QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/policy/930488.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 24.5 KB

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 93 04:30:13 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V93 #488
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 26 Nov 93       Volume 93 : Issue  488

Today's Topics:
                       No Code etc... (5 msgs)
                THE argument for CW requirements (was:
                    This is a hobby not a (2 msgs)
                 Use of HT for Marine & GMRS (2 msgs)
          What happens to the regulations during Contests???
                   Why isn't Amateur Radio like CB?
             Why the L.A. .435 repeater wasn't shut down

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

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: Thu, 25 Nov 93 00:26:24 CST
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!jpunix!unkaphaed!amanda![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
> > As long as the Codeless Technicians continue to bitch about not being
> Err, not all No Code Tech's are bitching.  I am a No Code Tech, and
> I'm not bitching about the restriction on code on HF.
>
> I was a novice, dropped out because I didn't have access to equipment,
> got back in quick and dirty via no code, and am starting w/the code
> again.
>
> CODE IS GOOD.  BTW, another no code tech friend and myself are getting
> together to learn the code over the Holidays.  Best way to learn the
> thing is w/a friend - what is fun, is easily learnely

You are indeed in the minority, on this newsgroup, at least.

 --Robert

                    _                           _
      The          |_|                         |_|         Please note
   Codeless        | |          _____          | |           antennas
 Technician's     _| |_        /.....\        _| |_          for both
    Winter      -| | | | _    /   _   \    _ | | | |-     Citizen's Band
     Home      | | | | |' |  /   |_|   \  | `| | | | |    and Two Meters
               \  .      /  /     _     \  \ .    .  /
                \    ,  /   | ten|-|four|   \    .  /
_________________| .   |____|____| |____|____| ,   |______________________

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 21:06:34 CST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!jpunix!unkaphaed!amanda![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Tom Bodoh) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
> |> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> |>
> |> > In article <[e-mail]>,
> |> > Robert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> |> > >Here in the United States, knowledge of Morse
> |> > >is required for access to the HF bands. Your constant bitching about th
> |> > >fact will not change matters.
> |> >
> |> > Unfortunately, it may well. We now have a no-code license because people
> |> > rather bitch than work. Continued bitching may well produce the same res
> |> > HF.
> |>
> |> If that occurs, Jay, I will leave this hobby forever. I've already
> |> abandoned Two Meters as it has degenerated to the point of being another
> |> Citizens Band.
> |>
> |>  --Robert
>
> I would hate to see you give up amateur radio, but what would it take to get
> you to give up posting here?

As long as the Codeless Technicians continue to bitch about not being
allowed access to the HF spectrum, that learning Morse makes their tiny
brains hurt, and (although thousands of other amateurs have not only
learned the code, but also passed the code elements) claiming the Morse
elements are discriminatory, because our Socialist-Welfare society
dictates that one shouldn't work to earn the rewards of that effort,
I will continue to be the Voice of Reason on this newsgroup.

In short, as long as they sit on their lazy asses and bitch about how
unfair our current licensing structure is, I will remain here, offering
helpful advice and suggestions to these useless, clueless bastards.

 --Robert

____________________________________________________________________
|  A Codeless Technician is never a villain in his own eyes.       |
|  Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend.  |
|  If not, you can kill him without hate - and quickly.            |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 09:19:38 -0700
From: ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!node_13059.aieg.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael P. Deignan) wrote:

> [e-mail] (Mike Waters) writes:
>
> > The treaty requirement really is a red herring, as has been pointed out
> > before.  We either take an "exception" to the treaty as the Japanes and a
> > few others have done or we work around it in some way.
>
> The "Japanese no-code HF" argument is in fact a red-herring, since the
> current CB Radio service is very similar to the Japanese no-code HF
> license. The only difference is that the Japanese call their
> CB radio operators "amateurs" and license them, whereas we don't.

The Japanese no-code HF operators pass a written test and get credit for
that test when they upgrade.

"CB" is a commercial service and as such comes under a totally different
set of rules.  I understand that the Japanese have a form of "CB" service
as well.

I suppose if you want to lump all "no-code" licenses as "CB" somehow that
is your privilage, but it has no basis in fact or the law.

