March 2010 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:18764] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by k5ur＠aol.com 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

I agree with Chris, and Tom, too. 73, K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Chris Imlay <w3kd(a)aol.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 8:26 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18762] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz It strikes me that Tom is correct (unfortunately). We certainly were not happy about the decisions that the FCC made in Docket 04-140 concerning 80 meters, and in fact we filed a reconsideration petition (which was denied in Docket 05-235 in December of 2006). Joel Harrison complained about that to then (Acting) FCC Chairman Michael Copps about it. Of course, nothing happened, but all this is relatively recent (in FCC time) and the chances of getting a change now, this soon after the 05-235 Report and Order are questionable. While one might think that there is no harm in asking, if FCC was to deny a petition based on the fact that 05-235 was sufficiently recent that a further change petition is untimely (i.e. repetitive) would set the effort back a good ways. We will do whatever the Board wishes, of course, but the price of failure here in terms of time lost before we could ask again is potentially high, as Tom says. 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: Tom Frenaye <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 10:20 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our regulations egarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing enough olks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least on a trial asis of two or three years. Mickey - I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. It ould be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less than ive years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse themselves, even hough I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll find most oard members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question again - and or that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go too early, t will just push the time for possible change out another five or more years... lus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum NPRM that just came ut, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the FCC will screw us... I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think there is path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and then looking mpotent - which we are sometimes. -- Tom ==== -mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ om Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:18763] Site Login Test
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

Hi, We would like you to check to make sure that your existing Registration and Passwords are working on the new Web Site. Use the itdevel.arrl.org link and username [beta] and password [hirarm225] that you already have to enter the test site. You will then be on the new Web Site: Login (top of the page) using your current ARRL Username and Password Make sure that the sites acknowledges your Login. It will say "Hello [Your username] Please also check that you have access to ODV Material: 1. Click "About ARRL" on the top menu 2. Click "Organization Structure" on the left (under "About ARRL") 3. Then click the "ODV" Link also on the left You should see the ODV information If you cannot login or if you do not see the ODV information, please contact Katie Glass KGlass(a)arrl.org and cc me. Thanks for your help/73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio(tm) 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 Telephone: 860 594 0220 email: hkramer(a)arrl.org <mailto:hkramer@arrl.org> web: www.arrl.org/ <http://www.arrl.org/>

1 0

[arrl-odv:18762] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by Chris Imlay 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

It strikes me that Tom is correct (unfortunately). We certainly were not happy about the decisions that the FCC made in Docket 04-140 concerning 80 meters, and in fact we filed a reconsideration petition (which was denied in Docket 05-235 in December of 2006). Joel Harrison complained about that to then (Acting) FCC Chairman Michael Copps about it. Of course, nothing happened, but all this is relatively recent (in FCC time) and the chances of getting a change now, this soon after the 05-235 Report and Order are questionable. While one might think that there is no harm in asking, if FCC was to deny a petition based on the fact that 05-235 was sufficiently recent that a further change petition is untimely (i.e. repetitive) would set the effort back a good ways. We will do whatever the Board wishes, of course, but the price of failure here in terms of time lost before we could ask again is potentially high, as Tom says. 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: Tom Frenaye <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 10:20 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our regulations egarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing enough olks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least on a trial asis of two or three years. Mickey - I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. It ould be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less than ive years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse themselves, even hough I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll find most oard members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question again - and or that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go too early, t will just push the time for possible change out another five or more years... lus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum NPRM that just came ut, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the FCC will screw us... I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think there is path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and then looking mpotent - which we are sometimes. -- Tom ==== -mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ om Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18759] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by Greg Sarratt 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

