[arrl-odv:28672] Fwd: FW: ARRL/ Winlink (ARRL HQ response)
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members. The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board. See below: “I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ” ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org>, <bjahnke@arrl.org>, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org>, <gwiden@arrl.org>, <w3tom@arrl.org>, <w9xa@arrl.org>, < k0BBC@arrl.org>, <k5uz@arrl.org>, <wa8efk@arrl.org>, <n2rj@arrl.org>, < k0das@arrl.org>, <k1vr@arrl.org>, <k6jat@arrl.org>, <w2ru@arrl.org>, < k0rm@arrl.org>, <gsarratt@arrl.org>, <n6aa@arrl.org>, <n5aus@arrl.org> To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President ARRL Board of Directors ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager Date: August 28, 2019 Re: Winlink/Pactor Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations. In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R: *From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> * *Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM* *To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>* *Subject: Re: Digital Modes* *Monte,* *I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. * *While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. * *In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. * *73* *Frank, NM7R* *From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> * *Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM* *To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>* *Subject: Re: Digital Modes* *Monte,* *I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. * *My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.* *73, * *Frank* If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate. If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership. Very Regards, Monte, AF7PQ WWA SM *From:* Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM *To:* Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com> *Subject:* ARRL/ Winlink Monte, Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams. For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief. This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed *VERY* bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans. This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. *And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust*. I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this. I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. Then, the ARRL did this. The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act. Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. * Like it or not… they now own this mess*. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL. For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse. · In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative. · FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them. · I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response. This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay. *As an ARRL member*, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members? *As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State*, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront. *As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center*, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no. *The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable*. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®. *Bottom line*: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September. Scott G. Dakers Washington State Emergency Management Division Auxiliary Radio Communications RACES Station Manager
Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League. Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was? _______________________________________ 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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members.
The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board.
See below:
“I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ”
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net <mailto:AF7PQ@comcast.net>> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org <mailto:sewald@arrl.org>>, <bjahnke@arrl.org <mailto:bjahnke@arrl.org>>, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net <mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org <mailto:kb7hdx@arrl.org>>, <gwiden@arrl.org <mailto:gwiden@arrl.org>>, <w3tom@arrl.org <mailto:w3tom@arrl.org>>, <w9xa@arrl.org <mailto:w9xa@arrl.org>>, <k0BBC@arrl.org <mailto:k0BBC@arrl.org>>, <k5uz@arrl.org <mailto:k5uz@arrl.org>>, <wa8efk@arrl.org <mailto:wa8efk@arrl.org>>, <n2rj@arrl.org <mailto:n2rj@arrl.org>>, <k0das@arrl.org <mailto:k0das@arrl.org>>, <k1vr@arrl.org <mailto:k1vr@arrl.org>>, <k6jat@arrl.org <mailto:k6jat@arrl.org>>, <w2ru@arrl.org <mailto:w2ru@arrl.org>>, <k0rm@arrl.org <mailto:k0rm@arrl.org>>, <gsarratt@arrl.org <mailto:gsarratt@arrl.org>>, <n6aa@arrl.org <mailto:n6aa@arrl.org>>, <n5aus@arrl.org <mailto:n5aus@arrl.org>>
To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President
ARRL Board of Directors
ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager
Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor
From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer
CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager
Date: August 28, 2019
Re: Winlink/Pactor
Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations.
In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R:
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <mailto:nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <mailto:AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
**
*Monte,*
**
*I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. *
**
*While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. *
**
*In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. *
**
*73*
**
*Frank, NM7R*
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <mailto:nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <mailto:AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
**
*Monte,*
**
*I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. *
**
*My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.*
**
*73, *
*Frank*
**
If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate.
If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership.
Very Regards,
Monte, AF7PQ
WWA SM
*From:* Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com <mailto:wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM *To:* Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com <mailto:k2mlsares@msn.com>> *Subject:* ARRL/ Winlink
Monte,
Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams.
For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief.
This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed /_VERY_/ bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans.
This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. /_And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust_/.
I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this.
I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking.
Then, the ARRL did this.
The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act.
Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. */_Like it or not… they now own this mess_/*. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL.
For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse.
·In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative.
·FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them.
·I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response.
This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay.
_As an ARRL member_, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members?
_As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State_, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront.
_As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center_, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no.
/_The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable_/. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®.
*Bottom line*: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September.
Scott G. Dakers
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Auxiliary Radio Communications
RACES Station Manager
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Is the who said, he said, she said more important than answering the question from a representative of a State office? What was said was said, and what is done is done. We can not change that. Should that statement from staff been made (if true)? No, was it ( I assume yes) ? I think the letter from Washington State EMD requires more attention then who said what at this point. And that is *not* because I live in Washington. We all know what the intent of the board action was, but we seem to have failed in presenting it to the membership. As the kids say "we bad" In my opinion, and I discussed this tonight with Dir. Ritz, I feel like we were almost set up by the "negotiations" that were presented to us at the meeting as after the minutes were published with the "agreed upon" terms, all hell broke out. That again is just my opinion. Back row folks are grateful to be able to offer an opinion as I am with this. Don't get me wrong here, staff should in no way be offering opinions to members regarding matters such as this, but I think in the big picture we should be focusing on the "here is what we are doing" rather than "who did that" Back row opinion from HDX... Mark J. Tharp KB7HDX VD NW Div. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League.
Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was?
_______________________________________
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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members.
The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board.
See below:
“I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ”
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org>, <bjahnke@arrl.org>, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org>, <gwiden@arrl.org>, <w3tom@arrl.org>, <w9xa@arrl.org>, < k0BBC@arrl.org>, <k5uz@arrl.org>, <wa8efk@arrl.org>, <n2rj@arrl.org>, < k0das@arrl.org>, <k1vr@arrl.org>, <k6jat@arrl.org>, <w2ru@arrl.org>, < k0rm@arrl.org>, <gsarratt@arrl.org>, <n6aa@arrl.org>, <n5aus@arrl.org>
To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President
ARRL Board of Directors
ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager
Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor
From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer
CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager
Date: August 28, 2019
Re: Winlink/Pactor
Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations.
In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R:
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. *
*While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. *
*In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. *
*73*
*Frank, NM7R*
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. *
*My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.*
*73, *
*Frank*
If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate.
If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership.
Very Regards,
Monte, AF7PQ
WWA SM
*From:* Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM *To:* Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com> *Subject:* ARRL/ Winlink
Monte,
Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams.
For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief.
This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed *VERY* bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans.
This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. *And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust*.
I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this.
I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking.
Then, the ARRL did this.
The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act.
Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. * Like it or not… they now own this mess*. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL.
For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse.
· In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative.
· FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them.
· I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response.
This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay.
*As an ARRL member*, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members?
*As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State*, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront.
*As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center*, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no.
*The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable*. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®.
*Bottom line*: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September.
Scott G. Dakers
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Auxiliary Radio Communications
RACES Station Manager
_______________________________________________ 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
Mark, This is a separate issue. I do agree that answering the question is important but not having staff add fuel to the fire in an already contentious issue is also important. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Is the who said, he said, she said more important than answering the question from a representative of a State office? What was said was said, and what is done is done. We can not change that. Should that statement from staff been made (if true)? No, was it ( I assume yes) ? I think the letter from Washington State EMD requires more attention then who said what at this point.
And that is *not* because I live in Washington.
We all know what the intent of the board action was, but we seem to have failed in presenting it to the membership. As the kids say "we bad"
In my opinion, and I discussed this tonight with Dir. Ritz, I feel like we were almost set up by the "negotiations" that were presented to us at the meeting as after the minutes were published with the "agreed upon" terms, all hell broke out.
That again is just my opinion. Back row folks are grateful to be able to offer an opinion as I am with this.
Don't get me wrong here, staff should in no way be offering opinions to members regarding matters such as this, but I think in the big picture we should be focusing on the "here is what we are doing" rather than "who did that"
Back row opinion from HDX...
Mark J. Tharp KB7HDX VD NW Div.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League.
Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was?
_______________________________________
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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members.
The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board.
