http://www.southgatearc.org/news/november2009/icom_ic706.htm

73'

Bob
WB3DYE

--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, "kj4mem" <kj4mem@...> wrote:
>
>
> The following are excerpts from "Commercialization of Amateur

Thanks for sharing this.  It is a well-written valuable document, which came at
a very good time, except someone at the Federal Communications Commission said
something that called the hand of leadership at FCC.  As a result, we now have
waivers.

Now, let me rant a little.

I resent the implication that I personally am doing something wrong.  The
pecuniary interest issue ONLY impacts paid folks (like me) who use amateur radio
(like Skywarn).

I have been at this duty station 28 months.  In 28 months, I have used amateur
radio in drills exactly ZERO times.

On my volunteer roster, about a third are licensed amateur radio operators. 
These volunteers operate the radios in the Emergency Operations Center, both
commercial and amateur with a sure rule of guidance that amateur radio operators
are at the amateur radio stations.

BUT ... your colleagues have emailed me and posted on QRZ that, in which I
consider to be anti-government rants that:

1.  I should give up my license(s).  Won't happen.  I have been a ham too long
and enjoy the hobby too much to do that.  Do the math.  If I am a member of
Quarter Century Wireless Association and been a full time paid emergency manager
for about 10 years, which came first?

2.  I should remove the amateur radios from the EOC.  Won't happen.  My
volunteers are able to get hands on some pretty decent modern gear that
otherwise they could not afford.  Personally, I enjoy the hobby and want to talk
to my amateur radio friends on amateur radio frequencies, rather than cell
phone, which, of late, I find myself using more because my friends can't get the
reason for pecuniary interest, ex. asking me why the City sirens are going off,
after it was announced, IN PERSON, that they would be sounded at a specific time
and date.

3.  I could give up my job.  Won't happen.  Next to Jesus, my job is my passion.
In so many ways, I view it as just as important mission at introducing a soul to
the Savior.  Yet again, I could give up my job and live in poverty.    :)

Some of the anti-government comments have come to me in meetings where an
otherwise helpful volunteer stated that there was no interest in their heart to
serve the City or National Weather Service.  The desire was to serve the PUBLIC.

Then folks want to beat their underpaid, under-appreciated public servants with
pecuniary interest and expand that beating to include amateur radios that have
been modified to transmit in public safety bands, clearly OFF-topic to the
pecuniary interest issue.

Yet, the modified radios are legal, if you are in the Military Affiliate Radio
System.  I am and they are.

The MARS program is so much more appealing because some of your colleagues don't
have to worry about pecuniary interest issue on those frequencies.

In MARS, there's NO concern about serving the government.  After all, in one
service, the motto is "Proudly serving those who serve".

In the latest ARES (I know, off topic for RACES) list, did you see this?

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/ares-el/?issue=2009-11-18

"Not surprisingly, many emergency management staff are Amateur Radio licensees"

IF these colleagues do ANYTHING wrong, ex. police using ham channels as an
adjunct to Part 90 operations, they expose their jurisdiction to the potential
of, not only a fine for the Part 97 violation, but also loss of their Part 90
license(s).  How long do you think I would have a job, if I get ALL the Part 90
equipment in MY jurisdiction made useless by something I did on amateur radio?

Bottom line to that, give your folks some measure of credit for the lump between
the shoulders.  The majority of my colleagues know the rules and follow them.  I
can't say they ALL do because I've not visited every EOC in the USA.

Please accept my apologies for the long rant.  Of all the lists I monitor, I
would have expected this list to be one where the pecuniary interest issue would
be of, perhaps, MOST interest, yet LEAST debated.  While it is MORE debated on
QRZ, many of the same arguments from the anti-government crowd seem to spill
over here.

Thank you to those who ARE serving your local jurisdiction.

In the mean time, if you want to talk to me, use amateur radio, if you have a
license.  If you want to talk to me about City business, use the phone.  Should
not have had to say that.  People on this list have brains.

73



--
Lloyd Colston   director
Altus Emergency Management
Altus, OK      http://www.cityofaltus.org
Phone:  580.482.8333
Fax:  580.482.4738

http://twitter.com/altusem
http://altusem.blogspot.com

---

Lloyd Colston KC5FM
Altus, OK USA http://wx5em.us
Straight Key Century Club #5676
Croatian Telegraphy Club CTC # 1.931
CARF #294 Ten-Ten #10231
http://www.carf.net http://www.ten-ten.org
http://kc5fm.blogspot.com

The following are excerpts from "Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules,
The Risks, The Issues" published 09/2009 that I mentioned in an earlier post.

Disclaimer: I have tried not to take them out of context and chose these
passages only to illustrate current concerns. I encourage all HAMS to read the
article and subsequent editorials pertaining to this issue.

"This document is not intended to discourage anyone from becoming an Amateur or
to discourage any organization from promoting an interest in Amateur Radio among
its employees and volunteers. Nor does it signal any change in the League's
long-standing devotion to public service and emergency communications. Its
objective is to educate both Amateurs and the organizations we serve about what
is permitted under the FCC's current Rules and to assist Amateurs in making
reasoned decisions about the appropriateness of services we may offer to
organizations in our communities. "
...

"It is a narrow path between (1) utilizing beneficial opportunities for public
service communications and showcasing the continued relevance and importance of
Amateur Radio communications to the public; and (2) allowing organizations to
exploit Amateur Radio as a cheap and flexible alternative to the Land Mobile
Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, or Commercial Mobile Radio Service
facilities."
...

"Enterprises that become accustomed to using Amateur frequencies for
interoperability, continuity of operations, and to avoid the expense and
complications related to other radio services may, at some time in the future,
decide to petition to have certain Amateur frequencies allocated to them
outright. The belief that these are "our bands" in perpetuity and not subject to
reallocation is mistaken. Our access to spectrum is a privilege, not a right,
and something that is continuously under re-evaluation.

