September 2020 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:29223] Set An Example
by k5ur＠aol.com 30 Dec '21

30 Dec '21

Hi all: As we close the year,I'd like to ask for those who have not made a monetary donation to the League thisyear to please do so. As volunteers, we already contribute our time and effort,but it’s also important for our development efforts to be able to say that allBoard members have made a monetary donation. Oftentimes when seeking donations,especially from major donors, one of the first questions asked is whether allBoard members have given. I've made my annualdonation. I am asking you to please do the same. To make a donation, click onthe link below: https://www.arrl.org/arrl-donation-form Please help us achieve100% ARRL Board participation. Take a few minutes this weekend and help set anexample. Let's all donate something! Thanks. 73 Rick - K5UR

3 4

[arrl-odv:31064] Today's FCC Action on 3.3-3.5 GHz
by david davidsiddall-law.com 02 Oct '20

02 Oct '20

ODV, Disappointing is the only word to describe this morning’s FCC meeting. I watched the discussion on the 3.3-3.5 GHz item, and while amateur radio was mentioned by the Chairman and staff, that certainly is no consolation. At this time, only the press release has been issued. There is both a Report and Order specifying the final actions they are taking, and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to accept comment on issues such as deadlines for leaving the band. These documents are expected to be released “shortly.” I expect them by Friday, if not earlier. We do know now that the FCC decided to delete the secondary allocation on a date certain; and proposals in the Further Notice address the timeframe by which amateur secondary uses would have to cease. For 3.45-3.5 GHz, the proposal is to vacate upon first commercial licensing, which I estimate will be in mid-2022. It appears that they may be proposing the same deadline for all amateur secondary uses -- including those in the 3.3 – 3.45 GHz portion that are not subject to immediate licensing – and just leave the spectrum vacant. We will just have to review the written documents. When the documents are released, there will be more to say. 73, Dave K3ZJ David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690 Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you.

3 3

[arrl-odv:31063] FW: Press release: Non-resident lifetime Falkland Islands VP8 licences - common sense prevails
by Rod Stafford 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

Some of you may have seen this. It is difficult to tell what the distribution is when recipients of emails have been suppressed in the email header. Anyway, Chris Gare has been battling the licensing people in the Falklands over the issue of non-residents keeping their VP8 call signs. Seems he has been able to make them change their minds. I think it's a good example of someone who kept after the issue even when the regulator said NO. If you know any Argentine hams and ask them about the Falklands, they may very well say, "Oh, you mean the F...ing Islands." The preferred name in Argentina is the Malvinas Islands. Old grudges linger!! When Ron Szama LU2AH was on the EC for Region 2 if he heard the islands referred to as the Falklands, he really got spun up. ;) 73, Rod ____________________________________ Rod Stafford W6ROD ARRL Int'l Affairs Vice President <http://www.flickr.com/rodstaffordphotography> www.flickr.com/rodstaffordphotography From: chris(a)gare.co.uk [mailto:chris@gare.co.uk] On Behalf Of chris(a)openfalklands.org.fk Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:42 AM To: chris(a)gare.uk Subject: Press release: Non-resident lifetime Falkland Islands VP8 licences - common sense prevails ===STARTS=== Non-resident lifetime Falkland Islands VP8 licences - common sense prevails An element of the new 2017 Falkland Islands Communication Ordinance was a desire to bring "amateur radio licencing in the Falkland Islands into the 21st Century" through a re-validation exercise of VP8 licences which started in early 2020. However, a new requirement was included in the new VP8 Licence Terms & Conditions. For an existing VP8 licence to be revalidated, a minimum 6-month residency in the Falkland Islands was now required. This lead to all non-resident VP8 licences failing the revalidation exercise and being cancelled as a result.". Following an email exchange with the Falkland Islands Communications Regulator, he stated that he considered the case closed. I raised a complaint about this decision in the form of a 'Notice of Appeal'. This was due to be heard in the Falkland Islands Magistrates Court in November 2020. The case will not now proceed to court after all as the Regulator has decided to restore my Falkland Islands VP8 licences and apply the same principle to other non-resident lifetime VP8 licence holders on a "case-by-case" basis. My costs will be paid as well.. The full story can be read here - <https://openfalklands.co.uk/> Non-resident lifetime Falkland Islands VP8 licences - common sense prevails. South Georgia and Antarctic VP8 Amateur Radio Licensing Following the recent cancellation and subsequent restoration of Chris Gare's non-resident lifetime VP8 Falkland Islands licences, the associated cancellation of all VP8 Antarctic & South Georgia licences is now in the spotlight. The full story can be read here - <https://openfalklands.co.uk/> South Georgia and Antarctic VP8 Amateur Radio licensing. For further information contact <mailto:chris@openfalklands.org.fk> Chris, G3WOS or <mailto:alancheshire@yahoo.com> Alan, VP8PJ. Chris Gare, G3WOS VP8DBL VP8WOS ===ENDS===