See below:
“I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ”
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org>, <bjahnke@arrl.org>, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org>, <gwiden@arrl.org>, <w3tom@arrl.org>, <w9xa@arrl.org>, <k0BBC@arrl.org>, <k5uz@arrl.org>, <wa8efk@arrl.org>, <n2rj@arrl.org>, < k0das@arrl.org>, <k1vr@arrl.org>, <k6jat@arrl.org>, <w2ru@arrl.org>, < k0rm@arrl.org>, <gsarratt@arrl.org>, <n6aa@arrl.org>, <n5aus@arrl.org>
To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President
ARRL Board of Directors
ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager
Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor
From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer
CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager
Date: August 28, 2019
Re: Winlink/Pactor
Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations.
In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R:
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. *
*While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. *
*In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. *
*73*
*Frank, NM7R*
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. *
*My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.*
*73, *
*Frank*
If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate.
If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership.
Very Regards,
Monte, AF7PQ
WWA SM
*From:* Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM *To:* Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com> *Subject:* ARRL/ Winlink
Monte,
Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams.
For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief.
This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed *VERY* bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans.
This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. *And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust*.
I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this.
I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking.
Then, the ARRL did this.
The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act.
Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. * Like it or not… they now own this mess*. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL.
For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse.
· In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative.
· FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them.
· I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response.
This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay.
*As an ARRL member*, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members?
*As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State*, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront.
*As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center*, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no.
*The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable*. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®.
*Bottom line*: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September.
Scott G. Dakers
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Auxiliary Radio Communications
RACES Station Manager
_______________________________________________ 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
and to be clear - my intent is to prevent this being said to members by staff in future and not to punish this particular individual. On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:58 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark, This is a separate issue.
I do agree that answering the question is important but not having staff add fuel to the fire in an already contentious issue is also important.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Is the who said, he said, she said more important than answering the question from a representative of a State office? What was said was said, and what is done is done. We can not change that. Should that statement from staff been made (if true)? No, was it ( I assume yes) ? I think the letter from Washington State EMD requires more attention then who said what at this point.
And that is *not* because I live in Washington.
We all know what the intent of the board action was, but we seem to have failed in presenting it to the membership. As the kids say "we bad"
In my opinion, and I discussed this tonight with Dir. Ritz, I feel like we were almost set up by the "negotiations" that were presented to us at the meeting as after the minutes were published with the "agreed upon" terms, all hell broke out.
That again is just my opinion. Back row folks are grateful to be able to offer an opinion as I am with this.
Don't get me wrong here, staff should in no way be offering opinions to members regarding matters such as this, but I think in the big picture we should be focusing on the "here is what we are doing" rather than "who did that"
Back row opinion from HDX...
Mark J. Tharp KB7HDX VD NW Div.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League.
Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was?
_______________________________________
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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members.
The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board.
See below:
“I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ”
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org>, <bjahnke@arrl.org>, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org>, <gwiden@arrl.org>, <w3tom@arrl.org>, <w9xa@arrl.org>, <k0BBC@arrl.org>, <k5uz@arrl.org>, <wa8efk@arrl.org>, < n2rj@arrl.org>, <k0das@arrl.org>, <k1vr@arrl.org>, <k6jat@arrl.org>, < w2ru@arrl.org>, <k0rm@arrl.org>, <gsarratt@arrl.org>, <n6aa@arrl.org>, < n5aus@arrl.org>
To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President
ARRL Board of Directors
ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager
Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor
From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer
CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager
Date: August 28, 2019
Re: Winlink/Pactor
Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations.
In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R:
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. *
*While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. *
*In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. *
*73*
*Frank, NM7R*
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. *
*My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.*
*73, *
*Frank*
If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate.
If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership.
Very Regards,
Monte, AF7PQ
WWA SM
*From:* Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM *To:* Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com> *Subject:* ARRL/ Winlink
Monte,
Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams.
For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief.
This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed *VERY* bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans.
This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. *And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust*.
I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this.
I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking.
Then, the ARRL did this.
The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act.
Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. * Like it or not… they now own this mess*. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL.
For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse.
· In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative.
· FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them.
· I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response.
This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay.
*As an ARRL member*, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members?
*As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State*, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront.
*As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center*, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no.
*The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable*. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®.
*Bottom line*: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September.
Scott G. Dakers
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Auxiliary Radio Communications
RACES Station Manager
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:59 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark, This is a separate issue.
I do agree that answering the question is important but not having staff add fuel to the fire in an already contentious issue is also important.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Is the who said, he said, she said more important than answering the question from a representative of a State office? What was said was said, and what is done is done. We can not change that. Should that statement from staff been made (if true)? No, was it ( I assume yes) ? I think the letter from Washington State EMD requires more attention then who said what at this point.
And that is *not* because I live in Washington.
We all know what the intent of the board action was, but we seem to have failed in presenting it to the membership. As the kids say "we bad"
In my opinion, and I discussed this tonight with Dir. Ritz, I feel like we were almost set up by the "negotiations" that were presented to us at the meeting as after the minutes were published with the "agreed upon" terms, all hell broke out.
That again is just my opinion. Back row folks are grateful to be able to offer an opinion as I am with this.
Don't get me wrong here, staff should in no way be offering opinions to members regarding matters such as this, but I think in the big picture we should be focusing on the "here is what we are doing" rather than "who did that"
Back row opinion from HDX...
Mark J. Tharp KB7HDX VD NW Div.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League.
Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was?
_______________________________________
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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members.
The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board.
See below:
“I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ”
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org>, <bjahnke@arrl.org>, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org>, <gwiden@arrl.org>, <w3tom@arrl.org>, <w9xa@arrl.org>, <k0BBC@arrl.org>, <k5uz@arrl.org>, <wa8efk@arrl.org>, < n2rj@arrl.org>, <k0das@arrl.org>, <k1vr@arrl.org>, <k6jat@arrl.org>, < w2ru@arrl.org>, <k0rm@arrl.org>, <gsarratt@arrl.org>, <n6aa@arrl.org>, < n5aus@arrl.org>
To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President
ARRL Board of Directors
ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager
Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor
From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer
CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager
Date: August 28, 2019
Re: Winlink/Pactor
Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations.
In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R:
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. *
*While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. *
*In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. *
*73*
*Frank, NM7R*
*From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com <nm7r@yahoo.com>> *
*Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM*
*To: AF7PQ@comcast.net <AF7PQ@comcast.net>*
*Subject: Re: Digital Modes*
*Monte,*
*I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. *
*My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.*
*73, *
*Frank*
If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate.
If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership.
Very Regards,
Monte, AF7PQ
WWA SM
*From:* Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM *To:* Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com> *Subject:* ARRL/ Winlink
Monte,
Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams.
For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief.
This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed *VERY* bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans.
This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. *And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust*.
I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this.
I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking.
Then, the ARRL did this.
The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act.
Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. * Like it or not… they now own this mess*. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL.
For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse.
· In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative.
· FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them.
· I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response.
This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay.
*As an ARRL member*, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members?
*As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State*, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront.
*As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center*, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no.
*The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable*. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®.
*Bottom line*: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September.
Scott G. Dakers
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Auxiliary Radio Communications
RACES Station Manager
_______________________________________________ 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
Just last month (after informing A&F) we modified the employee handbook to include a policy on the use of social media (in the broadest sense, any communications with the public.) There was nothing in the handbook before that. The policy was to both inform staff of possible pitfalls and their responsibilities, as well as to provide teeth in the case of problems. Without particulars here, I can just remind staff that any communications they may have with members may be reported, misreported and/or otherwise spread and interpreted as more than a personal comment. Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA<x-apple-data-detectors://1/0> Telephone: +1 860-594-0404<tel:+1%20860-594-0404> email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> On Aug 30, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com<mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:59 AM rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> <rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>> wrote: Mark, This is a separate issue. I do agree that answering the question is important but not having staff add fuel to the fire in an already contentious issue is also important. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com<mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com>> wrote: Is the who said, he said, she said more important than answering the question from a representative of a State office? What was said was said, and what is done is done. We can not change that. Should that statement from staff been made (if true)? No, was it ( I assume yes) ? I think the letter from Washington State EMD requires more attention then who said what at this point. And that is not because I live in Washington. We all know what the intent of the board action was, but we seem to have failed in presenting it to the membership. As the kids say "we bad" In my opinion, and I discussed this tonight with Dir. Ritz, I feel like we were almost set up by the "negotiations" that were presented to us at the meeting as after the minutes were published with the "agreed upon" terms, all hell broke out. That again is just my opinion. Back row folks are grateful to be able to offer an opinion as I am with this. Don't get me wrong here, staff should in no way be offering opinions to members regarding matters such as this, but I think in the big picture we should be focusing on the "here is what we are doing" rather than "who did that" Back row opinion from HDX... Mark J. Tharp KB7HDX VD NW Div. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com<mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com>> wrote: Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League. Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was? _______________________________________ 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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members. The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board. See below: “I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ” ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net<mailto:AF7PQ@comcast.net>> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org<mailto:sewald@arrl.org>>, <bjahnke@arrl.org<mailto:bjahnke@arrl.org>>, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org<mailto:kb7hdx@arrl.org>>, <gwiden@arrl.org<mailto:gwiden@arrl.org>>, <w3tom@arrl.org<mailto:w3tom@arrl.org>>, <w9xa@arrl.org<mailto:w9xa@arrl.org>>, <k0BBC@arrl.org<mailto:k0BBC@arrl.org>>, <k5uz@arrl.org<mailto:k5uz@arrl.org>>, <wa8efk@arrl.org<mailto:wa8efk@arrl.org>>, <n2rj@arrl.org<mailto:n2rj@arrl.org>>, <k0das@arrl.org<mailto:k0das@arrl.org>>, <k1vr@arrl.org<mailto:k1vr@arrl.org>>, <k6jat@arrl.org<mailto:k6jat@arrl.org>>, <w2ru@arrl.org<mailto:w2ru@arrl.org>>, <k0rm@arrl.org<mailto:k0rm@arrl.org>>, <gsarratt@arrl.org<mailto:gsarratt@arrl.org>>, <n6aa@arrl.org<mailto:n6aa@arrl.org>>, <n5aus@arrl.org<mailto:n5aus@arrl.org>> To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President ARRL Board of Directors ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager Date: August 28, 2019 Re: Winlink/Pactor Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations. In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R: From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com<mailto:nm7r@yahoo.com>> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM To: AF7PQ@comcast.net<mailto:AF7PQ@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Digital Modes Monte, I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations. While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use. In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission. 73 Frank, NM7R From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com<mailto:nm7r@yahoo.com>> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM To: AF7PQ@comcast.net<mailto:AF7PQ@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Digital Modes Monte, I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way. My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem. 73, Frank If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate. If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership. Very Regards, Monte, AF7PQ WWA SM From: Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com<mailto:wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com>> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM To: Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com<mailto:k2mlsares@msn.com>> Subject: ARRL/ Winlink Monte, Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams. For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief. This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed VERY bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans. This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust. I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this. I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. Then, the ARRL did this. The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act. Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. Like it or not… they now own this mess. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL. For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse. • In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative. • FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them. • I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response. This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay. As an ARRL member, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members? As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront. As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no. The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®. Bottom line: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September. Scott G. Dakers Washington State Emergency Management Division Auxiliary Radio Communications RACES Station Manager _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I do not. However the person who had this interaction is in the forwarded email so maybe you should ask them. Ria N2RJ On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 00:06, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ria's concern is valid. Staff need not/should not be making any public comments regarding parties engaged on any issue with the League.
Ria, do you have any idea of the staffer was?
_______________________________________
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 8/29/19 11:00 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
Reading through this, if true, this part is extremely disappointing. If this actually happened, the CEO or another senior manager at HQ needs to make it clear that staff ought not to be making this sort of statement to members.
The whole “Rappaport is a bully” thing is dangerous for a staffer to be telling membership. That is not their place and this issue needs to be deferred to senior management or the Board.