Reasonable people with well-developed ethical senses and long experience in
public service may come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of
providing legal volunteer communications on behalf of particular enterprises.
Discussion and debate about ethical issues can be constructive rather than
divisive and can lead to better decision-making by Amateurs involved in public
service. One thing is certain: Our portions of the spectrum are, in commercial
terms, of extraordinarily high monetary value to others. How we use them
regularly determines our continued tenure. "
...

"The ARRL has been informed that enterprises as diverse as insurance companies,
federal agencies not engaged in emergency preparedness, city government, state
government, and businesses offering continuity of operations services to clients
may be using or may be planning to have employees use Amateur Radio. Some of
these entities have even questioned the necessity for their employees to have
licenses in order to use Amateur Radio frequencies. "
...

"...they are intended to remind us that our obligation to abide by the FCC's
Rules applies as much to public service and emergency communications activity as
to any other kind of Amateur Radio operation. They are also intended to
challenge us to consider the
appropriateness of using Amateur Radio to serve the needs of particular
enterprises in our communities, even if the FCC's Rules may not be an issue.
Finally, they are intended to suggest positive actions the ARRL can take to
improve awareness of the FCC's Rules as
they pertain to public service and emergency communications.




--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, NNN7DXB@... wrote:
>
>
>
> I must have missed something in these posts. Hadn't heard anything
> about anyone using ham freqs if they weren't hams. What gives??
>
> Dave
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I must have missed something in these posts. Hadn't heard anything
about anyone using ham freqs if they weren't hams. What gives??

Dave


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

if they're not hams, they can't use the freqs. period



   I'm confused.

   "Nothing says anyone "must" use hams if they don't want to."

   I agree. But if they're using Amateur Radio frequencies, shouldn't they be
HAMS? Or are the frequencies going to be open to everyone?

   I really am confused.

   --- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, NNN7DXB@... wrote:
   >
   >
   > Agree. Forcing only makes for more "bad blood"....
   >
   > Nothing says anyone "must" use hams if they don't want to.
   >
   > In any event, it's the EOC Directors' CHOICE to use hams, and NOT the
   > ham community's choice. Ham radio is an "option" available to the EOC
   > staff. The last time I checked, there was no "requirement" to use hams
   > or any other volunteer group, particularly if they were not needed or
   > wanted.
   >
   > One should not force or make unreasonable demands to be included
   > if one is not wanted. That is the BEST and QUICKEST way to wear out your
   > welcome and destroy any good will that might have been engendered during
   > previous activities.
   >
   > Dave
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Maybe I made an incorrect assumption. I was thinking of the issues brought forth
in "Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, The Issues" in the
ARRL news files. So, I'll duck back out to the sidelines. Thanks.



--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@...> wrote:
>
> Who said they were using amateur radio frequencies?
>
> kj4mem wrote:
>
> > I agree. But if they're using Amateur Radio frequencies, shouldn't they be
HAMS? Or are the frequencies going to be open to everyone?
>

Who said they were using amateur radio frequencies?

kj4mem wrote:

> I agree. But if they're using Amateur Radio frequencies, shouldn't they be
HAMS? Or are the frequencies going to be open to everyone?

I'm confused.

"Nothing says anyone "must" use hams if they don't want to."

I agree. But if they're using Amateur Radio frequencies, shouldn't they be HAMS?
Or are the frequencies going to be open to everyone?

I really am confused.

--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, NNN7DXB@... wrote:
>
>
> Agree. Forcing only makes for more "bad blood"....
>
> Nothing says anyone "must" use hams if they don't want to.
>
> In any event, it's the EOC Directors' CHOICE to use hams, and NOT the
> ham community's choice. Ham radio is an "option" available to the EOC
> staff. The last time I checked, there was no "requirement" to use hams
> or any other volunteer group, particularly if they were not needed or
> wanted.
>
> One should not force or make unreasonable demands to be included
> if one is not wanted. That is the BEST and QUICKEST way to wear out your
> welcome and destroy any good will that might have been engendered during
> previous activities.
>
> Dave
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Howdy,

    Hmmm...This is cross-posted.  I see a "Dan" in ARRL Regulatory,
but no "Don".  You really need a full name when quoting ARRL policy.

Sorry to be picayune, but it makes a difference...

TIA.

73,
Guy - W6MSU
San Joaquin Co. OES RACES 1


--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, "Elden P. Laffoon, Sr." <wa9iql@...> wrote:
>
> Why am I NOT surprised!!!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Illinois_ARES@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Illinois_ARES@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of crawford46@...
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:33 PM
> To: Illinois_ARES@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Illinois_ARES] Exercise
>
> Chuck asked an interesting question at breakfast this morning.  He said that
> at last weeks meeting at the State EOC he was asked if he was using Hams in
> the exercise.  He told the State guy that he was and the State guy asked if
> Chuck turned in for WC when we were used and Chuck told him he did.  The
> State guy then told Chuck that it was illegal for us to participate in
> exercises as we would be considered an employee and cannot use ham radio for
> you employer's business.  It was okay in diseasters because most rules are
> off then.  Chuck told him the Hams would be used anyway.  It bothered me, so
> I called and emailed the ARRL and talked to Don, who is in the regulations
> area.  I received an email back telling us the since no w-3 or 1099 isn't
> given, we are not considered employees and therefore there is no violation
> of rule 97 with us participating in any exercise.   It appears to me that
> the State is looking for any reason to keep Hams out of activities involving
> EMA's and the State EOC.  They have not updated their manuels to use Ham
> Radio as have other states and have told Chuck they are just too busy to
> consider it at this time.  It may be time to contact our Congressmen and try
> to force the issur.  I have kept his email for our records.   Greg

Agree. Forcing only makes for more "bad blood"....

Nothing says anyone "must" use hams if they don't want to.

In any event, it's the EOC Directors' CHOICE to use hams, and NOT the
ham community's choice. Ham radio is an "option" available to the EOC
staff. The last time I checked, there was no "requirement" to use hams
or any other volunteer group, particularly if they were not needed or
wanted.

One should not force or make unreasonable demands to be included
if one is not wanted. That is the BEST and QUICKEST way to wear out your
welcome and destroy any good will that might have been engendered during
previous activities.

