SBARC-list

sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com

2664 discussions

Key-Klix deadline
by Ina Brittain 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

Greetings, Key-Klix Contributor, Monday, August 1st, is the deadline to submit articles and photos for the August Key-Klix and I am the editor. Send your stuff to me at any of the following addresses, please. Ina Brittain PO BOX 3124 Santa Barbara, CA 93130 805-967-7851 FAX 805-964-7960 e-mail: kf6wio(a)sbceo.org

1 0

Diablo Peak camera image archive -- now online
by Thorsten von Eicken 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

We now have an image archive for Diablo peak online. Ok, I admit that sounds much more grandiose than the reality, but at least you can now see current images quickly and browse back a couple of hours or days. As you'll see, the interface leaves a lot of room for improvement, shall we say... but it's a start. With this archive being available, I plan to phase-out the current direct access to the camera. If you really need direct access, I can arrange for that. If the current frequency of a snapshot every 5 minutes is not frequent enough, please let me know as well. <http://www.diablo.sbarc.org/imageview.cgi> Thorsten

1 0

New 220 MHz. band plan review underway.
by Michael P. Jogoleff 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

The 220 SMA is looking into revising the band plan for the 220 MHz. Amateur Radio band. If you are interested please contact George Kreider, KN6LA at kn6la(a)verizon.net. Hello to everyone that has signed up so far. It looks like we have 17 signed up not counting the committee. If any of you know any repeater owners, PPS Ops, weak-signal people, IRLP Ops or anyone that you think might be interested, PLEASE contact them. Give them my email address (kn6la(a)verizon.net). All of you might want to add my address to your files in case you want to contact me off of the reflector. Lets start a list of things that need fixing. Here is a start: Weak-signal Packet Simplex IRLP Linking ?????? ?????? -- --- 73 de 'Jug' - - - WA6MBZ Michael P. Jogoleff /// 805-560-0605 or 805 966 4808 voice tel. 1324 Panchita Place /// 805-966-4804 or 805 966 1598 fax tel. Santa Barbara, CA /// 805-729-3388 cell phone (Verizon). 93103-2223. Email Addresses: mike-j(a)ix.netcom.com /// mike.j(a)att.net wa6mbz(a)ix.netcom.com /// wa6mbz(a)att.net mike_j(a)ix.netcom.com /// m.jogoleff(a)att.net bungalow(a)ix.netcom.com /// wa6mbz(a)sbarc.org /// Many many thanks wa6mbz(a)qsl.net /// .end (2004-12-29).

1 0

Telecommunications Ordinance
by Bill Talanian 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