--
Mike Waters  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

BOBS BEST BENT WIRE SK

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

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 09:22:50 -0700
From: ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!node_13059.aieg.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael P. Deignan) wrote:

> Ed Ellers <[e-mail]> writes:

> > The one big problem with your idea of generating tests at the time they are
> > taken is that you'd need to seat each examinee at a computer; that would get a
> > bit expensive for a large exam session.  A good alternative might be to have a
> > single computer that could generate a set of test papers for each examinee.
>
> I don't see where generating "random" tests based upon formulas would
> require each examinee to be sat at a computer. All a VE has to do is
> run off a series of tests on their computer with the appropriate answer
> key. After the examinee takes the test, the VE has the answer sheet right
> there, along with the answer key for that test. Voila, instant grading.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a practical limit to the number of
different tests you can have at one session if you score them manually.

Three or four tests per element at any session is about the practical
maximum.

ARRL VEC at least has a computerized "test generator" already available to
VE teams.  The Tri-ARC group here in Phoenix (where I help out
occasionally) uses that software to generate new tests, there are
potentially several thousand different tests which could be generated even
with the current question pool.

Enlarging the question pool would have the exact same effect as you are
talking about, without disrupting a system which works quite well already.

Of course it is much easier to whine about "easy tests" than actually do
the work of formulating and submitting a few hundred new questions.

--
Mike Waters  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

BOBS BEST BENT WIRE SK

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 01:11:17 EST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

> [e-mail] (Robert) promises:
> >If that occurs, Jay, I will leave this hobby forever.
>
> There will be great rejoicing, not only on the net but in ham radio
> circles everywhere.  We can but fervently wish....
>  - Brian

You know, I was going to say that Brian. Now, I am very glad I didn't. I
am also glad, you did.   :-)


 ======================================================================
 || Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV   ||  'Pots have handles, Magazines have  ||
 || [e-mail]    ||      Personals, Hams have Names'     ||
 ======================================================================
 || 'Your enemy is never a villian in his own eyes. Keep this in     ||
 ||  mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not you    ||
 ||  can kill him without hate - and quickly.'  -Lazarus Long        ||
 ======================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 05:42:31 GMT
From: spsgate!mogate!newsgate![e-mail]
Subject: THE argument for CW requirements (was:
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Gary Coffman,
[e-mail] writes:
>What's this have to do with Morse? Well consider Navy sonar operators.
>They are trying to detect an enemy sub's sonic signature in a very
>noisy environment. They have headphones, but that's no longer their
>primary method of pattern recognition. They now use a "waterfall"
>visual spectral display to detect the pattern that represents an
>enemy sub in the jumble of undersea noise. Why? Because it's much
>more effective than listening on the headphones. Samuel Morse designed
>his Code to be visually decoded off of a pen marked moving strip of
>paper. In concept this is similar to the waterfall display of current
>sonar operators. Perhaps we could more reliably detect weak Morse
>signals with a setup similar to what the sonar operators use.

Gary is absolutly correct about the means that a sonar operator uses to
visually detect a contact.  It  improves the operators ability to detect
a contact so much that it is factored in when doing sonar range of the
day calculations.  The example he used is slightly different than the
display on the search sonar, but the reason it works is the same.  And
one more data point.....In all the submarine op's I was on we never used
CW on the underwater telephone once.  It was always voice......as a mater
of fact it was SSB at audio frequencies......sounds really strange
without re-constructing the carrier and sideband (on a search sonar).


Rick Aldom
STS1/SS  (in another life)

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 01:37:46 EST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: This is a hobby not a
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (John Schmidt) writes:

[some deleted]
> Around here, the folks who started with no-code licenses are now supplying
> most of the enthusiasm in our area in experimenting with packet/computer
> networking, keeping the clubs going, and providing emergency communications
> resources, especially in our ARES/SKYWARN operations.

We had a very bad storm here this past July several (3 or 4) communities
declared Level 3 emergencys and asked for county assistance. When ARES
was called out to help with communications (downed phone lines made
clean up efforts slow) all but 2 of the hams that responded were Tech's
without code.

[more deleted]


 ======================================================================
 || Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV   ||  'Pots have handles, Magazines have  ||
 || [e-mail]    ||      Personals, Hams have Names'     ||
 ======================================================================
 || 'Your enemy is never a villian in his own eyes. Keep this in     ||
 ||  mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not you    ||
 ||  can kill him without hate - and quickly.'  -Lazarus Long        ||
 ======================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 01:30:03 EST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: This is a hobby not a
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:

> No, it has to do with laziness.
>
> This is the same old tired argument that was thrown in our faces over and ove
> before the FCC imposed no-code on us. OK, fine, now they have a place to play
> WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY??
>
> Show me one good advance in the state of the radio art that was made possible
> by the US no-code license. Just one.

Jay, I really think that the three years (this February) that the code
rules have been relaxed is not a lot of time to "advance the state of
the radio art". But since you brought it up, what have coded hams done
in the 10 years before that.

And as far as furthering the OTHER purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, I could site hundreds of examples. Not the LEAST of which is
greater intrest in ham radio by young people. And the great influx of
hams to give us a louder voice with the FCC and governement in general.
There are many, many more.


 ======================================================================
 || Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV   ||  'Pots have handles, Magazines have  ||
 || [e-mail]    ||      Personals, Hams have Names'     ||
 ======================================================================
 || 'Your enemy is never a villian in his own eyes. Keep this in     ||
 ||  mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not you    ||
 ||  can kill him without hate - and quickly.'  -Lazarus Long        ||
 ======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 00:23:47 CST
From: library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!jpunix!unkaphaed!amanda![e-mail]
Subject: Use of HT for Marine & GMRS
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Dana Myers ) writes:

> I couldn't justify buying new Motorolas at 2x the price a hamster radio
> sells for.  However, I'll gladly spend more $$$ for a used Motorola than a
> used hamster radio, even with the T/A limitations.  I use a high-band

Hamster? A hamster is a rodent.

 --Robert

                    _                           _
      The          |_|                         |_|         Please note
   Codeless        | |          _____          | |           antennas
 Technician's     _| |_        /.....\        _| |_          for both
    Winter      -| | | | _    /   _   \    _ | | | |-     Citizen's Band
     Home      | | | | |' |  /   |_|   \  | `| | | | |    and Two Meters
               \  .      /  /     _     \  \ .    .  /
                \    ,  /   | ten|-|four|   \    .  /
_________________| .   |____|____| |____|____| ,   |______________________

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

Date: 22 Nov 1993 22:03 PST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!erich.triumf.ca![e-mail]
Subject: Use of HT for Marine & GMRS
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes...
>I have seen various discussions about using the out of band frequencies
>on a Amateur band tranceiver for Marine, GMRS or other services.
>If a person is an Amateur, and also holds liscenses for other services
>can he/she use their amateur radio on those services.  Is there a
>definitive authority or requlation cite which can be found to make
>such a determination ?
>
>Michael Barbitta   KD6OAY +

In Canada, and also in the US according to previous discussion on this topic,
transmitters used in any service other than Amateur _must_ by type approved by
the DOC (in Canada) or the FCC (in the US) for _that_ service (in that country,
too - FCC approval doesn't count in Canada!)

However, unlike the current thread re operation on a sherrif's channel, if you
have a station licence for, say, the marine VHF service, you are very unlikely
to be caught and prosecuted for using a modified ham rig on a marine channel.

Please note that I do not advocate the use of unapproved equipment.  I use my
TH77 as a second marine receiver on occasion, and if necessary would use it as
a "lifeboat radio" in an emergency.

Peter Bennett VE7CEI                | Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight
Internet: [e-mail]   | of one another only when one can be
Bitnet:   bennett@triumfer          | observed visually from the other
TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., Canada     |                          ColRegs 3(k)

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

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 19:44:21 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp![e-mail]
Subject: What happens to the regulations during Contests???
To: [e-mail]

Jeremy L. Utley ([e-mail]) wrote:

: I was working Sweepstakes this weekend for W0QQQ (KSUARC Club Station) and I
: noticed something...when working contests, all regulations seem to go out the
: window...the one I noticed most was operators never signed off after logging a
: contact.  Why does the FCC allow this?  ...

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 01:21:37 EST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: Why isn't Amateur Radio like CB?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Do
> >
> >If their operating budget is at stake (where do you think that $30/yr would
> >go to?), then yes, they'll nail the bootleggers.  They might run in the red
> >for a few years, but they'll do it.
>
> Where will the $30 go? Why the same place it used to go, into the General
> Fund of the Federal government as it's required to by the Constitution.