Dave


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Why try to force them to use hams? If they can do without, let them.

Sarge



   Why am I NOT surprised!!!!!



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, RACES@yahoogroups.com wrote:


> POLL QUESTION: Should the FCC Rules be amended with an exception to
> radio amateurs who are employees of a government agency to
> participate in disaster drills conducted by that agency with
> its volunteers on amateur radio frequencies?  (According to

I found the poll results interesting.  Thanks for setting up the poll.

Now, that the NPR has been filed regarding this very subject, will we see the
Federal Communications Commission act on it, examine it, turn it around, turn it
over, and then declare "NO!  The Waiver process has been shown to timely work." 
Electric buzzer sound and trapdoor opens.   :)

IF you care about the success of the NPR, perhaps you should learn how to engage
your elected officials in D.C.  The number for U.S. Capitol Switchboard at
(202)224-3121.

While you are asking them to influence the Commission on this issue, perhaps you
could also address them about some other important issues, ex. the legality of a
certain elected official to serve, the budget deficit, the healthcare issue, the
coming inflation, the growing number of seniors who have not enough taxpayer
base to pay for their social security.

Can you see the result?  Congressman asks Commission "what's the deal with the
NPR regarding paid folks talking on ham radio?" with the response being
"Congressman, we have the NPR and we are working on it".

End of story.

I can hope for a different outcome.  I'll see what the outcome may be.

73

Lloyd, KC5FM

The following RACES poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Should the FCC Rules be amended with an exception to allow
radio amateurs who are employees of a government agency to
participate in disaster drills conducted by that agency with
its volunteers on amateur radio frequencies?  (According to
FCC Public Notice DA 09-2259, released October 20, 2009, such
operation is not allowed, due to pecuniary interest.)

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Yes, 28 votes, 66.67%
- No, 14 votes, 33.33%

INDIVIDUAL VOTES
- Yes
      - wa2msu@...
      - skykinggop@...
      - n4hhp@...
      - emergencymanagement@...
      - LARRY33414@...
      - nn8b.oh@...
      - desloan@...
      - kbourne@...
      - stevewfd@...
      - n3jpv@...
      - ae5kw@...
      - k9drh@...
      - W6WC@...
      - kd5wev@...
      - kb9qod@...
      - wa9iql@...
      - ka5wlr@...
      - fireman@...
      - kellyj@...
      - nu0b@...
      - cjburgardt@...
      - tlong8@...
      - wd9gnj@...
      - n5eli@...
      - kd5dpk@...
      - bertjnovak@...
      - rmagree@...
      - n5vl@...
- No
      - n5zkd@...
      - wb0egr@...
      - WC1EOC@...
      - kc5fm@...
      - w6yn@...
      - ab0wr@...
      - k1eg@...
      - n9wvm@...
      - kj4mem@...
      - w8ajr@...
      - kc9nvv@...
      - kb1ejh@...
      - gw.ka8e@...
      - william.fisher602@...


For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RACES

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/general.html

I found this to be true some paid agencies feel that amateur radio is taking
money out of their pockets. For many years the town I live in would put in their
budget every year $2000.00 for

R.A.C.E.S. equipment but used it for weapon training for the police department.
This has gone back many years. Since I joined OEM back in the early 1970's

GOD BLESS you & keep you

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elden P. Laffoon, Sr." <wa9iql@...>
To: RACES@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:13:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [RACES] REF: The 97.113 Bru-haha

 




An after thought, Bob.

An example of what I was attempting to say. Several years ago, when I was a
sworn member of a county ema, I had a conversation with a division deputy
chief regarding the agency having a RACES officer listed as a part of its
structure. I was told the ONLY reason that was listed was because the
agency merely wanted the "paper" to show it had one when in fact none
existed.

What I learned during those years was that, unless a volunteer is a "sworn"
member of these various agencies, they cannot be "trusted". This is what
the EM world has evolved into in this age of "Homeland Security/Emergency
Management".

Then people wonder why no one wants to volunteer any more.

Elden P. Laffoon, Sr. WA9IQL

Bolingbrook, IL.

-----Original Message-----
From: RACES@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RACES@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of
Elden P. Laffoon, Sr.
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:41 PM
To: RACES@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [RACES] REF: The 97.113 Bru-haha

Well said, Bob!

I, for one, have given up on the so-called "public service" aspect of this
hobby and have reverted back to the basics of SWL/DX/ET AL that is the very
foundation of Amateur Radio. The EM world, it seems, wants everybody to
delve into tons of federally-mandated "training"/certs just to pickup a mike
and pass traffic. Helping out has lost its luster when dealing with these
"politically-correct" EM entities and makes it more of a chore. There are
some in the ARES arena who appear to constantly have their noses firmly
planted up these agency's behinds in the desperate hope of being tossed the
occasional bone (re: participation) just so they can justify their
existence.

So, I say, if the FCC wants to enforce this Rule, then Amateurs need to go
back and re-discover the true joys of the hobby that originally made it
great and give up this idea of becoming "emergency management-lite".

Elden P. Laffoon, Sr. WA9IQL

Bolingbrook, IL.

-----Original Message-----
From: RACES@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RACES@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of
Hajek, Robert
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:51 PM
To: RACES@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RACES] REF: The 97.113 Bru-haha

Just some thoughts about the current rush to enforce provisions of FCC Rules
Section 97.113...

I can't help but wonder about the timing of ARRL's April 2009 Editorial "It
Seems To Us" ... "Keeping the 'Amateur' in Amateur Radio"

Then the discussion was topic at the Hamvention.

While it would take a bit of research requiring more time than I have at the
moment, I think you will find an everlasting desire of the League to make
ARES "THE" focus of Emergency Communications. Although there was a birth of
knowledge within ARRL a few years ago that maybe the participants in
providing communications in support of served agencies, particularly
government agencies, needed to have a better connection with the agencies
than just giving them the EC's phone number and expecting an out-turn of a
ready emergency communications crew.

I would venture that there is a continuing tug and pull within the Board
level participants at ARRL, that there are some that have little knowledge
of the public service side of Amateur Radio and prefer to cater to the
big-gun DXers...for some, that is from where they came. And while there are
others that understand the provision of emergency communications (auxiliary
communications, if you may), only a part of those are beyond the myopic
thinking that ARRL's ARES will provide it all.

Now with a new view on the enforcement of the rules by someone who has grown
up in an FCC family but is just beginning to view the Amateur Radio picture
in its reality (other than her licensed father's extension of it to her),
she is of the newer FCC where the whole agency is predominantly lawyer based
as opposed to many with technical balancing in past years. I believe that
Riley was able to look at the full spectrum of enforcement and pick his
"battles" in the places that would be most productive.

Underlying this recent view of enforcing 97.113, have been comments that if
paid people are involved then they should just use Part 90 services. The
Public Notice DA-09-2259 has made the attempt to disassociate the provision
emergency communication from the categories in the Basis and Purpose, or at
least downgrade its priority.

This is not too different from the earlier problems with regard to SKYWARN
where the FCC inferred that the NWS should set up an auxiliary service like
MARS on IRAC frequencies. Yeah, that works so well with CAP where the
meeting of emission masks eliminated all but agency supplied radios. And I
have not seen too much mentioned about weather spotting and the realization
that over 200 NWS personnel are (or at least 300 have been) licensed under
Part 97. It would appear that they now dare not touch a Part 97 radio at
any time at work. And I guess it would mean that they can't weather spot
and report it on Amateur Radio because they are employed by the NWS. It
would also pretty much remove the meaning of SKYWARN Recognition Day. I
wonder how many Severe Weather Chasers who have Amateur Radio licenses, can
no longer feel same in transmitting at all while involved in that activity
if they are the least bit paid by some entity in the weather business, like
NSSL or NWS or College of DuPage.

While it is touted that 97.113 has been in effect since 1993, it is now 18
years later and someone has decided that all of a sudden that Amateur Radio
is in a turmoil because of all the "improper operation." It's like 1970s
reincarnated that government agencies under RACES were letting everyone and
his brother operate RACES radios regularly with Restricted Phone Permits.
Have there really been that many perceived intrusions into the sanctity of
Amateur Radio? If there has been some change that was not present for 18
years, then maybe there is something wrong with the Rule.

What the proponents of this recent enforcement effort do not seem to realize
is that they tend to disconnect provision of emergency assistance from any
official agencies. It would seem to support ARRL ARES organization in that
whenever placed into operation, the EC or DEC or SEC is the person in
charge. In charge of what? Maybe years ago during the early years of RACES
when the FCC Rules actually talked about organization in the official
hierarchy, many of those agencies had nothing more than a politically
appointed Civil Defense Director (who might be somebody's relative).
Volunteer help from the hams was not as organized as it is today. Emergency
Management has evolved into a more professional operation. Any such agency
worth its salt is not about to just deal with a bunch of what equates to a
independent bunch of radio guys and gals who do not regularly interface with
the agency. And it is often the agency head or delegated employee who
provides the bridge to the radio group that results in the level of
integration. But now they can not talk on the Amateur Radio because they
get paid.

By the way, RACES operation today, according to an interpretation of the R&O
in WT Docket 04-140, is that it is a provision to allow continuation of
Amateur Radio operation when all but RACES operation would be forbidden, on
such frequencies and under such conditions as the FCC Director OSTP defines
within his delegated powers when directed by the President. It's no
organization (other than what unofficially people have continued to call
their organization a RACES organization instead of a RB [for radio bunch] or
CE [for communication experts] and RACES operation (under 97.407) is pretty
much a unmet need unless regular operation gets shut down.

The key ingredient that seems to be missing is that there is a disconnect
from the idea that Amateur Radio is being used to support these agencies,
whether it be Emergency Management, Government Health Industry, or what,
because in the case of an emergency, especially a large-scale emergency, the
resource of Amateur Radio operators can be utilized with an operational
structure already in place. The number of unpaid Amateurs supporting an
operation will far outnumber the paid participants with the Amateur license,
the reason for using Amateur Radio resource for those instances. And the
ability of Amateur Radio to quickly reconfigure its operation and frequency
use are not practically available under Part 90 Rules.

Take the Weather Spotting activity as an example. The reason an NWS
employee, who also happens to be a ham, would use a Part 97 radio during a
possible severe weather event is so that it opens the window of possible
reporters to many licensed Radio Amateurs. If the only persons he would
talk with are NWS employee hams, then that closed loop would be an obvious
violation. But if an NWS ham was on his day off or off-duty hours, it's
silly to think that just because of his employment he can not participate as
do other hams in reporting severe weather. There's something wrong with the
rule or the enforcement of the rule.

So somewhere in this whole uprising of enforcement, there are questions
about from where the pressure to enforce critically has arisen. And if
there is a compromise to achieve non-commercial results, possibly with some
modification of the rule, then why could this not have been discussed in
advance. My guess is that the FCC looks at ARRL as the representative of
Amateur Radio, and conversation there fully supported this enforcement. I'd
like to be wrong, but...

Bob Hajek W9QBH
Albuquerque NM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was goin to ask the same thing. Thank you!

  Schuylar Crist
73deKE5VIP


A.R.R.L. Public Information Officer, South Texas Section
Texas State RACES, Alt-CLO
Bexar County ARES, Member
Hill Country REACT #4804, Member




________________________________
From: "stevewfd@..." <stevewfd@...>
To: RACES@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 25, 2009 4:56:10 PM
Subject: Re: [RACES] REF: The 97.113 Bru-haha


If that is the way you guys feel
WHY ARE YOU PART OF THIS NEWS GROUP?

