The online version is still a week sooner than print, so the discussion is somewhat moot. Mark, HDX On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:26 PM John Bellows <jbellows@skypoint.com> wrote:
Thanks Mark. Once again a VD comes to the rescue. Merry Christmas! 73, Jay, K0QB
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 21, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
I give you standing order 59.
<image.png>
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 12:39 PM Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
Ria,
Early availability to us and, perhaps, to Section Managers, does make sense. We do field questions for members.
Art On 12/20/2019 7:06 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
“ Traditionally, the Board has received advance copy of QST so the Board members have copy in hand and are able to respond to questions from the membership regarding the contents of the particular issue. At least that has been the practice since long before the twenty-two years I have been a member of the Board. ”
What happened to that? I would absolutely love to have that available to me because members do ask about the content of QST. Aanother director told me that the practice of sending 1st class to directors was discontinued due to postage cost. If we are concerned about postage why not give us an advance electronic copy? That would be perfectly fine with me.
This way we can discuss with the CEO and HQ anything we see of concern.
The other point though is that we are not even supposed to go there. Every new editorial and issue of QST brings new surprises. It would have been nice to know about the simple radio kits for example. We likely wouldn’t have known had the issue of makers and youth been raised on ODV. Whatever happened to collaboration? This seems extremely dysfunctional.
When Howard began asking about what he was not doing right, I told him flat out I didn’t know what was going on with our (half) a million dollar baby - Mintz and Hoke. My colleagues and I voted to approve this money. We should at least be given regular status updates and progress reports. I don’t get why that wasn’t happening.
The irony is that we are a communications hobby and that’s the one thing we aren’t doing well, if at all.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:00 PM John Bellows <jbellows@skypoint.com> wrote:
Traditionally, the Board has received advance copy of QST so the Board members have copy in hand and are able to respond to questions from the membership regarding the contents of the particular issue. At least that has been the practice since long before the twenty-two years I have been a member of the Board.
Providing a draft copy” of an editorial is an entirely different matter. Requesting a “draft copy” is not a request for information as to final content, it suggests a desire to review or otherwise have input in the editorial. That would be a radical departure from the long standing practice of leaving editorial content to the professional QST staff and the CEO/Publisher.
If for the first time in QST history, the Board is going to to engage in the editorial process and pre-approve QST content, that significant policy change should be the result of a full Board decision and not that of one or a small group of Directors.
73, Jay, K0QB
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 20, 2019, at 10:03 AM, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Howard
Please provide us with a copy of your February editorial and the current draft of your March editorial.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________*
_
On 12/19/19 6:00 PM, Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) wrote:
Mike, ODV,
Respectfully, the press releases are exactly what the EC wants them to be. By direction, they are written jointly by Rick Lindquist and Atty Siddall, and then vetted by the EC. The message has been tightly controlled.
Policy should be set by the Board. In my opinion, the Board abdicated that responsibility last January when, instead of adopting a legislative agenda, they created a Legislative Advocacy Committee, a subset of the Board. Staff is happy to advance the Board policy, but a legislative or regulatory policy seems to be lacking!
Regarding my editorials, I don't believe it is my right to represent the Board's position regarding policy. My editorials are meant to bring ARRL into the future. Based on numerous emails, they are very well received. Just after your email, I receive one from a member. Here is how it starts.
I applaud your efforts to bring ARRL into the 21st century. I find your president's column in QST to be inspiring, and I'm grateful that you're leading the organization.
I would say I can only imagine how hard it is to bring the ARRL community forward, but I have a good sense of that. As a woman amateur extra who's worked in tech a long time, I know firsthand what it's like. I've been insulted, belittled and outright ignored by some people. Mostly by older men who seem confounded by a smart woman in their midst.
If we want to add a second editorial into QST discussing policy initiatives, I'd suggest that the President write one each month. The February issue has already gone to the printer. The deadline for the March issue is January 10th.
