done! Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Chris Imlay [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:48 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: dhenderson(a)arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:17864] Petition for Writ of Mandamus -Filed Greetings. At the instruction of the President, implementing the direction of the Executive Committee, today we filed the attached Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This asks the Court to order the FCC to comply with its opinion and mandate in our BPL appeal, now more than a year old. A writ of mandamus commands an agency (or a judge) to do what it is obligated to do as a ministerial matter. Though an extraordinary writ, the FCC is expected to perform more promptly than a year from the Court's order to do what the Court told the FCC to do. This appears a textbook example of a case for issuance of mandamus to an agency. Agency delay is a typical basis for mandamus. What we expect will result from this is that the Commission will ask the Court to hold off on issuing mandamus so that FCC, within a fixed period of time (they typically ask for 90 days) can act on its obligation by itself. The effect is the same: we will have dynamited FCC off top dead center. There is also the possibility that FCC will quick like a bunny release something and moot our Petition, in which case the same effect will have been achieved by our filing. They do that sometimes to save face. President Harrison and I told the FCC (OET) in late April that our Executive Committee had told us to proceed with this if the Commission did not act within a year from the date of the Court's mandate, which was June 13, 2008. They nevertheless refused to provide any timetable for acting on the Court's instruction. I will have more to say about this in my Board report, but we have fired a shot across the FCC's bow here, and it is satisfying to have done so. Thanks to President Harrison, EVP Sumner and especially Director Bellows for helpful edits and assistance on this. The logistics of getting this filed after the Washington Metro collision on Tuesday was "interesting" in the Chinese curse sense of the word. Traffic around here appears similar to that of downtown Bangkok. 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 _____ Save energy, paper and money -- <http://toolbar.aol.com/green/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000038> get the Green Toolbar.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17862] Re: [Fwd: ARRL membership]
by K8JE 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Brian, I just skimmed through the magazine. To steal a phrase, it's as fine as a frog hair split four ways with a broad axe! As Dave suggested, we need to move carefully in going away from paper publishing of QST. In doing this, I trust we are maintaining a receptive and inquiring stance to avoid being left in the dust. Tnx, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:59 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17862] Re: [Fwd: ARRL membership] Here is one great example of putting a magazine online for viewing: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cmp/mwee1208/#/16 Anyone with an internet connection can read it, and it appears that it can be saved for offline viewing. I'm guessing that this is a service, or there's some software application, that takes the electronic magazine as it's designed -- such as by those who create QST for us -- and converts it to this format. This doesn't address archiving, but we've already figured that out via our Adobe PDFed archives. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Brian Mileshosky wrote: > Marty -- > > Excellent points. I'm on the lookout for other organizations that offer > their (current) publications electronically as an option or totally. One > that comes to mind is IEEE, such as Xplore where you can view current and > past issues as PDF files. Does anyone else know of any other organizations > that offer their publications in a similar manner that we can explore? > > I'd like to know what access controls they have in place, ease in use, etc. > It'd be interesting to contact these organizations and ask them to comment on > the pros and cons of their move to electronic media, what issues have been > created due to it (if any), security considerations, cost benefits, etc. > > 73, > Brian N5ZGT > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Marty Woll wrote: > >> While I agree that W6MU misunderstood or mischaracterized his situation, >> there may be a point or two in his complaint that should not be dismissed >> so readily. >> >> 1) I don't think the issue of piracy should be driving our operating or >> policy decisions. We have already given full content access to Diamond >> Club members. Do we trust people who pay $75 a year but not those who pay >> $39 a year? That's not a message I would want to be sending out to our >> membership. >> >> 2) I have encountered many members for whom electronic delivery of QST >> would be far more convenient. Many of those travel throughout the year and >> show up at hamfests in their motor homes. QST and other mail gets to them >> only when they stop by to pick up their mail, which is not often enough for >> timely access to any time-sensitive content. >> >> 3) A life member who is a retired professor of media communications has >> repeatedly admonished me about the League's "antiquated" content delivery >> system. Other similar membership organizations have successfully >> transitioned to electronic publishing, he tells me, and the ability to read >> QST on a portable device is appealing to the increasingly large segment of >> our population accustomed to getting their news that way. Younger members >> of our target audience, in particular, expect such access these days. >> After all, isn't technology one of our "five pillars"? >> >> Persisting in doing business the way we used to may appeal to the target >> audience we used to have, but that segment is shrinking in number. Unless >> we want ARRL to shrink with it, perhaps we should take a harder look at >> some of our operating practices. >> >> 73, >> >> Marty >> >> Marty Woll N6VI >> Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division >> Ass't DEC, ARESLAX >> BCUL 15, LAFD ACS >> CERT III >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Tom Frenaye >> To: arrl-odv >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:48 AM >> Subject: [arrl-odv:17857] Re: RE: Fwd: [Fwd: ARRL membership] >> >> >> >> Bob - >> >> W6MU said, "Now that I've lost access to the most current online QSTs I >> will no longer do so." >> >> He never had access to the full on-line versions of QST. He hasn't lost >> anything. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/01/29/10599/ >> >> I've had lots and lots of compliments about having QST online and only one >> or two complaints. If someone questions why we hold back the last few >> years I say that it is available to those who are the League's strongest >> supporters, and that we have had problems with content being pirated and >> want to preserve our ability to keep the ARRL financially viable. >> >> I also tell them that one of our long-term questions is how to continue to >> survive as paper publishing becomes more expensive and we need to move to >> digital distribution. The newspaper industry is not a model we want to >> follow so far... >> >> -- Tom >> >> > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division > On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:17864] Petition for Writ of Mandamus -Filed
by Chris Imlay 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Greetings. At the instruction of the President,?implementing the?direction of the Executive Committee, today we filed the attached Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This asks the Court to order the FCC to comply with its opinion and mandate in our BPL appeal, now more than a year old. A writ of mandamus commands an agency (or a judge) to do what it is obligated to do as a ministerial matter. Though an extraordinary writ, the FCC is expected to perform more promptly than a year from the Court's order to do what the Court told the FCC to do. This appears a textbook example of a?case for issuance of mandamus to an agency. Agency delay is a typical basis for mandamus. ? What we expect will result from this is that the Commission will ask the Court to hold off on issuing mandamus so that FCC, within a fixed period of time (they typically ask for 90 days) can act on its obligation by itself. The effect is the same: we will have dynamited FCC off top dead center. There is also the possibility that FCC will quick like a bunny release something and moot our Petition, in which case the same effect will?have been achieved by our filing. They do that sometimes to save face. President Harrison and I told the FCC?(OET)?in late April that?our Executive Committee had told us?to proceed with this if the Commission did not act within a year from the date of the Court's mandate, which was?June 13, 2008. They nevertheless refused to provide any timetable?for acting on the Court's instruction. I will have more to say about this in my Board?report, but we have fired a shot across the FCC's bow here, and it is satisfying to have done so. Thanks?to President Harrison,?EVP Sumner and?especially Director Bellows for helpful edits and assistance on this.? The logistics of getting this filed after the Washington Metro collision on Tuesday was "interesting" in the Chinese curse sense of the word. Traffic around here appears similar to that of?downtown Bangkok. 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:17863] Re:RE: [Fwd: ARRL membership]
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

This thread is drifting a bit far from Bob Vallio's original question, which was (to paraphrase) how much member dissatisfaction exists as a result of our offering access to recent QST archives to some members but not to all. To refresh everyone's memory, last September we were able to make the old QST View scans available to members online. We rolled out the publicity about the new benefit gradually so as not to be immediately overwhelmed. The benefit was very well received. Harold Kramer sent the following message a few days later to share staff's thoughts on how the online periodicals archive could evolve, including the idea of restricting access to the most recent years of QST to Brass level ($250/yr and up) Diamond Club members: _______ From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B [mailto:wj1b@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:13 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17223] ARRL Periodicals Archive Expansion Plans The online ARRL Periodicals Archive is Evolving! We plan to extend portions of the on-line ARRL Periodicals Archive to Diamond Club members, NCJ subscribers, and QEX subscribers beginning in February 2009. We have chosen February since this is when the annually-produced ARRL Periodicals CD-ROM rollouts out and we want both products to be synchronized with each other. Here's a short summary of what's planned: * All ARRL members - get access to QST 1915-2005 (no access to the most recent 3 years) * Diamond Club Brass level and higher levels - get access to the entire QST archive, 1915-2008 Beginning Feb 2009 * ARRL members with current NCJ subscriptions - get access to the NCJ archive * ARRL members with current QEX subscriptions - get access to the QEX archive We are not ready to announce this publicly yet (probably closer to 2009) so please keep this information confidential. Harold _______ The announcement of the Brass level access to the recent archive was made to members four months later, on January 29. As for electronic distribution of QST on a monthly basis, members already have access to the timely QST content -- news, contest results and calendar, special event and hamfest/convention information, and product reviews -- via the Web. Most of the members I talk to who want to receive QST electronically don't want to receive a print copy; they want the electronic version as an alternative, not in addition to the print version. There is no question but that there will be further evolution toward electronic distribution of QST and our other periodicals. While the technical issues are not trivial and there's expense involved in doing it through a digital publisher such as Nxtbook Media, we're gaining some experience already; for