Steve (Sandy) WB2MBV


In a message dated 10/25/2009 5:16:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
wa9iql@sbcglobal. net writes:

Ab-so-freaking- Ab-so-freaking

-----Original  Message-----
From: _RACES@yahoogroups. RAC_ (mailto:RACES@yahoogroups. com)
[mailto:_RACES@yahoogroups. RAC_ (mailto:RACES@yahoogroups. com) ] On  Behalf Of
_NNN7DXB@aol. NNN_ (mailto:NNN7DXB@aol. com)
Sent: Sunday,  October 25, 2009 4:14 PM
To: _RACES@yahoogroups. RAC_ (mailto:RACES@yahoogroups. com)
Subject:  Re: [RACES] REF: The 97.113 Bru-haha

Elden P:

Agree, agree,  agree! I am glad you brought this aspect up. Seems so many
within the  fraternity of ham radio have "lost" the hobby aspect of it, and
made it  into an EM "job". Perhaps it's time to put the "fun" back into it
(for a  "change").

Dave F

[Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo!  Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If that is the way you guys feel
WHY ARE YOU PART OF THIS NEWS GROUP?

Steve (Sandy) WB2MBV


In a message dated 10/25/2009 5:16:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
wa9iql@... writes:




Ab-so-freaking-Ab-so-freaking

-----Original  Message-----
From: _RACES@..._ (mailto:RACES@yahoogroups.com)
[mailto:_RACES@..._ (mailto:RACES@yahoogroups.com) ] On  Behalf Of
_NNN7DXB@..._ (mailto:NNN7DXB@...)
Sent: Sunday,  October 25, 2009 4:14 PM
To: _RACES@..._ (mailto:RACES@yahoogroups.com)
Subject:  Re: [RACES] REF: The 97.113 Bru-haha

Elden P:

Agree, agree,  agree! I am glad you brought this aspect up. Seems so many
within the  fraternity of ham radio have "lost" the hobby aspect of it, and
made it  into an EM "job". Perhaps it's time to put the "fun" back into it
(for a  "change").

Dave F

[Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo!  Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Elden P:

Agree, agree, agree! I am glad you brought this aspect up. Seems so many
within the fraternity of ham radio have "lost" the hobby aspect of it, and
made it into an EM "job". Perhaps it's time to put the "fun" back into it
(for a "change").

Dave F


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just some thoughts about the current rush to enforce provisions of FCC Rules
Section 97.113...

I can't help but wonder about the timing of ARRL's April 2009 Editorial "It
Seems To Us" ... "Keeping the 'Amateur' in Amateur Radio"

Then the discussion was topic at the Hamvention.

While it would take a bit of research requiring more time than I have at the
moment, I think you will find an everlasting desire of the League to make ARES
"THE" focus of Emergency Communications.  Although there was a birth of
knowledge within ARRL a few years ago that maybe the participants in providing
communications in support of served agencies, particularly government agencies,
needed to have a better connection with the agencies than just giving them the
EC's phone number and expecting an out-turn of a ready emergency communications
crew.

I would venture that there is a continuing tug and pull within the Board level
participants at ARRL, that there are some that have little knowledge of the
public service side of Amateur Radio and prefer to cater to the big-gun
DXers...for some, that is from where they came.  And while there are others that
understand the provision of emergency communications (auxiliary communications,
if you may), only a part of those are beyond the myopic thinking that ARRL's
ARES will provide it all.

Now with a new view on the enforcement of the rules by someone who has grown up
in an FCC family but is just beginning to view the Amateur Radio picture in its
reality (other than her licensed father's extension of it to her), she is of the
newer FCC where the whole agency is predominantly lawyer based as opposed to
many with technical balancing in past years.  I believe that Riley was able to
look at the full spectrum of enforcement and pick his "battles" in the places
that would be most productive.

Underlying this recent view of enforcing 97.113, have been comments that if paid
people are involved then they should just use Part 90 services.  The Public
Notice DA-09-2259 has made the attempt to disassociate the provision emergency
communication from the categories in the Basis and Purpose, or at least
downgrade its priority.

This is not too different from the earlier problems with regard to SKYWARN where
the FCC inferred that the NWS should set up an auxiliary service like MARS on
IRAC frequencies.  Yeah, that works so well with CAP where the meeting of
emission masks eliminated all but agency supplied radios.  And I have not seen
too much mentioned about weather spotting and the realization that over 200 NWS
personnel are (or at least 300 have been) licensed under Part 97.  It would
appear that they now dare not touch a Part 97 radio at any time at work.  And I
guess it would mean that they can't weather spot and report it on Amateur Radio
because they are employed by the NWS.  It would also pretty much remove the
meaning of SKYWARN Recognition Day.  I wonder how many Severe Weather Chasers
who have Amateur Radio licenses, can no longer feel same in transmitting at all
while involved in that activity if they are the least bit paid by some entity in
the weather business, like NSSL or NWS or College of DuPage.

While it is touted that 97.113 has been in effect since 1993, it is now 18 years
later and someone has decided that all of a sudden that Amateur Radio is in a
turmoil because of all the "improper operation."  It's like 1970s reincarnated
that government agencies under RACES were letting everyone and his brother
operate RACES radios regularly with Restricted Phone Permits.  Have there really
been that many perceived intrusions into the sanctity of Amateur Radio?  If
there has been some change that was not present for 18 years, then maybe there
is something wrong with the Rule.

What the proponents of this recent enforcement effort do not seem to realize is
that they tend to disconnect  provision of emergency assistance from any
official agencies.  It would seem to support ARRL ARES organization in that
whenever placed into operation, the EC or DEC or SEC is the person in charge. 
In charge of what?  Maybe years ago during the early years of RACES when the FCC
Rules actually talked about organization in the official hierarchy, many of
those agencies had nothing more than a politically appointed Civil Defense
Director (who might be somebody's relative).  Volunteer help from the hams was
not as organized as it is today.  Emergency Management has evolved into a more
professional operation.  Any such agency worth its salt is not about to just
deal with a bunch of what equates to a independent bunch of radio guys and gals
who do not regularly interface with the agency.  And it is often the agency head
or delegated employee who provides the bridge to the radio group that results in
the level of integration.  But now they can not talk on the Amateur Radio
because they get paid.

