March 2016 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:23688] Thank You and HNY!
by Brian Mileshosky 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

Okay, now I'm bored on the air -- same for a zillion other League members and hams across the world. Fair warning: I'm making a Director's motion in January to create a Centennial QSO Party Anonymous or Points Anonymous service, because lots of people now find themselves staring hopelessly at their now absolutely quiet radios. A huge THANK YOU to everyone -- ODV, staff, volunteers, members, hams -- for an absolute home run on the air this past year. Centennial celebration aside, if there is one thing that I hope everyone who participated in the QSO Party walked away with, it is that they became better and more dedicated radio operators throughout the year. That they used this year-long opportunity to learn more about themselves as an op, learned more about their gear, uncovered station and operating limitations and found ways to resolve them, and rediscovered the magic, fun (God forbid), and camaraderie that is ham radio. One very profound moment today was working a few folks in the QSO Party who I hadn't worked since back in January 1, 2014. Staring at that date in the log, and greeting those hams once again, with literally one year of time padding our last QSO was an in-your-face "this year has absolutely flown by way too fast" epiphany. I hope everyone enjoyed it as much as they could while it lasted. Happy Centennial, and Happy New Year everyone. Be safe this evening and see you in a few weeks. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division

4 5

[arrl-odv:24932] Status of the WN3A PRB-1 antenna case
by Bob Famiglio, K3RF 31 Aug '16

31 Aug '16

Fellow ODV members: At least three of you have asked recently about the status of the notorious WN3A antenna litigation and whether it has been resolved yet. Here is an update as to the federal court proceedings. You all will recall that the ARRL filed an amicus brief in support of the radio amateur I represent. Copies of my WN3A briefs were also circulated through the ODV server late last summer. You might also recall this case before the 3rd circuit court of appeals concerns a federal judge's legal opinion that any accommodation a town provides a ham, in the towns own judgement no matter how arbitrary, is reasonable accommodation under PRB-1. The federal court ruled hams need not bother coming to federal court for relief under PRB-1 as long as they get a hearing before a local zoning board and a decision is rendered. PRB-1 was found to be very limited in effect by the court. We appealed. Recently we received the attached correspondence from the court clerk scheduling oral argument the week of our next board meeting. This is significant in that the 3rd circuit court does not routinely grant oral argument anymore-decisions are based on the lengthy briefs and research provided by the parties, as they should be. However, in cases which are of first impression and in which a significant precedential decision is anticipated, oral argument is requested by the court as it is here. Our panel of three judges includes the chief judge of the court. This appeals court controls the federal courts in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey, but the decision will surely affect the whole country as the case will be quoted as a significant circuit court decision no matter which way it goes. The argument is just a few days before the January board meeting. I may know from the questions from the court as to any leanings, but that speculation is always dangerous. What seems certain is that the court will not just treat this case as a "do over" by just sending it back to the trial court. They could do that without the need for argument. Rather, it likely will decide what PRB-1 actually means in view of the conflicting court decisions and rules for its interpretation from around the country, all raised by the numerous opponents and their various legal arguments against all ham antennas. I expect a written decision in February now, but that prediction may be off. I hope to see you all in the greater Newington area in a few weeks and will let you know what the judges wanted to know during argument. Let's keep our collective fingers crossed. I hope you are all enjoying the holiday season. I am hoping for a late Christmas present from the 3rd circuit court. 73. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF

5 6

[arrl-odv:25239] Email Virus - Scanned Image
by dick＠pobox.com 02 May '16

02 May '16

14 MAR 2016 - This is the second time I have received the unannounced message and attachment appended below. I assume this is an attempt to circulate a nasty virus. I will destroy this copy this evening unless I hear from some ARRL authority that it is a legitimate message. - Dick Isely, W9GIG ======================================================================= X-Vipre-Scanned: 004D2F3B00BAAC004D3088-TDI Return-Path: srs0=dblw=ph=arrl.org=lands747(a)bounce2.pobox.com Received: from reszmta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net (LHLO reszmta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net) (96.114.154.197) by resmail-ch2-327v.sys.comcast.net with LMTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resimta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.152]) by reszmta-po-05v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Ue981s00s3HZ2xc01est1l; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:52:53 +0000 Received: from pb-mx4.pobox.com ([208.72.237.55]) by resimta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Uess1s02c1CPyCY01estKB; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:52:53 +0000 X-CAA-SPAM: 00000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=HoCLYBnS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=m43j2jh8PFDS1+gnbX45QA==:117 a=3CNqIsqseW0erwRM9NHcRQ==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=7OsogOcEt9IA:10 a=Dc6GgtXdhhc9vonA2tYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=rgwsc2u9sWazB3wYVLkA:9 a=IKIoO-ieCDEA:10 a=ddFNkW6GA0iHEpF4NQjF:22 a=LLWbBOYp4-Dt5Mq48oz3:22 a=-0bwViA1pVb0VTyF5X25:22 Received: from pb-mx4.int.icgroup.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pb-mx4.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FAF135C1 for <grisely73(a)comcast.net>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:52:52 -0500 (EST) X-Pobox-Filter-Version: 3.1 X-Pobox-Pass: lands747(a)arrl.org is whitelisted X-Pobox-Loop-ID: 4dcb41f42e12836be626d8ffeb7deced593b9bb9 Delivered-To: dick(a)pobox.com X-Pobox-Delivery-ID: E285A2-4E992135B9-1457707972-42727661!pb-mx4.pobox.com Received: from pb-mx4.int.icgroup.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pb-mx4.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E992135B9 for <dick(a)pobox.com.42727661.001.riddle>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:52:52 -0500 (EST) X-Pobox-Filter-Version: 3.1 X-Pobox-Loop-ID: 9e58a4181326ccaa5970e9120a2d8f8066e6d87f Delivered-To: w9gig(a)arrl.org X-Pobox-Delivery-ID: E285A3-7739676967406172726C2E6F7267-7BF27135B3-1457707972-41958103!pb-mx4.p… Received: from dynamic.vdc.vn (unknown [116.110.14.67]) by pb-mx4.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF27135B3 for <w9gig(a)arrl.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:52:51 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet FAX, MGCS Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="+-+-+-MGCS-+-+-+" Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 21:52:49 +0700 Message-Id: <6373120858.6B827BE.southlands(a)arrl.org> From: "admin" <lands747(a)arrl.org> Subject: [SPAM] Scanned image To: w9gig(a)arrl.org X-Pobox-Client-Address: 127.0.0.1 X-Pobox-Client-Name: localhost X-Pobox-Client-HELO: pb-mx4.int.icgroup.com X-Pobox-Original-Sender: SRS0=dbLw=PH=arrl.org=lands747(a)bounce2.pobox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-X-CIAJWNETFAX: IGNORE Image data in PDF format has been attached to this email. <file://d:\eudora\attach\11-03-2016-7654869322.zip> 11-03-2016-7654869322.zip <file://d:\eudora\attach\11-03-2016-7654869322.zip> 11-03-2016-7654869322.zip

7 8

[arrl-odv:25273] DXCC Deletion: Kingman Reef
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 31 Mar '16

31 Mar '16

Dave Patton has asked me to pass this along in advance of a general release to the DX media. Dave K1ZZ DXCC Deletion of Kingman Reef The ARRL Awards Committee has voted to delete Kingman Reef (KH5) from the DXCC List, effective 29 March, 2016. Kingman Reef will be added to the Deleted Entities List on 29 March, 2016. The total number of entities on the List will drop from 340 to 339. The deletion process is described in DXCC Rules Section II DXCC List Criteria, Part 5(a) Deletion Criteria: "An entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List." With respect to the previous paragraph's text, Kingman Reef's original addition by virtue of separate administration has changed (separate administration by the U.S. Navy has been removed), and the reef does not meet any current criteria to remain on the list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers Kingman Reef and Palmyra Island. The reef is too close to Palmyra Island to count as a separate entity. The reef is now considered part of the Palmyra/Jarvis DXCC entity. DXCC members who have affirmed credit with Kingman Reef will see their current entity totals drop by one on their DXCC awards -- including on the bands and modes where Kingman Reef credit is given. They will also see their DXCC Challenge totals drop commensurately. Honor Roll status will now be attainable after confirming 330 entities on the DXCC List.