See below:
“I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking. ”
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <AF7PQ@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22 AM Subject: FW: ARRL/ Winlink To: <sewald@arrl.org>, <bjahnke@arrl.org>, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>, <kb7hdx@arrl.org>, <gwiden@arrl.org>, <w3tom@arrl.org>, <w9xa@arrl.org>, <k0BBC@arrl.org>, <k5uz@arrl.org>, <wa8efk@arrl.org>, <n2rj@arrl.org>, <k0das@arrl.org>, <k1vr@arrl.org>, <k6jat@arrl.org>, <w2ru@arrl.org>, <k0rm@arrl.org>, <gsarratt@arrl.org>, <n6aa@arrl.org>, <n5aus@arrl.org>
To: Gregory Widin, K0GW, First Vice President
ARRL Board of Directors
ARRL HF Band Planning Committee Members
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ, Radiosport and Field Services Manager
Steve Ewald, WV1X, Field Services Supervisor
From: Monte Simpson, AF7PQ, ARRL WWA Section Manager and Washington State RACES Officer
CC: Frank Wolfe, NM7R, WWA Section Emergency Coordinator Scott Dakers, W7SGD, WWA ASEC Washington State EOC, Washington State EOC RACES Radio Room Manager
Date: August 28, 2019
Re: Winlink/Pactor
Amateur Radio Service emergency communicators are struggling with the ARRL’s suggestion to move Winlink/Pactor operations into a category covered by 47 CFR 97.221. This regulation would require a method of transmission that requires 2.4 kHz of bandwidth to fit into a method of transmission not exceeding 500 Hz and into a sub band that is insufficient to support it. This presents a public-safety concern in that the Amateur Radio Service will not be able to meet its commitments to help preserve and protect lives and property. When I first started in the radio business, I learned that FCC licenses are issued at the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. Since those complaining about Winlink/Pactor haven’t offered a solution we’re left not meeting that obligation. CW and HF packet are not effective or efficient and are not an alternative to providing emergency communications to our partners/served agencies.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are preparing for a catastrophic Cascadian Subduction Zone earthquake magnitude 9. The impact area will likely be from Crescent City, CA into Alaska. Amateur stations in the states of Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington plus stations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory and eastward will be using Winlink/Pactor for rescue and recovery efforts. We also need adequate frequencies and bandwidth to prepare for this catastrophic event. By expecting U.S. Amateurs to abide by the 47 CFR 97.221 restrictions they will be at a big disadvantage while competing for space and time with our ITU Region 1 neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. Please understand that competing for these small allotments of space and bandwidth will be not only ARES/RACES/ACS, but traffic handlers in Radio Relay International and faith-based communications organizations.
In addition to Scott Dakers comments I’d like to share with you the observations of the WWA SEC Frank Wolfe, NM7R:
From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:49 AM
To: AF7PQ@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Digital Modes
Monte,
I think the point needs to be made that in most countries (in fact almost all other countries) the Amateur spectrum is largely left un-divided, with the ability of an operator to operate any mode anywhere. We are not a broadcasting service, where, once licensed, we permanently occupy a specific frequency or "channel". Rather, our operations tend to be ephemeral. We operate on a particular frequency for a time, and then might move to another place in the spectrum. The Rules make it clear that no one "owns" any frequency, and all are to be shared. The idea that tiny slivers of spectrum need to be reserved for each specific mode ignores the nature of our operations.
While I am not so radical as to advocate the lifting of all band/mode allocations, and I understand the desirability of, for example, reserving the "bottom" of most bands for CW use, I think the idea of trying to pigeon-hole every specific mode is a fool's errand. Part of Amateur Radio is learning to get along with others. We are supposed to SHARE the spectrum. Pigeon-holing would guarantee that at any given time, there would be parts of a band that are over-crowded and simultaneously, other parts that are vacant, the epiphany of inefficient spectral use.
In a disaster scenario, we will need flexibility in spectral use. Having small slivers for different modes would be a recipe for crippling our ability to respond adequately. We might as well remove the "emergency communications" component from our mission.