example, see our VE Manual at http://issuu.com/arrl/docs/ve_manual_web. The biggest issue by far is the impact of electronic distribution (as an alternative to print distribution) on our advertising revenues. Advertising generates $2.6 million in gross revenues annually. Thanks to Deb Jahnke and her staff we have been extraordinarily successful in maintaining this important revenue stream in defiance of the strong downward trend in print advertising generally. However, we -- and most of the rest of the publishing world -- have been unable to find a business model for generating significant ad revenue from electronic distribution. The problem facing us in transitioning any significant portion of the membership to electronic distribution of QST is that advertisers do not value an ad delivered electronically as highly as an ad delivered on paper. Other organizations, particularly professional associations, may not be as dependent upon ad revenue and therefore would face less risk. This is not an argument against progress, only an argument for proceeding cautiously. A safer next evolutionary step than offering QST electronically would be to offer QEX. That's the direction our thinking is going in planning for 2010. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:59 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17862] Re: [Fwd: ARRL membership] Here is one great example of putting a magazine online for viewing: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cmp/mwee1208/#/16 Anyone with an internet connection can read it, and it appears that it can be saved for offline viewing. I'm guessing that this is a service, or there's some software application, that takes the electronic magazine as it's designed -- such as by those who create QST for us -- and converts it to this format. This doesn't address archiving, but we've already figured that out via our Adobe PDFed archives. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Brian Mileshosky wrote: > Marty -- > > Excellent points. I'm on the lookout for other organizations that offer > their (current) publications electronically as an option or totally. One > that comes to mind is IEEE, such as Xplore where you can view current and > past issues as PDF files. Does anyone else know of any other organizations > that offer their publications in a similar manner that we can explore? > > I'd like to know what access controls they have in place, ease in use, etc. > It'd be interesting to contact these organizations and ask them to comment on > the pros and cons of their move to electronic media, what issues have been > created due to it (if any), security considerations, cost benefits, etc. > > 73, > Brian N5ZGT > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Marty Woll wrote: > >> While I agree that W6MU misunderstood or mischaracterized his situation, >> there may be a point or two in his complaint that should not be dismissed >> so readily. >> >> 1) I don't think the issue of piracy should be driving our operating or >> policy decisions. We have already given full content access to Diamond >> Club members. Do we trust people who pay $75 a year but not those who pay >> $39 a year? That's not a message I would want to be sending out to our >> membership. >> >> 2) I have encountered many members for whom electronic delivery of QST >> would be far more convenient. Many of those travel throughout the year and >> show up at hamfests in their motor homes. QST and other mail gets to them >> only when they stop by to pick up their mail, which is not often enough for >> timely access to any time-sensitive content. >> >> 3) A life member who is a retired professor of media communications has >> repeatedly admonished me about the League's "antiquated" content delivery >> system. Other similar membership organizations have successfully >> transitioned to electronic publishing, he tells me, and the ability to read >> QST on a portable device is appealing to the increasingly large segment of >> our population accustomed to getting their news that way. Younger members >> of our target audience, in particular, expect such access these days. >> After all, isn't technology one of our "five pillars"? >> >> Persisting in doing business the way we used to may appeal to the target >> audience we used to have, but that segment is shrinking in number. Unless >> we want ARRL to shrink with it, perhaps we should take a harder look at >> some of our operating practices. >> >> 73, >> >> Marty >> >> Marty Woll N6VI >> Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division >> Ass't DEC, ARESLAX >> BCUL 15, LAFD ACS >> CERT III >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Tom Frenaye >> To: arrl-odv >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:48 AM >> Subject: [arrl-odv:17857] Re: RE: Fwd: [Fwd: ARRL membership] >> >> >> >> Bob - >> >> W6MU said, "Now that I've lost access to the most current online QSTs I >> will no longer do so." >> >> He never had access to the full on-line versions of QST. He hasn't lost >> anything. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/01/29/10599/ >> >> I've had lots and lots of compliments about having QST online and only one >> or two complaints. If someone questions why we hold back the last few >> years I say that it is available to those who are the League's strongest >> supporters, and that we have had problems with content being pirated and >> want to preserve our ability to keep the ARRL financially viable. >> >> I also tell them that one of our long-term questions is how to continue to >> survive as paper publishing becomes more expensive and we need to move to >> digital distribution. The newspaper industry is not a model we want to >> follow so far... >> >> -- Tom >> >> > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division > On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:17861] Re: [Fwd: ARRL membership]
