June 2015 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:24325] Re: RHR ad in CQ
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

Good morning all, I am back from vacation and am leaving for DC in about an hour for two FCC meetings: the postponed meeting with Diane Cornell of the Chairman's office on the Enforcement Bureau field restructuring this afternoon, and tomorrow with Scot Stone of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as previously described. Quite a bit of email traffic has flowed while I was away and it will take me a while to review all of it, but before any more time goes by I do want to comment on the matter of the possible acquisition of CQ Communications. It is no secret that Dick Ross has been looking to sell, and to the best of my knowledge still is. The principal asset of a magazine publisher is its subscriber base, and in the case of CQ there is so much overlap between the ARRL membership and CQ subscribership that it is worth less to us than to virtually any other potential purchaser. I don't have a good estimate of CQ's liabilities but my understanding is that they are substantial. I have been told, not by Dick, that at least one group with deep pockets considered buying CQ and decided against it. If the A&F Committee thinks we should pursue this we certainly can, but the numbers are very unlikely to point in the direction of such an acquisition. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:24322] RHR ad in CQ
by James F. Boehner MD 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

Well, I was just stating a fact (RHR ad in CQ), but seems a lot has come from this. I am certain that our refusal of their ad would not have caused a "Moral Awakening" with RHR. They have a business to run, and their logical next step was to go to either an alternative print medium and/or digital medium. That was to be expected. They certainly have more to gain if HR-1301 fails and PRB-1 continues to have court challenges. Dwelling on previous decisions such as control of CQ or accepting advertising from RHR in the past (which was consistent with our advertising policies) is nonproductive. One can learn from the past, but cannot change it. This begs the question as to whether we need to be more aggressive in our HR-1301 efforts and defending PRB-1. We have a clear path to follow currently, but do we need look at other solutions, for example, to work on finding industry leaders to produce white papers regarding propagation, the fragility of the internet, and reliable communications? Do we need to look at better ways of educating the public? We have a very hungry Public Relations Committee ready to take on tasks. We all know that remote operation is not even a distant solution when emergency communications are concerned. We do need someone on the outside with absolute credibility to state this fact. As a thought, perhaps our new contacts at FEMA? I'm not certain who produced the 25 page opinion in the discussion below, but would love to see a copy. As Rosanna Rosanna Dana used to say, "It's always something!" '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Bob Famiglio K3RF Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 1:51 PM To: arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:24321] Re: RHR ad in CQ I must agree with John. And moreover, these same arguments are not limited to the HOA and CC&R issues. They are now applied to PRB-1 "need" cases as well. Remote operations are also typically conflated by the public and legal tribunals with repeater systems and amateur satellites as eliminating the need for amateur towers and antennas, even for VHF, UHF and microwave operations. Last year, after 5 nights of hearings and almost 100 trial exhibits, 80 were mine in favor, a zoning appeals board staffed by 5 lawyers and the board's legal counsel denied a request for a 180 foot Rohn tower on 3 acres of WN3A's heavily wooded, semi-rural residence, stating just this. They awarded a truly useless height (for the subject location, subject property and demonstrated need and use) of 65 feet because PA law has a 65 foot minimum, albeit with too many exceptions to the exception. They really wanted it limited to 35 feet. The antennas therefore are maybe 45 feet or less above the highest point on the property and well under heavy foliage. They focused in the 25 page opinion on remote operations, repeater stations and relaying signals including satellites to justify their findings. One of two separate townships opposing argued WN3A could have a remote "club" , as they called it in their brief, and operate from there. Our Federal district court dismissed that amateur's well pleaded complaint resulting from the zoning board denial just a few weeks ago on preliminary motion. This puts us out of court before any evidence is presented. The court's lengthy written opinion alludes to John's very argument, essentially adapting the findings of the zoning board. Ham's can use repeaters and newer technologies to operate as a reasonable accommodation - usable antennas not needed regardless of evidence presented. And separately, astonishingly enough, the federal judge also opines that amateur microwave operations are possible from a 17 foot high antenna with heavy foliage, 96 foot trees, all around and higher local terrain . We are going to file an appeal to the third circuit court of appeals in about a week, but this published opinion changes much on the PRB-1 front in my view and that of our nationally renowned PRB-1 expert, K1VR. This new court opinion is presently legal precedent which many fill face as a new huddle. I present it here as this case from the beginning adapts the likely arguments against HR-1301 John presents. During public meetings in a greater Philadelphia suburban/semi-rural area, attended by over a hundred residents in 2014 - I was present - "ham radio is obsolete" was a main theme. One supervisor, the emergency manager for the town, testified ham radio has no emergency communications value to them these days and filed a written statement in the case to that effect. Others argued hams do not need significant antennas these days with new technologies, just as stated by John. Other hams calling me for advice in recent times are hearing the same arguments when they are summarily denied permits for even 55 or 65 foot towers. I see the definite erosion of PRB-1 and the defining cases since after about 2001. These arguments will show up against us here for sure as John suggested. I would love to see success on HR-1301, but we will indeed see these arguments and need to be ready, in advance with cogent responses. I'd love to see those "pocket" goodies as well. Might even help us in basic PRB-1 cases. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 On 6/6/2015 10:07 AM, JRS wrote: David I and the West Gulf have been dealing with the multiple HOA lobbying groups since 2009. While I have a strong, well-founded, opinion of their moral shortcomings, I have never found them - or at least their lead lobbyists - to be afflicted with HUB or to be politically naive. They will or have already seen the ad - and previous ads in QST wherein the ARRL permitted RHR to advertise behind ARRL trademarks. The HOAs and our real adversaries - the real estate sales community, the builders and the developers - spend millions per year in lobbying, at both the State and Federal level. They will use this tool and the logical argument behind it. One of my objections to our previous support - intended, unintended or politically clueless - of RHR was that it offers one of the best arguments against permitting Hams to destroy the economic value of millions of American homes, to litter the residential landscape with ugly, dangerous, offensive metal monstrosities and to violate hundreds of years of contract law. Such crude, 100 years old technology is no longer necessary - Hams themselves, using technology, have obviated the need for such crudities - they have developed methodologies that permit every Amateur to have access to the airwaves - they have created remote ham radio. Why even their national organization has and continues to support the development and expansion of remote ham radio operation - they lend their prestige and trademarks to the providers and even adapt their rules of operation to permit and promote remote operation. With respect to Marty - remote operation will become cheaper as it gains more customers/adherents - thus that "reasonable" case and defense will be whittled away over time. The argument also assumes a level of understanding of the operation of AR that simply does not exist in any legislature. When you start explaining the difference between DX, local repeaters, simplex, et al - the "glazed eye" quotient increases logarithmically. And the HOAs, the real estate community, the builders and the developers will not accept any differentiation in operational needs - they will simply tie the issue to: "Dude, it is a dying hobby of OFWGs who just want to talk & technology (they developed) permits them to do that. We used to have to have ugly telephone poles to communicate, now we have cell phones; technology improves all communications and the OFWGs just need to adapt to technology (theirs). Besides, with modern infrastructure, mobile & satellite communications and the universal availability of the internet how often is it likely we will really have to rely on an ancient, past century communications system practiced by a minority of citizens (OFWGs by the way)? Accepting Chris Imlay's statement that the ARRL refused to run a RHR ad with the CQ language - correct call and good job, by the way - it underscores past poor business and strategic decisions - to wit, not getting control of CQ when it was possible. CQ intends to survive - it is a business after all - and if the Devil wants to run an ad and the Devil's check clears, the Devil is going to be permitted to run an ad. In fact, if I were the Devil I would think about buying or financially supporting CQ to maintain a pipeline to the customer base. And there is always the internet & its advertising ... RHR is also a for-profit business; it intends to survive and expand. So it the stuffy senior citizens @ 225 Main reject their ads, they are going to go elsewhere. RHR is not a friend of AR or the ARRL. And it is clear from its past actions that it doesn't give a tinker's damn what the ARRL thinks or what AR needs to expand and survive. And if the "DC Team" has "things in their pockets to deal with it" I would love to have a peek into the "Team's" pocket. Dr. Jim, yes the fight to remove outdated, financially motivated, private property right limiting private land use restrictions is "a good fight" - in fact, I believe it is THE good fight - but if we are to win that fight, AR has to develop and fund a strategic theater of operations battle strategy it is willing to maintain for the long term. And that plan has to realistically address the elephant in the room - RHR, remote operation and RHR's very damaging and hostile marketing. 73 ----------------------------------------------------- John Robert Stratton N5AUS Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 ----------------------------------------------------- On 6/6/15 7:44 AM, David Norris wrote: GM All, I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add- HOA + CC&R = RHR "It's not rocket science" RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035 I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part. Food for thought and my $0.02 worth... 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> wrote: I know I'm not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard: HOA + CC&R = RHR "It's not rocket science" RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035 So, they have found another venue for their advertising. Interestingly, as one of the "Heartburns" of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven't investigated it, but it doesn't appear any money is involved. '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

