HAM Radio 3/hamradioversion3.0examsandprograms1992.iso/news/inham08/958.

Text File | 1979-12-31 | 9KB | 211 lines

Reply-To: bu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: INFO-HAMS Digest V89 #958
To: [e-mail]

INFO-HAMS Digest            Fri,  1 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue 958

Today's Topics:
                         IC-2400 dual-bander
                   military call signs.........etc.
                    Nintendo on airplanes!?!?!?!?!
                          Radio (RF) Modems
                    Scanning food service (2 msgs)
           Wall Street Journal on cordless phone listening
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 89 15:17:00 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2400 dual-bander
Message-ID: <12600085@silver>

>Does anyone have any opinions about the new ICOM IC-2400 dual-band
>transceiver?  I'm looking for comments pro or con about the
>performance of the rig.  I'd also like to know if anyone has
>information on extending the rig's receive range up to 460 or 470 MHz.
>Thanks and 73,
>Harold KB2M [e-mail]

I haven't actually seen an IC-2400 but the Nov/Dec 1989 _Icom
Newsletter_ from International Radio and Computers, Inc. [ 751 S.
Macedo Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL 34983  [phone] ]  describes
mods for IC-2400 which expand UHF coverage 400-479 MHz and VHF 138-174
MHz.  There is also a 300 MHz mod, and a crossband repeater mod.  Does
anyone know if the IC-2400 in repeater mode will do offsets??

Same issue of Icom Newsletter has out-of-band mod for IC-2GAT (add a
diode, no retuning). A friend did this and his rig now transmits
138-178 MHz.

--

Frank   W9MKV   [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Dec 89 15:26:17 GMT
From: jupiter![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: military call signs.........etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Justin Masters ~) writes:
>>  In my original posting I was only looking for similar info. NOTHING
>>CLASSIFIED.
>
>That may be true, but your piecing it together and putting it on the net in
>one piece may be a violation.

The notion that an ordinary citizen could assemble unclassified,
publicly available information into a "classified whole" subject to
government censorship was resoundly squashed by the Federal courts about
10 years ago in the Progressive case.

For those of you who don't remember this case, the Progressive was a
magazine that ran articles on the details of how thermonuclear bombs
work. They worked from unclassified sources, with considerable technical
assistance from a guy who knew nuclear physics, but never had access to
classified information. The government attempted to prevent publication
on the grounds that, even though the sources were all public and
unclassified, the collection of that public information into a single
place somehow still represented a threat to national security.

The court threw out this absurd notion, the government dropped the case,
and ten years later the Republic still stands.

This case, and many others like it, have convinced me that the courts
are about the only institution that keeps the US from turning into a
police state.

Phil

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

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 09:40:17 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nintendo on airplanes!?!?!?!?!

Did they attempt to contact the owner of the luggage?
If not, that was stupid.
If they did make the attempt, and the owner was not available, not on
the flight, blowing it up was exactly the right thing.

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

Date: 1 Dec 89 18:44:57 GMT
From: att!cbnewsm!mhgki![e-mail]  (atkins, robert m)
Subject: Radio (RF) Modems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (bill gunshannon) writes:
> Bob,
>   I have been in touch with the company and received their whole package.
> The reason they don't mention HAM Radio is because that isn't their target
> market.  They are aimed strictly at the business market.  After all, if
> you read the flyer, you will see that their answer to a TNC (not the PC
> card) has an RS232 Synchronous Port.  How many 3270 terminals do you have
> sitting around your house??? :-)  Interestingly enough,  I worked on
> designing a similar system with a friend who was also in the commercial
> radio biz about 3 years ago and we were able to build a system the could
> have sold for $1000 and did all the same things.  Looks like a pretty
> good markup on their product line.
>
Bill,
     Their stand alone modem may be synchronous, but their PC card does not
require any unusual hardware (just a PC from XT types on up). I'm sure hams
are not their market (at $2400 a board). It sound like a really neat device
if you can afford one. My only concern is the possibility of commercial users
straying into the ham bands. Its unlikely but has happened in the past.
Whenever a company markets a product whose main customer is likely to be the
non-ham market, and the product can operate on ham frequencies then there is
a situation to be watched. Note that there is nothing wrong with selling
such a product and it would be great if an inexpensive ham version were
available, but in these days of relaxed ID requirements, it is difficult
to tell a ham generated bust of digital data from a similar commercial burst,
particularly if it uses an unorthodox modulation scheme at high bit rates.
My concern is only to keep a watch out for unauthorized use of ham frequencies
by commercial users. The manufacturer of the device is not, of course,
responsible for such use, but their statement "Use of radio frequencies (in the
range 406-470 MHz) may require prior authorization" is a bit weak.

                                 Bob Atkins  KA1GT

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

Date: 1 Dec 89 15:42:00 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com![e-mail]  (Steve Dowman)
Subject: Scanning food service
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Mike Owen, W9IP") writes...
{Regarding the earlier, exhaustive posting regarding
{food service frequencies:
{
{             For crying out loud, WHO CARES?

  I also care.  Who cares for you crying out loud?

 *_______________*_________________________________________*_______KNH1CA_____*
 | Steve Dowman  | Email: [e-mail]       | Home:            |
 | d|i|g|i|t|a|l |   -or- [e-mail] | 145 Coburn Woods |
 | Littleton, MA |   -or- ...!decwrl!leaf.dec.com!s_dowman | Nashua, NH 03063 |
 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

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

Date: 1 Dec 89 18:23:36 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs![e-mail]  (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Scanning food service
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

<[e-mail] ("Mike Owen, W9IP")>
<Regarding the earlier, exhaustive posting regarding food service frequencies:
For crying out loud, WHO CARES?>

Hey, stuff it!  You've got a perfectly good 'n' key.  Use it.  Or put parnass
in your kill file.  He provides a valuable service to those in the monitoring
community who are interested in whatever might be out there, and I, for one,
would feel a great loss if whiners like you succeed in intimidating him to the
point that he stops posting.

                               Jan Steinman - N7JDB
                    Tektronix Electronic Systems Laboratory
                    Box 500, MS 50-370, Beaverton, OR 97077
                        (w)503/627-5881 (h)503/657-7703

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

Date: 30 Nov 89 19:41:19 GMT
From: asuvax!mcdphx!hrc!valley![e-mail]  (Mike Pflueger)
Subject: Wall Street Journal on cordless phone listening
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) writes:
 >
 > Here's a timely piece from the Wall Street Journal:
 >
 >          Wednesday, November 29, 1989
 >
 >          NO PRIVACY -- "...Since the early 1980s, the courts have ruled in
 >          at least a half-dozen cases that private citizens talking on
 >          cordless phones don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and
 >          therefore aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment. ... Both the
   [rest of the article deleted]

So what is different about cellular - why is it "protected"?  It's on
different frequencies, but no harder to receive.  In some senses, it's
*EASIER* (higher power, older TV tuners tune it...).

I ask this rhetorically; I know why HBO and cellular people want protection,
I just don't think they have any more "reasonable expectation of privacy"
when transmitting in the clear (or using readily decrypted methods).
--
Mike Pflueger @ AG Communication Systems (formerly GTE Comm. Sys.), Phoenix, AZ
  UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!pfluegerm
  Work: 602-582-7049        FAX: [phone]      Home: 602-439-1978
Packet: WD8KPZ @ W1FJI

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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #958
**************************************