Not the Constitution, federal law. But it amounts to the same think in
your arguement Gary. (Ok, Ok, I am picking nits, I admit it!)   :-)

> Only the House of Representatives can appropriate funds to be expended
> by Federal Agencies. They can't go out and set up their own little
> extortion rackets and keep the proceeds.
>
> Gary
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          | Where my job's going,  | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!ga
> Destructive Testing Systems | I don't know. It might | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gar
> 534 Shannon Way             | wind up in Mexico.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
> Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |          -NAFTA Blues  |
                                ^ or even Canada, maybe even Japan...
(Sorry)


 ======================================================================
 || Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV   ||  'Pots have handles, Magazines have  ||
 || [e-mail]    ||      Personals, Hams have Names'     ||
 ======================================================================
 || 'Your enemy is never a villian in his own eyes. Keep this in     ||
 ||  mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not you    ||
 ||  can kill him without hate - and quickly.'  -Lazarus Long        ||
 ======================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 21:25:58 CST
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!jpunix!unkaphaed!amanda![e-mail]
Subject: Why the L.A. .435 repeater wasn't shut down
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:

>
> > [e-mail] (Jeff Herman) writes:
> >
> > > I mentioned The Mess on the L.A. 147.435 repeater - that machine was
> > > distroyed in the Malibu fire a few weeks ago. I received an interesting
> > > email from someone very familiar with the problems in L.A. He stated
> > > that the other repeater owners strongly desired that .435 NOT be
> > > shut down - these other owners went so far as to pay the expenses
> > > for .435 to keep it operating. Why? So that the bulk of The Mess
> > > would stay on just one machine; if .435 were shut down The Mess would
> > > infiltrate other repeaters. I believe the email writer even stated
> > > that those owners who refused to support .435 had trouble with
> > > jamming (sounds like radio terrorism).
> > >
> > > The Mess has now infiltrated the 147.22 CLARA repeater - they've
> > > esentially taken it away from the prior users.
> > >
> > > Jeff NH6IL
> >
> > Jeff, sounds like someone should build some dopplers and make a few
> > quads. Actually a properly attenuated beam is best. To jam they have to
> > transmit. The more they do THAT, the easier they make it for me to find
> > them.
>
>  ROBERT!
>   I don't think you have any real grasp of just how bad the situation is in
> L.A.. For example.. I was terrorized by a JAMMER in L.A. Quite smart fellow t
> if I might add.. Terrorized a small group of people that I talked with on the
> 147.120 repeater in Glendale just north of L.A. I had antenna's ripped off my
> car by him and he woukld give detailed descriptions of my family and the insi
> of my house.. Needless to say after a Year of chasing the individual and
> confronting him etc.. All info was given to the FCC.. And they politely refus
> to do anything.. Funny.. He's an advanced class now if I remember right..
>
>   Now that is 1 individual.. Imagine 100 of them at 1 time.. Now that describ
> 147.435.. And needless to say.. at least 1/2 of the garbage is caused by
> licensed hams.. from no-code tech to Extra classed.. It is just a garbage
> collection repeater in L.A. And the reason nobody does anything is because
> nothing can be done.. When the problem is that large who's gonna do it.. The
> FCC refuses to take care of 1 person when the Ham's have done all the
> footwork.. That repeater keeps 'em off the rest.. That's just the way it is o
> there..

Now you know why I stay clear of repeaters and CB...err...Two Meter FM.

 --Robert

____________________________________________________________________
|  A Codeless Technician is never a villain in his own eyes.       |
|  Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend.  |
|  If not, you can kill him without hate - and quickly.            |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: (null)
From: (null)
     97.119 Station Identification
     (a)  Each amateur station ... must transmit its assigned call sign
     on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and
     at least every 10 minutes during a communication ...

The question is, how do you interpret "at the end of each communication"?
Does the callsign have to be the absolute last thing you send, or is it
OK to send the callsign a few seconds before the last thing you send?
I believe the FCC has interpreted this to mean that in a very short QSO,
such as is common in contests, you are in compliance if you send your
callsign at least once somewhere during the QSO.

That makes sense if you reaslize that the purpose of the rule is to allow
the FCC to identify the transmitting station.  As long as you don't
transmit for too long after sending your callsign, that objective is met.

AL N1AL

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V93 #488
******************************
******************************