73, Howard, WB2ITX
On 12/19/2019 3:03 PM, Michael Ritz wrote:
Rick;
Respectfully, the press releases so far say very little about our *aggressiveness moving forward* to fight this challenge, and what the *plan is* to defeat them. Believe me, the members would rather hear this kind of rhetoric from the leaders of the ARRL, rather than lectures on how "we must all adhere to FCC Part 97 rules", references to silos, boxes, and lectures on the latest management philosophies from us.
The fastest way to lose a war is to not fight. Do we or EC need to write a proposal and motion at the upcoming board meeting that will allow us to allocate the resources necessary to actually mount a campaign against this? A couple of comments from the ARRL itself will not do this, as the opposition is very powerful, with lots of dollars at their disposal. We need face-to-face meetings with as many of the FCC commissioners as possible, and that will come at a price. We need to be *pro-active*, and not have a "oh well" attitude about losing our valuable spectrum, shared or not. We need a PLAN.
I'll get off my soapbox now, and switch to decaff coffee....
73; Mike W7VO
On December 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM k5ur@aol.com wrote:
Mike, our position has been, for as long as I can remember, to fight any frequency threat, regardless of the frequency. We plan to do the same for 3 and 5 gigs.
I think we mentioned a few weeks ago that Dave Siddall is already accumulating information on band usage and contacts as a resource so we are prepared to file comments. I'll let Dave add his comments on suggestions and timing.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> <w7vo@comcast.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2019 12:10 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:29154] Fwd: FCC NPRM on 5 and 3 GHZ bands
ODV Team;
I noticed today that the ARRL sent out a notice of the results of the recent FCC meeting, which apparently did not exactly go in our favor. When you get a chance, please read the thoughtful letter sent to me about the actions from Del, WA7AQH. This current FCC action is a very important threat to the future of our hobby, and we cannot afford to sit on our hands.
I hope that we will STRONGLY defend the 3.3 and 5.9 GHz bands, to save the future of our EmComm mission, as stated in FCC Part 97 as the basis. (I fully realize we are a secondary allocation on 5.9). We need to make sure that the FCC knows STRONGLY where we stand on this.
Alaska and the State of Washington already have robust AREDN/HamWAN networks deployed, and are working with local EMs to show them what amateur radio can do with this technology. I attended a FEMA Region 10 meeting earlier in the year, where HamWAN technology was a keynote seminar presented by local hams, with a live demonstration of the technology in front of a room full of EMs, FEMA employees, and their partners from all over the Northwest. Oregon hams are currently gearing up to join them. Early in January I'm attending a meeting of the new Oregon AREDN group, and I'd like to tell them that we will *aggressively* pursue a defeat of this FCC proposal.
Members don't think we are, or have been, doing enough to voice our opposition on this, and based on what I've seen come out of the ARRL so far I would have to agree with them.
73; Mike W7VO
---------- Original Message ---------- From: Del Morissette <wa7aqh@gmail.com> <wa7aqh@gmail.com> To: Mike Ritz <W7VO@arrl.org> <W7VO@arrl.org> Cc: "Mark J. Tharp" <kb7hdx@gmail.com> <kb7hdx@gmail.com>, Jack Tiley <jwtiley1@comcast.net> <jwtiley1@comcast.net>, Asa Jay Laughton <asajay@asajay.com> <asajay@asajay.com>, Chad - KA7HAK <chad@verishare.net> <chad@verishare.net>, Joe Ayers <joe@ayerscasa.com> <joe@ayerscasa.com>, Rod Ekholm <kc7aad@gmail.com> <kc7aad@gmail.com>, Mel Ming <teammel@gmail.com> <teammel@gmail.com> Date: December 17, 2019 at 8:14 PM Subject: FCC NPRM on 5 and 3 GHZ bands
Mike, I'm growing more concerned about the proposals within the FCC to eliminate amateur radio usage of the 3 GHZ band and open up the 5 GHZ band to additional users that will have a very detrimental effect on amateur radio usage of that band.
