[ARRL-OK] Re: ARRL-OK digest, Vol 4 #146 - 7 msgs
Bill Goswick, K5WG
[email protected]
Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:34:43 -0600
Hi Craig: I was just looking through some old e-mails and ran across this.
Are you the Craig Roberts that I used to fly with in the Tulsa PD
helicopter?
Chief Bill Goswick
Tulsa Fire Department (ret'd)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Roberts" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: [ARRL-OK] Re: ARRL-OK digest, Vol 4 #146 - 7 msgs
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> ___________________ 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]
>