RE: [arrl-odv:18405] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113
Jim and All: The following comment are NOT directed at Director Weaver's email. Director Weaver is to be applauded for his efforts to gather input from his division members. The email was simply a opportunity to address a number of comments on the subject of Section 97.113. I'm not surprised that an overwhelming majority would choose making it somewhat easier for employees to participate in on-air emergency training and operation (but still maintaining the integrity of Amateur Radio over aking no change".) I believe that the question understates the complexity of the problem and doesn't address the challenges in coming to a consensus as to what we would like FCC to do. Even if we had a clear idea of which employees (only government or also non-profit or also some for profit or what kinds of non=profit or for profit organizations, etc.) should be exempted and the extent of what should be permitted, we still have the question of how to frame the request in a Petition to FCC. We also need to keep in mind a Petition to FCC for a rule change is both a lengthy process and a bit of a gamble. Past experience has repeatedly shown the rule FCC issues often differs from the rule change requested. Moreover the FCC's "improvement" can create as many problems as it "solves." I wonder if a better approach would be to first look for ways to accomplish our goals within the existing rules. Before we decide to request a change in Section 97.113 let's take a second look at the paper "Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, The Issues", which we all approved. In particular take a look at page 6 "Why not ask FCC to decide for us?" and page 7 "How can the ARRL offer additional assistance to Amateurs regarding compliance with the Rules and promote reasoned decision-making about appropriate uses of Amateur Radio?" We approved this document. At the very least we ought to give the suggestions and recommendations a try. In addition to working harder to promote an understanding of the Rule, we owe it to ourselves and our members to first make sure ARRL is doing everything it can to "provide assistance in the design of training exercises which comply with FCC Rules ." and provide the resources so " Headquarters Staff and knowledgeable Field Organization volunteers can cooperate to develop ideas and promote critical thinking about how to meet community needs within the scope of FCC Rules." Yes, we need to listen to the concerns of members and take those concerns into consideration in making our decisions. We also need to "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk." If we approve and promote a document such as the "Commercialization of Amateur Radio.." we need to stand behind the well researched and carefully thought out proposals in that paper and at least give them a try, before we go running to FCC and rolling the dice. 73, Jay, K0QB From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18405] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 FWIW, I spoke at a club meeting Friday evening. The discussion included the pecuniary interest situation. At the end of a fairly time I ended the discussion by asking the attendees to vote for "making it somewhat easier for employees to participate in on-air emergency training and operation" (but still maintaining the integrity of Amateur Radio) or for "making no change from the present rules." There were about 110 at the meeting. The results of this informal voting were that 1 person voted to make no change. Essentially everyone else voted for a slight easing in the rules. It appeared that everyone voted, but I didn't take an actual count to be certain of this. This result is consistent with the general tone of the relatively little input I've received from members throughout the Division. Again, FWIW - if anything. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Bruce Frahm [mailto:brucefrahmk0bj@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 10:37 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18405] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 I'm essentially in agreement with Mickey and Dick Norton on this. There is NWS and hospital angst in the Midwest Division. Our population bases for the most part are such that A) it is difficult to find non-employee amateurs to man on-site stations and B) VHF channel loading and traffic are such that the general amateur population is not the least troubled operationally by such usage. Unlike Dick's experience, I DO have a couple hams that are conceptually concerned about these activities taking place in the Amateur Service. They aren't a significant portion but they serve as a reminder that we need to be judicious stewards of our spectrum. I like Option C. I don't mind Mickey's idea of time limits providing it's a fairly large number. This will be an interesting discussion. I hope we can facilitate the amateur emcomm role and also capitalize on the influx of operators we've been seeing as a result of the hospital and other agency utilization of Homeland Security funds to interface with the amateur emcomm community. 73 Bruce K0BJ
Once again, Jay has added valuable perspective to a discussion. He seems to have an uncanny ability to do this. As he commented, my note last evening about the opinions of members at one rather large meeting was simply a report of the opinions. It provided merely another piece of information that to me shows the need for the Board to "do something" to demonstrate to the members that we are "doing something." Of course, we need to be as certain as possible that the "something" we do is a correct if not the best "something." As noted previously, failing to take appropriate action if action is needed can lead Amateur Radio in the US to the same inglorious result as if we take inappropriate action either if action is warranted or, conversely, if action is not needed. I suggest that to the interested member, the Board has gone 6 months without showing signs of truly addressing the "97.113" issue. The "Commercialization of Amateur Radio . . ." positioning paper is excellent, but leaves many members wanting more guidance. Whether we can or should provide further guidance is debatable, but it would seem we would be well advised to pursue a serious follow-up on the thought Jay highlighted (that we "provide assistance in the design of training exercises which comply with FCC Rules . . ."). Jay's reminder of this statement is spot-on, as usual. As a further thought, maybe it would be useful to constitute a sub-committee or an ad hoc committee to begin working to develop such guidance immediately after the conclusion of our meeting this week? Would assistance toward developing this guidance be an appropriate task to assign to an ECAC (whatever name it may bear) upon its facilitation -- provided we decide to form one of course? Whatever we choose to do, I suggest we let our members know of the decision and the reasoning behind it so they will recognize the issue is not merely being ignored. I look forward to seeing "all y'all" later this week. 