QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940024.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 23.7 KB

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 04:30:12 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #24
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Thu, 27 Jan 94       Volume 94 : Issue   24

Today's Topics:
                       Antenna Lawsuit (3 msgs)
              ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses (2 msgs)
             Code: Guaranteeing long-term proficiency  :)
                    Has Renewal Procedure Changed?
                        Mail,etc. over packet
                 The 10-meter bands - No CW required?

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: 25 Jan 1994 18:33:58 GMT
From: news.mentorg.com!hpcan240.mentorg.com!wv.mentorg.com![e-mail]
Subject: Antenna Lawsuit
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>,
|>     Don Stoner <[e-mail]> writes:
|>
|> |> Stoner maintains the action of 440 West, Inc., has
|> |> violated his civil rights and freedom of speech. W6TNS
|> |> alleges that as a result of the actions of the
|> |> Association, he is no longer able to talk with his
|> |> friends, made as a ham radio operator in the past 40
|> |> years.
|>
|> Of course, one has to ask, if ham radio was so important to Don Stoner,
|> then why would he purchase a piece of property with an antenna
|> restriction in the first place?
|>
|> MD
|> --
|> -- Michael P. Deignan
|> -- Population Studies & Training Center
|> -- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
|> -- [phone]

Because in many areas of the country, there ARE no properties
available WITHOUT antenna restrictions.

   ...  Hank

--

Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics
Internet     : [e-mail]
Amateur Radio: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 01:42:00 GMT
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chip.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Antenna Lawsuit
To: [e-mail]

Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Of course, one has to ask, if ham radio was so important to Don Stoner,
: then why would he purchase a piece of property with an antenna
: restriction in the first place?

Perhaps it was all an attempt to provide amateur operators everywhere
case law to combat such ridiculous CC&R's it would not be a big deal if
one could choose to either buy property with of without such limitations
but the sad fact is that in many communities ALL newer homes have CC&R's.

Someone has to be the first to fight such restrictions.


Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [e-mail]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*       I do not speak for the University of California....           *
*       and it sure as hell doesn't speak for me!!                    *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*


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

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 16:26:15 GMT
From: mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eff!news.kei.com!world![e-mail]
Subject: Antenna Lawsuit
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (It's just Pat!) writes:
>I've been a Ham 20 years; have an extra ticket.
>
>I wouldn't dream of offending my Los Altos neighbors with
>an ugly antenna. I use a dipole than can't be seen from the
>street (or by my neighbors unless they knew what it was!)
>
>If I lived in a rural area, I'd have a tower.
>
>If anyone on my block were to put up an antenna, I'd be the
>first to sue them!
>
>Put in in perspective--a BIG ugly tower next door to you would
>make your property worthless. CC&Rs are wonderful for

You have proof for this, I assume? Studies that have been done show the
opposite is true.

>preserving a neighborhood's charm and character. If you live on a small
>lot, you should be respectful of your neighbors.
>
>(Of course, _blanket_ restrictions against antennas are wrong. However, a
>restriction against towers or structures higher than, say, 10' above
>the roofline are a good idea.)
>
>--
>Pat S.
>
>p.s.: why are all hams so concerned about strict license requirements
>for their RADIOS, but wouldn't want any license requirments for
>their GUNS?
>

It would be helpful in your arguments if you used the word "many" rather
than the wword "all." The statement above is FALSE. There are at least
SOME hams in the population who would prefer if guns did not exist, but
are concerned about radio issues, especially freedom to erect towers.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                 Internet:     [e-mail]
Daniel Senie Consulting                    [e-mail]
508-365-5352                 Compuserve:   74176,1347

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 00:07:05 EST
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:
>
> |> I don't see what public policy is served by having them retake
> |> the exams.
>
> 1. It insures that they will be familiar with new operating rules
>    which have been enacted during their prolonged hiatus.
>
> 2. It insures that they will be familiar with new technology being
>    used in amateur radio after their hiatus.
>
> Look at some of the new innovative modes implemented over the past
> few years. Someone who was licensed in 1982 wouldn't be familiar with
> today's regulations, let alone technology. Retesting would be a
> correct step to assure they do. (Assuming theory tests were beefed
> up and not dumbed-down further.)

Exactly my point Michael. If the information tested for in the exams is
important (I feel that is is) then it should be periodically retested.
If Manually Encoded Morse is important, it too should be periodically
retested.


>

>
> MD
> --
> -- Michael P. Deignan
> -- Population Studies & Training Center
> -- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
> -- [phone]


  |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | Dan Pickersgill   |   [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]  |
  |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |       Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.           |
  |                          -Lazarus Long                             |
  |--------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 23:57:47 EST
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!mystis![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:

> Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> : But if a person treats they amateur license with so little respect that
> : they let it laps, should they not EARN the pirvileage again by
> : retesting? In fact should not we all EARN access to the ham bands by
> : re-testing, instead of GIVING it away for no effort!
>
> Well, there is that, but if someone drops out of the hobby for a
> while, say to work 3 jobs to put kids through college, and the license
> lapses, and then they have more time and want to play with radios
> again, I don't see what public policy is served by having them retake
> the exams.  The only thing people like this don't do to "earn" their
> privs that we *do* do is remember to file a 610 at least once a decade
> - easily missed, since the FCC never notifies you you're license is
> about to expire.  Big deal.  It may have little to do with contempt
> for the license and more to do with setting rational priorities or
> natural human forgetfulness.  For the 3.2 cases of this that will come
> up each year, my feeling is, who cares?

If you forget to renew your Driver's License (at least in most states)
you get to retake the test to reprove you are still able to safely
operate a motor vehicle.

And basically I agree, 'who cares'?


  |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | Dan Pickersgill   |   [e-mail]  |  [e-mail]  |
  |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |       Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.           |
  |                          -Lazarus Long                             |
  |--------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:45:33 GMT
From: usc!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jabba.ess.harris.com!news.ess.harris.com!su102w.ess.harris.com![e-mail]
Subject: Code: Guaranteeing long-term proficiency  :)
To: [e-mail]

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Drumheller) writes:

>>If they do pass, well, they
>>don't ever have to use it again as long as they don't let their license
>>expire.

>This "loop-hole" has always amazed me!

I'm reading a book about this now.  So I'll let you know when I figure
it out.  The book is Clancy's "Without ReMorse".

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

Date: 25 Jan 1994 18:44:54 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!news.Brown.EDU!NewsWatcher![e-mail]
Subject: Has Renewal Procedure Changed?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Knoll) wrote:

> Can someone help me out?
>
> I renewed my General Class license back in 1984, and now
> it's time to renew again this year.  What is the procedure for
> renewing?  I think in '84 I used the 'ole 610 form.
> Does it vary from state to state.  I live in Minnesota.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Jim
> [e-mail]

No changes.... just send a completed form 610 with the appropriate box
checked off for renewal. Be careful though, if you mess it up they WILL
send it back. I've noticed that direct inquiries and renewals sent to the
FCC at Gettysburg tend to be proccessed within 3-4 weeks.

Tony
--
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR
== [e-mail]
== Brown University Alumni & Development Computing Services
== Box 1908
== Providence, RI 02912
== [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 16:15:46 GMT
From: mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!newncar!csn!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!cupnews0.cup.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: Mail,etc. over packet
To: [e-mail]

Ian P McCullough ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I recently downloAded the FAQ for packet radio as i am thinking of
: getting back into ham radio.  I noticed, while reading this FAQ that a
: recurring theme seems to be the necessity of hand filtering of stuff for
: profanity.  My question is... While not exactly in the open spirit of ham
: radio, would it be illegal to encrypt something with profanity in it with
: say PGP or some equivalent and then send it in the normal fashion.  It
: seems as though the legality is correct but the morality is wrong.  What
: are the details here?

: Opinions??  Specifics??

: Ian
: KA1VQM
quoting from 97.113(a)(4)

     (4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided
elsewhere in this Section; Communications intended to facilitate a
criminal act; Messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thereof, except as otherwise provided herein;  Obscene or indecent words
^^^^^^^                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals, or identification;
^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems to cover it pretty good, eh?

Jim, WA6SDM
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 94 10:10:32 EST
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
Subject: The 10-meter bands - No CW required?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Drumheller) writes:
>    The issue of the necessity of CW does seem to be a common thread within
> the ham radio news groups.  But this time I thought I'd throw in my two
> cents worth.
>
>    I do agree that CW is a rather antique mode of communication.  If you
> seek a high data rate, well, then all the other modes are better.
> Personally, I've never been much of a CW operator, although I do find it
> fascinating, and do wish my copy speed was higher.  I hold an Extra class
> license, and must admit that I was having a good day when I took the 20
> wpm code test; I correctly answered 8 out of 10 questions, and copied all
> but 30 seconds of the text.  I did well enough to pass the test, and
> probably still could if I practiced a little.  (I could always reliably
> copy at a solid 15 wpm.)
>
>    However, if the FCC eliminated the code requirement for all classes of
> licenses, or reduced the Extra Class speed from 20 wpm to, say, 15 wpm, it
> wouldn't really bother me.  For now, I tell any prospective ham that the
> code requirement is here to stay, and if they want that General Class
> ticket, then they'll just have to accept the fact that copying 13 wpm is a
> requirement.  They're faced with the prospect of putting in the time to
> learn the code fast enough to pass the test.  If they do pass, well, they
> don't ever have to use it again as long as they don't let their license
> expire.
>
>    Frankly, I like the fact that I know Morse code.  Although outmoded, I
> find pride in the fact that I have a skill few other possess.
>
> -Dave
> --
> David Drumheller, KA3QBQ           phone: [phone]
> Acoustics Division, Code 7140       fax: [phone]
> Naval Research Laboratory
> Washington, DC 20375-5350   e-mail: [e-mail]


     Well stated Dave.  A very rational and realistic
    observation.

73 >< Carl
  K8NHE

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 17:54:43 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!othello.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <1994Jan21.013214.3540@tower>et
Subject : Re: Why I hate coordinating bodies

[e-mail] wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Wilkins n6fri) writes:

: The ARRL probably creates more public policy (concerning amateur radio)
: than does the FCC itself.  It is very rare that the FCC initiates a change
: in the regulations on its own, rather than as a response to a petition,
: and even rarer that it enacts regulations that the ARRL opposes.

Wrong answer,  the FCC accepts input from all US citizens, maybe even
others, I don't know.  They take this under advisement and then take
action as they see fit.  If you think the ARRL makes public radio policy
without recourse look at these two scenarios.

1) A repeater coordination body makes a coordination which causes serious
interference between two or more repeaters.

2) The ARRL suggests that only they should have the ability to run a
military/club callsign program.

In scenario 1 the FCC is required by part 97 to accept the coordination.
In scenario 2 the FCC decided to cancel the program all together.

While it is true that the ARRL is very influential in Washington and
Gettysberg, they granted the right to create public policy and limit
access to the airwaves.

 : Sorry, Bob.  I used more than three lines.  Do I get
demerits?

perhaps ad homs deserve more demerits than lack of brevity.
If you can give an example were the ARRL actually makes regulartory
policy it would make a better argument.

Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [e-mail]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*       I do not speak for the University of California....           *
*       and it sure as hell doesn't speak for me!!                    *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*


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

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 04:39:29 GMT
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chip.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Code: Guarantying long-term proficiency

cory zito ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Well geez guys lets get rid of the written test requirements too while we
: are at it and allow it to become just another citizens band type
: hobby!!!  Gosh we only have to take the tests once if we advance a class

Let me get this straight, aside from the fact that most hams pass a code
test there is no difference between CB and ham radio?  I've listened to a
few CB communications, though admittedly not too many, and amateur radio
voice seems to be much more polite than and qulitatively better than what
I've heard on CB.  So I can't agree that the code is what makes amateur
radio different than CB.  especially when over 60% of the hams don't even
use CW.

