Date: Sun, 24 Jul 94 04:30:07 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #326 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Sun, 24 Jul 94 Volume 94 : Issue 326 Today's Topics: After 93 days, the wait is over! Experimentation! (was: Re: reply) FCC 610 form in postscript Home address or PO box on 610 reply (2 msgs) What is wrong with ham radio (2 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 14:29:31 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!jabba.ess.harris.com!mlb.semi.harris.com!controls.ccd.harris.com!bal@network.ucsd.edu Subject: After 93 days, the wait is over! To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu David L. Sampson (DAVID_SAMPSON@QM.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM) wrote: : IMHO, 90+ days is absurd. I am going to write my US Representative, : Senators and the VP suggesting that they consider privitizing the amateur : license "issuing operation." Surely a better job could be done by a private : corporation. Personally, I would have been willing to pay $25-$50, if I : meant I could get my license in 5 business days or less. I think what you would end up with is paying $25-$50 and still waiting in excess of a month. (Consider VE processing, VEC processing, private company processing, US Mail between all three and yourself!) Not worth it in my opinion. The latest issue of CQ magazine has an article on the FCC license plant in PA. If I remember the article correctly, it states that the FCC is shooting for 35 days total turn around time.. This would translate into a total turn around time of about 45 days. I think they are just now overcoming the transition to a new information system. We will have to see if they can get the lag down to 35 days. Some other things mentioned in the CQ article include the Vanity call sign system and electronic filing. If you want to really want to push for improvement, push for electronic filing. This would allow the current VECs take on some of the data entry load. This would also take out at least one US mail delay. As one last parting comment,... let me add that I understand your frustration. I first took my No-code Technician license in November 92. Of the 20 months since then, I have waited a combined total of 47 weeks (~11 months) waiting for licenses / upgrades. 73, Bruce AD4TG -- Bruce Lifter Harris Corporation MS: R5-202 Controls Division email: blifter@ccd.harris.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 94 19:53:00 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: Experimentation! (was: Re: reply) To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu | "We sacrifice every third N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM | religious nut. The second one +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' | just left." PGP 2.3 key and geek code via finger | -- sign on door. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jul 94 02:06:00 -0400 From: hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!pplace!pat.wilson@uunet.uu.net Subject: Home address or PO box on 610 To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu -> You have two addresses to provide. One is your mailing address and -> the other is the location of your transmitter. Your mailing address -> can be where ever you want. Your transmitter address should be where -> you transmitter is. -> They can be the same but your transmitter address can't be a P.O. -> box. Actually, you are wrong. You have to provide a mailing address only now. N0RDQ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 18:02:20 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mixcom.com!kevin.jessup@network.ucsd.edu Subject: reply To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In aj229@freenet.buffalo.edu (Daniel Gurzynski) writes: >Just a reply to your question about lurkers ! I've been following >tha sig for a little while. Aside from the fact that I really like >code and would hate to see it dissappear, I think it serves a valid >purpose. You can always memorize a battery of test questions without >any understanding whatsoever, but it takes honest real effort to >learn code and get up to speed. I would keep the requirement just >to keep the requirements a little tough. If the multiple guess question pools are so easily memorized, perhaps the tests should be fill in the blank and show your work style tests. I know, I know: a horrifying thought to 99% of today's operators. -- kevin.jessup@mixcom.com | Vote Libertarian! | | Call 1-800-682-1776 | for more information. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 14:08:22 GMT From: psinntp!arrl.org!zlau@uunet.uu.net Subject: reply To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu kevin jessup (kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com) wrote: : >A good example is the groups that fight for the America's Cup in : >sailing. I would wager that most of them consider sailing as an : I would like to expand on that thought. Consider other "hobbies" such : as competitive sailing, auto racing, aerobatic flying, or even bicycle : racing. : Besides the competitor or "operator" of the device used to compete, there : also is the device on/by which the the competitor is competing. This is : where the competence and dedication of the DESIGNER is important. While : perhaps not as publicized as the efforts of the individual directly : involved in the competition/hobby, the integrity, design expertise and : technolgy that went into the vehicle/device used in the competition/hobby : is just as important. : Amateur radio has no shortage of competitions either. However, TECHNICAL : Why are points not awarded for equipment of one's own design? Why, in fact, : are there ABSOLUTELY NO ARRL competitions involved with DESIGN? IMO, this : is a serious problem with amateur radio today. The "this is a hobby not a How to the competitive events mentioned factor in the design element? More pointedly, how do they decide what a really good design advance to the state of the art is and how do they factor it in to give that competitor an advantage? What if the competitor knows precisely what to do, but lacks the $$$ to implement it properly so it is an actual advantage? The ARRL does award the Technical Excellence Award each year, but this is by no means a directed competition. Personally, I don't see directed competitions as being particularly useful, especially when there is already a big pot of $$$ waiting for those who could win it (stuff with lots of commercial possibilities that just has to be proven to work, not sold to people who might be able to use it) What happens is the stuff you want to see--well, that is proprietary. The stuff you do see is generally proven not to work--decades ago. Coupled with all the rushed work to meet the deadline (unless you want it to go on and on), I doubt that the work involved in trying to judge the the event is really worthwhile. Of course, if there is a rich benefactor to put up real money.... anyone out there with lots of $$$ they need to get rid of? -- Zack Lau KH6CP/1 2 way QRP WAS 8 States on 10 GHz Internet: zlau@arrl.org 10 grids on 2304 MHz ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 20:49:08 GMT From: news.pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted!mjsilva@uunet.uu.net Subject: What is wrong with ham radio To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article , Roger Buffington (rogjd@netcom.com) writes: >Jay Maynard (jmaynard@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote: >: Yet another person with academic and engineering blinders on. > >: Ham radio is *NOT* just a technical hobby. Your proposals will drive off >: everyone who's not an engineer - and that will kill it faster than anything >: else I can think of. >: -- > >Agreed. > >Dunno what it's like elsewhere, but here in Southern California the >no-code license has been a smashing success. We are getting new and >often young blood into the hobby from all walks of life. Plumbers, >lawyers, doctors, CPAs, truck drivers, you name it. As a group, the >techs tend to be outstanding ops. Many of them quickly buckle down and >master CW, and upgrade to general, advanced, and extra. You are starting >to hear callsigns on HF which weren't issued in the 40s, 50s and 60s. >That wasn't true a few years ago. I too agree that ham radio is not just a technical hobby, and I wouldn't want to limit it to just those with engineering-level skills. Still, there's a vast distance between that level of skills and the embarassing lack of knowledge I sometimes hear on the local repeaters. We have all heard things that could never be said by someone who actually knew the material for the test they passed. I was no radio engineer when I passed my (early '70s version) Advanced test while in high school, and, since I've never built a piece of RF gear for profit, I don't consider that I'm one now. Still, I've learned a lot since then, following my own path at my own speed, and that's all that I would expect from any ham > >If these chaps, who are allegedly only memorizing tests, can learn cw and >upgrade (which they are doing in droves) it would appear that the cw >requirement is readily surmountable. Surely an Engineer with such mental >powers and interest in the hobby as the original poster of this thread >can manage 13 wpm. (I did it when I was 11.) > I'll pass up the opportunity to say anything about CW, and note that I also sense a lot of upgrade activity (incentive licensing as it is supposed to work). I would go further and ask why we can't return to a limited term for entry-level licenses? What if we made both Novice and Tech licenses good for only (!) five years, after which up or out? This would require the existence of a higher grade of no-code license, but can't we expect that after five years a Novice or Tech should be able to pass at least the General test (code or no-code)? Mike, KK6GM ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 94 23:35:18 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf@network.ucsd.edu Subject: What is wrong with ham radio To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com (kevin jessup) writes: >[...] Perhaps that is the problem: it's not SCIENCE, it's an ART! This is a problem? Why? Yes, RF engineering is mostly an art. Always has been. And RF operation is an art even moreso. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "We are meant to be masters of destiny, ->paulf@Stanford.EDU | not victims of fate." -- Ronald W. Reagan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 20:03:32 GMT From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna!jeffrey@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <1994Jul23.003854.14729@mixcom.mixcom.com>, , <1994Jul23.175023.8086@mixcom.mixcom.com> Subject : Re: Jeffrey Herman's Email address In article <1994Jul23.175023.8086@mixcom.mixcom.com> kevin jessup writes: >Jeff... > >Since all replys to you (over the last 3 months) get >bounced back with an unknown domain error (as others >have complained of) perhaps you could provide us with >an internet Email address that works. Wow! My name made a subject line! A couple of months ago I started using my math dept account rather than my UNIX account, to save the math dept some money. For some odd reason which no one can figure out (and these guys are supposed to be experts?) my address reads @kahuna.tmc.edu off my math account. So periodically I will place my REAL address on the sender line or keywords line. Any of you UNIX experts know how to change the default address? Jeff NH6IL jeffrey@math.hawaii.edu or jherman@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu or jherman@uhunix2.uhcc.hawaii.edu or jherman@uhunix3.uhcc.hawaii.edu or jeffrey_herman%uhplato@uhcc.hawaii.edu or jherman@hawaii.edu or P.O. Box 8282, Honolulu, Hawaii or just put your message in a bottle and toss it in the Pacific Ocean - it'll eventually get here. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 94 23:40:48 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <1994Jul22.184058.2524@mixcom.mixcom.com>, , <1994Jul23.153750.4971@mixcom.mixcom.com> Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio kevin jessup writes: >FM repeaters were a "fad" when first introduced, as was SSB. Amateur >radio has always had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the >future. In short, only you know what's best for amateur radio. What an incredibly condescending attitude. Especially for someone who doesn't appear to know much about the history of SSB. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "We are meant to be masters of destiny, ->paulf@Stanford.EDU | not victims of fate." -- Ronald W. Reagan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 17:58:35 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mixcom.com!kevin.jessup@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , <1994Jul23.003854.14729@mixcom.mixcom.com>, Subject : Re: reply In jeffrey@kahuna.tmc.edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes: >This is only a hobby to me - I am happy to build low power HF >CW transmitters - I am not interested in anything else nor >will I allow anyone to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't >build. If you find fault with this and say I'm not `advancing >the state of the art' then pay my tuition so that I can earn >the necessary PhD or the minimal MS, for that amount of >knowledge is what is needed to conduct today's research. There is a difference between actually being the one who designs the state of the art and complete and total ignorance of what the state of the art is and can accomplish. All I am asking is that amateur radio look a little beyond the high-school theory required to pass (for example) the ADvanced written tests. Certainly the general, advanced and extra class tests could be made a little more up to date. And it is obvious to all here that Jeff and I will never agree on anything. -- kevin.jessup@mixcom.com | Vote Libertarian! | | Call 1-800-682-1776 | for more information. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 94 17:17:53 -0500 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <1994Jul23.003854.14729@mixcom.mixcom.com>, , <1994Jul23.175835.8344@mixcom.mixcom.com>ö Subject : Re: reply kevin jessup writes: >the state of the art is and can accomplish. All I am asking is >that amateur radio look a little beyond the high-school theory >required to pass (for example) the ADvanced written tests. In the 82-year history of the amateur services, licenses have always been within the reach of motivated high school (and some younger) students. In fact, pre-college students have usually been a major source of new hams. Are you suggesting that hf operating be placed beyond the reach of such students? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 17:50:23 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mixcom.com!kevin.jessup@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , <1994Jul23.003854.14729@mixcom.mixcom.com>, Subject : Jeffrey Herman's Email address Jeff... Since all replys to you (over the last 3 months) get bounced back with an unknown domain error (as others have complained of) perhaps you could provide us with an internet Email address that works. -- kevin.jessup@mixcom.com | Vote Libertarian! | | Call 1-800-682-1776 | for more information. ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #326 ******************************