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:18 PM To: 'K8JE'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18405] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 Jim and All: The following comment are NOT directed at Director Weaver's email. Director Weaver is to be applauded for his efforts to gather input from his division members. The email was simply a opportunity to address a number of comments on the subject of Section 97.113. I'm not surprised that an overwhelming majority would choose making it somewhat easier for employees to participate in on-air emergency training and operation (but still maintaining the integrity of Amateur Radio over aking no change".) I believe that the question understates the complexity of the problem and doesn't address the challenges in coming to a consensus as to what we would like FCC to do. Even if we had a clear idea of which employees (only government or also non-profit or also some for profit or what kinds of non=profit or for profit organizations, etc.) should be exempted and the extent of what should be permitted, we still have the question of how to frame the request in a Petition to FCC. We also need to keep in mind a Petition to FCC for a rule change is both a lengthy process and a bit of a gamble. Past experience has repeatedly shown the rule FCC issues often differs from the rule change requested. Moreover the FCC's "improvement" can create as many problems as it "solves." I wonder if a better approach would be to first look for ways to accomplish our goals within the existing rules. Before we decide to request a change in Section 97.113 let's take a second look at the paper "Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, The Issues", which we all approved. In particular take a look at page 6 "Why not ask FCC to decide for us?" and page 7 "How can the ARRL offer additional assistance to Amateurs regarding compliance with the Rules and promote reasoned decision-making about appropriate uses of Amateur Radio?" We approved this document. At the very least we ought to give the suggestions and recommendations a try. In addition to working harder to promote an understanding of the Rule, we owe it to ourselves and our members to first make sure ARRL is doing everything it can to "provide assistance in the design of training exercises which comply with FCC Rules ." and provide the resources so " Headquarters Staff and knowledgeable Field Organization volunteers can cooperate to develop ideas and promote critical thinking about how to meet community needs within the scope of FCC Rules." Yes, we need to listen to the concerns of members and take those concerns into consideration in making our decisions. We also need to "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk." If we approve and promote a document such as the "Commercialization of Amateur Radio.." we need to stand behind the well researched and carefully thought out proposals in that paper and at least give them a try, before we go running to FCC and rolling the dice. 73, Jay, K0QB From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18405] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 FWIW, I spoke at a club meeting Friday evening. The discussion included the pecuniary interest situation. At the end of a fairly time I ended the discussion by asking the attendees to vote for "making it somewhat easier for employees to participate in on-air emergency training and operation" (but still maintaining the integrity of Amateur Radio) or for "making no change from the present rules." There were about 110 at the meeting. The results of this informal voting were that 1 person voted to make no change. Essentially everyone else voted for a slight easing in the rules. It appeared that everyone voted, but I didn't take an actual count to be certain of this. This result is consistent with the general tone of the relatively little input I've received from members throughout the Division. Again, FWIW - if anything. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio _____ From: Bruce Frahm [mailto:brucefrahmk0bj@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 10:37 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18405] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 I'm essentially in agreement with Mickey and Dick Norton on this. There is NWS and hospital angst in the Midwest Division. Our population bases for the most part are such that A) it is difficult to find non-employee amateurs to man on-site stations and B) VHF channel loading and traffic are such that the general amateur population is not the least troubled operationally by such usage. Unlike Dick's experience, I DO have a couple hams that are conceptually concerned about these activities taking place in the Amateur Service. They aren't a significant portion but they serve as a reminder that we need to be judicious stewards of our spectrum. I like Option C. I don't mind Mickey's idea of time limits providing it's a fairly large number. This will be an interesting discussion. I hope we can facilitate the amateur emcomm role and also capitalize on the influx of operators we've been seeing as a result of the hospital and other agency utilization of Homeland Security funds to interface with the amateur emcomm community. 73 Bruce K0BJ
participants (2)
-
John Bellows -
K8JE