3 2

[arrl-odv:24312] RHR ad in CQ
by James F. Boehner MD 06 Jun '15

06 Jun '15

I know I'm not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard: HOA + CC&R = RHR "It's not rocket science" RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035 So, they have found another venue for their advertising. Interestingly, as one of the "Heartburns" of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven't investigated it, but it doesn't appear any money is involved. '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT

7 9

[arrl-odv:24311] 2 more
by Kay Craigie 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

Reed (NY 23) and Bishop (MI 8) came on the bill yesterday. If they are in your Division, please notify members now and ask them to thank the their Congressman for co-sponsoring. 73, Kay N3KN Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[arrl-odv:24310] Post to Section Managers list
by Kay Craigie 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

To stimulate more member letters about H.R. 1301, the attached message was posted to the Section Managers reflector today by Staff at my request. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:24309] One more
by Kay Craigie 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

Grothman of Wisconsin has become co-sponsor #64. We are expect another couple by week's end. 73, Kay Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[arrl-odv:24308] More co-sponsors
by Kay Craigie 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

Six more co-sponsors were added on June 1. They are Weber (TX-14) Katko (NY-24) Miller (FL-1) Jones (NC-3) Rokita (IN-4) Cardenas (CA-29) If these Congressmen are in your Division, please urge members in the relevant Congressional districts to send their thanks to the Congressman's office. This can be done by a phone call to a local office or an e-mail using the Congressman's official web site. Members should be sure to mention H.R. 1301 in their messages. There are now 63 co-sponsors. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0