[ARRL-OK] Re: ARRL-OK digest, Vol 4 #146 - 7 msgs
Craig Roberts
[email protected]
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:54:08 -0600
These people are whining about your and my efforts, but they are not making
any efforts of their own to contact their reps.
The reply to them is to complain about the bill and try to have it stopped.
Or to add more verbiage to include their concerns. Not knock those of us
who are in the arena and fighting already.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:02 AM
Subject: ARRL-OK digest, Vol 4 #146 - 7 msgs
> Send ARRL-OK mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [email protected]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [email protected]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARRL-OK digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. SB-389 (Lloyd Colston)
> 2. RE: SB-389 (EXT-Reimer, Jim D)
> 3. [Fwd: [EM] Solar Flare Day 4 from a ham radio club mailing list]
(Lloyd Colston)
> 4. Re: SB-389 (Jim Glover)
> 5. Re: SB-389 (Kim Elmore)
> 6. Re: SB-389 (Jim Reimer)
> 7. RTTY Signal near 10132 kHz? (Kim Elmore)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:25:34 -0600
> From: Lloyd Colston <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: [ARRL-OK] SB-389
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Who Introduced the bill PRB-1? Who are the OK Legislatures intrudcine
this?
> >
> > 73 Mark N7XYO
> >
>
> Mark,
>
> http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/
>
> is the web site to use to track any legislation through the process.
>
> SB-389 poses, IMO, some harm to amateur radio operators. This bill, if
> passed in its current form, may prohibit amateur radio operators from
> installing even the most primitive of antenna supports without a permit
> from the Department of Environmental Quality. As you are aware, these
> antennas are necessary for the support of our Citizens during a
> disaster, ex. the ice storm of a few years back.
>
> The bill is sponsored by Shurden in the Senate and Leist in the House.
>
> IMO, the bill needs verbiage to exempt licensed amateur radio operators.
> For example,
>
> C. No provision in this bill shall prohibit licensed amateur radio
> operators from installing towers on their own property so far as the
> structures are permitted by current zoning ordinances. Communities are
> required to accomodate, in the greatest possible manner, amateur radio
> operators registered and participating with their local emergency
> management agency and/or the Amateur Radio Emergency Service.
>
> D. No structures in place when the bill is passed will be required to
> submit to the provisions of the bill.
>
> That verbiage would do two things. One it would grant the greatest
> protection to the amateur radio operator while, at the same time,
> fostering a support to the local EMA. At the same time, it would foster
> protection to existing structures.
>
> I would encourage each person to contact their legislator, in writing
> and by phone, to encourage some minor change to the bill. You can find
> your legislator by clicking the bottom link of the middle section of the
> page mentioned.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Let me know how more I can help.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Lloyd Colston Mayes County CEM
> Pryor, OK USA http://www.geocities.com/mccem
> When Danger comes, it is too late to plan.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Subject: RE: [ARRL-OK] SB-389
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:53:58 -0800
> From: "EXT-Reimer, Jim D" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lloyd Colston [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:36 AM
> > To: EXT-Reimer, Jim D
> > Subject: [ARRL-OK] SB-389
>
> <snip>
>
> >=20
> > http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/
> >=20
> > is the web site to use to track any legislation through the process.
> >=20
> > SB-389 poses, IMO, some harm to amateur radio operators. =20
> > This bill, if=20
> > passed in its current form, may prohibit amateur radio operators from=20
> > installing even the most primitive of antenna supports=20
> > without a permit=20
> > from the Department of Environmental Quality. As you are=20
> > aware, these=20
> > antennas are necessary for the support of our Citizens during a=20
> > disaster, ex. the ice storm of a few years back.
> >=20
>
> <snip>
>
> First, I wonder why they changed the permitting agency from the
> Corporation Commission (as introduced), to DEQ (floor version).
> Guess it doesn't really matter, though.
>
> If you'll re-read the definitions contained in the bill, I think
> you'll see that the intent is to regulate only commercial antennas,
> not every TV, ham, or CB antenna that gets put up out in the
> country. The whole thing, though, seems poorly worded with some
> built-in loop holes - if we could get them to just clarify the
> existing language, I don't think there'd be any problems.
>
> -jdr-
> WA5RRH
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:37:47 -0600
> From: Lloyd Colston <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected]
> Subject: [ARRL-OK] [Fwd: [EM] Solar Flare Day 4 from a ham radio club
mailing list]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Major Flare Today: Sun Kicks Up Biggest Storm in Years
> By Robert Roy Britt
> Senior Science Writer
> posted: 10:20 am ET
> 28 October 2003
>
> Updated at 11:29 a.m. EST
>
> The Sun today unleashed what appears to be the third most powerful flare
> in
> recorded history, a storm of charged particles that could hit Earth
> midday
> Wednesday with more effect than any since 1989, when power was knocked
> out to
> an entire Canadian province.
