|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG (CALLSIGNPENDING)
on
February 17, 2004
View comments about this article!
AN ALLY'S PRESENTATION TO THE ARRL BOARD
[NOTE: My name is Don Schellhardt. I call myself
CALLSIGNPENDING because I do not yet have a ham license. However, I have joined ARRL and enrolled in a Technician License Training Course.]
On January 16, a Written Presentation was submitted to the ARRL Board of Directors by The NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC). While not represented orally and in person, NAC addressed the Board Members through the written word, thanks to the good graces of ARRL Executive Director Dave Sumner K1ZZ.
The Written Presentation was entitled "NAC And ARRL: 2 Groups With Common Goals".
This Written Presentation introduced ARRL Board Members to NAC: a newly "re-energized" non-profit organization, which has joined ARRL in opposing both Broadband Over Powerlines (BPL) and antenna bans by Homeowners' Associations (HOAs). The document discussed ways in which the lobbying efforts of NAC and ARRL could complement, and reinforce, each other.
At the same time, however, the document noted that NAC and ARRL might &"need to talk" about whether current HOA reform legislation, sponsored by Representative Steven Israel (D-NY), should be amended to help more people than just hams. The Written Presentation speculated that expanding the Israel proposal to include shortwavers, plus CBers in the REACT INTERNATIONAL emergency communications network, might also expand, substantially, the base of public support for the bill.
To read the text of the Written Presentation, go to the NAC Web Site:
www.antenna-consortium.org
Then, in the column on the left hand side of the NAC Home Page, click on the link to "NAC And ARRL: 2 Groups With Common Goals".
As reported elsewhere on eHam.net, in the article "ACTION ON BPL BY CONGRESS?", NAC officials recently consulted with ARRL officials on a January 5 multi-party letter to Congress. ARRL did not sign the letter, which urged Congress to override any future authorization of BPL by the FCC, in order to preserve ARRL's “functional independence” from other BPL opponents. However, ARRL encouraged the project. ARRL also offered friendly and useful input on the letter as it was developed.
The NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM was founded in 2001, with a virtually exclusive focus on easing the various regulatory obstacles to siting and approval of communications towers. By 2003, however, NAC had also begun to support Congressional legislation to ban the HOA bans on antennas. More recently, it began efforts to oppose BPL.
The trend within NAC toward helping individual radio operators, in addition to helping owners and/or users of communications towers, is not surprising -- because 3 of NAC's 4 top officials are also Members of ARRL.
NAC was founded by a ham: Fred Baumgartner, C.P.B.E. KG0KI of Colorado, who is also nationally known for his work in organizing and leading the Society of Professional Broadcast Engineers (SPBE). Fred still serves as NAC's Chairman. NAC's Executive Director is Gerald L. Agliata W2GLA of New York. I am NAC's newly recruited Vice President, Government Relations & Membership Development, and am now in the process of studying for a ham license.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K0BG on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL isn't just an ARRL or NAC thing. It is going to effect and infect every facit of communications. When the NPRM is released, get busy and post your negitive reply.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Don, you have chosen to join a group that many hams consider the enemy. Depending upon the numbers you choose, the ARRL can't count much more then 1/3 of ham licenses as its members. There are good reasons for this statistic. Watch your back, my friend.
W9WHE
Proudly supporting the ARRL boycott.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K7VO on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, Don, you've chosen a group in the ARRL that W9WHE calls the enemy, and a handful of like minded hams agree. His 1/3 number is based on total licensees. Pity only about half to two thirds of licensed hams are active by most estimates. For a group to claim half it's potential audience as members is impressive indeed.
Thank you for your hard work to help fight BPL. Despite the narrow interests of some to work against this effort the vast majority of hams, myself included, appreciate any effort to bring more allies to the fight and to do all that is possible to defeat this very real threat to the HF and 6m bands.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by AC7NA on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-
As an apparently active opponent of the ARRL and BPL, I would ask what you have done personally to address this issue, and the overall influence you or any organization you sponsor (other than the ARRL) have over the final outcome in deciding our future relative to the BPL issue.
The ARRL has many issues that divde hams as supporters or non-supporters, but I applaud them for taking a stance, rather than simply doing nothing, even when they know they will receive criticism either way. In this fight, we need a big dog in the ring, and the ARRL is the only player willing to take it straight to Washington to support our interests. Numbers count here, don't be fooled, and don't let your disagreements with the ARRL prevent you from getting behind them on this one. In short, Don't cut your nose off to spite your face.
Bottom Line-An "Army of One" will not win this one. I don't agree w/ the ARRL all the time, but I do feel they are doing to most (by far) to address the BPL issue. Please inform me if there are others you feel are working harder to address this issue and please evaluate their effectiveness thus far.
Brian AC7NA
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Brian, we disagree.
If you think that dumbing down ham radio and giving away HF for nothing is good for ham radio, then I ask you to ponder this...:
Q: What seperates us from 11 meters?
A: Testing requirements.
The more testing requirements you remove, the more we will resemble CB. I don't think that reducing us to CB is the right thing to do. If you do, then by all means, support the ARRL.
As of this am, the e ham survey showed that 23% of hams will NOT renew their ARRL membership. The membership is "communicating" with the ARRL using the ONLY language it understands.
W9WHE
Proudly supporting the ARRL boycott
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W0FM on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don, if you are looking for additional allies, there is an industry that I am suprised is not yet represented in the battle against BPL. That would be the X-10 home control manufacturers. X-10 sends data over your home wiring to control lamps, applicances, thermostats, stereos, etc. The potential for a collision between X-10 signals and BPL on the same house wiring is pretty evident. The X-10 manufacturers could be a good ally against BPL.
If you are not familiar with S-10 control, see www.smarthome.com. I have about 40 devices controlled by X-10 in my home and have seen no harmful interference on the ham bands so far.
The X-10 manufacturers include Leviton, LampLinc, PowerHouse and IBM among others. When I recently asked one of the tech service reps about the potential damage to their market by BPL he replied that he had never heard of BPL and was unaware of any possible threat to the operation of their products.
Does anyone know of any effort to resist BPL being mounted by the X-10 power line control industry?
73,
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
RE: An "Ally's" Presentation to the ARRL
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When & where does this "ally's" infomercial ever end?
Hopefully they used a spellchecker on that "big letter" going nowhere.
The "ally" is unique not only in spelling, they are offering "New Lower Dues for a limited time..." unlike the ARRL who always increases it, even on students & retirees.
However, I do find that they are both of very like mind.
They are both endlessly begging for money to support their agenda.
They are also both losing what little support they ever had...
Amazing, like watching a roll of #12 copperweld unravel!!!
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by AC7NA on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-
I don't disagree w/ you on the issue of "Dumbing Down" ham radio. As a matter of fact, I agree wholeheartedly that this will not benefit us in the long run. The ARRL restructuring proposal is responding by minimizing HF access in a somewhat controlled manner, rather than letting the chips fall where they may....i.e., free HF access across all bands to any license class. Without ARRL input, I have no doubt that is what would occur. That is beside the original point however, and you haven't answered my original question.
What can an individual do to fight the BPL issue, and who besides the ARRL has any chance of protecting our interests on this matter?