My concerns are focused in four areas:
1. Reading the commissioners' statements, they've clearly made up their mind on these changes.
They are unanimously and strongly in favor of making the changes. Consequently it's going to take a tremendous amount of work if we're to have any influence on the final decision. They don't even acknowledge that the changes will have any material impact on amateur radio. My guess would be they're unaware of the amateur radio emcomm activity on either of those bands.
2. I don't see much urgency on the ARRL's part to prevent this from happening.
It didn't even make the latest ARRL newsletter as an issue. The one article on the web site certainly doesn't reflect any sense that this is a big deal. What comments from the League I've seen are focused on the 3 GHZ band because we're being completely shut off on that band and it has potential impact on amateur satellite work. My personal opinion is that, even though we're secondary on the 5 GHZ band, that change will have as large or even larger detrimental impact on our ability to support emergency communications than being shut out of 3 GHZ (and that impact is large). The noise level increase on what are now, essentially, amateur radio only frequencies (because the primary users are inactive), will make it very, very difficult to reliably function.
If we're to have any influence on these decisions, it will take a rapid, concerted effort on all our part. Even with making it a priority, ARRL opposition to an action that has significant congressional support/mandate isn't going to be enough. For example, we need to enlist comments supportive of our position from every Emergency Management Department Director in the country (or at least those that understand what AREDN and HamWan bring them) if we're to have any hope of mitigating the impact of these issues. At a minimum I would like to see the League coordinate that effort.
3. The ability to effectively use these bands is crucial for amateur radio to remain a relevant asset in emergency communication.
Today emergency management lives in a multi-megabit world, and 1200/9600 baud just doesn't cut it for them anymore. If we're no longer an effective emcomm asset, we lose the primary reason, in the minds of regulators at least, for our very existence. That brings great vulnerability to every other frequency we use.
Unless they don't have anything better, Emergency Management Directors have little interest in a resource that runs at 1200/9600 baud and is completely unusable for passing anything other than plain text files. What they have great interest in is an amateur radio service that can, when everything else is down, provide them with remote cameras that can give them immediate situation assessment, the ability to video chat with field personnel, conference calls/video chats across field teams, direct keyboard chat, direct filing of ICS forms to a common repository where they can be accessed in seconds by the (non-amateur radio operator) people that need to act on them, etc. And do all of that sitting at their desk/in their tent wherever that might be. Cities such as Irvine, California, have seen enough value in that capability that they've funded and supported a full build out of AREDN that covers the entire city. We have growing support in Spokane County for a similar project. Both the county radio shop and county IT are fully supporting our AREDN pilot with the expectation of a full build out over the next two years as a county owned asset.
4. Tangentially related to the above, but still critical: High speed data networks operating on amateur radio frequencies are attracting new, younger people into amateur radio.
It's the entry point that then shows them all the other facets of the service that can intrigue them. In the space of less than six months, we've had three new members (all under 40) join our ARES-ACS group specifically because of our AREDN project. Lowering the average age in the room is as critical to the survival of amateur radio as filling a valuable emcomm role, and 1200/9600 baud data isn't going to be much help to do either.
Those are my concerns. I've talked with our Spokane County Emergency Coordinator, Asa Jay Laughton, and he shares those concerns. We'll be working with our local Department of Emergency Management to submit comments supportive of our position. I'm asking the League to give these NPRMs the urgency and priority they deserve and quickly organize the amateur radio and emergency management community across the country to provide a timely, effective response as well. DHS and FEMA should both have an interest in the impact of these NPRMs on a growing amateur radio capability that provides a unique service to them and local agencies.
I so appreciate that you're our board representative. I doubt I've raised anything here that you're not already aware of or, perhaps, even thinking, but wanted to give you any ammunition I can to move the issue forward.
Thanks for representing us well..
73,
Del
" Many care, many are moved to tears, many feel deeply, but few answer the call ." -- Bill Fortney
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- Ronald Reagan adapted from Rabbi Hillel
Del Morissette WA7AQH 510-517-4599 WA7AQH@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/225+Main+Street,+Newington,+CT+06111?entry=gmail&source=g>-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv