QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/infoham/940245.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27KB

Date: Sat,  5 Mar 94 11:11:06 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #245
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Sat,  5 Mar 94       Volume 94 : Issue  245

Today's Topics:
                    ARLB022 New South Carolina SM
                      ARLB024 ARRL, FCC ink pact
                      ARRL Bulletin 23  ARLB023
                             first letter
                 Further criminalization of scanning
                    IMPORTANT - June VHF QSO Party
                                JARGON
                            QRP expedition
                            second letter

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 Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

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, 4 Mar 1994 14:46:06 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: ARLB022 New South Carolina SM
To: [e-mail]

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB022
ARLB022 New South Carolina SM

ZCZC AG86
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 22  ARLB022
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  March 2, 1994
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB022
ARLB022 New South Carolina SM

New South Carolina SM

Michael Epstein, KD1DS, has been named Section Manager of the ARRL
South Carolina Section.  He will complete the term of office of
Arnold Jordan, WB4BZA, which runs until December 31, 1994.
NNNN
/EX
--
================================================
    Marc B. Grant     Voice Mail: 214-246-1150
  [e-mail]      Amateur Radio N5MEI
   [e-mail]
================================================

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

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 14:48:52 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: ARLB024 ARRL, FCC ink pact
To: [e-mail]

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB024
ARLB024 ARRL, FCC ink pact

ZCZC AG88
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 24  ARLB024
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  March 3, 1994
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB024
ARLB024 ARRL, FCC ink pact

ARRL, FCC ink pact

The ARRL and the Field Operations Bureau (FOB) of the Federal
Communications Commission have signed a new agreement concerning the
use of amateur volunteers.

The agreement is a revised and expanded version of one entered into
in 1984, and spells out the roles of amateurs, as trained and
registered Official Observers, as well as the role of the FOB. The
volunteers continue to be known as the ARRL Amateur Auxiliary to the
Field Operations Bureau (''AA'').

While the new agreement continues to place initial information
gathering at the local level, ie, in conjunction with regional FOB
offices, it specifies a more centralized system for presenting
information to the FOB in cases where enforcement is requested.
This will be done between the office of the Chief, FOB, and the
League's Washington office.

The new agreement also adds an FOB agreement to protect the
identities of Amateur Auxiliary members, to the extent allowed by
law, when the FCC institutes an enforcement proceeding involving
information provided by the AA.

The FOB also agrees to assist the ARRL in the training of volunteers
and in publicizing the objectives and accomplishments of the
program.

The new agreement became effective February 26, 1994.
NNNN
/EX
--
================================================
    Marc B. Grant     Voice Mail: 214-246-1150
  [e-mail]      Amateur Radio N5MEI
   [e-mail]
================================================

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

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 14:47:34 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL Bulletin 23  ARLB023
To: [e-mail]

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB023
ARLB023 Call sign plan extended

ZCZC AG87
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 23  ARLB023
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  March 3, 1994
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB023
ARLB023 Call sign plan extended

Call sign plan extended

The FCC has granted an ARRL request to extend the comment deadline
in its ''vanity'' call sign proposal, in PR Docket 93-305.

The comment deadline was extended to April 21, 1994; the reply
comment deadline was extended to May 23, 1994.

The Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making was released
December 29, 1993, with an original comment deadline of March 7,
1994.  The League said more time was needed for response because of
the importance of the proposal to amateurs and therefore the need to
ensure fairness in whatever system was adopted.

In granting the League's request the FCC said ''it is desirable that
the record be as complete as possible and that it reflect the views
of the amateur community.''

An ARRL ad-hoc committee on this proposal includes Directors Steve
Mendelsohn, WA2DHF; Frank Butler, W4RH; Tom Comstock, N5TC; John
Kanode, N4MM; and Brad Wyatt, K6WR. Members should address their
comments to ''Docket 93-305 Committee,'' and send them to ARRL HQ.

More information on the proposal is in February 1994 QST on pages 9
and 84-86.
NNNN
/EX
--
================================================
    Marc B. Grant     Voice Mail: 214-246-1150
  [e-mail]      Amateur Radio N5MEI
   [e-mail]
================================================

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

Date: 4 Mar 94 03:07:31 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!mipg.upenn.edu![e-mail]
Subject: first letter
To: [e-mail]

This is a (hopefully accurate) transcription of the first letter that
was sent to me.  Any typographical errors not noted below are my own.
These are not my words and are the words of the ARRL.  The use of the
symbol "$" is in lieu of a non printable symbol in the letter.

Conway Yee, N2JWQ/AA

=================== begin letter =================================

                January 28, 1994

Mr. Conway Yee N2JWQ
2144 East 21 Street
Brooklyn, NY 11229

Dear Mr. Yee:

     This office represents the American Radio Relay League,
Incorporated.  I have been referred an Internet message posted by you
concerning the publication of a repeater database on line.  While the
League does not wish to be uncooperative, and is in fact supportive of
volunteer efforts to provide information to radio amateurs, it is
unfortunately obligated to enforce its copyrights, or lose the ability
to do so.  Your use of the Repeater Directory, and its format, as the
basis for your on-line database is an infringement of the League's
copyright.  We are compelled to request that you cease any use of it
in putting together any repeater database.

     I understand from your Internet message that you have been
informed that use of the data from the Repeater Directory is not a
copyright infringement.  I disagree with whatever source you have
consulted, however.  The Repeater Directory is a compilation, as
defined at 17 U.S.C. $101, and is protected as such by 17 U.S.C. $103.
Furthermore, your database uses the format of the League's Repeater
Directory, and by your own admission uses the same coding sequence for
the characteristics for each repeater.  This is a separate basis for
concerns about copyright infringement.

     The enforcement of copyrights is not something in which the
League wishes to involve itself, and we certainly do not intend to
deprive anyone of information about repeaters.  We are placed,
however, in a difficult position, to the extent that the League's
copyright cannot [sic] be enforced selectively.  We are therefor
obligated to request that you immediately stop all use of the Repeater
Directory as you have commenced to do.  We apologise [sic] for having
to take this position, but must pursue any further publication of your
database in any form which uses either the compiled data contained in
the Repeater Directory, or its format.

     We hope that this does not cause you significant difficulty, and
that you understand our position in the matter.

                Yours very truly,





                Christopher D. Imlay, N3AKD
                General Counsel, ARRL

--
Medical Image Processing Group     |                  Conway Yee, N2JWQ
411 Blockley Hall                  |  EMAIL : [e-mail]
418 Service Drive                  |  VOICE : 1 [phone]
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (USA)  |  FAX   : [phone]

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

Date: 4 Mar 94 00:21:23 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Further criminalization of scanning
To: [e-mail]

>around for a long, long time as used equipment.   The effects of the law
>will be to a) *not* severly restrict the availability of cordless-capable
>scanners and b) give the public a false sense of security.
>Rather than thickening the law books, the government should educate the
>public about what is going on.  The public will demand encrypted
>cordless phones and the manufacturers will deliver.  Then the aw is
>going to do is damage the lives of the very few people who getonfidential information
>on their cordless phones.
>
>I'd be interested if other people agree.
>
>
>--Neil
>

I could not agree more.

                   Gil Baron, El Baronvir"
                   PGP2.3 key at key servers or upon request

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

Date: 5 Mar 94 16:58:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: IMPORTANT - June VHF QSO Party
To: [e-mail]

Roger Keating KD6EFQ ([e-mail]) said...

>Scott, I share your dissappointment that the date changed, but I'm not
>sure that it should be moved back to the other date for 1994.   Some of
>us have already made our plans for this years contest for the date
>stated now.

I realize this, but in talking to many hams both locally and via email,
I have found that all but one or two are not even aware that the contest
is currently scheduled for the first and not the second weekend! I bet many
people have already made plans for the second weekend.

>It would have been better if the National Convention hadn't been
>scheduled when it was, but if one had to move, the contest probably was
>the easier don't you think?    I intend to participate in both the
>convention and the contest.