by Brian Mileshosky 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Marty -- Excellent points. I'm on the lookout for other organizations that offer their (current) publications electronically as an option or totally. One that comes to mind is IEEE, such as Xplore where you can view current and past issues as PDF files. Does anyone else know of any other organizations that offer their publications in a similar manner that we can explore? I'd like to know what access controls they have in place, ease in use, etc. It'd be interesting to contact these organizations and ask them to comment on the pros and cons of their move to electronic media, what issues have been created due to it (if any), security considerations, cost benefits, etc. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Marty Woll wrote: > While I agree that W6MU misunderstood or mischaracterized his situation, there may be a point or two in his complaint that should not be dismissed so readily. > > 1) I don't think the issue of piracy should be driving our operating or policy decisions. We have already given full content access to Diamond Club members. Do we trust people who pay $75 a year but not those who pay $39 a year? That's not a message I would want to be sending out to our membership. > > 2) I have encountered many members for whom electronic delivery of QST would be far more convenient. Many of those travel throughout the year and show up at hamfests in their motor homes. QST and other mail gets to them only when they stop by to pick up their mail, which is not often enough for timely access to any time-sensitive content. > > 3) A life member who is a retired professor of media communications has repeatedly admonished me about the League's "antiquated" content delivery system. Other similar membership organizations have successfully transitioned to electronic publishing, he tells me, and the ability to read QST on a portable device is appealing to the increasingly large segment of our population accustomed to getting their news that way. Younger members of our target audience, in particular, expect such access these days. After all, isn't technology one of our "five pillars"? > > Persisting in doing business the way we used to may appeal to the target audience we used to have, but that segment is shrinking in number. Unless we want ARRL to shrink with it, perhaps we should take a harder look at some of our operating practices. > > 73, > > Marty > > Marty Woll N6VI > Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division > Ass't DEC, ARESLAX > BCUL 15, LAFD ACS > CERT III > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom Frenaye > To: arrl-odv > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:48 AM > Subject: [arrl-odv:17857] Re: RE: Fwd: [Fwd: ARRL membership] > > > > Bob - > > W6MU said, "Now that I've lost access to the most current online QSTs I will no longer do so." > > He never had access to the full on-line versions of QST. He hasn't lost anything. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/01/29/10599/ > > I've had lots and lots of compliments about having QST online and only one or two complaints. If someone questions why we hold back the last few years I say that it is available to those who are the League's strongest supporters, and that we have had problems with content being pirated and want to preserve our ability to keep the ARRL financially viable. > > I also tell them that one of our long-term questions is how to continue to survive as paper publishing becomes more expensive and we need to move to digital distribution. The newspaper industry is not a model we want to follow so far... > > -- Tom > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 1

[arrl-odv:17860] Re: [Fwd: ARRL membership]
by Marty Woll 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

While I agree that W6MU misunderstood or mischaracterized his situation, there may be a point or two in his complaint that should not be dismissed so readily. 1) I don't think the issue of piracy should be driving our operating or policy decisions. We have already given full content access to Diamond Club members. Do we trust people who pay $75 a year but not those who pay $39 a year? That's not a message I would want to be sending out to our membership. 2) I have encountered many members for whom electronic delivery of QST would be far more convenient. Many of those travel throughout the year and show up at hamfests in their motor homes. QST and other mail gets to them only when they stop by to pick up their mail, which is not often enough for timely access to any time-sensitive content. 3) A life member who is a retired professor of media communications has repeatedly admonished me about the League's "antiquated" content delivery system. Other similar membership organizations have successfully transitioned to electronic publishing, he tells me, and the ability to read QST on a portable device is appealing to the increasingly large segment of our population accustomed to getting their news that way. Younger members of our target audience, in particular, expect such access these days. After all, isn't technology one of our "five pillars"? Persisting in doing business the way we used to may appeal to the target audience we used to have, but that segment is shrinking in number. Unless we want ARRL to shrink with it, perhaps we should take a harder look at some of our operating practices. 73, Marty Marty Woll N6VI Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division Ass't DEC, ARESLAX BCUL 15, LAFD ACS CERT III ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Frenaye To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:48 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:17857] Re: RE: Fwd: [Fwd: ARRL membership] Bob - W6MU said, "Now that I've lost access to the most current online QSTs I will no longer do so." He never had access to the full on-line versions of QST. He hasn't lost anything. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/01/29/10599/ I've had lots and lots of compliments about having QST online and only one or two complaints. If someone questions why we hold back the last few years I say that it is available to those who are the League's strongest supporters, and that we have had problems with content being pirated and want to preserve our ability to keep the ARRL financially viable. I also tell them that one of our long-term questions is how to continue to survive as paper publishing becomes more expensive and we need to move to digital distribution. The newspaper industry is not a model we want to follow so far... -- Tom

1 0