By the way, RACES operation today, according to an interpretation of the R&O in
WT Docket 04-140, is that it is a provision to allow continuation of Amateur
Radio operation when all but RACES operation would be forbidden, on such
frequencies and under such conditions as the FCC Director OSTP defines within
his delegated powers when directed by the President.  It's no organization
(other than what unofficially people have continued to call their organization a
RACES organization instead of a RB [for radio bunch] or CE [for communication
experts] and RACES operation (under 97.407) is pretty much a unmet need unless
regular operation gets shut down.

The key ingredient that seems to be missing is that there is a disconnect from
the idea that Amateur Radio is being used to support these agencies, whether it
be Emergency Management, Government Health Industry, or what, because in the
case of an emergency, especially a large-scale emergency, the resource of
Amateur Radio operators can be utilized with an operational structure already in
place.  The number of unpaid Amateurs supporting an operation will far outnumber
the paid participants with the Amateur license, the reason for using Amateur
Radio resource for those instances.  And the ability of Amateur Radio to quickly
reconfigure its operation and frequency use are not practically available under
Part 90 Rules.

Take the Weather Spotting activity as an example.  The reason an NWS employee,
who also happens to be a ham, would use a Part 97 radio during a possible severe
weather event is so that it opens the window of possible reporters to many
licensed Radio Amateurs.  If the only persons he would talk with are NWS
employee hams, then that closed loop would be an obvious violation.  But if an
NWS ham was on his day off or off-duty hours, it's silly to think that just
because of his employment he can not participate as do other hams in reporting
severe weather.  There's something wrong with the rule or the enforcement of the
rule.

So somewhere in this whole uprising of enforcement, there are questions about
from where the pressure to enforce critically has arisen.  And if there is a
compromise to achieve non-commercial results, possibly with some modification of
the rule, then why could this not have been discussed in advance.  My guess is
that the FCC looks at ARRL as the representative of Amateur Radio, and
conversation there fully supported this enforcement.  I'd like to be wrong,
but...

Bob Hajek  W9QBH
Albuquerque  NM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the RACES
group.

   File        : /ARPC Part 97 Petition Final.pdf
   Uploaded by : w6hk <kbourne@...>
   Description : Petition for Rule Making on Emergency Communications

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RACES/files/ARPC%20Part%2097%20Petition%20Final.pd\
f

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

w6hk <kbourne@...>

Let's see, local government agencies, in these tough economic times, are
beginning to use volunteers to fill in for paid officers to do tasks not
requiring regular police or fire training and they can became Amateur Radio
Operators, using their own equipment. Some of the agencies personnel are or
become licensed Amateurs. It seems natural that there would not be a problem
holding practice drills on Amateur frequencies, so where is the the harm?
   Remember "All The President's Men"?  "Follow the money!".
The "pecuniary interest" for the hams is minimal, if not non-existent, so how
about pecuniary interest in the other direction?
   The FCC would have everybody using part 90. Frequencies and equipment!!  Who
would that benefit?
   Frequencies mean more licenses, which means more revenue to the FCC!
    Equipment means more radios which means more revenue to the equipment
manufacturers! Not inexpensive Amateur radios but commercial grade!($$)

   So who has a "pecuniary interest"?  Of course it is not illegal for them.
   Of course, the local governments would pay the price. How? (Don't tell me you
can't see this coming) RAISING TAXES!

   I wish that this much ruckus was being raised over the fact that there are no
frequencies for RACES anymore, should war be declared.
The Presidential War Powers Act removed them and outlaws any Amateur radio
transmissions.  The Act provides for the FCC to present a frequency plan, but as
far as I know,nobody is doing so!!

   But that's just my 2 cents worth and 2 cents isn't worth very much anymore.

73 & good luck!!

Ted Vawter  AD1N

"YOU, WITH THE RADIO."..."STEP AWAY FROM THE SPACE STATION"...

73,
Guy - W6MSU

The Petition has been filed,go to: http://n5fdl.com for a look
at the file.

Also on The Rain Report this week is an audio file which discusses
this issue: http://www.therainreport.com/

This is an excellent report.

Ken - NU0B

I think the rules in place are adequate for what we want, so we and the
government just have to understand the original authors of Part 97.

After doing some quick research this morning, I've come up with this:

the definition of pecuniary is: of or pertaining to money.

the definition of amateur is:  a person who engages in a study, sport, or other
activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

Part 97 says "no pecuniary interest"(short version).  I believe the authors were
trying to say with "legal E's"....NO PROFIT.  And by naming the activity AMATEUR
RADIO, that in it self implies no profit.

I understand how the government can say that no one on the clock can transmit,
PERIOD.  I say they are generalizing too much.  Yes, they are on the clock
making money in the form a paycheck.  But that does not mean they are making
PROFIT from or by using amateur radio.

Anyone employed by a gov. agency will not be making profit.  Gov. agencies
consume money, they do not make money.(yes, I know some money or profit is made
from citations but that isn't their primary purpose so let's not go
there....please for the sake of THIS topic).

A hospital worker in the ER will be on the clock, but I guarantee that their
paycheck won't be one penny more just because they used amateur radio that
week(assuming they don't violate other sections of part 97).

Now here is a clear violation(don't worry, I already took myself out behind the
woodshed and kicked my own butt):  My wife does wedding floral and I was making
a delivery for her one day.  I made the mistake of not finding my own directions
to the destination.  I relied on hers.  I made a call on amateur radio for help
in finding my way to the drop-off.  After about 3 minutes, I pulled my head from
the proverbial "warm place" and realized I was violating Part 97.  I stopped the
amateur qso called the same HAM on the telephone so he could finish helping me
find my way.  This is a clear violation because I was seeking help while working
for a "for profit" business and delivery of goods was directly related to the
profit of the business.

