Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 04:30:12 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 #390 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Wed, 24 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 390 Today's Topics: 100% NOTHING to do with CW...Repeaters and xfer of coordination CompuServe Invasion has started (was Re: CW VIEWS) (2 msgs) CW ...IS NOW! FLAME the FCC Scanner Freedom! Telecommunicating (was Re: CW VIEWS) 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: 23 Aug 1994 22:55:17 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!ncd.com!newshost.ncd.com!sheridan.ncd.com!stevew@network.ucsd.edu Subject: 100% NOTHING to do with CW...Repeaters and xfer of coordination To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article <33atdm$se6@agate.berkeley.edu>, kennish@kabuki.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Ken A. Nishimura) writes: |> Hi all - |> |> Something to rest your code-wars weary eyes upon..... |> |> *************************************************************** |> |> Scenario: |> |> The following is hypothetical, but based on pseudo-reality..... |> |> The following occurs in a "congested" area, where there |> are more want-to-be repeater owners than there are available |> frequency pairs. The coordinating body is trying to keep |> some semblance of order, and has on file many legitimate |> requests for a frequency assignment for new repeaters. |> |> Repeater trustee/owner W1ABC decides that he wants out of the |> repeater business. N1XYZ gets ownership of the physical repeater. |> |> Question: |> |> Should the coordinating body transfer the "coordination" to |> N1XYZ with no questions asked, given the line of people waiting |> for frequency assignments? The coordination should come up for review, but normally, the coordination would be approved assuming that all other aspects of the coordination remain the same. At least this is the way it works in my area of the country. You don't automatically get the sanction, yet you can expect approval of a new sanction if you don't change anything except the call on the repeater. |> |> ************************************************************** |> |> Some thoughts: |> |> * What this really is asking is whether the "coordination" is |> part of the repeater that can be transferred with the repeater. |> |> * Does it make a difference under what circumstances the |> transfer was made: |> |>stuff deleted concerning possible transfer scenarios... |> |> -- The repeater owner sells it for an AMOUNT FAR EXCEEDING |> THE VALUE OF THE EQUIPMENT. Of course, implicit with this sale |> price is the transfer of the coordination. (i.e. the frequency |> pair is in effect being sold with the repeater.) |> |> * Is the last scenario illegal? Should frequency coordinating |> bodies actively try to stop this type of activity? Again. At least in my area, the sanction isn't automatically granted. It is likely to get approved, but it isn't automatic. Anyone that purchased a repeater under the above pretense is niave! The coordinating bodies have to act as fairly as possible. The reason that they'll usually issue the new sanction is that the repeater IS an existing piece of hardware whose characteristics are well known, i.e. we already know that this machine can live on the given frequency with the given amount of power and provide the documented service area without interfering with other machines(the ideal ;-) |> |> * If transfers of trusteeships are allowed, do aspiring repeater |> owners who want to put up new boxes have to wait forever as |> a pair will never "open" but be transferred ad infinitum? Yep. Either that are put some hardware up on 1200! That's what a lot of people are doing today.(Just like Ken say he's doing in his post ;-) Steve KA6S ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1994 14:06:56 GMT From: george.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!compuserve.com!news@uunet.uu.net Subject: CompuServe Invasion has started (was Re: CW VIEWS) To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Not new to the net, but it's been a few years' absence. I may be slow, but I get there: I have figured out that I've jumped on a carousel that's been going around for a while, and I'm getting off. I have the QRZ CD-ROM, I didn't realize that such archives were part of its contents -- but I'm curious, do you feel that it's in the interest of this communication medium to treat irrelevant mudslinging as, umm, just another mode? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 1994 00:04:59 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun Subject: CompuServe Invasion has started (was Re: CW VIEWS) To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article <33cvq0$jue$1@mhadf.inhouse.compuserve.com> Peter Coffee WA2OJL/AE <72631.113@CompuServe.COM> writes: >Not new to the net, but it's been a few years' absence. I may be slow, >but I get there: I have figured out that I've jumped on a carousel that's >been going around for a while, and I'm getting off. I have the QRZ CD-ROM, >I didn't realize that such archives were part of its contents -- but I'm >curious, do you feel that it's in the interest of this communication medium >to treat irrelevant mudslinging as, umm, just another mode? Certainly, we'd like the radio newsgroups to be as polite and orderly as possible. But, I'm not sure I've seen any real mudslinging in the last few days :-) Dana -- * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are * * (310) 348-6043 | mine and do not necessarily * * Dana.Myers@West.Sun.Com | reflect those of my employer * * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?" * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:22:06 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov!wyn@ames.arpa Subject: CW ...IS NOW! To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article <40.3229.2427@channel1.com> alan.wilensky@channel1.com (Alan Wilensky) writes: > BTW, did everyone out there read the post >from the USCG man saying that CW training was dropped in '93? Yes, but when I inquired about the 5870 KHz broadcasts in CW, he said that is just an automated weather product. Then when I inquired as to who it was being broadcast to and why, the link went dead. Scratch one kosher meal, I guess. ;-) 73, C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX wyn@ornl.gov ========================================================================= = Cooperation requires participation. Competition teaches cooperation. = ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1994 18:37:35 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!wizard.uark.edu!comp!plaws@network.ucsd.edu Subject: FLAME the FCC To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM writes: >them professionally. They alone aren't responsible for who won the elections >nor did they ever expect the interest in amateur radio licenses we see today. Absolutely correct! That early '70s Honeywell was working just fine. If the Republicans were still in, they would certainly never have wasted money on new information systems. Progress? Who needs that? For those who didn't see the post earlier in the summer, the main cause of the delays (or so we're told :) is the installation of the new license- processing system. Once it was installed, temps were hired to start in on the backlog (allegedly 15,000 610s at the time). Too bad they didn't understand FIFO - bunches of folks got tickets in < 7 weeks. The average delay is closer to 14 weeks, with gusts to 17 (based on usenet posts). If the "somebody" who posted that info originally (re: the new system) could post it again maybe we could cut down these circular threads ... (BTW, when Luck Hurder still worked at the ARRL, he would weigh in with good info about stuff like this. They fired him. Too bad.) Peter Laws|"Suppose you were a politician. Now suppose you n5uwy@ka5bml.#nwar.ar.usa.noam |were an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself."-Twain ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1994 19:02:02 GMT From: george.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!compuserve.com!news@uunet.uu.net Subject: Scanner Freedom! To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Scanners are routinely confiscated in Los Angeles? I live nearby, and this is news to me. Not saying you're wrong, I'm just surprised. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 00:21:29 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted!mjsilva@ames.arpa Subject: Telecommunicating (was Re: CW VIEWS) To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article <33cvnh$69s@abyss.West.Sun.COM>, Dana Myers (myers@Sun.COM) writes: >In article 2E59FAC4@ornl.gov, wyn@ornl.gov (C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX) writes: >>In article <1994Aug23.012847.29853@mixcom.mixcom.com> kevin jessup >>>The sooner amateur radio stops being so enamored with simplest forms of RF >>>and starts thinking about telecommunications in general, the sooner we will >>>all advance and the less spectrum we will loose. >> >>[I, and I know many others, take exception to that. What you and some others] >>[here are obviously looking for is the Amateur Telecommunication Service, not] >>[the Amateur *Radio* Service ] > > >C'mon Clay, you're setting up another strawman. What is the point of radio >in the Amateur Radio Service? Communications, no? > >Maybe you can justify the distinction netween "radio" and "communications" >for us all. First of all, Dana, there's a world of difference between "telecommunications" and "communications". "Communications" is a word that can be stretched forever, including such things as whale grunts, a glance that lasts a second longer than it needs to, and ant chemical trails (we had an invasion last week, so it's on my mind). Telecommunications, OTOH, has a much more restricted meaning, and I would say that some of it's traits are transparency (I don't know or care if my telephone connection is via cable, microwave, satellite, etc) and utility (there's nothing exciting about sending a FAX; it had just damn well better get there). Amateur radio will never do telecommunications well, because we don't have the skills or the budget or the desire to compete with the ATT's of this world. Even our closest