>
> Depending on the storm's magnetic orientation, it could set off a
> dramatic
> display of colorful northern lights well into mid-latitudes of the
> United
> States and Europe.
>
> <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solar_flare_031028.html>
>
>
> =====
> Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
> USA +978-251-9933, <[email protected]>, http://www.ad1c.com
> PGP Fingerprint: D8E2 3D78 339F A7F1 8C13 1193 B5D1 4FB6 79D1 70DC
> _______________________________________________
> YCCC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/yccc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Lloyd Colston Mayes County CEM
> Pryor, OK USA http://www.geocities.com/mccem
> When Danger comes, it is too late to plan.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] SB-389
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:19:41 -0800 (PST)
> From: [email protected] (Jim Glover)
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> > For example,
> >
> > C. No provision in this bill shall prohibit licensed amateur radio
> > operators from installing towers on their own property so far as the
> > structures are permitted by current zoning ordinances. Communities are
> > required to accomodate, in the greatest possible manner, amateur radio
> > operators registered and participating with their local emergency
> > management agency and/or the Amateur Radio Emergency Service.
> >
>
> Whoa!!!!
>
> I am absolutely floored to see the suggestion that exemption from
> antenna-hindering legislation be afforded only hams who are affiliated
> with EM or ARES. I am both shocked and dismayed to see that someone
> has that sort of narrow view concerning which sorts of hams are worth
> protecting from legal impediments to operating an amateur radio station.
> Legislation of the sort proposed here would make second-class hams out
> of non ARES/EM members, in that they would not have the same right to
> put up good antennas that ARES/EM members might have.
>
> Please consider these scenarios (using fictional names, but describing
> situations which could easily apply to many hams' lives):
>
> Joe Ham is a new ham. He's busy learning things, like how to get a
> basic station on the air, how to participate in routine QSO's, in
> nets, in repeater round-tables, how to make antennas, and theory and
> maybe Morse code for an upgrade. Joe's finding the nets the most
> fun, followed closely by ragchew, but really has no idea what will
> interest him in the future. If we had the necessary crystal ball,
> we could see that in 5-10 years, Joe, now more experienced, and
> feeling confident about his ability to operate properly under even
> the most stressful conditions, will decide it's time to look seriously
> at getting involved in public service. For now, though, he's busy
> just getting to know the hobby.
>
> Mary has been a ham for years, and has held a general class license
> for almost that long. A busy wife, mother, and career woman, Mary
> has very little time to get on the air, and spends what little time
> she has chasing DX. She's not involved in any sort of emergency
> preparedness, but she buys a new radio every few years, and pays dues
> to her local club and the ARRL. Good fortune willing, we will never
> have to find out, but it just so happens that in the event of the
> sort of catastrophe that might wipe out communications over much
> of the North American continent, her knowledge of propagation could
> quite possibly prove invaluable. (Of course, she'd have a hard time
> developing that skill in the first place without a decent antenna
> and support system for it.) Without her and thousands like her,
> amateur radio would have fewer manufacturers making ham gear, less
> influence to support things like spectrum protection legislation, and
> a smaller, weaker, national organization.
>
> Bob has held an extra class for even longer than Mary, but gets on
> the air very little. He's too busy reading technical journals and
> tinkering with computers and circuitry. When he decides to try to
> get on the air and do some experimenting, he discovers that he
> doesn't belong to one of the qualifying groups which would lend him
> the credibility necessary in the eyes of the law to qualify for
> having an antenna up. Discouraged, he decides to sell his ham
> equipment, and let his license lapse. He continues to work on his
> research, and eventually develops an ingenious method of filtering
> that virtually makes BPL interference disappear. Rather than write
> his article for QST, providing amateur radio a bright glimmer of
> hope in the midst of its downward spiral after the onslaught of the
> BPL disaster, he instead submits his idea to the US military, who
> quietly sits on it.
>
> Jerry is 75 years old, and has been a ham for over 50 years. For
> over three decades of that 50 years, he was involved in some sort
> of public service. On 11 different occasions, he responded to
> tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters by leaving his job
> and family behind to assist with emergency communications in the
> stricken areas. His health no longer permits that level of
> involvement, but his greatest joy in retirement is getting on 40M
> CW at night, and 20M CW during the day, to keep in touch with
> friends and make new ones. Some of the guys at the local club
> have been helping Jerry maintain his tower and antennas, but they're
> not sure they should go on doing so since, technically, Jerry is no
> longer qualified to have a tower up.