If we do a survey, it should be designed and preformed in all Divisions at once, so to get a better accurate picture. I agree with Tom, " I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and then looking impotent - which we are sometimes." 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK _____ From: k0gw(a)arrl.org [mailto:k0gw@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:47 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18759] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz FWIW, I agree with Selectman Frenaye. I know being politically realistic isn't necessarily popular, but I do believe that it is sometimes appropriate. Regardless of opinion (of our members or our own), I believe that we have a vanishingly small chance of getting anything changed in the 80m assignment. On a separate part of the issue, 160m has been invoked as an example of how 80m could work out with multiple modes being allowed in a large band segment. My view of 80m, or perhaps more properly 75m, is that cooperation seems to be outside the interests of enough operators to wreck any kind of cooperative band planning. Re: Mickey's survey, I feel it runs a serious risk that K1KI has pointed out: > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. So, while I think the change in allocation was a mistake of the first order, it is hard for me to support another run at it. 73 de Greg, K0GW ----- Original Message ----- From: "k8je" <k8je(a)zoomtown.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:57:32 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Mickey, I have no problem with what you plan. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)zoomtown.com; Tel. 459-1661 -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Jim and Tom, I'm planning to include the following statements in my upcoming division survey: 1. The amount of spectrum currently allocated to General and Advanced licensees for CW, RTTY, and data transmissions on 80 meters (3525-3600 kHz) is adequate. 2. The 3600 to 3700 kHz segment currently reserved exclusively to Amateur Extra licensees on 80 meters is underutilized. 3. Similar to 160 meters, the segment from 3600 to 3700 kHz on 80 meters should be available to all Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General licensees using CW, phone, image, RTTY, and data modes. My members will be asked to choose between strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree to indicate as much they agree with the above (and some additional) statements. If a strong majority of my members indicate that they are happy/satisfied with the status quo regarding the 3600 to 3700 kHz segment, I will probably not pursue this issue any further. Although I personally would like to see more room for the CW traffic nets on 80 meters, the bigger picture here is that if the 3600-3700 segment is opened up in a similar fashion to 160 meters, we might demonstrate to both the FCC and the ham community that we don't need the overly complicated and restrictive regulations we currently have. If the Board really wants to pursue something along the lines of "regulation by bandwidth" again, I think this approach is the correct one. In any event, I think conducting an occasional survey of my division members (this will be my first one) is politically smart, particularly if my future actions as a Board member are reasonably consistent with the viewpoints of my members. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "K8JE" <k8je(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz > Mickey, et al, > > I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts that > come > to mind in this discussion. > > After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other > hams) > over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic. I > don't > recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With > the > exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this > Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately. > > This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything, > stirring > the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a > few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among these > "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic mode that > proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital > privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably > create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would > satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take from > this > Division. > > At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to > hear > more before considering it more thoroughly. > > 73, > > 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to > 3600 - > 3750 kHz > > At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >>The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our >>regulations > regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing > enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least > on > a trial basis of two or three years. > > Mickey - > > I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. > It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less > than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse > themselves, > even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll > find > most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. > > So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question > again - > and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go > too > early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or > more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum > NPRM > that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the > FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) > > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. > > -- Tom > > > ===== > e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director > http://www.arrl.org/ > Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 > > > > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18759] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by David A. Norris 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

FWIW, At some point we are going to have to start thinking about how we are going to accommodate new digital modes- whether created by voice/audio sampling or CG. Data stream is just that- data stream and we need to be eyeing the future and the eventuality of digital transmissions becoming more prevalent in our modes of communications. Food for thought ladies and gentlemen- we need to be evolving with the technology. Perhaps it is time to pose the question, couching it in the context of advancing technologies. We will need to go about this carefully as I agree with Dir. Frenaye's assessment, but we do need to be thinking about where we need to be heading WRT band plans as technology changes. 73 ES TNX David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: k0gw(a)arrl.org [mailto:k0gw@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:47 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18759] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz FWIW, I agree with Selectman Frenaye. I know being politically realistic isn't necessarily popular, but I do believe that it is sometimes appropriate. Regardless of opinion (of our members or our own), I believe that we have a vanishingly small chance of getting anything changed in the 80m assignment. On a separate part of the issue, 160m has been invoked as an example of how 80m could work out with multiple modes being allowed in a large band segment. My view of 80m, or perhaps more properly 75m, is that cooperation seems to be outside the interests of enough operators to wreck any kind of cooperative band planning. Re: Mickey's survey, I feel it runs a serious risk that K1KI has pointed out: > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. So, while I think the change in allocation was a mistake of the first order, it is hard for me to support another run at it. 73 de Greg, K0GW ----- Original Message ----- From: "k8je" <k8je(a)zoomtown.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:57:32 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Mickey, I have no problem with what you plan. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)zoomtown.com; Tel. 459-1661 -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Jim and Tom, I'm planning to include the following statements in my upcoming division survey: 1. The amount of spectrum currently allocated to General and Advanced licensees for CW, RTTY, and data transmissions on 80 meters (3525-3600 kHz) is adequate. 2. The 3600 to 3700 kHz segment currently reserved exclusively to Amateur Extra licensees on 80 meters is underutilized. 3. Similar to 160 meters, the segment from 3600 to 3700 kHz on 80 meters should be available to all Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General licensees using CW, phone, image, RTTY, and data modes. My members will be asked to choose between strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree to indicate as much they agree with the above (and some additional) statements. If a strong majority of my members indicate that they are happy/satisfied with the status quo regarding the 3600 to 3700 kHz segment, I will probably not pursue this issue any further. Although I personally would like to see more room for the CW traffic nets on 80 meters, the bigger picture here is that if the 3600-3700 segment is opened up in a similar fashion to 160 meters, we might demonstrate to both the FCC and the ham community that we don't need the overly complicated and restrictive regulations we currently have. If the Board really wants to pursue something along the lines of "regulation by bandwidth" again, I think this approach is the correct one. In any event, I think conducting an occasional survey of my division members (this will be my first one) is politically smart, particularly if my future actions as a Board member are reasonably consistent with the viewpoints of my members. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "K8JE" <k8je(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz > Mickey, et al, > > I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts that > come > to mind in this discussion. > > After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other > hams) > over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic. I > don't > recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With > the > exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this > Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately. > > This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything, > stirring > the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a > few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among these > "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic mode that > proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital > privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably > create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would > satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take from > this > Division. > > At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to > hear > more before considering it more thoroughly. > > 73, > > 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to > 3600 - > 3750 kHz > > At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >>The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our >>regulations > regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing > enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least > on > a trial basis of two or three years. > > Mickey - > > I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. > It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less > than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse > themselves, > even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll > find > most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. > > So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question > again - > and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go > too > early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or > more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum > NPRM > that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the > FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) > > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. > > -- Tom > > > ===== > e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director > http://www.arrl.org/ > Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:18759] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by k0gw＠arrl.org 28 Mar '10