attempt, VHF/UHF packet, is really just a toy by commercial standards (would you put up with it if you had to *pay* for it?). The fact that we don't do telecommunications well doesn't bother me, because it was never our mission. In fact, the only communications mentioned in 97.1 are public service, and especially emergency service. The point of most of what we do is not communication in the common sense (I want to communicate 'A' to 'X' and 'Y'). Most of the time we don't care *who* we talk to (pardon, communicate with), or what the subject is. This suggests to me that it's not the message that matters, but the method, the *act* of communicating, and further it is the act of communicating *over the radio*. Otherwise we could go down to the corner bar, or check into a Compuserve chat area, or make random phone calls, or put notes in bottles and toss them into the sea to have random communications. When we do EME or ATV or CW/QRP the message itself is usually of very little value, and the method is far from transparent or utilitarian. We do these things because there *is* something fascinating, even today, about radio communications. At the same time, many of us are fulfilling the mandate in 97.1 for training and advancing our skills, while a small, capable number of us (no, not me personally!) are actually able to contribute to advancing the radio art. OTOH, equating amateur radio with telecommunications requires that the message be paramount, and anything that gets in the way of passing the message is an impediment, a reduction of efficiency. Doesn't sound like much of a hobby to me. 73, Mike, KK6GM ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1994 18:56:14 -0500 From: cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail@uunet.uu.net To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , <082094090723Rnf0.78@amcomp.com>, <1994Aug20.201526.19761@egreen.wednet.edu> Subject : Re: CW ...IS NOW! jmollan@egreen.iclnet.org (John Mollan - Harm) writes: >Starting today, all discussion of cw will be held on 20 meters. I >recommend a frequency of 14.015 Mhz. :-) >73, John, AE7P Sounds good to me! See you there!! Red, GW0TJO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 20:41:52 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!mixcom.com!kevin.jessup@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <33ak4h$r8t$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>, <1994Aug23.012847.29853@mixcom.mixcom.com>, Subject : Re: CW VIEWS In wyn@ornl.gov (C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX) writes: >In article <1994Aug23.012847.29853@mixcom.mixcom.com> kevin jessup writes: >> The name of the game is COMMUNICATION. >>That the physical layer is via landline, RF or fiber optic is of no concern >[So you would subjugate the main subject of amateur *radio* to a higher > topic of "COMMUNICATION"] Yes. We ARE a service, right? To continue to provide "service" we must remain technically viable, right? We must COMPETE for spectrum access with other COMMUNICATION services, right? >>The sooner amateur radio stops being so enamored with simplest forms of RF >>and starts thinking about telecommunications in general, the sooner we will >>all advance and the less spectrum we will loose. >[I, and I know many others, take exception to that. What you and some others] >[here are obviously looking for is the Amateur Telecommunication Service, not] >[the Amateur *Radio* Service ] In a world of increasingly limited spectrum and FCC auctions (more will come), I fail to see how a bunch of radio hobbyists and historians and who refuse to be technically competent will maintain their spectrum privileges. >[Thanks for validating everything in my last post. It is becoming obvious ] >[some folks could alleviate their suffering here (no more whining), if they] >[would sell their radio gear and buy a SLIP connection subscription to the ] >[INTERNET where they can do "advanced communications" until their heart is ] >[content. It is cheaper, greater bandwidth, and better sig-to-noise than ] >[anything amateur radio will be able to offer. At least you finally admit that amateur radio has nothing to offer relative to commercial services. At last someone else said it! No where did I say we should ELIMINATE the RF aspect. I only said it is ONE aspect of communication. What would be so terrible about a high-speed multi- media amateur radio internet? Some of us actually ARE working on this at a very local level. >>We are NOT asking for a free ride, just that the ARRL testing proceedures > ^^^^ >>reflect a little more of the later half of the 20th century. >[Sorry, the ARRL has the word *radio* in its title. Your aspirations and] >[plans exceed its ability to deliver without changing its name and ] >[identity. ] Yes, we DO have "RADIO" in out title. The pony express had "pony" in it's title. -- /`-_ kevin.jessup@mixcom.com | { }/ Marquette Electronics, Inc | Time for another tea party! \ / Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA | |__*| N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio | ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #390 ******************************