>
> Do you really want to exclude Joe, Mary, Bob and Jerry from fully
> participating in amateur radio, just because they don't happen to
> belong to ARES, or whatever? Do you really believe that hams who
> are members of emergency preparedness organizations are the only
> ones who deserve accommodation? Do you think that hams who'd rather
> devote their time to building equipment, modeling antennas, studying
> propagation, working contests, maintaining repeaters, working EME,
> working meteor scatter, writing articles, or educating the next
> generation of hams, don't deserve the right to erect antennas and
> support structures, unless they devote some of their time to some
> emergency preparedness organization instead?
>
> Do you really believe that's what's best for ham radio?
>
> Everyone, please do support accommodations for amateur radio in any
> legislation which aims to restrict the building of antennas or
> their support structures. However, please do not even *think* of
> limiting this support to hams who belong to any particular type of
> additional organization, such as RACES. Let's support the right
> for *all* hams to build and maintain effective amateur radio
> stations.
>
> 73,
> Jim WB5UDE
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:44:26 -0600
> To: [email protected]
> From: "Kim Elmore" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] SB-389
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> Jim hits the nail right on the head here. It is not appropriate to
judge=20
> which hams are Worthy and which are Unworthy based upon their=20
> activities. The rationale for the Amateur Radio Service is quite
clearly=20
> elucidated within the FCC regulations. If you have perhaps lost sight
of=20
> this, I'll remind you:
>
> =A797.1 Basis and purpose.
>
> The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an
amateur=20
> radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following=20
> principles:
>
> (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to
the=
> =20
> public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly=20
> with respect to providing emergency communications.
>
> (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to=20
> contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
>
> (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules=20
> which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and
technical=
> =20
> phases of the art.
>
> (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of=
> =20
> trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
>
> (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance=20
> international goodwill.
>
> I hope this sounds familiar. Limiting protection to the "right"
amateurs=20
> who participate in "worthy" activities is wrongheaded in the=20
> extreme. *ANY* amateur licensee must be subject to to the same
protections.
>
> While the proposed wording was almost certainly well-intentioned, it's=20
> simply wrong-headed. Amateur radio is a marvelously diverse service and=20
> this diversity is key to our survival; everything we do must keep in
mind=20
> preserving and encouraging this diversity.
>
> Kim Elmore, N5OP
>
> Kim Elmore, Ph.D.
> University of Oklahoma
> Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
> "All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The
> greatest of these is Maybe" The original Latin appears to be garbled.
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:19 PM 10/28/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> > > For example,
> > >
> > > C. No provision in this bill shall prohibit licensed amateur radio
> > > operators from installing towers on their own property so far as the
> > > structures are permitted by current zoning ordinances. Communities
are
> > > required to accomodate, in the greatest possible manner, amateur radio
> > > operators registered and participating with their local emergency
> > > management agency and/or the Amateur Radio Emergency Service.
> > >
> >
> >Whoa!!!!
> >
> >I am absolutely floored to see the suggestion that exemption from
> >antenna-hindering legislation be afforded only hams who are affiliated
> >with EM or ARES. I am both shocked and dismayed to see that someone
> >has that sort of narrow view concerning which sorts of hams are worth
> >protecting from legal impediments to operating an amateur radio station.
> >Legislation of the sort proposed here would make second-class hams out
> >of non ARES/EM members, in that they would not have the same right to
> >put up good antennas that ARES/EM members might have.
> >
> >Please consider these scenarios (using fictional names, but describing
> >situations which could easily apply to many hams' lives):
> >
> >Joe Ham is a new ham. He's busy learning things, like how to get a
> >basic station on the air, how to participate in routine QSO's, in
> >nets, in repeater round-tables, how to make antennas, and theory and
> >maybe Morse code for an upgrade. Joe's finding the nets the most
> >fun, followed closely by ragchew, but really has no idea what will
> >interest him in the future. If we had the necessary crystal ball,
> >we could see that in 5-10 years, Joe, now more experienced, and
> >feeling confident about his ability to operate properly under even
> >the most stressful conditions, will decide it's time to look seriously
> >at getting involved in public service. For now, though, he's busy
> >just getting to know the hobby.
> >
> >Mary has been a ham for years, and has held a general class license
> >for almost that long. A busy wife, mother, and career woman, Mary
> >has very little time to get on the air, and spends what little time
> >she has chasing DX. She's not involved in any sort of emergency
> >preparedness, but she buys a new radio every few years, and pays dues
> >to her local club and the ARRL. Good fortune willing, we will never
> >have to find out, but it just so happens that in the event of the
> >sort of catastrophe that might wipe out communications over much
> >of the North American continent, her knowledge of propagation could
> >quite possibly prove invaluable. (Of course, she'd have a hard time
> >developing that skill in the first place without a decent antenna
> >and support system for it.) Without her and thousands like her,
> >amateur radio would have fewer manufacturers making ham gear, less
> >influence to support things like spectrum protection legislation, and
> >a smaller, weaker, national organization.