Brian AC7NA
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another sheep led to slaughter. Don, joining the ARRL who advocates dumbing the hobby down to CB level is NOT your friend! All they are interested in is your dues. This so called alliance isnt worth the paper its written on. Look at the failure of the ARRL to block BPL. Do you actually think that they will have any clout with these issues? In your dreams perhaps.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NN6EE on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear "Callsign-pending",
Your posting was very interesting!!!
Question though! What are your Brother and Sister CBers doing about fighting the impending BPL debacle??? As I see it they've got as much to lose as we do as Hams or really even more, as we guys can operate at 144+mhz. or higher if "push comes to shove" to get away from the impending NOISE!!!
One other question as well: Does anyone out here know if the SWLs are banning together to protest what would be devastating to them as well???
Any comments?
EE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Does anyone out here know if the SWLs are banning together to protest what would be devastating to them as well???"
Ok I'll bite...
Do you know a guy by the name of - Glenn Hauser ?
He is considered to be the leading Guru and "On Air" authority in the SWL hobby.
He does a radio show called "World of Radio" for SW listeners. He has on many occasions voiced his discontent for BPL on the air to many listeners worldwide.
His program and schedule can be found here:
http://www.worldofradio.com/
Another good SWL website is here:
North America SW Listeners Association
http://www.anarc.org/naswa/
National Radio Club
http://www.nrcdxas.org/
Longwave Listening Club
http://www.lwca.org/
World Utility News (WUNClub)
http://www.wunclub.com/
I was reading one SWL website that stated the following:
"And one can look at a pretty bleak future for SW DX'ing in the long run, with the threats of "BPL" (broadband Internet over powerlines), "
There does appear to be a large number of SWL's concerned about this issue. I am sure many SWL's also visit this website to gain the latest information pertaining to their hobby.
They often look to Amateurs as we are historically the ones that can often lobby and effect change in the radio spectrum.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
"Amateur and SWL"
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I AGREE WITH W9WHE. AND FURTHERMORE, THERE ISN'T A ONE MAN ARMY, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF US DISGUSTED WITH THE ARRL AND THEIR STANCE AGAINST HAM RADIO. PROUD TO BE PART OF THE ARRL BOYCOTT
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll repeat my post from the other topic here:
I had a look at the registrant on this domain antenna-consortium.org - all things point to a hotmail address. I would not send them a dime. It doesn't appear to be anything official - probably goes into somebody's pocket and not where it can be useful. Looks like a scam to me. Sad it has to show up here.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by AC7NA on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CWTITAN-
I believe there are plenty of other threads to bash the ARRL on. Both you and W9WHE are not adressing the point of this thread. As I stated previously, I'm not in favor of some of the recent things the ARRL has done recently, but I feel that the ARRL is the only voice in Washington representing amateur radio with a credible voice.
You can either support their efforts to protect our spectrum from BPL, or revel in your "boycott," then complain about their lack of results when you're tapping your key against nothing but static on the airwaves. I for one, will do what I can to fight BPL interference on the HF bands. If there is another organization that supports those efforts, I will support them as well as the ARRL.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K0ZN on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It just fascinates me that so many people think that the ARRL is going to "save us" and if we don't join we will "go down together". I have been an ARRL member for 30+ years and in that time I have seen many FCC actions go against the ARRL; as a guess, maybe 50% of the ARRL "requests" are turned down by the FCC over the years. They are hardly some omnipotent, "think tank" group that terrifies the FCC. The ARRL spends a LOT of time and money pushing agendas and publishing public relations stuff to "spin" stuff so they look good. The BPL issue could not have come at a BETTER time or the ARRL as it allows them to use "terror tactics" to justify their proposal to "dumb down" amateur licensing.
I ask you: WHEN have you EVER seen an editorial or "ARRL letter" that acknowledged that there possibly may be some downside and dangers to "dumbing down"?? Answer: NEVER. In an effort to push their agenda/desires, they simply IGNORE the the positions of those in disagreement with them. This has been their tactic for years. Opposing sides simply don't have the media power to counter the ARRL, so the ham world gets a one sided view.
Make no mistake, the ARRL executives have made a cognizant decision to abandon the values and beliefs of a sizeable percentage of its membership without even so much as acknowledging the feelings, beliefs and values of those who want to keep Amateur Radio a disciplined, organized, and technically competent service. (This is NOT about "CW"; it is about the ease of getting a ham license.) I think ARRL will find in about 6 months that "blowing off" 20 to 30% of the membership of a VOLUNTARY organization was a catastrophic mistake. Certainly, time will tell.
THE GOOD NEWS: The FCC will be soliciting comments from IT'S licensees and other "interested parties".
This is the time for EACH of us to STAND UP AND BE COUNTED. WE are the "affected" licensees!! MAKE the time to respond to the NPRM. If you don't MAKE the time to respond to the FCC proposal, but you TAKE the time to play on your radio or type stuff on eHam you will deserve any BPL problems you get!
If you know and have contact with anyone in commercial communications you should "do what it takes" to get them "off their duff" and comment too.
The ARRL's comments carry no more weight than YOURS do, because the FCC is fully aware that the ARRL has some "ancillary agendas" too.
MAKE the time to act on this!!
73. K0ZN
P.S. As you probably picked up... the ARRL has lost my support. I will not be renewing my membership. I personally see no reason to financially support an organization that does not support my views and values. If you like the ARRL's "vision" for dumbing down amateur licensing, and letting some one on HF SSB with a couple of hundred watts after taking a quick 25 question quiz, then for heaven sakes Join!! I don't happen to think that is the correct course of action and won't support it. Personally, I would rather LOOSE bands and spectrum, but keep the Amateur service disciplined, organized and a close knit fraternity.... but that would mean a lot less circulation for QST !
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by WB5UAG on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I have a slight problem with the facts as stated in this column. Fred Baumgartner, C.P.B.E., founder of NAC.
Fred is a member of SBE, Society of Broadcast Engineers.
C.P.B.E. stands for Certified Professional Broadcast Engineer. Mr. Baumgartner has been and probably will continue to be a leader in SBE. He is a respected member of the broadcast community. I happen to be a member of SBE. Upon first review of the article, I knew something did not read right. It's just one of the things that caught my eye, Mr. "Call Sign Pending." Are these the only facts that are slightly skewed by the author??
Hmmmmmm.....I'll read on and see.
|
| |
|
Response To 2 Accusations
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. Re the charge, by KB2FCV, that NAC is a "scam":
I have responded, at some length, in the OTHER discussion thread -- "Action On BPL By Congress?" -- where the same charge has also been made by KB2FCV. I refer you to the posting entitled "A Scam??!!"
2. Comment to WB5UAG, regarding the implied charge that I made up FRED BAUMGARTNER's involvement with NAC because I added an extra word to his group, "Society of Broadcast Engineers":
So I got the name wrong!! So sue me!!
If you think I'm inventing Fred's involvement, GO ASK HIM!! The NAC Web Site has his E-Mail Address. And, as an SBE Member, you probably have his phone number already. So call him!! He'll tell you that he was involved in hiring me AND that he invited me to address the SBE Conference in Massachusetts last fall.
3. I can understand KB2FCV and WB5UAG being suspicious, I suppose, given that I know I'm new to most of you -- and I gather that NAC is new to most of you as well. But BEING SUSPICIOUS is one thing ... shouting out your suspicions in public, without ever making an effort to verify or deny them, is something else entirely.
Why "the rush to judgment" when a phone call or two was all it would have taken to confirm or dispel the suspicions??
I was drawn to ham radio because I had met so many friendly, honest and intelligent hams, whom I could personally respect. It's a good thing KB2FCV and WB5UAG weren't the first hams I met!!!!
4. Let me close by noting that the time I spent answering these "hair trigger" accusations was time I DIDN'T spend answering thoughtful questions and comments in this thread about the views of REACT INTERNATIONAL ... the position of shortwave listener groups besides NASWA ... the interests of equipment manufacturers who have, apparently, not joined the BPL Battle yet ... and so on. I WILL address these points, and others, but I will have to do it later. Tonight, I had to spend defending my reputation, and the reputation of NAC.
This is one of the costs we incur when we cannot keep our debates and disagreements civil.
As my ex-wife, a civil engineer, once put it:
"How can I pursue excellence? I spend too much of my time and energy just fending off stupidity!!"
Still signing off with 73's,
Don Schellhardt aka CALLSIGNPENDING
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ac7na......I agree with CWTITAN AND OTHERS. we are not part of the problem, the arrl and doggies that follow them are. We are the solution. BPL??? the arrl has lost that war...its up to us real hams to lobby our congressmen/women and the FCC. What have you done beside lick up the arrl's spit??? tell me,,,,how many calls or emails have you sent????
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W4CNG on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok Children (the Flammers), show me a web site URL that does more than the ARRL? No pontificating, no BS, cut to the chase just the URL. What is their position on BPL, License Resturctining??? What is their percentage of Ham Membership that supports them, not including those that have bailed ship??? I've been licensed since 1961, joined the ARRL in 1962, told them to "Go to Hell with Incentive Licensing" in 1967, recently sanded their ass on ESSB, and am now a supporting member in the 2000's. Address the facts, not the flames. I do not agree with all they do, but most.
Steve W4CNG
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by WR8D on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0ZN...extremely well said. The sheep just shut their eyes at your comments though.
73
WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K6BBC on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is all this crap about “the dumbing down of amateur radio.” Listening to most QSO’s VHF or HF, ham radio sounds dumb enough already. You ridiculous ego fueled hams should get a real life. Ham radio is dumbed downed already because so many hams have nothing to say when they hit the PTT. So get off it already.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL and watching your back
|
|
|
by WT6G on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I went through such foolishness in my ham career once too - a boycott of the ARRL. I think it was in the early 70s. As I got older I got smarter and more experienced though, and I have to tell you it's one of the few regrets I have in ham radio.
The ARRL was not as perfect as I thought I was back then, but today it far exceeds my more realistic appraisal. Even though I was not a member, the ARRL has always been there, ready to help. They are Amateur Radio as far as I'm concerned, but if 2/3 of the ham radio community actually think the ARRL has a flawed policy or position, the procedure to change it is available, easy to understand, and inexpensive to execute.
As with any organization, you have to be a member to vote. If you aren't a member, then you can't be critical of the organization for not representing you because it represents the majority of its members through a very democratic charter.
It also represents the majority of "organized" hams who band together to achieve critical financial and political mass, because although there's a lot of big talk out there, when it comes to action the talkers are usually not engaged.
Yes, I regret ever doubting the ARRL, for it's not only the best we have, the people that work there labor for low wages doing a tough job and their contribution is only recognized by about 1/3 of us. During any disaster or civil emergency the ARRL plays a big role through its many organized agencies, and without their leadership in dozens of areas, from techincal to political we probably would not have this privilege today.
I hope you soon stop watching your back, turn around and look where you're going, because when you look forward to the future of Amateur Radio, the ARRL is right in front of you, and frankly they could use your support, if not financially, then for the diversity of opinion that you might bring to us.
The object of the ARRL isn't to lock anyone out. It's to listen to the membership, develop a majority consensus based on the best ideas put forward by the membership, and then to work toward the realization of that consensus. It's a simple process, and right or wrong at any point in time, I support the ARRL just like I support the United States of America though quite often I disagree.
It's all about citizenship, membership, and responsibility.
Len Umina
WT6G
|
| |
|
Mr. Schellhardt's Filings with the FCC - online ac
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Those persons interested in Mr. Schellhardt's
background can access the documents he has filed
in various FCC dockets by following this proceedure:
1. Access the Federal Communications Commission internet web site at the URL: www.fcc.gov
2. Click the “E-Filing” button near the top of the FCC home page.
3. Scroll down and click the option: “Electronic
Comment Filing System”.
4. Click the option: “Search for Filed Comments”.
5. Enter the text string “Amherst Alliance” in the field “Filed on behalf of”.
6. Select the “Retrieve Document List” button.
7. Select a document from the document list for display. Each document is in a pdf file.
This procedure will obtain all of the documents that Don Schellhardt wrote for the Amherst Alliance on LPFM
radio (148 documents). Additional documents can be
obtained by entering the text string "Schellhardt"
in Step 5 above (25 documents). Use this proceedure
to examine and judge his work for yourself.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL and watching your back
|
|
|
by AC7NA on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WT6G-
Well said, Len.
WY7Q-
For the record, I have written my congressional representatives concerning the BPL issue, and even went so far as to write something other than a form letter, but to be honest, I'm quite certain they fell on deaf ears.
Not unlike many other hams, I have a wife and family and other pursuits in my life besides Amateur Radio. Fighting an issue as large as this is something for an organized lobby to do, and that's what I pay my dues to the ARRL for. In addition, I will do my best as an individual to do whatever I can to help their efforts.
If Amatuer Radio dies, I will be secure in the knowledge that I did what was within my power to help keep it alive, then work in my woodshop, or the garden, or go fishing, and happily spend time with my family doing more important things than yakking on the radio.
Since none of my detractors has yet to answer my original question or stay on topic, I will now say 73 from this thread and look forward to hearing you on the air.
Brian AC7NA
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by WB5UAG on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My message was not intended to be a flame job. What the intent was is this. Get your facts straight before you go to print. This hobby we persue is a wonderful one, with many points of view. I just checked when my "skeptic" glan swelled up. If other posters would check the facts before "shooting from the lip" the flames would not leap as high.......
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You have chosen the WRONG side.
According to the e ham survey, 25% of hams will NOT be renewing their ARRL membership. What does that tell you?
W9WHE
Proud supporter of the ARRL boycott.
|
| |
|
recall ARRL directors
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the ARRL bylaws:
24. In accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Articles of Association, members of a territorial division may petition for recall of the director of their division.
Any League member may give notice of proposed recall by mailing to the Secretary by certified mail a letter to that effect. The fact of receipt will be communicated only to Officers, the Director concerned, the sender and the Election Committee. The recall petition shall be presented to the Secretary not later than 75 days after the mailing of the notice of recall and not later than June 1st of the final year of the term of office. A valid petition shall contain the dated signatures obtained on or after the date of mailing of the notice to the Secretary, and will include not less than 10 percent of the number of Full members voting in the election at which the director was elected or not less than 10 percent of the Full members resident in the division on the preceding December 31st if the director was elected without membership balloting. Upon certification by the Election Committee that the petition is valid, the Secretary shall prepare a ballot asking the single question, "Shall the Director be recalled, yes or no." If a majority of the votes cast are for recall, then the office of director shall be declared vacant. No director shall be subject to more than one recall election during a single term of office. A person removed from office by recall, shall not be eligible to be a candidate for Director or Vice Director for three years following removal from office.
Time to circulate a petition to recall ARRL directors!
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K9PO on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW who is Ally??
You said and I quote "AN ALLY'S PRESENTATION TO THE ARRL BOARD"
You posted Ally's presentation to the ARRL board but you never told who Ally was. Apperantly you deal with several Allys as this is just one of them. I am unstandbly curious.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K9PO on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE spouted the following: "As of this am, the e ham survey showed that 23% of hams will NOT renew their ARRL membership."
I will not be renewing my mebership either. But that is because I am a Life Member of the ARRL. Does you psuedoscientific survey take that into account?
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by WB5HZE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can't help but comment that 1) the e-ham.net poll is not necessarily representative of the general amateur population (I am personally aware of hams who avoid this site due to what they regard as offensive behavior); 2) the poll is subject to vote stuffing from either side of the issue (wonder how many new "members" might have appeared over the past few days), and 3) the poll is subject to participation by non-members (who cannot respond to the poll at all except through misstatement). So with respect to validity, it is as leaky as a sieve & certainly doesn't sway my own opinion. On the other hand, even with the questionable nature of the poll the numbers certainly seem to point in the ARRL's favor (if this were an election ballot they would be winning by a landslide- but that is of course comparing "apples & oranges").
Now, back to the topic at hand . . . nothing wrong with anyone participating in the effort to control BPL- I'm all for it. The more rational and well-constructed comments that are submitted, the better. Past that point . . . well folks, if you want my support in terms of $$$ then you will need to bring something significant to the table. Actions talk, everything else walks. Show us that you've got what it takes to improve the amateur service & we will respond accordingly. I wish you the best of fortune & hope that your hard work pays off.
73 . . . Ron WB5HZE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K1OU on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I find it interesting that W9WHE feels as if the ARRL has sold him out. By looking at his license in the database, it is revealed that he is a General class licensee. With that being known, it makes me wonder if he would spend time studying for his Extra, he wouldn't have time to fret about things over which he has no control. Then again, even if he were to get his Extra, some hams would think that HE isn't a real ham because he didn't pass the twenty word per minute code exam. I guess he will never do that, because afterall, the ARRL helped make it easier for him. I guess it is easier point a finger than it is to lend a hand by elmering. By the same token, it's pretty hard to find his hands when his head is in his ass.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB5HZE writes:
"the poll is subject to vote stuffing from either side of the issue (wonder how many new "members" might have appeared over the past few days)"
True enough. However, given that the poll is equally suseptable to "stuffing" by BOTH sides, those "stuffing" factors serve to cancel each other out.
Bottom line, a WHOLE LOT of people are VERY angry with ARRL, both with its proposal and its "FU" attitude toward its membership. Look for director recalls in the not so distant future.
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by WB5HZE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHE: Fair enough- my point was simply that the poll is unreliable so any conclusion drawn from it- in favor of any point of view- would be risky.
I'll grant that a lot of folks are upset- this much is certainly clear- and I believe that the ARRL could indeed improve themselves by increasing the involvement of the general membership, particularly on important matters such as the recent licensing proposal.
For each of us individually, we will determine how we spend our membership $$$. Some of us continue to see the ARRL as providing the most bang for the buck, others do not. Some folks use Icom, some use Kenwood, some use Yaesu- who is to say what is best, it is a matter of personal preference. I myself am discomfited by those who have turned their personal discontent into what appears to be a vendetta- just as I would be if someone walked into my shack and badmouthed my station because I prefer a different manufacturer than they do.
So it's a matter of choice- everyone has the right to make their own choice, and the right to expect others to respect their choice. And in keeping with the topic of this post, I am all in favor of options in terms of where I might spend my membership $$$ in the future, & will give these new folks the opportunity to prove themselves. Until then . . . well, it's pretty clear where I stand . . .
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Intersting quotes I read in this message thread:
"Q: What seperates us from 11 meters?
A: Testing requirements. "
"Well Don, you have chosen to join a group that many hams consider the enemy."
"Amazing, like watching a roll of #12 copperweld unravel!!! "
"Another sheep led to slaughter. Don, joining the ARRL who advocates dumbing the hobby down to CB level"
"You can either support their efforts to protect our spectrum from BPL, or revel in your "boycott," then complain about their lack of results when you're tapping your key against nothing but static "
"the ARRL executives have made a cognizant decision to abandon the values and beliefs of a sizeable percentage of its membership "
"we are not part of the problem, the arrl and doggies that follow them are."
"What is all this crap about “the dumbing down of amateur radio.” Listening to most QSO’s VHF or HF, ham radio sounds dumb enough already."
"If Amatuer Radio dies, I will be secure in the knowledge that I did what was within my power to help keep it alive, then work in my woodshop, or the garden, or go fishing"
"25% of hams will NOT be renewing their ARRL membership."
"The e ham survey showed that 23% of hams will NOT renew their ARRL membership."
I Just Love Amateur Radio...
Makes me wanna go out and buy a C.B.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by VE7NGR on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE1Z says:
When & where does this "ally's" infomercial ever end?
Hopefully they used a spellchecker on that "big letter" going nowhere.
The "ally" is unique not only in spelling...
K9PO says:
BTW who is Ally??
You said and I quote "AN ALLY'S PRESENTATION TO THE ARRL BOARD"
You posted Ally's presentation to the ARRL board but you never told who Ally was. Apperantly you deal with several Allys as this is just one of them. I am unstandbly curious.
Webster's dictionary says:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Ally Al*ly", n.; pl. Allies. See Ally, v.
1. A relative; a kinsman. Obs. --Shak.
2. One united to another by treaty or league; -- usually applied to sovereigns or states; a confederate.
The English soldiers and their French allies.
--Macaulay.
3. Anything associated with another as a helper; an auxiliary.
Science, instead of being the enemy of religion, becomes its ally. --Buckle.
4. Anything akin to another by structure, etc.
Looks fine to me!
|
| |
|
NAC Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear NOCALL-1,
Read the mission statement of both your fronts.
I have to dismiss anyone willfully signing an HOA agreement or CC&R, moving in & then cry they need help from the likes of the ARRL or the NAC to force preempting any document in order to allow them antennas outside the agreement they willfully signed...
How stupid can you be or you just need a better lawyer?
Either way: Please see "Private Property Rights"
Infringing upon them, after signing on dotted line, is just wasting everyone's time & other people's money...
PRB-1 isn't even binding !!!
Bill
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know why I continue to read these posts. Every time I go to one of these, I promise myself that this will be the LAST time; but, after a few days or a few weeks, I'm back again, just like a fly to a flame (pun intended)!
As is most often the case, this post has digressed from the intended discussion of two organizations joining forces to the controversial issue of the ARRL's ham license proposal. This is the issue I address here.
While I do have issues with ARRL (such as their constant begging for money and sending me my membership renewal TWO MONTHS early), I have very little criticism for their license restructuring proposal. I think an entry level license is a good idea. Had such a license existed in the 60's, I'm sure I would have learned CW much sooner (NOT THE ISSUE HERE!), and would have upgraded rather than letting my license expire and remain dormant for over twenty-five years. The amount of HF spectrum is reasonable, in my opinion, and there is sufficient incentive to upgrade to higher classes of license. I also strongly support their decision to keep the CW requirement for EXTRA class licensees, though I wish they had suggested raising the speed to 13 or even 16 words per minute.
My objections center around upgrading Technician class licensees (all flavors) to General class. Here again, I find no problem with a no code HF license, though I do believe that the removal of CW testing should be compensated for by a more stringent theory/legal test. I am reminded of a common axiom: never give something away, it's perceived value is diminished. Also, I wonder how many Advanced class licensees want to "upgrade" to Extra. The Advanced class license is a "badge" of accomplishment. It is the only class of license left that, undisputably, demonstrates superior accomplishment. I think that that license should be maintained until natural attrition makes it obsolete. What is the cost involved in changing ONE WORD on a license grant? Come on FCC! Will you save enough on that to buy a gallon of gas for one of your field vehicles? I doubt it!
So much for the current reason for bashing ARRL. Furthermore, if you are no longer a member, you have NO hope of effecting change in the organization. Your only hope of bringing change is as a member. As a non-member they have every right to ignore you.
I have offered these thoughts in a constructive way for thought. I have not intended to offend anyone and am open to RESPECTFUL replys from anyone. Flames and insults will simply be ignored.
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KD4HRI on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FYI, I held off renewing my ARRL membership until I saw their proposal and I just sent in my renewall.
And, oddly enough, I have absolutly noting to gain by the ARRL's position. As a current General class, I get nothing positive out of it.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD4HRI,
I have nothing to gain either. That's OK, though. I'm happy where I'm at. I think they're trying to enable as many people as possible to gain; and I think that's good. I don't think Ham Radio is in danger of "dying" anytime in the forseeable future, but I have no problem with encouraging newcomers, whether they "have it easier" than me or not. Many of those newcomers will progress far beyond where I've gone. The old saying, "You've got to crawl before you can walk" applies here.
Ham radio opened the door for me to a career in electronics, even though I didn't remain in Ham Radio very long at the time; and, because of that career, I wound up coming back to Ham Radio.
I'm glad you renewed. They're not perfect; but they're the best we've got. And that's not all that bad.
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K7IHC on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD4HRI, KE5DPE:
You say you have nothing positive to gain from the ARRL licensing proposal (and its possible adoption by the FCC)?
How about a few more new General class hams and *Novices* on HF to communicate with?
Believe it or not, most of us former Technicians will do just fine operating on HF, regardless of initially knowing how to receive Morse at 5 wpm (or not). The best impetus for me to learn to receive Morse is to be able to ID propagation beacons more easily!
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by VR2BG on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Being in the b'cast industry myself, at first it was good to see that there may be common ground between some part of industry (who seemingly always get what they want) & amateurs (who hardly register in comparison) on something as important as BPL...
Silly me.
73, VR2BrettGraham
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7IHC,
I think you misunderstood my comment. When I said I had nothing to gain from the proposal, I meant that I, personally, had nothing to gain in terms of license upgrades, etc. I DID NOT mean that ham radio had nothing to gain.
I fully agree with you that additional operators on HF would not only be welcome, but should be encouraged. Also, in previous posts, I have often made the comment that there is no reason to believe that the new operators would be anything but friendly, competent, courteous operators as they now are on the vhf/uhf bands.
While I do a lot of listening on HF, I rarely transmit because of the groups of people who seem to know each other and have, what I would call, closed conversations. A large group of newcomers wouldd provide a nice opportunity to meet new people and make new contacts.
As I said earlier, for the most part, I welcome the proposal and look forward to it. Hope this clarifies my position
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K9PO on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Reply by VE7NGR on February 18, 2004 "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Ally Al*ly", n.; pl. Allies. See Ally, v.
looks fine to me! "
He wrote it apostrophy ess, which indicates that it is a presentation belong to Ally. Which begs the question who is Ally. If he meant it was a person who was joining up an assisting the ARRL he should have wrote 'an Allies...'
I am glad to see that the education system in the great white north is no better than what we have in the southern part of NA ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K7IHC on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom, KB5DPE:
Thanks for the reply. It is a welcoming and more civil attitude than some of the other hams who have the *CW IS ham radio* or *ham radio will become CB* stance.
Regarding the posts that compare 27 MHz CB with ham radio (or their concept of ham radio after the Morse code testing for HF access is not required): there are many differences between 11m CB and amateur radio, even when there is no code requirement for General class licenses. With CB, no modification or homebuilding of the transmitters is allowed by FCC rules. The power output levels are much less than what's allowed in ham radio. The only two modes allowed on CB are AM and SSB. No FM, CW, or digital.
There was also a comment made about how bad it would be to let a Novice on the HF bands with several hundred watts of power output. How about current Techs (only a short written exam, too) who can operate 6m and 2m SSB with 1500 watts? Is that any different?
In the area I live in (major metro area of seven million people), there are at least 100 FM ham repeaters. For the population base, most of those repeaters are rarely used. And when they are used, I hear no ham operators that sound like CB-ers. 6 and 2m SSB freqs are also very quiet around here.
No-code Technician licensing didn't wipe out ham radio, and neither will no-code General licensing.
The ARRL seems to still be the most powerful and accepted organization that represents ham radio in the government/political arena. I have no problem with joining and supporting them. I'm just not sure that this ally's presentation is the best thing to do.
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NN6EE on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I know damn well that the ARRL does not listen to even intelligent dissent! They just go on their merry way with their cocka-mamie agenda and hope they can keep from putting their collective foots-in-their-mouths once again!!!
But I think that a lot of the NEWBIES don't look upon Amateur Radio as a FRATERNITY which is sad, it's now all about instant gratification and communicating with a CB mentality!!!
Is Amateur Radio elitist? Of course it is as anyone who has worked for anything extra feels better than someone else who did'nt!!!
NN6EE (monitoring!!!) :-)))
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see so many comments about ARRL's lack of responsiveness to ham's needs that I can't help but comment once more.
First, how many of those comments are made by members versus non members?
Second, if you are a member and your representatives have ignored you, what have you done to remedy the problem? Have you gone "over their head"? Have you considered running in opposition to your area rep.?
Third, if you are not a member, have you considered joining to make your voice heard?
It's very easy to sit at a keyboard and voice your objections. It's quite another thing to take the steps necessary to effect change. I repeat from an earlier post on this thread; If you are a member, you have a chance to bring about change. However, if you are not a member, they have every right to ignore you!
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"how many of those comments are made by members versus non members?"
How does this matter when any ARRL proposal affects both or should I say all 700,000 licensees, not just those 100,000 "members"?
It doesn't but that hasn't stopped them from ignoring the other 600,000.
While a non-member doesn't have a right to services, if you intend on modifying our license structures it is everyone's right to express thier views. Like it or not, that is why everyone is so ticked off. Members quiting is the only vote heard 5 by 9 in Newington. They will drop to under 100,000 if this is approved & lifers ride for free so maybe 80,000 X $39 will get their attention. I am hearing this anger on the air alot!!!
I actually hope the FCC pulls the rug out & forces no-CW & a single license class!!! That is the only fair thing to do in order to heal the incentive fracturing by resetting it!!! Maybe the NTIA will do that when they merge the FCC under NTIA control???
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KE2IV on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don,
Welcome to the site that each and every day supports the elimination of ham radio.
Figure it out.
Where else could W9WHE gain an international forum?
As the old Pogo comic strip said: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
You were wise to join the ARRL.
It is the organized voice of dedicated hams who are committed to preserving and enriching amateur radio, in all of its many forms.
Like W9WHE, I too once had a major gripe with the ARRL. It was over the now long-dead issue of Incentive Licensing back in the 1960's.
But, unlike W9WHE, as I matured, I learned that so do organizations.
By the 1980's I decided to become a Life Member of the League - and (since I was young enough then) I have more than benefited from my bargain.
Curmudgeons like W9WHE will always be with us. But he is a noisy minority.
We welcome your support in the BPL fight and I encourage you to become a ham as soon as you can.
73,
George
KE2IV
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by VE7NGR on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K9PO says:
"He wrote it apostrophy ess, which indicates that it is a presentation belong to Ally. Which begs the question who is Ally. If he meant it was a person who was joining up an assisting the ARRL he should have wrote 'an Allies...'"
It is a presentation belonging to the ally. "Allies" is plural, not possessive. There is only one ally, and it is the ally's presentation.
"I am glad to see that the education system in the great white north is no better than what we have in the southern part of NA ;-) "
I don't think you've demonstrated that yet, but I have an excuse anyway, I'm an engineer! ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by VE7NGR on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K9PO says:
"He wrote it apostrophy ess, which indicates that it is a presentation belong to Ally. Which begs the question who is Ally. If he meant it was a person who was joining up an assisting the ARRL he should have wrote 'an Allies...'"
It is a presentation belonging to the ally. "Allies" is plural, not possessive. There is only one ally, and it is the ally's presentation.
"I am glad to see that the education system in the great white north is no better than what we have in the southern part of NA ;-) "
I don't think you've demonstrated that yet, but I have an excuse anyway, I'm an engineer! ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by VE7NGR on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oops - apologies for the double post - operator error!
|
| |
|
An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can't believe where these posts go! Well, you lured me in again! Don's organization is the proposed ally of ARRL. The presentation belongs to the organization. Therefore "ally's presentation" is correct. I'm outta here!
73 Tom KB5DPE
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by AC7NA on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE1Z said
,
"how many of those comments are made by members versus non members?"
How does this matter when any ARRL proposal affects both or should I say all 700,000 licensees, not just those 100,000 "members"?
It doesn't but that hasn't stopped them from ignoring the other 600,000." Unquote
Welcome to the Democratic political process. Why would an organization go out of their way to support "Non-Supporters" of their organzation. That's equivalent to asking a congressional lobbyist to carefully consider the views of that group's opponents before taking action.....get real!
Brian AC7NA
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why would an organization go out of their way to support "Non-Supporters" of their organzation."
Why call it a democratic process? They clearly ignore their own members by what I am reading. This is not a comparible to our political voting process.
Is it any wonder that there are so many P----- off hams that seek to express their views, anywhere they can including on air. This is because ALL licensees are forced to adhere to ARRL License Mods & NON-BINDING ARRL bandplans.
You ARRL pom-pom cheerleaders still fail to see that fact & seek to tell "non-members" (called "freeloaders" by ARRL's W1RFI)to shut up about it.
I am convinced that amateur radio has been destroyed by ARRL greed & failed "vision" for any future.
Boycott! We are all on our own anyway!
Bill/NE1Z
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Like W9WHE, I too once had a major gripe with the
> ARRL. It was over the now long-dead issue of
> Incentive Licensing back in the 1960's.
The ironic part of that is the W9WHE is off the deep end because the League's proposal seeks to do what was NOT done in the 1960s proposal, and would have been to grandfather existing privileges. He either wants to see Tech's forced to upgrade or lose privileges, or, IMHO just as bad, be continued as a class of license, creating orphan classes of license that will sooner rather than later be as ill used as the present day Novice.
ARRL's proposal is not perfect, but there is no way to simplify the licensing structure that does not have to have some give and take. Even if the FCC goes along with the simplification, the US licensing structure will still be about the most complex in the world.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Even if the FCC goes along with the simplification, the US licensing structure will still be about the most complex in the world."
Talk about "cutting to the chase"! The ARRL admits the complexity of the current chaos, as created by them, for them!
A proposal with a single class license & NO CW would not only pass the FCC, it might impress them!!
No! Too simple for ARRL Inc. to accept! It might cut revenues from license manual publishing down to a trickle.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: An Ally's Presentation to the ARRL Board:
|
|
|
by K1WCC on February 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This was on ANARC's web page:
So they are awake and aware.
FCC Threat to Shortwave Spectrum; Urgent Action Required
The December, 2003, edition of the NASWA Journal contains a report by Joe Buch about the consolidated efforts of a number of organizations that oppose the introduction of Broadband over Power Line (BPL) Internet communications. Joe is doing a stellar job of representing the interests of NASWA and of all shortwave listeners in the fight against BPL.
The FCC is currently investigating the possibility of allowing broadband signals such as that used by Internet providers and cable television companies to be transmitted via power lines to people's houses. The frequency range intended to be used for this runs from 2 to 80 MHz, which includes the entire shortwave spectrum. This proposal has the potential to make it impossible for people to listen to signals in the shortwave spectrum because of the increase in noise.
NASWA is urging all shortwave listeners to contact the FCC and make our concerns heard. Full information about this threat to all international communications over shortwave is available in the Technical Topics column, which was unfortunately omitted from the June NASWA Journal due to a production error, and in the Musings column.
|
| |
|
Defining Some Terms
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is CALLSIGNPENDING, aka Don Schellhardt, plunging into this discussion thread again.
Before this thread "rolls over", to be replaced on EHAM.NET's Home Page by a thread tied to some newer article, let me try to clarify some terms in the "ARRL Presentation" article which have apparently caused some controversy or confusion.
****
(A) BACKGROUND OF THE PHRASE: "ARRL's FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE". Before the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC) began intensifying its involvement with Homeowners' Association (HOA) reform legislation, AND taking a public position against BPL for the first time, AND actively soliciting support for our efforts from individual hams, I had some conversations with ARRL officials -- notably including Jim Haynie, President of ARRL, and Dave Sumner, Executive Director of ARRL.
These conversations were held for 2 primary reasons.
FIRST:
Since the other NAC officers and I saw ourselves as being "On The Same Side" as ARRL, on the issues of HOA reform legislation and BPL, we wanted to make sure we were not inadvertantly "ruffling feathers" at ARRL. Fortunately, we were assured that ARRL's leadership has no misgivings about NAC's activism on these issues, where the 2 groups have shared concerns. In fact, Dave Sumner was kind enough to invite us to submit to him, for distribution to the ARRL Board of Directors, the Written Presentation that is the subject of this article and discussion thread.
SECOND:
We wanted to give ARRL a chance to join NAC, and others, on our multi-party initiatives to block BPL -- and, Down The Road, on possible multi-party efforts to get more action in Congress on HOA reform legislation, beginning with the bill that Representative Steven Israel (D-NY) has introduced.
Our initial invitation was for ARRL to join NAC in a letter to key Congressional legislators, pledging that the undersigned organizations will appeal to Congress for relief if the FCC ever approves higher power levels for BPL. [This letter, which was sent to Capitol Hill in early January, is discussed in the EHAM.NET article entitled "Action By Congress On BPL?"]
The NORTH AMERICAN SHORTWAVE ASSOCIATION (NASWA) and THE AMHERST ALLIANCE co-signed the letter, but ARRL did not.
It was at THIS point that the phrase "functional independence" emerged -- as a way of describing ARRL's attitude toward the Multi-Party BPL Letter in particular and coalition-building in general.
To tell you the truth, I cannot recall whether it was Jim Haynie, myself or someone else who actually came up with the phrase. I CAN tell you, however, what the phrase is intended to describe: A virtually unbreakable policy that ARRL will not link its name to the name of any other group in a matter which is political.
In the case of the Multi-Party Letter On BPL, for example, ARRL officials:
Encouraged NAC and others to proceed with the letter opposing BPL
AND
Agreed to review what we wrote for accuracy
AND
Encouraged us to keep them posted on any future NAC or multi-party initiatives
BUT
Also told us that ARRL would never, ever link its name to that of NAC in a filing, public statement or any other capacity that might be considered "official"
Apparently, it is extremely important to ARRL's leadership that any political action by ARRL be taken by ARRL alone.
Thus, to take the case of the January 5 Multi-Party Letter To Congress, I was told that ARRL might decide to send its own letter to key Congressional leaders, making the same basic points as the NAC/Amherst/NASWA Multi-Party Letter -- but with the crucial difference that their letter would be signed by ARRL only, thereby keeping ARRL "functionally independent" of other opponents of BPL. (In the end, of course, ARRL did not send its own letter -- but I have been told that oral, "Off The Record" representations on BPL were made on Capitol Hill, during the period in question, by ARRL lobbyists.)
In short:
ARRL leaders want NAC to keep them up to date on what NAC is planning -- and have stated that they may, sometimes, choose to COORDINATE their efforts with those of NAC. Indeed, they may even launch efforts that parallel, or duplicate, those of NAC. However, while preserving the possibility of such coordination, ARRL leaders still want ARRL to "fly solo" whenever it flies.
And THAT is the best I can do to explain the phrase: "ARRL's functional independence".
NAC, and THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, will continue to do our best to engage in dialogues with ARRL, on issues of mutual concern. However, we will do so WITHOUT expecting that ARRL will ever agree to co-sign a document with us or become a formal coalition partner with us in any other way.
****
(B) MEANING OF THE PHRASE: "AN ALLY'S PRESENTATION TO THE ARRL BOARD". KB5DPE, aka Tom, has it exactly right.
"AN ally" (singular), meaning NAC, made a (Written) Presentation to the ARRL Board of Directors.
Since the Written Presentation was made by -- that is, in a sense, was possessed by -- that ally, an apostrophe was used to indicate who made the presentation. Hence the phrase "An Ally'S Presentation".
I hope that all is clear now.
****
FINAL NOTE: ANSWER TO A QUESTION. Yes, NAC and THE AMHERST ALLIANCE have invited REACT INTERNATIONAL to join in every multi-party statement on BPL to date.
Further:
As NAC's Written Presentation To The ARRL Board -- which is now posted on www.antenna-consortium.org -- clearly indicates, we are hoping to open a dialogue with REACT INTERNATIONAL, as well as with NASWA and other shortwave listener groups, on HOA reform. We want to know whether they would be willing to support Congressman Israel's bill, on HOA reform, IF the bill were expanded to protect their own Memberships.
To date, NASWA has been willing to talk with us and work with us. REACT INTERNATIONAL, however, has not been cooperative or even communicative.
If any of you have connections to REACT INTERNATIONAL, I hope you will encourage President Chuck Thompson to seriously consider some kind of alliance with NAC, THE AMHERST ALLIANCE and NASWA on the BPL issue.
Later, NAC will try to initiate a conversation with REACT on HOA reform as well.
73's,
CALLSIGNPENDING aka Don Schellhardt
pioneerpath@earthlink.net
NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC) URL: www.antenna-consortium.org
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE URL: www.amherstalliance.org
|
| |
|
How NAC Can Supplement ARRL
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I have said, NAC sees itself as AN ALLY of ARRL. We share ARRL's opposition to BPL and its support for HOA reform legislation on antennas.
Indeed, 2 of our top 4 officers -- Fred Baumgartner, C.P.B.E. KG0KI of Colorado and Jerry Agliata W2GLA of New York -- are hams, and I am On My Way to becoming one.
We ALSO know that NAC couldn't possibly duplicate all of the many services that ARRL provides. Nor could it duplicate all of the many activities -- most recently including research and testing on BPL -- that ARRL initiates and/or manages.
We wouldn't, and couldn't, replace what ARRL does for its Members ... and for the "ham" community as a whole ... and for the emergency preparedness of citizens all over the world.
HOWEVER, we also believe that NAC can, and should, SUPPLEMENT some of the LOBBYING activities of ARRL.
We believe NAC can, and should, "carry some of the lobbying load" in certain areas that are not at the top of ARRL's Priority List.
********
Here, In A Nutshell, is how we believe NAC can help:
1. BPL -- No one can touch ARRL in research on BPL interference or in liaison with the FCC on this issue. However, ARRL's contacts with Congress appear to have been "low key" so far ...
NAC CAN HELP by contacting Congress in a much more publicly visible way. Hopefully, this higher profile contact will add to the pressure on the FCC not to go too far on BPL, lest Congress call them on the carpet.
In addition, this higher profile contact, at this relatively early stage, may help to "prep" Congressional legislators -- so they will respond more quickly, and effectively, when and if ARRL urges Congress to overturn future FCC action on BPL.
If legislation on BPL is ultimately required, ARRL will almost certainly "take the lead" in pressing for it. However, NAC can pave the way NOW for possible ARRL lobbying in the future.
2. HOA REFORM LEGISLATION -- ARRL can undoubtedly take all of the credit for encouraging Representative Steven Israel (D-NY) to introduce his HOA reform bill. ARRL, along many of its Members, can also take much of the credit for recruiting dozens of co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. However, ARRL's top priority in Congress right now appears to be enactment of the Spectrum Protection Act, not enactment of HOA reform legislation ...
Since NAC is not involved with the Spectrum Protection Act at all, NAC CAN HELP by making HOA reform legislation ITS OWN NO. 1 PRIORITY in Congress for 2004. We can bring more balance to the current lobbying situation -- by assuring that BOTH the Spectrum Protection Act AND the Israel bill (and/or other HOA reform legislation) are SOMEBODY'S top Congressional priority.