To: Listserver From: Bill Talanian Subject: County Telecommunications Ordinance As might be expected Santa Barbara County's Telecommunications Ordinance is gaining national attention. The following article was forwarded to me from K4AQ of Atlanta. Independently written it is a commentary about the sad situation existing in Santa Barbara. Folks, in my opinion the wireless industry is as frustrated with Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Supervisors as you and I are. This is not the first time that industry has stayed away from a Hearing pertaining to the Telecommunications Ordinance. Over the years I have seen the industry backing away little by little in its dealings with the County of Santa Barbara. They are simply not going to spend any more political or financial capital and wasting their time with an uncooperative local government. All sounds just like our situation doesn't it ! There is no level playing field here, the county wishes to control the entire agenda without listening to any other side and crafting an ordinance that works. If this County does not want good telecommunications services then fine, there are plenty more towns in America where the industry can grow and make a profit without spending their resources on consultants, lobbyists, and lawyers. In the end the consumer suffers. And in our case we as Amateurs are simply lumped in with the rest of the mess. Instead of working with the industry and the Amateur Radio community and coming up with a model of cooperation and understanding the County has separated itself from the public and elected to roll their own, the result is the creation of a paperwork monster that no one can deal with. If an ordinance cannot stand on its own merit and equitably serve the community then it deserves to fail. The Telecommunications Ordinance is bankrupt and broke. Until the Supervisors recognize this fact then nothing is going to change. Bill Talanian -----Original Message----- From: Outlook 4Mobility [mailto:no_reply@outlook4mobility.com] Sent: Monday, 18 July, 2005 19:14 To: List Member Subject: Commentary 4Mobility, July 18, 2005, "Where Was The Wireless Industry?" By Andrew M. Seybold <<mailto:andy@outlook4mobility.com?subject=Comments on your commentary>andy(a)4mobility.com> July 18, 2005 ---------- Where Was The Wireless Industry? Okay, I admit it, I am upset and for a good reason. This week I attended a meeting of the Santa Barbara Planning Commission at which the commissioners were to consider amendments to the Santa Barbara Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance. As many of you know, ahead of this meeting I prepared a white paper about why we need more cell sites now and in the future (available for free on our web site www.4Mobility.com). I sent a copy of this paper to each commissioner and I talked to representatives of two wireless networks that assured me they would be represented at the meeting by both technical and legal people. Guess what? When I showed up at the meeting, only one wireless network operator had sent representatives, and they were technical people who were not able to discuss the legal ramifications. The other network operator was a no-show and no one else from the industry showed up. The result was that the County of Santa Barbara Planning Commission voted to accept the recommendations of its staff (no surprise there) and the ordinance now makes it even tougher for wireless cell sites to be installed in some zoning designations of the county, and the entire process will take longer and be scrutinized more closely. Some of the other changes will also cost wireless network operators more money and time in designing wireless sites. Most of the push-back by the commissioners was because their county council pointed out how little jurisdiction they really have because of federal regulations. They decided to accept the changes that give them more control over the wireless operators who are, after all, trying to get away with whatever they can get away with and ruin the county by putting up thousands of wireless cell sites. One of the revisions in wording states that wireless operators will have to prove the need for new sites based on coverage (not coverage and capacity requirements as I tried to have it amended). This has already proven to be a problem since one of the commissioners recently drove to a proposed site location and had plenty of signal from the wireless network in question. Now he is fighting the need for a new site, even though during busy periods it is overloaded. The immediate consequence of this vote is that several sites within the county that should have been approved at staff level will now require a hearing before the entire planning commission that does not understand any of the ramifications of what it passed. Forefront in their decision was their dismay that under the federal siting law they could not deny a second, third, fourth, or as one commissioner put it, a dozen or more wireless networks from locating in the same area. Yes, I know. In the grand scheme of things, Santa Barbara is a small county and people at the various wireless service providers' operations headquarters cannot jump on a plane and fly all over the country, nor can the CITA, which has promised to become involved at a state and local level. However, I believe that ordinances such as this one as amended will be used as guidelines for other counties and cities in California and potentially in other states as well. I have to assume that we are not the only area where this is happening. There is so much misinformation out there regarding cell sites and the need for more that I am sure this is not an isolated case. The wireless industry continues to complain (as do I) that it is being unduly restricted when it comes to building additional cell sites, but when given the opportunity to educate those in charge at counties and cities, the wireless industry is a no-show. In the long term, it is the consumers of wireless services that have been shortchanged. They will continue to complain about poor coverage, dropped calls and the like. They will continue to elevate their cries to state public utility commissions, organizations such as Consumer Reports, which has a site where complaints are logged and shared, and the FCC where the number of complaints logged against each provider is shown in the aggregate. The circle will remain unbroken. Consumers will complain to PUCs, the FCC and others about poor service, and local governments will continue to be upset that the FCC trumps them in some areas of the decision-making process and will pass new ordinances making it tougher than ever to gain new site approval. How do they think network operators are going to fix the problems? Most of the changes to our ordinance were adopted so the county could feel it had taken back some of its authority that had been preempted by the FCC. It became very clear from listening to the commissioners' comments that they really resented not having complete control over the entire process. They cannot use health issues as a reason to preclude sites from being built and they have to let networks build in areas where another network operator already has a site. The argument I raised about needing new cell sites in order to provide additional capacity fell on deaf ears. So did my comments about wireless phones now outnumbering wired phones in the United States and the fact that they will continue to increase in numbers. I tried to explain that new services employing data capabilities will require more cell sites to meet ever-increasing capacity demands. Not only did commercial wireless networks lose at this week's meeting, so did amateur radio operators. Under the amendments to this ordinance, if I want to put up a simple wire antenna between my house and a tree I will need a permit. Depending on where I live, I might even be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The only winners under the terms of these modifications to the ordinance are those who want to install a Wi-Fi (or WiMAX) system on a home or business to provide services to themselves or others. The county seems perfectly willing to permit single antennas used for these unlicensed services to be erected without permits if they do not protrude more than 14 feet above an existing building or structure. Perhaps the future of commercial wireless networks in our county lies in the use of microcells placed on houses within a neighborhood. It appears from what I have seen that I could dot an entire community with these small antennas and not have to worry about permits or other requirements even if I charged money for the service. The wireless community lost another round this week. Not in New York or Los Angeles, but in Santa Barbara County. Most of the industry does not seem to care about what is happening in this county or others like it around the United States. I guess since neither the wireless industry nor the organizations founded to support it will become active in these battles, we will continue to see more restrictive ordinances. This will make it more difficult to build new sites to provide better service, and it will be more expensive for everyone. Education is a valuable tool we should be using at state and local levels as well as in communities where wireless customers live and work. This week I also gave a speech about wireless services to a small group of executives in the city of Santa Barbara. When I asked if any of them were happy with the wireless coverage they have now, the answer was no. It didn't matter which network they were on, they were all unhappy with their coverage, the number of dropped calls and what they see as a lack of responsiveness by wireless operators to fix coverage problems. When I explained that all of the operators want to fix these problems but were being hamstrung by local governments, they understood the issue and, I believe, left with a new empathy for wireless network operators. This speech was given the day after the planning commission voted 5-0 to accept the new revisions to the ordinance, so it really didn't matter. The wireless industry has an uphill battle ahead the fact that the FCC trumps local regulations bugs the locals so they try to gain an advantage. Unfortunately, the advantage is not so they can see to it that their citizens have the wireless service they want and need, it is to be able to thumb their nose at the feds and say, "See, you won't let us regulate our own county so we found a way to do it." And they will use every tool they have to keep the feds and the big, rich wireless network operators from being able to dictate to them. Politics at its finest with no help from the wireless industry, and no regard for the citizens that live and work in the county. I guess that is the American way! Andrew M. Seybold ---------- The Outlook 4Mobility provides its commentaries free of charge. Outlook 4Mobility products and services include Consulting Services, Mobiltorials, Newsletters, Customized Proprietary Research, Wireless Tutorials and Conferences. Please visit our web site at <http://www.outlook4mobility.com/>www.4mobility.com for additional information. Copyright 2005 Outlook 4Mobility