73
Frank, NM7R
From: Frank Wolfe <nm7r@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:34 AM
To: AF7PQ@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Digital Modes
Monte,
I think there is a perception within the Amateur community that this is "just a hobby". In other words, it's something to be done for fun as a pass-time. Well, it is that, of course, but it isn't ONLY that. Part of our brief under Part 97 is to of service to the community during times of communication outage. When the "Big One" hits, whether it's a hurricane on the East Coast, or an earthquake on the West Coast, emergency communications needs to have the elbow-room to provide that service. That requires the flexibility to use the spectrum in the most efficient manner possible. At least in principle, we are adult enough to understand that in such a situation, we may have to put the games aside for a time and either help our neighbors, or at least stay out of their way.
My point is, if fences are permanently erected across the spectrum so each individual flavor of operating has its own little place they can play, then we will be severely hampered when we need to pull out all the stops. One would hope, in the case of a major disaster, that the greater Amateur community is willing to suspend their contests and county-hunting long enough to either help out, or at least stay out of the way. I think it's time we put on our "big kid pants" and show that we can all share the spectrum, and recognize each other's equal right to operate. If ARRL doesn't understand that, then maybe they're part of the problem.
73,
Frank
If the idea of subjecting Winlink/Pactor to the requirements of 47 CFR 97.221 prevails on amateur radio emergency communications will be rendered useless. Sadly, if this is the case, we have done it to ourselves. I would like to point out for amateurs who aren’t interested in emergency services their access to practice the hobby may well be curtailed when an emergency manager declares an emergency and provisions of 47 CFR 97.407 are invoked. I think Frank Wolfe’s observation about sharing the spectrum is most appropriate.
If any of my highly competent and valued staff can be of assistance during the HF Band Planning Committee deliberations, please let us know what we can do. Please note Scott, W7SGD, is asking for information from the committee’s leadership.
Very Regards,
Monte, AF7PQ
WWA SM
From: Scott Dakers <wa.eoc.radio@olyriverwood.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:05 PM To: Monte Simpson <k2mlsares@msn.com> Subject: ARRL/ Winlink
Monte,
Please pass this along to the ARRL Board of Directors. I’m writing you in hopes that you can get the ARRL leadership to see their decision regarding Winlnk was a mistake and that they need to come down in support of their ARES® hams.
For the sake of those with whom you may share this email, I serve as the DEC for District E, the ASEC for WWA, the Radio Station Manager for the Washington State Emergency Management Division (W7EMD)… but I am also the COML for the WA State EOC when the SEOC is activated and am in charge of our auxiliary radio communications, serving under the Logistics Chief.
This most recent news regarding the proposed changes to Winlink that appears to have been negotiated in the upper echelons of the ARRL is indeed VERY bad news. If what is proposed by the ARRL actually happens, it will most definitely change ARES® as we know it. This move by the ARRL will force us to rethink our use of amateur radio in our mutual agreement plans.
This is a major blow to emergency communications, the scope of which I cannot begin to describe, but for which I am now forced to respond. Losing amateur HF Winlink capabilities would be a true communications disaster. If what is proposed either by the ARRL and/or Dr. Rappaport goes through, ARES® as we now know it would be unable to respond as a partner to emergency managers in a large-scale event in many places… which means it can’t be counted on. And as the COML, I cannot use what I cannot trust.
I need to know—now—if the ARRL is going to go through with this. My hope is that they won’t, but it would be irresponsible of me or my counterparts in California, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska not to take them at their word and begin planning for this.
I called the ARRL headquarters personally about this over the summer, shared my concerns regarding RM-11831 and asked why the ARRL didn’t respond. The response: I was told that Rappaport was a bully and that the best way to deal with a bully was not to engage with him. I was recommended to ignore Rappaport and that this was the tact the ARRL was taking.
Then, the ARRL did this.
The ARRL, the most powerful voice for amateur radio emergency communications, has inexplicably proposed to disable our single most important valuable communications tool. This move was most certainly a terrible wake-up call for those who trusted the ARRL. The conversation as to how amateur radio will figure into emergency communications is now have to be on the front burner unless something drastically changes with the ARRL, and by change, I don’t mean talk. I’ve already experienced that personally. I need to see them act.