: lets ABOLISH them because more people will be interested and we'll have a
: wider variety of people to talk to!I agree that periodic code proficiency
: would help but hey this is the same how many of you actually apply the
: knowledge you gain in electronics from ham radio?  How many of you just
: remembered it all from physics class?  Since so few of you use most of
: the theory you have to learn to get the license lets DROP that
: requirement too!!!


I use what I had to know to pass my exams rather frequently, thank you.
While I am still an appliance operator for the most part I have taken
apart all of my gear to one extent or another and I've built a number of
small projects using what I learned studying for my amateur radio exam,
power supplies, antennas, refrigerator wine cellar controller and the
like.  So, while I've had a little bit of experience with a soldering
iron I've only ever had 1 CW qso (this may change soon).
You can get killed or atleast earn an NAL by not knowing what is on the
theory test.  I've never heard of anyone getting killed because they
couldn't send code.


: (This post is meant to be sarcastic for those of you who didn't realise
   it...:)

if this post was not meant to be constructive why did you post it?
A) to offend those who haven't learned CW.
B) you have nothing better to do with yourself.
C) flamebait
D) to prove that you are an angry person
E) none of the above, please enlighten us.

: Its kind of silly to argue back and forth about this code is here and it
: still is quite popular plus it is one of the things that sets (most)
: amateurs apart from other radio operators!! digital modes are no more
: practical than code and IMHO take most of the fun out of it especially

The difference is that no one is required to learn how to encrypt and
manually send AX.25 packets in order to get an amateur license.  If you
suggest that code and digital are equally practical then why be required
to encode in one mode but not the other? When has anyone argued against
the use of code, or argued that someone should not use it?

: when I have the internet to play on radio is for person to person
: communtications not BBSes!  Since many people who don't like code go for
: digital lets make everybody learn digital stuff...(besides there is a no
: code tech for people who only want digital)

: The basic purpose of this post is to QUIT WHINING be THANKFUL for what
: little we now have and if we continue to go against eachother we will
: probably LOSE even more of it because of our QUIBBLING!!!

Gee.... here you go attacking people who don't have 1A endorsement and
then you close by saying we should quit quibbling and fighting amongst
ourselves.

Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [e-mail]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*       I do not speak for the University of California....           *
*       and it sure as hell doesn't speak for me!!                    *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*


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

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 19:05:06 GMT
From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!gatekeeper.es.dupont.com!esds01.es.dupont.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>ont
Reply-To : [e-mail]
Subject : Re: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>    [e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:
>
>|> I don't see what public policy is served by having them retake
>|> the exams.
>
>1. It insures that they will be familiar with new operating rules
>   which have been enacted during their prolonged hiatus.
>
>2. It insures that they will be familiar with new technology being
>   used in amateur radio after their hiatus.
>
>Look at some of the new innovative modes implemented over the past
>few years. Someone who was licensed in 1982 wouldn't be familiar with
>today's regulations, let alone technology. Retesting would be a
>correct step to assure they do. (Assuming theory tests were beefed
>up and not dumbed-down further.)
>
>

And 3. It will ensure the Amateur Ranks shrink to its smallest number
giving the FCC and Commerical outfits more reason to sell/buy our
frequencies.  (IMHO) There will be too many who don't want to sweat
out tests every 5 or 10 years and will just give up on ARS as a hobby.


Thanks & 73                   |"Get your facts first, and then you can
Tom WI3P                      | distort them as much as you please."
[e-mail]| Mark Twain
*** MY EMPLOYER DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME NOR I FOR THEM  ****

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #24
******************************