Here is situation that I was told "IS" a violation, but I disagree.  A friend, a
ham, had a flat tire with no spare on I-635 (VERY busy interstate hwy in
Dallas,TX) on the inside shoulder in a company work vehicle. And, OH, by the
way, this was before cell phones.  Now I would agree that it is of profitable
interest to the company to get fixed and back on the road asap, but considering
that it is SUICIDE to try to cross this very busy road during the day, I would
say that the SAFETY issue way out-weighed the pecuniary interest in this
situation.  When the call for help on ham radio was made, someone chimed in
calling it a violation.  Help was summoned and all ended well but if it had been
me, I would have said "my life is at risk if I try to cross this very busy hwy
so help me out or shut your mouth".

So while it is the "LETTER" of the law that doesn't quite support our side I
believe it is the "SPIRIT" of the law that was intended by the
original authors of Part 97 that does support what has already been in practice
by most.

Yes, some have been "on the clock" and there by "making money" doing their
everyday job earning a paycheck. But as long as we are not making "PROFIT" from
amateur radio, it is my belief we are abiding by what the writers of Part 97 was
intending.

My 1/2 cents worth...
Greg Evans
N5AOR.....73


--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, RACES@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>
> Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
> RACES group:
>
> Should the FCC Rules be amended with an exception to allow
> radio amateurs who are employees of a government agency to
> participate in disaster drills conducted by that agency with
> its volunteers on amateur radio frequencies?  (According to
> FCC Public Notice DA 09-2259, released October 20, 2009, such
> operation is not allowed, due to pecuniary interest.)
>
>   o Yes
>   o No
>
>
> To vote, please visit the following web page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RACES/surveys?id=2914233
>
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
> web site listed above.
>
> Thanks!
>

I feel that we should not allow government employees join the amateur radio
operators join us. I am speaking from experience because some government
agencies do not what the hams

helping out because the hams do a better job than the paid government employees
in communication,  first aid and etc. The paid employees such as police, fire
and county, state d can not talk to each other,  without going through a third
party. Also they feel that the amateur radio operartors are taking money out
of their pockets. This has been my experience in my town and county. Theses
opinion are mine that  not anyone else. William Fisher K2GVC. I have been a
member of RACES since 1950 before there was RACES, when it was called Civil
Defense 73     

GOD BLESS you & keep you

----- Original Message -----
From: "kd5wev" <kd5wev@...>
To: RACES@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:38:18 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [RACES] Re: New poll for RACES

 






So let me see if I understand
If we say yes
there should be allowances and we will encourage government employees as amateur
radio operators to join us in our elite amateur radio community, But they can't
just want to be able to talk on the amateur radio they must be able to perform ,
like build a radio and set up an antenna or something. Maybe this is a good time
to keep those of youth and age to a limit of time or hours that he/she could be
on the radio because is not really to our level of amateur radio understanding.
And accurate usage of the air way. However, we could say yes we want all aspects
of amateur radio to be heightened and perfected which is done so by practice and
exercise such as in drills with employers/employees and volunteers, even if is a
government facility in our community such as a VA, fire department, and or City
Hall.

If we say no. We think its just fine that the government employee is not
included in any of our exercises or drills. After all We want the government to
fail in being soothe with communication efforts and not involve us , the
community during a event, disaster , and or crisis. Actually I guess we don't
want to participate in any thing that is organized such drills or exercises we
want to talk about our feet or the dog. An keep those people out that are
provided expensive equipment out of our circle and we will stay out of their
network.
is this right???

I missed the part that there is a pre requisite for getting license for amateur
radio operator license. Is it ok that a non government person had a parent that
had a radio and the son now has a great love for amateur radio and not the
community minded person that is seeking every aspect of resource?

KD5WEV




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In RACES@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Bourne" <kbourne@...> wrote:
>


> -- Hams in a government agency who want to help train its volunteers
>     during a disaster drill should be allowed to participate on the

Excellent bullet points, Ken.

I would add one pro point and three con:

Pro

*  Fight like you train.  Train like you fight.  This is a basic premise for
drills.

Con:

*  There are other methods, without using amateur radio, by which the
jurisdiction can play, even on HF.  Those options are spelled out at
<http://kc5fm.blogspot.com/2009/10/pecuniary-interest-has-life-of-its-own.html>
http://ow.ly/w7Np

It seems that I'm in the minority on the poll and in the majority that this
issue should have been left alone.

At any rate, back to my Part 90 operation.    :)

73

Lloyd Colston, director
City of Altus Emergency Management

So let me see if I understand
If we say yes
    there should be allowances and we will encourage government employees  as
amateur radio operators to join us in our elite amateur radio community, But
they can't just want to be able to talk on the amateur radio they must be able
to perform , like build a radio and set up an antenna or something. Maybe this
is a good time to keep those of youth and age to a limit of time or hours that
he/she could be on the radio because is not really to our level of amateur radio
understanding. And accurate usage of the air way.  However, we could say yes we
want all aspects of amateur radio to be heightened and perfected which is done
so by practice and exercise such as in drills with employers/employees and
volunteers, even if is a government facility in our community such as a VA, fire
department, and or City Hall.

If we say no. We think its just fine that the government employee is not
included in any of our exercises or drills. After all We want the government to
fail in being soothe with communication efforts and not involve us , the
community during a event, disaster , and or crisis.  Actually I guess we don't
want to participate in any thing that is organized such drills or exercises we
want to talk about our feet or the dog. An keep those people out that are
provided expensive equipment out of our circle and we will stay out of their
network.
is this right???

I missed the part that there is a pre requisite for getting license for amateur
radio operator license.  Is it ok that a non government person had a parent that
had a radio and the son now has a great love for amateur radio and not the
community minded person that is seeking every aspect of resource?

KD5WEV

I appreciate your "quibble," Blake.  I'll even have to agree with you,
since I know several hams in government agencies who got their licenses
through "cram" classes, who became excellent operators and soon came to
appreciate the other aspects of amateur radio.  However, many others merely
got their ticket at their agency's request and either never got on the air
or simply got an HT to check into a net, and never experienced the other
excitement available on the ham bands.  Not only are they missing out on
the rest of ham radio, but they are really not fulfilling the purposes of
their license, as defined in Section 97.1 of the Rules.