I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE!!  Moving either event from dates known or expected
over two years ago doesn't come close to being "easy". The ARRL June VHF QSO
Party is traditionally held on the second weekend in June, just as Field Day,
November Sweepstakes, the CQ WW and ARRL DX contests have their traditional
weekends. Many groups travel to specific sites year after year for events
like these and reserve both the site and their schedules way in advance.
Conventions that are the size of an ARRL National Convention are also
planned and booked a couple of years in advance. Clearly, the convention date
is a "hard" date, but the second weekend in June is as much a "hard" date
for the June VHF QSO Party because of precedent. The best course of action
for the ARRL should have been to leave both events on the second weekend of
June. I know you and some others would like to participate in both the contest
and the national convention, but I have got to believe that there are far more
people who have an interest in one but not the other of these events.

I suspect that the ARRL signed a contract with the convention site in Texas
and they'd be in big financial trouble if they cancelled or moved its date.
I contend that the ARRL has implicitly formed a contract with the participants
in major operating events by always scheduling these events for the same time
every year. If the ARRL defaulted on the convention contract a mere six months
before the event, they'd pay big. This is exactly what happened to us VHF
contesters: six months before the event, the ARRL announced via its annual
calendar of events that it was "defaulting" on the date of the June VHF QSO
Party, except it's the participants that will suffer in this case. The 1994
ARRL National Convention date was approved 2 1/2 years prior to the event. I
bet if they'd cancelled/moved the date a little after that, say 2 years from
event, the cost of the change would have been minimal. Even if they didn't do
that, the ARRL had the opportunity 2 1/2 years ago to schedule, announce, and
remind the VHF/UHF community of whatever non-traditional date they chose for
the 1994 June VHF QSO Party. The impact of the date change would have been
much easier to take with that much notice, just as the impact to the convention
site in Texas would have been easier for them to take with two years notice.

Once again, I urge people to contact their division directors and Dave
Sumner at ARRL headquarters and make their opinions known and ask that the
1994 June VHF QSO Party be placed back to the second weekend in June.

73,
  Scott WO1G
=============
Scott Sminkey                email: [e-mail]
Software Sustaining Engineering        voice: 508 952-4792
Xyplex, Inc.                fax: [phone]
295 Foster St.                (Opinions, comments, etc. are mine,
Littleton, MA 01460                    not Xyplex's...)

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

Date: 4 Mar 1994 14:36:27 GMT
From: solaris.cc.vt.edu![e-mail]
Subject: JARGON
To: [e-mail]

In article <2l3nuj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jesse L Wei)
writes:

    {stuff deleted}

> Now this is my question:  do hams *ever* talk about anything besides
what
> kind of rig (s)he's got, ham problems, ham equipment, etc?  As a waiting
> (as in for my ticket) prospective, I've liistened to  the local
repeaters,
> and personally, the conversations seem pretty boring if that's all you
> ever talk about.  Have I missed anything? or something?  Is the purpose
> of ham radio to talk about the technicalities of it?  I know that the
> whole nature of it requires technicality, but isn't there more to
> it than that?
>
> --jesse (still waiting)

In my area, most hams talk about their location.  For example,

    Ham1:  "I'm sitting in the parking lot at work.  Where are you?"
    Ham2:  "I'm in the drive-through at Wendy's."

So sometimes technical discussions are less boring than other topics
:-).

Seriously, making small talk is an art.  Some people do it well, while
others never really get the hang of it.  But there are many bright spots.
There's a lot of diversity amoung hams.  If you can get past the small
talk, there are a lot of interesting stories to be told.  That's one
reason I like HF:  It adds to the number of potential QSOs.

And some hams are happy to hide behind the small talk.  That's their
right.  They may enjoy just using the radio.  The actual exchange is
secondary.  Or they may really like the technical discussions.  I fit
both of these catagories to some degree.  But there are others that
enjoy discussing "less boring" topics.  Sometimes you just have to wait
for the right QSO to come along.

Hope your license comes soon and good luck with the hobby.  I'm sure
you'll find some really great QSOs amoung all those boring ones.