28 Mar '10

FWIW, I agree with Selectman Frenaye. I know being politically realistic isn't necessarily popular, but I do believe that it is sometimes appropriate. Regardless of opinion (of our members or our own), I believe that we have a vanishingly small chance of getting anything changed in the 80m assignment. On a separate part of the issue, 160m has been invoked as an example of how 80m could work out with multiple modes being allowed in a large band segment. My view of 80m, or perhaps more properly 75m, is that cooperation seems to be outside the interests of enough operators to wreck any kind of cooperative band planning. Re: Mickey's survey, I feel it runs a serious risk that K1KI has pointed out: > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. So, while I think the change in allocation was a mistake of the first order, it is hard for me to support another run at it. 73 de Greg, K0GW ----- Original Message ----- From: "k8je" <k8je(a)zoomtown.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:57:32 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Mickey, I have no problem with what you plan. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)zoomtown.com; Tel. 459-1661 -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Jim and Tom, I'm planning to include the following statements in my upcoming division survey: 1. The amount of spectrum currently allocated to General and Advanced licensees for CW, RTTY, and data transmissions on 80 meters (3525-3600 kHz) is adequate. 2. The 3600 to 3700 kHz segment currently reserved exclusively to Amateur Extra licensees on 80 meters is underutilized. 3. Similar to 160 meters, the segment from 3600 to 3700 kHz on 80 meters should be available to all Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General licensees using CW, phone, image, RTTY, and data modes. My members will be asked to choose between strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree to indicate as much they agree with the above (and some additional) statements. If a strong majority of my members indicate that they are happy/satisfied with the status quo regarding the 3600 to 3700 kHz segment, I will probably not pursue this issue any further. Although I personally would like to see more room for the CW traffic nets on 80 meters, the bigger picture here is that if the 3600-3700 segment is opened up in a similar fashion to 160 meters, we might demonstrate to both the FCC and the ham community that we don't need the overly complicated and restrictive regulations we currently have. If the Board really wants to pursue something along the lines of "regulation by bandwidth" again, I think this approach is the correct one. In any event, I think conducting an occasional survey of my division members (this will be my first one) is politically smart, particularly if my future actions as a Board member are reasonably consistent with the viewpoints of my members. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "K8JE" <k8je(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz > Mickey, et al, > > I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts that > come > to mind in this discussion. > > After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other > hams) > over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic. I > don't > recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With > the > exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this > Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately. > > This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything, > stirring > the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a > few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among these > "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic mode that > proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital > privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably > create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would > satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take from > this > Division. > > At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to > hear > more before considering it more thoroughly. > > 73, > > 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to > 3600 - > 3750 kHz > > At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >>The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our >>regulations > regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing > enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least > on > a trial basis of two or three years. > > Mickey - > > I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. > It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less > than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse > themselves, > even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll > find > most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. > > So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question > again - > and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go > too > early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or > more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum > NPRM > that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the > FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) > > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. > > -- Tom > > > ===== > e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director > http://www.arrl.org/ > Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 > > > > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by k8je 28 Mar '10