Ken Bourne, W6HK


> [Original Message]
> From: Blake Sobiloff <blake@...>
> To: <RACES@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 10/22/2009 9:06:56 PM
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [RACES] New poll for RACES
>
> Great points, Ken, but I have to quibble with your last point:
>
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Ken Bourne wrote:
>
> > I am concerned, however, with
> > "memorization" type ham classes that are being conducted for
> > government
> > employees, to speed them toward getting a ham license in order to
> > enhance
> > their emergency communications capabilities.  Those employees might
> > not be
> > getting a ham license for enjoying many of the other aspects of
> > amateur
> > radio, such as experimenting, DX-chasing, etc., but simply for
> > expanding
> > the capabilities for which they are getting paid.  We need to
> > discourage
> > such "quick licensing" classes.
>
>
> While I'm not a government employee, I did take "ham cram" classes to
> get both my Tech and my General tickets. My initial interest in
> amateur radio was, and continues to be, the ability to communicate in
> case of a disaster. I don't think we should care how or why people
> come to be interested in amateur radio as long as they abide by the
> rules while communicating. If a government employee gets a ticket so
> that they can expand their work role and support RACES during drills
> and emergencies, I'm all for it. They might also find, like I have,
> that there's some pretty neat other stuff beyond tactical
> communications.
>
> Now, if said employees start violating the rules like what happened in
> the past, then they're breaking the rules and need to be punished. I
> don't think it does any good to punish innocent folks who find the
> "quick licensing" classes to be a benefit.
>
> Like I said, my point's a quibble and I don't mean to detract from the
> rest of your excellent points. :)
>
> --
> Blake Sobiloff <blake@...>
> San Jose, CA (USA)

Great points, Ken, but I have to quibble with your last point:

On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Ken Bourne wrote:

> I am concerned, however, with
> "memorization" type ham classes that are being conducted for
> government
> employees, to speed them toward getting a ham license in order to
> enhance
> their emergency communications capabilities.  Those employees might
> not be
> getting a ham license for enjoying many of the other aspects of
> amateur
> radio, such as experimenting, DX-chasing, etc., but simply for
> expanding
> the capabilities for which they are getting paid.  We need to
> discourage
> such "quick licensing" classes.


While I'm not a government employee, I did take "ham cram" classes to
get both my Tech and my General tickets. My initial interest in
amateur radio was, and continues to be, the ability to communicate in
case of a disaster. I don't think we should care how or why people
come to be interested in amateur radio as long as they abide by the
rules while communicating. If a government employee gets a ticket so
that they can expand their work role and support RACES during drills
and emergencies, I'm all for it. They might also find, like I have,
that there's some pretty neat other stuff beyond tactical
communications.

Now, if said employees start violating the rules like what happened in
the past, then they're breaking the rules and need to be punished. I
don't think it does any good to punish innocent folks who find the
"quick licensing" classes to be a benefit.

Like I said, my point's a quibble and I don't mean to detract from the
rest of your excellent points. :)

--
Blake Sobiloff <blake@...>
San Jose, CA (USA)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Linda,

Some pros for amendment are:

-- Hams in a government agency who want to help train its volunteers
     during a disaster drill should be allowed to participate on the air
     in order to enhance that unit's emergency communications
     capabilities.

-- Hams involved as volunteers in an agency's RACES unit, who
     eventually become employed by that agency, should not suddenly
     be prohibited from participating in that unit's exercises, simply
     because they are now employed by that agency

-- Agency employees need training too.  They should not be
     prevented from training on the air with their volunteers.  They
     need to practice for an actual emergency.

-- The volunteers need to have practice communicating with the
     paid ham employees in the agencies that they serve.

Possible con:

-- Agencies might be tempted to use amateur radio frequencies for
     day-to-day agency communications.  (Rather, the agencies should
     use public-safety frequencies assigned for that purpose.)

Back in the 1950s, some civil defense directors were notorious for using
their agencies' RACES frequencies for routine agency communications,
pretending that such communications were "drills."  To participate in
RACES, only a Restricted Radiotelephone Permit (not even a ham license) was
required.  As a result, the RACES Rules were rewritten and became overly
restrictive, preventing drills and test from not exceeding a total of one
hour per week, for example.  Fortunately, the Rules now require an amateur
radio license to participate in RACES.  I am concerned, however, with
"memorization" type ham classes that are being conducted for government
employees, to speed them toward getting a ham license in order to enhance
their emergency communications capabilities.  Those employees might not be
getting a ham license for enjoying many of the other aspects of amateur
radio, such as experimenting, DX-chasing, etc., but simply for expanding
the capabilities for which they are getting paid.  We need to discourage
such "quick licensing" classes.

Ken Bourne, W6HK


> [Original Message]
> From: l_mcmillen <l_mcmillen@...>
> To: <RACES@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 10/22/2009 3:07:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [RACES] New poll for RACES
>
> Could I have some knowledgeable bullet point pros & cons re this first?
Thanks.
>
> Linda McMillen
> W5LMC
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: RACES@yahoogroups.com
>   To: RACES@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:04 PM
>   Subject: [RACES] New poll for RACES
>
>
>
>   Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
>   RACES group:
>
>   Should the FCC Rules be amended with an exception to allow
>   radio amateurs who are employees of a government agency to
>   participate in disaster drills conducted by that agency with
>   its volunteers on amateur radio frequencies? (According to
>   FCC Public Notice DA 09-2259, released October 20, 2009, such
>   operation is not allowed, due to pecuniary interest.)
>
>   o Yes
>   o No
>
>   To vote, please visit the following web page:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RACES/surveys?id=2914233
>
>   Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
>   not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
>   web site listed above.
>
>   Thanks!

Especially check out the http://n5fdl.com/97113/ page on that site.  That
should convince you to file a petition for an exception.

Ken, W6HK


> [Original Message]
> From: nu0b <nu0b@...>
> To: <RACES@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 10/22/2009 4:17:20 PM
> Subject: [RACES] Information reference the Petition to Change 97.113
>
> Checkout N5FDL's web site at: http://n5fdl.com/
>
> Ken - NU0B