Like it or not, when the ARRL weighed in to negotiate a settlement “between the two sides," they took the problem onto themselves and in doing so became part of the problem. Like it or not… they now own this mess. It no longer matters if it was the ARRL Directors, paid administrative staff or their lawyers who made this recommendation. This disaster now belongs to the ARRL.
For me, the timing of this couldn’t be worse.
· In my capacity as the COML, I have been tasked with writing the Logistics PACE Plan/ Communications Annex for WA EMD. For those reading this who may not know, PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency and Emergency. This updated Annex will be published on the WA EMD website and will go out to all of the emergency managers statewide. ARES teams using Winlink have so convincingly proven amateur radio’s ability to serve in disaster situations using Winlink that ARES/ amateur radio has moved up from “…when all else fails… the last resort (“E” in PACE) to the Alternate means of communication when the internet is down or communications are overloaded (the “A” in PACE). If what the ARRL has put forth goes through, ARES will no longer have the tools to serve as a reliable alternative.
· FEMA Region X is preparing for Cascadia Rising 2022 and I am tasked with the communications plan and training for WA’s part of the exercise. Other states have indicated that they want to work with us and participate in the training and exercise. Message traffic will be sent by Winlink. This is the standard. Will the hams have Winlink or not? If I don’t hear, I have to assume the answer is no. I do NOT want to write the hams out of this part of the exercise, but if this happens, the reason will be obvious to all of them.
· I’ve been asked by WA EMD leadership to present to all of the emergency managers across the state the plan to move Winlink communications as the alternate means of communications. In addition, Mr. Robert Ezelle, WA EMD’s Director of Emergency Management has asked me to brief him on our preparations for a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and the role the hams will play alongside emergency managers across the state. I need an answer. And in this case, a non-response from the ARRL is a response.
This decision, if left to stand as is, will cost the ARRL both in terms of membership and lost revenue. Worse: it will be a colossal PR nightmare. The ARRL will forfeit any claim to being a leader in amateur radio emergency communications. It was amateur radio and the ARRL that demonstrated to emergency managers what Winlink could mean to an emergency response. The states saw it, were amazed at what the hams can do and fully bought into it. The governor of the State of Oregon put PACTOR modems into each county EOC’s amateur radio stations in the state. WA amateur RMS Stations were handling health and welfare traffic via Winlink HF from shelters during the CA wildfires. Washington State made Winlink its alternative means of emergency communications. This isn’t just about Washington State; it is about the entire west coast. If the ARRL will not support amateur radio communications they have promoted in countless articles in QST and through their ARES® teams to emergency managers-- there will be a price to pay.
As an ARRL member, I find this appalling. The crux of the argument against Winlink/ Pactor is that it is being or could be used for nefarious purposes by our hams. The ARRL should have been the first to stand up for the character of the countless hams who give of their time, treasure and talent to the community. We are not terrorists or criminals. Where was their outrage at this affront? How in the world did you not at least challenge the attack on the character of your members?
As a leader in ARES® communications in Washington State, I’m furious. Dedicated teams across the state have invested hard-earned dollars and legally purchased the equipment needed to serve their communities as a conduit to disaster mitigation. If what Rappaport and/or the ARRL’s proposal goes through, this ability will be stripped from them and the equipment legally purchased rendered illegal. Don’t think for a minute they won’t respond to that affront.
As the COML for the Washington State Emergency Operations Center, I have a reasonable question: will amateur radio as we need it and know it will be there in an emergency? Voice communication is not enough. Puerto Rico showed that. If what the ARRL or Dr. Rappaport proposes goes through, the answer is no.
The backup communications system for WA EMD is and will be Winlink. This is a non-negotiable. I’ll still be able to use the hams, but they’ll be on SHARES radios in the EOCs, and as such, the operators won’t be ARES®.
Bottom line: I need to know if ARRL is going to support amateur radio Winlink communications and I need my answer no later than the second week of September.
Scott G. Dakers
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Auxiliary Radio Communications
RACES Station Manager
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
John Robert Stratton -
Mark J Tharp -
Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) -
rjairam＠gmail.com