2 1

[arrl-odv:25272] Somehow, Dilbert just knows.....
by James F. Boehner MD 27 Mar '16

27 Mar '16

Sent to me with a lot of smiley faces J '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

1 0

[arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal
by Tom Frenaye 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view. <soapbox on> NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic. On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too) <soapbox off> -- Tom At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlays memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below). > > > >From: exec-com [mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD >Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM >To: exec-com >Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759. > >On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting. > >FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters. > >The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition. > >The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL: > ><http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list>http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list > >Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759" > >then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly. > > >ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Boards instruction: > > (A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz; > > (B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz; > > (C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006; > > (D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters); > > (E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commissions Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and > > (F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove. > > In the petition, with respect to the effect of the rebanding on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows: > >While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations. > >While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now. > >Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition. > >73, Chris W3KD > > >-- >Christopher D. Imlay >Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC >14356 Cape May Road >Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 >(301) 384-5525 telephone >(301) 384-6384 facsimile ><mailto:W3KD@ARRL.ORG>W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG > > >From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of arrl-odv >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM >To: arrl-odv >Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal > >I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee. > >I see that the Directors workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments? > >Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)? > >73 de JIM N2ZZ >Director Roanoke Division ===== 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

5 4

[arrl-odv:25266] RM-11759, HF Band Plan Implementation Petition for Rule Making
by Christopher Imlay 24 Mar '16

24 Mar '16

Greetings. Attached is an as-filed copy of the comments that we filed on our own Petition for Rule Making, principally aimed at refarming the 75/80-meter band. The Executive Committee had ordered these comments filed in view of the fact that there are now more than 200 comments filed in the FCC ECFS, a majority of which are opposed to the Petition. We expected this; the overwhelming majority of those opposed are Extra Class licensees who have since 2006 come to like what we refer to as the "vastly overexpanded" 75-meter phone band. Those who favor the petition are either CW or RTTY or data enthusiasts who appreciate the fact that there was in 2006 a "double robbery" of the CW/RTTY/data band; first by overexpansion of the phone subband and second by the relocation of the automatic control subband once ARRL pointed out in a reconsideration petitiion in 2006 that FCC had forgotten about that when it expanded the phone band. Complicated? Yes. But the comments attempt to straighten that out. Reply comments can be filed until April 7. Thanks to Dave Sumner and the Executive Committee members who offered helpful edits for this filing. 73, Chris W3KD -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 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:25263] FW: Letter re NFCC
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Mar '16

24 Mar '16

Attached is a letter that I have sent today, in accordance with the Executive Committee's instructions at Minute 9.3 of its March 12 meeting. 73, Dave K1ZZ

2 2

[arrl-odv:25259] Bandplan proposal
by James F. Boehner MD 24 Mar '16

24 Mar '16

Marty, Yes. I spoke with one of my NTS friends last night and he is all for the proposal. Perhaps the way to do it is to originate radiograms to all the state (section) net managers. With that method, liaisons would be informed, and on voice nets, the entire net would hear the traffic. The only concern is sending the link to the FCC website via radiogram-but we could use the RM number or refer to our website. East coast could send to West coast and vica versa for the most hands the traffic would fall into. It would remain mostly within NTS whose members should be supportive. Those that participate in nets tend not to be the 75 M ragchewers that are on every night on the same frequency. i.e. 3600-3650 KHz. It would certainly be a break from all the congratulations and license renewal traffic on the nets. It should be a boost for NTS morale as well. It could even get us our first BPL (Brass Pounders League, not the other stuff) award too. Win-Win! '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 Marty Woll Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:52 PM To: 'James F. Boehner MD'; 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:25258] Re: Bandplan proposal Did anybody think to use NTS (whose members would benefit from the return of some elbow room on 80m) as a vehicle to solicit supporting letters? 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 8:20 PM To: 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:25257] Bandplan proposal Looking at reply comments, it appears most of the recent filings are against our proposal: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11759 If we could only mobilize those that were against our symbol rate proposal to send in favorable comments for this one. From those comments, the digital ops had some incredible vehicle of communication to pass the word along. '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

3 2

[arrl-odv:25260] Fw: W9DY SK
by Kermit Carlson 24 Mar '16

24 Mar '16

Hello All; It is with a great note of sadness that I relate to the odv communitythe passing of Elmer "Bud" Frohardt, W9DY of Madison, WI. Bud's legacyto the amateur community is the origin of the term "elmer". I know of a score of you hams who are now my age that were giventhe benefit of Bud's time and efforts in mentoring young people to become radioamateurs. In fact, one of my best friends from the 'Lab used to ride his bike formiles to visit Bud's shack to watch him operate; and like many other young menwent on to have a successful career in both their professional life and their hobby. 73, Kermit W9XA >>>>FWD>>>> From: mike oconnor <mike_kn9t(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 8:42 PM To: w9xa(a)arrl.org Subject: W9DY SK My uncle and mentor Elmer "BUD" Frohardt W9DY, ex W9GFF passed away last night surrounded by his family. Bud will surely be missed and the Amateur radio community has lost a Great Elmer and DXer. 73 Mike KN9T,

1 0