1 0

[arrl-odv:31062] 2019 Annual Report
by Middleton, Diane, W2DLM (CFO) 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

Good afternoon, Just a quick note to let ODV know that the 2019 annual report was posted to the website today. www.arrl.org/annual-reports Rick Lindquist is working on a news story for the membership. The report will be going to the printers this week. If you would like a printed copy when they come in, please send Dee an e-mail request. Thank you. 73, Diane Middleton, W2DLM Chief Financial Officer ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio (r) 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 (860) 594-0225

1 0

[arrl-odv:31058] FCC Dismisses "Stale" Amateur Proceedings
by david davidsiddall-law.com 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

This is just a note that three items related to amateur radio were among the more than 1,000 proceedings dismissed by the FCC today as “stale”. Dismissal does not prevent filing a petition for reconsideration or a petition for review of the dismissal action, or submitting a new petition on the same issue. 1. Docket 16-243: SPE Petition for Waiver of the 15 dB linear amplifier gain limit. The petition that is the subject of this docket was denied in December, 2016. Please note that SPE also filed a companion Petition for Rulemaking asking for a permanent rules change, and that petition remains pending (RM-11767). The FCC is terminating just the docket for the waiver, which was denied in 2016 with no further appeal. 2. RM-11769: this petition asked that (1) generally in the bands 2 meters and below, that digital data modes be permitted in addition to CW everywhere in the band segments where phone/image modes are not permitted; and (2) license class privileges be adjusted. 3. RM-11629: this 2011 petition proposed to extend credit to applicants permanently for each and every amateur examination element passed. Feel free to direct any questions to me. 73, Dave K3ZJ David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690 Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you.

2 3

[arrl-odv:31055] CEO's first day?
by rjairam＠gmail.com 28 Sep '20

28 Sep '20

Is today the day? 73 Ria, N2RJ

3 2

[arrl-odv:31051] 3.4 GHz
by k5ur＠aol.com 27 Sep '20

27 Sep '20

Just posted on the webpage in case you get comments from constituents. The second link doesn't work. Trying to get fixed. http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-seeks-changes-in-fcc-proposal-to-delete-3-4-g… 73,Rick - K5UR

3 3

[arrl-odv:31050] Barker Products
by Lee Cooper 26 Sep '20

26 Sep '20

So, when did we make Barker products a secret vendor? I have had two emails in past month from folks searching for items on our site that have been there for years but now cannot be found in a normal search. Both of these were supplied by Barker. In the first case was the tan ARES logo polo that has been our standard uniform shirt since 2009. The second one was someone wanting to buy the ARRL Oxford dress shirts we have always had in white and blue. No longer to be found. An inquiry to Bob returned the following link. A link that I was not able to find myself doing a site search. Hard to sell product if you cannot find them. http://www.barkerstores.com/arrl/category.aspx?cat=9 http://www.barkerstores.com/arrl/category.aspx?cat=9 Lee Lee H. Cooper, PMP, CKM, CKF, CSM, ITILv3, LSSGB, W5LHC Vice Director, West Gulf Division ARRL - National Association of Amateur Radio w5lhc(a)arrl.org (512) 658-3910 *"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat" - N.B.*