Also:
NAC, unlike ARRL, is not composed EXCLUSIVELY of Amateur Radio operators. Further, NAC, unlike ARRL, does not have a conscious policy of never forming an official coalition with anybody else. (See above)
For both of these reasons, NAC is in a better position than ARRL to initiate outreach to shortwave listeners, REACT Members and others in an effort to BROADEN THE COALITION for reform.
********
In short, NAC has identified its "market niches":
1. Support ARRL's role in "taking the lead" in the FCC proceedings on BPL -- while WE try to generate more pressure on the FCC from Congress (and also work to "soften the target" of Capitol Hill legislators, for the benefit of an ARRL lobbying campaign that may have to be launched later on).
AND
2. Let ARRL have all the action on the Spectrum Protection Act all to itself -- while WE try to insure that HOA reform legislation is SOMEBODY'S top Congressional priority.
"Niches" these may be, but they are still territories that need to be covered.
If you think YOU might want to help us cover them, please be sure to visit our Web Site at:
www.antenna-consortium.org
73's,
CALLSIGNPENDING aka Don Schellhardt
|
| |
|
How THE AMHERST ALLIANCE Can Help, Too
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As some of you know, the NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (NTIA) has recently issued a Docket for implementing the Presidential Spectrum Policy Initiative (PSPI).
The PSPI is, in turn, the product of a Presidential Memorandum. The Memorandum was signed by President George W. Bush on May 29, 2003 and released to the public on June 5, 2003.
****
The Presidential Memorandum envisions literally radical changes in Federal Government regulation of the radio spectrum -- with:
(1) Imposition of new "spectrum fees" for NON-COMMERCIAL users (including hams??)
AND
(2) A shift of some, most or all regulatory oversight from the FCC (an independent agency, led by Commissioners from BOTH major political parties) to the U.S. Department of Commerce (controlled directly by the ONE party that holds the White House)
****
For various reasons, NAC has taken no position on the PSPI. Further, NAC will probably take no position on it in the foreseeable future.
However, THE AMHERST ALLIANCE:
(1) Sent a critical letter to the White House on January 11, 2003 (less than a week after the Presidential Memorandum was issued)
AND
(2) Led a total of 21 parties in filing a February 17, 2003 Motion For Extension Of Time (denied the next day) in the NTIA's PSPI Docket
AND
(3) Plans to file Written Comments in the NTIA's PSPI Docket -- on or before the comment deadline of March 18, 2004 (now less than a month away)
****
To the best of my knowledge, ARRL has not yet taken any action to address the PSPI. I, and others, hope that Amherst's actions will motivate ARRL to initiate
its own responses to the PSPI.
In The Meantime:
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE is serving as "Horatio At The Bridge" -- standing alone, as the sole ORGANIZED opposition to the PSPI so far, and plaintively looking for others to take up their swords.
****
For a copy of the (denied) 21-party Motion For Extension Of Time, please E-Mail me at pioneerpath@earthlink.net
For a copy of Amherst's January 11, 2003 letter to President Bush, go to:
www.amherstalliance.org
Click on "FCC Filings".
THEN click on "Filings In Defense Of The Spectrum".
AND THEN click on the letter to the White House.
73's,
CALLSIGNPENDING aka Don Schellhardt
|
| |
|
RE: How THE AMHERST ALLIANCE Can Help, Too
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In case any reading this thread become sufficiently motivated to assemble reply comments to NTIA, just thought it might be worthwhile to share my recent experience.
I submitted my comments to the email address supplied the evening of February 20.
My comments have not yet been posted on their website.
I phoned yesterday, and was told Mr. Schroeder, the man in charge, is out with an illness. So, I forwarded my comments to a Mr. Owens yesterday.
They don't operate at all like the FCC. At latest, next day posting of comments. Consider this an example of how responsive they would be if given some of the FCC's responsibilities.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: AMHERST ALLIANCE needs the boot!
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How long does this alliance continue to inject itself on a ham site when they actually are an alliance of FM broadcast pirates?
Oh, I'm sorry, "microbroadcasters"
Either way, let them go to the "microbroadcast" websites & pander. This "radio resume" that is 3 pages long, in every post, is cluttering every discussion!
They have near nil to do with ham radio & should get the hint from the NTIA to hit the road... They got their NTIA rejection in 24 hours!!!
Bill
|
| |
|
Building Coalitions Is Good For You!!
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Responding to the comment above:
1. THE AMHERST ALLIANCE represents those who hold, or aspire to obtain, LICENSES for Low Power FM stations (or, in the future, Low Power AM stations). Amherst does NOT advocate, and has never
advocated, "pirate" radio broadcasting.
2. There is a considerable overlap between the Amherst Membership and the Amateur Radio community. That is: 40% of Amherst Members also hold Amateur Radio licenses. **100%** of those Amherst Members with licensed Low Power FM stations are hams.
Not surprisingly, Amherst has supplemented its long-standing support for LICENSED Low Power Radio stations with support for both HOA reform legislation and the Spectrum Protection Act (in that order of priority). To this end, Amherst filed Written Testimony for Congressional Hearings in June of 2002.
More recently, Amherst has supported ARRL's efforts to block BPL. To this end, Amherst filed Written Comments in the Notice Of Inquiry on BPL (FCC Docket 03-104) and has requested a longer comment period in the proposed rule on BPL (FCC Docket 04-37).
In short:
Although Amherst was founded (in 1998) as a group which supports LICENSED Low Power Radio, its agenda has expanded over the years. Amherst has been addressing selected "ham radio" issues for almost 2 years now.
3. There is also a large overlap between the Amateur Radio community and the Membership of the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC). Of the 4 officers of the NAC, 2 of them -- Fred Baumgartner, C.P.B.E KG0KI of Colorado and Gerald L. Agliata W2GLA of New York
-- are hams. Yours Truly of Connecticut, the third officer of NAC, is pursuing a ham license.
Not surprisingly, NAC has been supporting HOA reform legislation, notably including the bill introduced by Representative Steven Israel (D-NY), since the day the Israel bill was introduced.
4. Yes, both THE AMHERST ALLIANCE and the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM have Members who are NOT hams. However, this is an advantage -- not a liability.
Ask yourself which of these options is more politically powerful:
Hams and non-hams UNITED in a COALITION on BPL and HOAs -- or just hams, standing alone and communicating only with other hams??
Amherst and NAC are trying to BUILD COALITIONS between hams and non-hams on political issues of mutual concern.
"It's a GOOD thing."
73's,
CALLSIGNPENDING aka Don Schellhardt
|
| |
|
RE: AMHERST ALLIANCE needs the boot!
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Over & over, on & on with the endless "we" infomercial.
What kind of an 'alliance' fails to understand basic "Private Property Rights" & that radio antennas ARE NOT going to be pre-empted when you willfully sign an agreement surrendering your rights to such installations?
Seems these guys want to pretend ham radio antennas are 18" TV dishes, which are Federally pre-empted.
Sweet Dreams!
Bill
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
|
|