--
Benjy Cline, AC4XO
Virginia Tech Computing Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Mar 1994 09:01:11 -0600
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu![e-mail]
Subject: QRP expedition
To: [e-mail]

The Amateur Radio Club at Tennessee Technological University (TTARS) is
going to be doing a QRP expedition (special events) on April 16, 17, 18.

The purpose of this expedition is to promote amateur radio, and in
particular show how lower power is an effective mode of communications
both for SSB and CW. I hope that this will really inspire the college
students here (almost all are Technicians) to upgrade to General Class
and to get them more interested in Ham radio in general.

We will be going to a state park that has some pretty good wilderness
type areas with some great cliffs. If the weather permits we will be
operating at some pretty spectacular locations. We plan on operating
both SSB and CW with a possibility of 2 seperate stations.  We will
either have certificates or QSL cards with a picture of one of the
locations. I hope to write the experience up for a magazine article.

I would like some input in setting up the schedule of operating
bands/modes/frequencies. The only advertisement for this event will be
via Internet and Packet (part of the concept). I think that we will
probably operate between 15:00Z and 04:00Z daily. We will be setting up
on the 15th and if things go well start operating in a test mode at that
point. So what do suggest for example for CW from xx-xx on  Y meters at
ZZZZZ.ZZ freq-ZZZZZ.ZZ freq.

Due to the fact that most of the operators (99.9%) are not CW people
(yet) much of the planned operating will be on SSB.. which I believe is
good.. too many people have the concept that QRP is CW only and that
turns some people off to start with..to get more people trying this...
hopefully will be able to show them it works well on SSB also.

thanks

Jeff, AC4HF

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

Date: 4 Mar 94 03:08:08 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!mipg.upenn.edu![e-mail]
Subject: second letter
To: [e-mail]

This is a copy of the letter that is the reply to my queries to the
ARRL.  This was taken directly from an email sent to me via email.
Any typographical errors are the ARRL's.

Conway Yee, N2JWQ/AA

---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conway Yee N2JWQ
2144 East 21st Street
Brooklyn, NY 11229

Dear Mr. Yee:

     I am indeed surprised that my letter to you of January 28
has caused such concern among your Internet group. I hope that my
last letter to you was not misinterpreted. Perhaps you would be
kind enough to upload my letter to you and this one, without
editorial comment, so that there will not be any confusion in the
future on the part of Internet participants.

     There are several reasons why the League, a publisher of
materials for radio amateurs, and a membership organization, is
required to maintain the copyright protection for its
intellectual property. First, and perhaps most importantly, the
law is that unless a copyright holder protects its property upon
being alerted to an infringement, it cannot do so in the future.
Therefore, if the League is ever going to protect its copyright
in the compilation that is the repeater directory, it must do so
uniformly, and on a timely basis.

     Second, the repeater directory is one of the League's
publications that it sells to fund its membership services. The
publication is produced, in part, because the document is a
service to radio amateurs. Also, in part, it is sold as a means
of offsetting the costs of the League's programs, so that it may
keep its dues at a reasonable level for members and continue to
provide association services. The League provides certain
services only to members, and others to everyone. The costs
associated with this are substantial. It is not inexpensive to
protect amateur frequency allocations, for example. The revenue
for these programs comes, in large part, from the sale of
publications. No reasonable person could expect that the
materials that make up the compilation, which cost a significant
amount to compile and produce in any case, would simply be given
away. If we lost copyright protection for the Repeater Directory,
others could simply produce a similar product and sell it. While
this is not your intention, of course, it may be that of others.

     Third, we haven't the authority to permit you to copy the
Repeater Directory even if it was otherwise reasonable to do so.
Some of the material in the directory is itself copyrighted
material, compilations of data, from regional repeater
coordinating entities. We use that data by agreement with the
copyright holders. Those agreements are not broad enough to
permit us to authorize other uses of those compilations. Your
unauthorized use of the Repeater Directory would constitute a
violation of their copyright not only by you, but by the League
as well.