1 0

[arrl-odv:31049] Fw: HOA restrictions
by Richard Norton 25 Sep '20

25 Sep '20

Coincidentally, I sent the following reply about the League's HOA activity to an Arizona member yesterday morning. As his initial message was also sent to the officers, the League officers have already seen my reply. I have also sent this to a number of other ham friends asking for their opinion and comments. So far, there are none who feel continuing this legislative effort will go anywhere. I'll summarize some of their comments later today when I have time. 73, Dick ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Richard Norton <richardjnorton(a)yahoo.com>To: Rick Paquette <azpaquettes(a)gmail.com>; gary(a)k8bn.com <gary(a)k8bn.com>; n6aa(a)arrl.org <n6aa(a)arrl.org>; aa7a(a)arrl.org <aa7a(a)arrl.org>; K5UR(a)arrl.org <k5ur(a)arrl.org>; k1twf(a)arrl.org <k1twf(a)arrl.org>; W6RGG(a)arrl.org <w6rgg(a)arrl.org>; Ron Gerlak <rbgerlak(a)gmail.com>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020, 12:02:39 PM PDTSubject: Re: HOA restrictions Over the past 30 years or so, the ARRL has spent a 7-figure amount of League assets on lobbying efforts directed at enacting Federal legislation which would stop HOA's from prohibiting or effectively banning Amateur Radio antennas. These efforts, as well as others conducted by groups in individual states such as Arizona, have failed. It is a pretty hard sell to ask government to enact a law saying that some people need not live up to a contract which they voluntarily signed. Previous Misrepresented Effort A few years ago, the League's then legislative team claimed to have been on the edge of getting such a bill through Congress. After careful examination of the bill's text, the ARRL Board determined that the bill's language, which was actually written by the national Home Owner's Association representatives, was actually detrimental to HOA-dwelling hams. Information released by the League's then team gave a misleading view to both the Board and a number of ARRL members. Those individuals are no longer involved in ARRL legislative or leadership activities. After reviewing the 30-year history, I am not of the belief that any of these legislative approaches are likely to lead to success. Note that all Directors on the ARRL Board may not agree with me. Over the years, different Directors and others have gone to Washington, and interfaced with Congresspersons and their staffs. Moving about the halls of Congress and hobnobbing with staff can be exhilarating. When a Congressperson expresses support, satisfaction about perceived accomplishment can ensue. However, the desired end result has never looked achievable. It is even unclear that getting legal prohibition of radio-related private contracts is always in the public interest. There is a woman in my town who dedicates a substantial part of her life to railing against the danger to life and health created by smart electric meters, wi-fi signals, and cell phones. Although I find no evidence for her views, I'm not necessarily of the belief that government should make it a crime for her and some of her acolytes to build a development where residents are forbidden to use cell phones and wi-fi. I don't believe anyone will be able to get satisfactory HOA antenna legislation enacted. You may find some who will tell you that funding them will work, but I see no evidence to support that. Small Demand for ARRL Solution The Southwestern Division has the second largest number of HOA's in the country, and I have not seen much member demand for this action or particularly, expectation that it will happen. HOA-resident hams that I've talked to usually say something like - they wish they could have antennas, but have made a decision that other concerns in their lives mean that Amateur Radio antennas will be limited for a while. In recent years, at almost all ARRL Forums, conventions, hamfests, and club meetings, I've asked the audience 1) How many of you live in HOA-impacted areas? 2) How many of you are on the air somehow, either with approved antennas or hidden antennas? In every case, all or almost all those in HOA-homes are on the air, somehow. Activity Possibilities A reasonably successful approach has been to get HOA approval for some sort of antenna, and many have succeeded this way. ARRL Arizona Section Manager, Rick Paquette, W7RAP, is one, and even has a tower in an HOA-community with an airport. He is willing to share his approach and knowledge with anyone, especially an Arizona resident such as yourself. His contact information is in the front of every QST. A second approach is to use an indoor or hidden antenna. A good number of hams are active on HF, where they even enter on-the-air contests with this approach. JT-65, FT-8, and FT-4 even allow pursuit of DX with weak signals. A third ham radio approach is to develop interest in outdoor ham radio activities, such as mobiling, mountain-topping, VHF-roving, and transmitter hunting. A fourth option for an HOA-bound ham is to utilize Internet-connected remote stations. Hams have built their own remote stations, teamed with others to use stations, or even paid commercial station providers. However, if a ham's interests are only going to be satisfied with big antennas, I suggest moving to a home outside an HOA area. You may have to drive to the golf course. You may have to maintain your yard and pool yourself or hire someone to do it. It's one of life's trade-offs that we all have to make. I wish that I could do something that would eliminate HOA-imposed antenna restrictions, but do not think that I or anyone will be able to do so in today's environment. You and I may feel ham radio is important, but history says that not everyone agrees. If you have any specific suggestions of what the League can do that seem promising, please let me know. Thank you. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 08:19:17 PM PDT, Ron Gerlak <rbgerlak(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello, What has the ARRL accomplished (since 2013) towards relief from HOA restrictions on antennas? What is the anticipated date of relief? 73sRonald Gerlak, KG7OHKG7OH(a)ARRL.net480-356-3663

1 0

[arrl-odv:31043] FCC Fees
by Mark J Tharp 25 Sep '20

25 Sep '20

Has anyone come up with a statement on what we are doing to oppose this? Last message I find was Mike reply at https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/private/arrl-odv/2020-September/040182.h… ? Thanks.. Mark, HDX

2 1