28 Mar '10

Mickey, I have no problem with what you plan. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)zoomtown.com; Tel. 459-1661 -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz Jim and Tom, I'm planning to include the following statements in my upcoming division survey: 1. The amount of spectrum currently allocated to General and Advanced licensees for CW, RTTY, and data transmissions on 80 meters (3525-3600 kHz) is adequate. 2. The 3600 to 3700 kHz segment currently reserved exclusively to Amateur Extra licensees on 80 meters is underutilized. 3. Similar to 160 meters, the segment from 3600 to 3700 kHz on 80 meters should be available to all Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General licensees using CW, phone, image, RTTY, and data modes. My members will be asked to choose between strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree to indicate as much they agree with the above (and some additional) statements. If a strong majority of my members indicate that they are happy/satisfied with the status quo regarding the 3600 to 3700 kHz segment, I will probably not pursue this issue any further. Although I personally would like to see more room for the CW traffic nets on 80 meters, the bigger picture here is that if the 3600-3700 segment is opened up in a similar fashion to 160 meters, we might demonstrate to both the FCC and the ham community that we don't need the overly complicated and restrictive regulations we currently have. If the Board really wants to pursue something along the lines of "regulation by bandwidth" again, I think this approach is the correct one. In any event, I think conducting an occasional survey of my division members (this will be my first one) is politically smart, particularly if my future actions as a Board member are reasonably consistent with the viewpoints of my members. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "K8JE" <k8je(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz > Mickey, et al, > > I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts that > come > to mind in this discussion. > > After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other > hams) > over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic. I > don't > recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With > the > exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this > Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately. > > This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything, > stirring > the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a > few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among these > "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic mode that > proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital > privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably > create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would > satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take from > this > Division. > > At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to > hear > more before considering it more thoroughly. > > 73, > > 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to > 3600 - > 3750 kHz > > At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >>The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our >>regulations > regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing > enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least > on > a trial basis of two or three years. > > Mickey - > > I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. > It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less > than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse > themselves, > even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll > find > most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. > > So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question > again - > and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go > too > early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or > more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum > NPRM > that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the > FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) > > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. > > -- Tom > > > ===== > e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director > http://www.arrl.org/ > Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by Mickey Cox 28 Mar '10

28 Mar '10

Jim and Tom, I'm planning to include the following statements in my upcoming division survey: 1. The amount of spectrum currently allocated to General and Advanced licensees for CW, RTTY, and data transmissions on 80 meters (3525-3600 kHz) is adequate. 2. The 3600 to 3700 kHz segment currently reserved exclusively to Amateur Extra licensees on 80 meters is underutilized. 3. Similar to 160 meters, the segment from 3600 to 3700 kHz on 80 meters should be available to all Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General licensees using CW, phone, image, RTTY, and data modes. My members will be asked to choose between strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree to indicate as much they agree with the above (and some additional) statements. If a strong majority of my members indicate that they are happy/satisfied with the status quo regarding the 3600 to 3700 kHz segment, I will probably not pursue this issue any further. Although I personally would like to see more room for the CW traffic nets on 80 meters, the bigger picture here is that if the 3600-3700 segment is opened up in a similar fashion to 160 meters, we might demonstrate to both the FCC and the ham community that we don't need the overly complicated and restrictive regulations we currently have. If the Board really wants to pursue something along the lines of "regulation by bandwidth" again, I think this approach is the correct one. In any event, I think conducting an occasional survey of my division members (this will be my first one) is politically smart, particularly if my future actions as a Board member are reasonably consistent with the viewpoints of my members. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "K8JE" <k8je(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz > Mickey, et al, > > I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts that > come > to mind in this discussion. > > After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other > hams) > over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic. I > don't > recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With > the > exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this > Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately. > > This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything, > stirring > the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a > few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among these > "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic mode that > proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital > privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably > create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would > satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take from > this > Division. > > At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to > hear > more before considering it more thoroughly. > > 73, > > 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to > 3600 - > 3750 kHz > > At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >>The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our >>regulations > regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing > enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least > on > a trial basis of two or three years. > > Mickey - > > I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. > It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less > than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse > themselves, > even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll > find > most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. > > So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question > again - > and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go > too > early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or > more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum > NPRM > that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the > FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) > > I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think > there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and > then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. > > -- Tom > > > ===== > e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director > http://www.arrl.org/ > Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 > > > > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by K8JE 28 Mar '10

28 Mar '10

Mickey, et al, I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts that come to mind in this discussion. After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other hams) over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic. I don't recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With the exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately. This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything, stirring the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among these "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic mode that proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take from this Division. At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to hear more before considering it more thoroughly. 73, 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: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our regulations regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least on a trial basis of two or three years. Mickey - I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse themselves, even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll find most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question again - and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go too early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum NPRM that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
by Tom Frenaye 28 Mar '10

28 Mar '10

At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: >The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our regulations regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least on a trial basis of two or three years. Mickey - I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse themselves, even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll find most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question again - and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go too early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum NPRM that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and then looking impotent - which we are sometimes. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0