     You ask whether it is the League's position that it owns the
"facts" present in the League's copyrighted publication. The
directory is a compilation, and as such the document as a whole
is protected. The League does not own the data, but it does own
the compilation. Without attempting to teach a course in
copyright law, the concept is that a copyright holder owns not an
idea, but the creator's particular expression of that idea. You
are certainly enough entitled to create your own repeater
database, but you cannot copy the League's Repeater Directory as
a means of doing so, and you cannot use the format of the
League's Repeater Directory, including but not limited to the
coding of the characteristics of the repeaters, and the
geographic presentation of the data. The copyright holder has,
among other rights, the exclusive ability to copy or reproduce
the work, and to distribute copies of the work, as well as the
right to prepare modified or different versions of the work,
called derivative works.

     If you want to prepare a repeater listing, you will have to
do what the League, or any other preparer of a copyrighted work
containing data, does: compile your own listing of repeaters by
contacting repeater trustees, coordinators, and the like, and
make your own listing. Any use of copyrighted works, such as the
MACC repeater listing, or the Repeater Directory, in making your
own compilation, is a copyright infringement. For the above
reasons, we have to enforce the copyright.

     I hope that this clarifies my last letter, and that there
will not be any further misunderstanding proliferated on the
Internet. You are of course entitled to your opinion of the
copyright laws in the United States, and of the League's interest
in protecting its ability to continue to publish the Repeater
Directory. Basic fairness, however, demands that any factual
representations made on the Internet on this subject be accurate.

                                   Yours very truly,



                                   Christopher D. Imlay, N3AKD
                                   General Counsel, ARRL

cc: David Sumner
    Barry Shelley
    Jay Mabey




--
Medical Image Processing Group     |                  Conway Yee, N2JWQ
411 Blockley Hall                  |  EMAIL : [e-mail]
418 Service Drive                  |  VOICE : 1 [phone]
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (USA)  |  FAX   : [phone]

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

Date: 3 Mar 94 18:12:37 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!sy_j.pgh.wec.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <ah301-010394145634@sy_j.pgh.wec.com>, <edh.762652082@hpuerca>gh.wec.c
Subject : Re: JARGON

In article <edh.762652082@hpuerca>, [e-mail] (Ed Humphries)
wrote:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey) writes:
>
> >A skilled ham
> >communicator can spin a simple event out so that the description of it
> >takes three times longer than the duration of the actual event.
>
> I don't know about 3x, but every since my wife became a ham, she
> has taken to giving me a 45 minute summary of 30 minute TV shows
> that I didn't want to watch, much less hear about :-)
>

speaking of hamspeak and contentless communication ;^)

from my observation, usually the retired people are the experts at
that. Yesterday on my way home from work and the usual nut net
with about 8 people talking, and all of a sudden the two retired
people took over and was talking hamspeak (like repeating the same thing
over and over again each time they spoke), and then they were about
to clear because they said they do not want to hog the repeater
(yeah right), but I think they talked about ten more times after they
said clear before they actually let the repeater go. of course,
everybody in the net was trying to be polite and nothing was said
about it.

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

Date: 3 Mar 94 23:17:08 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!olesun![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2l3360$[e-mail]>, <1994Mar3.145941.105846@yuma>│Θ
Subject : Re: Electric Fence RFI/ Liabilities

In article <1994Mar3.145941.105846@yuma>,
Galen Watts <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>>Gilbert Baron <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>I've got some bad interference on 80 through 10
>>>>meter bands from an electric fence about 500
>>>>feet away. The effect is very sharp clicks
>>>>Anyone have any cures?
>>>>Ned Hamilton, AB6FI
>
>If you can wait a few weeks until the grass starts to grow, the livestock
>will get a few zaps, learn about the fence, and I'll bet the owner shuts
>it off.
The farmer will not turn off the fence as long as there are livestock
inside. They can tell when its off some how. At least all the cows I
messed with in the last 30 years.

My suggestion is to get a cheap am fm radio and walk the fence and find
what is causing the problem. It may very well be in the charger. Try to
make friends with the farmer. That is not usualy very hard to do. Just
give him a ring when you see his stock out or stop by and give him a
hand and visit. Find out if he has several chargers and check them all
and ask him or help him put it on the fence.

Most chargers have some noise.
Good luck
Gordon AB5DG

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #245
******************************