1 0

SBARC Multi-Media Video Project
by Tom Saunders 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

SBARC Members, SBARC is going to construct a short video that is an introduction to ham radio and the SBARC club. The ARRL has some introductory videos, but they run over 30 minutes. Our video will be short (10 to 15 minutes) and will be fast moving. The goal of this video is to introduce ham radio without going into a lot of details. We will show how a person interested in the hobby can take the next step. The video can be distributed on inexpensive CD videos or DVDs. The goal of this video is recruitment and to get more people interested in ham radio. We need club members to plan and take this video. We also need background music and graphics. If you are interested in participating in a fun project, we will have a planning meeting Thursday, August 4, at 7 PM. The location is the Club Red Cross Station. I may even get my wife to make some of her famous Key Lime pies (SB News-Press did an article on them). So mark your calendar for the evening before the Fiesta parade. Tom Saunders N6YX

1 0

SBARC Field Day
by Tom Saunders 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

SBARC Members, I want to thank everyone that participated in the SBARC Field Day that was held June 25 and 26 at Elings Park. Our goal for this year was just to have fun. We met our goal, had lots of fun, and even got a decent score. The score that I filed with ARRL is: CW Phone 80 Meters 77 93 40 Meters 321 21 20 Meters 501 407 15 Meters 9 254 Total QSOs 908 775 Bonus Points 650 Total Score 5,832 Points We even set a record this year with Take-Down. Everything was taken down and put away in less than 2 and one-half hours. We spent Sunday afternoon with a great potluck BBQ at a nearby park. Thanks to Marvin for a "20 over S9" BBQ! If you missed Field Day this year, there are still lots of other club activities. Other activities this summer/fall are : Introduction to Ham Radio and SBARC Multi-Media Project SBARC Rover Vehicle Rover Expeditions Contest Operation (California QSO Party October 1 & 2). Also, Hamfest is Saturday, August 13. 73, Tom, N6YX

1 0

[Fwd: [CA APRS] CA APRS moving to ca_aprs]
by Michael P. Jogoleff 14 Jul '05

14 Jul '05

-- --- 73 de 'Jug' - - - WA6MBZ Michael P. Jogoleff /// 805-560-0605 or 805 966 4808 voice tel. 1324 Panchita Place /// 805-966-4804 or 805 966 1598 fax tel. Santa Barbara, CA /// 805-729-3388 cell phone (Verizon). 93103-2223. Email Addresses: mike-j(a)ix.netcom.com /// mike.j(a)att.net wa6mbz(a)ix.netcom.com /// wa6mbz(a)att.net mike_j(a)ix.netcom.com /// m.jogoleff(a)att.net bungalow(a)ix.netcom.com /// wa6mbz(a)sbarc.org /// Many many thanks wa6mbz(a)qsl.net /// .end (2004-12-29).