> >
> >Bob has held an extra class for even longer than Mary, but gets on
> >the air very little. He's too busy reading technical journals and
> >tinkering with computers and circuitry. When he decides to try to
> >get on the air and do some experimenting, he discovers that he
> >doesn't belong to one of the qualifying groups which would lend him
> >the credibility necessary in the eyes of the law to qualify for
> >having an antenna up. Discouraged, he decides to sell his ham
> >equipment, and let his license lapse. He continues to work on his
> >research, and eventually develops an ingenious method of filtering
> >that virtually makes BPL interference disappear. Rather than write
> >his article for QST, providing amateur radio a bright glimmer of
> >hope in the midst of its downward spiral after the onslaught of the
> >BPL disaster, he instead submits his idea to the US military, who
> >quietly sits on it.
> >
> >Jerry is 75 years old, and has been a ham for over 50 years. For
> >over three decades of that 50 years, he was involved in some sort
> >of public service. On 11 different occasions, he responded to
> >tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters by leaving his job
> >and family behind to assist with emergency communications in the
> >stricken areas. His health no longer permits that level of
> >involvement, but his greatest joy in retirement is getting on 40M
> >CW at night, and 20M CW during the day, to keep in touch with
> >friends and make new ones. Some of the guys at the local club
> >have been helping Jerry maintain his tower and antennas, but they're
> >not sure they should go on doing so since, technically, Jerry is no
> >longer qualified to have a tower up.
> >
> >Do you really want to exclude Joe, Mary, Bob and Jerry from fully
> >participating in amateur radio, just because they don't happen to
> >belong to ARES, or whatever? Do you really believe that hams who
> >are members of emergency preparedness organizations are the only
> >ones who deserve accommodation? Do you think that hams who'd rather
> >devote their time to building equipment, modeling antennas, studying
> >propagation, working contests, maintaining repeaters, working EME,
> >working meteor scatter, writing articles, or educating the next
> >generation of hams, don't deserve the right to erect antennas and
> >support structures, unless they devote some of their time to some
> >emergency preparedness organization instead?
> >
> >Do you really believe that's what's best for ham radio?
> >
> >Everyone, please do support accommodations for amateur radio in any
> >legislation which aims to restrict the building of antennas or
> >their support structures. However, please do not even *think* of
> >limiting this support to hams who belong to any particular type of
> >additional organization, such as RACES. Let's support the right
> >for *all* hams to build and maintain effective amateur radio
> >stations.
> >
> >73,
> >Jim WB5UDE
> >______________________________________________________
> >___________________ Information __________________________
> >ARRL Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT [email protected]
> >Oklahoma Section Web page http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >
> >ARRL-OK mailing list
> >Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
> >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> >Post: mailto:[email protected]
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:50:17 -0600
> From: Jim Reimer <[email protected]>
> To: Jim Glover <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] SB-389
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> >> For example,
> >>
> >> C. No provision in this bill shall prohibit licensed amateur radio
> >> operators from installing towers on their own property so far as the
> >> structures are permitted by current zoning ordinances. Communities are
> >> required to accomodate, in the greatest possible manner, amateur radio
> >> operators registered and participating with their local emergency
> >> management agency and/or the Amateur Radio Emergency Service.
> >>
>
> > Whoa!!!!
>
> <snip snip snip>
>
> I agree - why just ARES folks?
>
> ---however---
>
> Look at the language above. Communities? Read the bill. If you're
> in an area covered by "community" zoning, the bill does *not* apply
> to you. It only applies to areas outside of communities, (i.e.
> "rural" areas) and *appears* to only apply to commercial concerns.
>
> -jdr-
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:49:00 -0600
> To: [email protected]
> From: "Kim Elmore" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [ARRL-OK] RTTY Signal near 10132 kHz?
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> Curiosity has gotten the better of me and after all this time I have to
> ask: Does anyone know what the RTTY signal around 10132 kHz is? I've
tried
> all sorts of ways to decode it with no success. I don't expect it to
> necessarily make sense (it's almost certainly encrypted), but I haven't
> found any combination that acts as if I'm decoding the characters
properly.
> It's 850 Hz shift and so probably government/military. It's quite strong
> and so probably originating in NA, ands it's there every night and quite
> possibly 24/7.
>
> What is it?
>
> Kim Elmore, N5OP
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> ______________________________________________________
> ___________________ Information __________________________
> ARRL Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT [email protected]
> Oklahoma Section Web page
http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html_________________________________
>
> ARRL-OK mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:[email protected]
>
>
> End of ARRL-OK Digest
>
>
>