1 0

SB Planning Commission
by Bill Talanian 14 Jul '05

14 Jul '05

July 14, 2005 Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Hearing AMATEUR RADIO IN SANTA BARBARA LOSES A BIG ONE Notice went out to all hands that the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission was having a Hearing on the Amendments to the Telecommunications Ordinance on July 13, 2005. In typical beaurocratic fashion the members of the Planning Commission sided with the California Coastal Commission without objection. What does this mean ? If the Planning Commission decisions are endorsed by the County Supervisors it means we lose the $2000 exemption the Supervisors originally favored with their vote. Something that we worked so hard to get. A host of other amendments would then place even simple wire antennas under the umbrella of having to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. As the process moves forward the Amendments will come before the SB County Board of Supervisors for a vote within the next 3 months. If endorsed by the Supervisors it will be the end of experimental Amateur Radio as we know it. My Opinion: Angry ? You bet I am. It is doubtful that the Supervisors will make exceptions for us. The Supervisors will probably just roll over and accept what was put upon them by the Coastal Commission and Planning Commission. To make an exception for Amateur Radio means the Supervisors would have to reject the findings of 2 Commissions then send staff back to the drawing board to carve out exemptions for Amateur Radio. Not likely. Amateur Radio simply does not represent a large enough voting constituency to make government take notice. Everyone was silent except Royce Stauffer, KO6PM, who was the only one to appear and speak before the Commissioners. Noticeably vacant and silent in this entire process is our local ARRL representatives who have long ignored any involvement with helping guide us through the legal process. I believe Amateur Radio is only capable of one loud roar and that is about it. The long hard pull over years of hearings and trying to get representative favor simply has not worked. We just don't have the staying power to fight this year after year at every turn. The Club initially spent $5000 on legal fees to help which did not do much good. The volunteer service of Amateur Radio, constituting thousands of man-hours of community service, through ARES and supporting a host of public events, has not done us a single bit of good where it counts, in the legislative arena. It is often times said, the government should be made aware and recognize the emergency services role we play. But frankly we have presented this argument over and over and it all falls upon deaf ears. Government tolerates us like little children as though they, as lords, know what is good for us. Local government has created a morass of complex telecommunications rules that make any attempt at modification by our group nearly impossible. It is legal language that only a lawyer could love. Commercial telecommunication companies also find themselves tied up in the never ending process of hiring consultants and lawyers in defending their position. Incessant arguments and controversy over cell-phone antennas by opponents of radio frequency energy has stymied telecommunication growth and denied the public essential telecommunications services in this county. We in Amateur Radio have unwittingly become a victim in this process. This recent quote by a Goleta City Council member: "The feds lay down certain rules, but they don't leave us many guidelines for how to follow them," she said. "It's pretty confusing." Well if it is confusing for leadership then how do they think we feel ??? Simply put, it is one big mess. For the last 20 years our County leadership never got their arms around a fair and equitable solution with a set of simple rules and guidelines for Amateur Radio. We have tried to cooperate with the process but in so doing we are being constantly being strangled out of existence. Another tactic may be to simply let the entire machine break down. Make every ARO hurt and feel the pain and agony brought to us by our local representatives. The machine is broke. Until the Supervisors hear from us in a firm way then nothing is going to change. As the saying goes; we deserve the government we get. Bill Talanian, <w1uuq(a)cox.net>

2 1

Diablo peak webcam operational
by Thorsten von Eicken 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

Last week Bill W1UUQ was able to hitch a ride to the peak and spend a good umber of hours installing and cabling and as a result I'm happy to be able to annouce that the SBARC Diablo Peak WebCam is now operational. It is a Panasonic HCM-230 internet camera that delivers 640x480 pictures of the south-western part of the island across our dual 802.11g ("WiFi") links to the mainland. If you want to take a peek, point your browser at: <http://lavigia.diablo.sbarc.org:8080/ViewerFrame?Mode=Refresh&Language=0> You'll get a 320x240 size picture. On the left nav bar there's a button to get a bigger 640x480 image. Above that are two rows of presets 1-4 and 5-8. The 1-4 buttons correspond to views from south-east through south to south-west (the camera has a pan-tilt mechanism). A better URL and some software to grab and store recent pictures is still in the works, this is just the preliminary stage... Cheers! Thorsten - N6TVE

1 0

Planning Commission Hearing
by Bill Talanian 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

LEGISLATIVE ALERT REMINDER WEDNESDAY 13 JULY 2005 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 05ORD-00000-00004 Telecommunications 4. 05ORD-00000-00005 Ordinance Amendments Countywide CEQA Section 15162 Noel Langle, Planner (805) 568-2009 The County Planning Commission will consider and make recommendations regarding the Telecommunications Ordinance Amendments to the Board of Supervisors on proposed revisions to Articles II and III of Chapter 35 of the County Code. a) 05ORD-00000-00004 to amend Article II of Chapter 35 of the Santa Barbara County Code by amending Division 2 (Definitions) and Division 7 (General Regulations) to amend the existing definitions and general regulations regarding commercial and noncommercial telecommunication facilities; b) 05ORD-00000-00005 to amend Article III of Chapter 35 of the Santa Barbara County Code by amending Division 2 (Definitions), and Division 7 (General Regulations) to amend the existing definitions and general regulations regarding commercial and noncommercial telecommunication facilities; SEE FULL AGENDA ITEMS and SCHEDULE @ <http://www.countyofsb.org/plandev/pc/agenda.html>

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

SBARC-list