QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940032.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 15.5 KB

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 04:30:22 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 #32
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Mon, 31 Jan 94       Volume 94 : Issue   32

Today's Topics:
               Amateur Radio Service Joint Resolution?
                           Antenna Lawsuit
                   ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses
                        FCC Preemption ruling
                        Mail,etc. over packet
                    Tech->General Upgrade Question

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: 28 Jan 1994 17:03:49 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Amateur Radio Service Joint Resolution?
To: [e-mail]

Are your senators and congressman co-sponsors of these bills which are
presently going through the house and the senate?  If not, then write
them a letter!  (And if they are, write them a letter to thank them for
sponsoring the bill which recognizes the amateur radio service as a
national resource.)

Write your letters today!  (See Jan & Feb 94 QST for more information...
I will try to post some more info soon as well.)

You might be able to get your representative & senators names and addresses
from the blue pages of your phone book.

73 de kb8cne, Brad Banko


--
Brad Banko;      Univ of Illinois;  [e-mail]
======  Ich habe kein Bock mehr zu schreiben.  =======================
See one.  Do one.  Teach one.            73 de kb8cne @ n9lnq.il

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 12:36:53 GMT
From: mdisea!mothost!lmpsbbs![e-mail]
Subject: Antenna Lawsuit
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:
}It's just Pat! ([e-mail]) wrote:
}
}: Put in in perspective--a BIG ugly tower next door to you would
}: make your property worthless. CC&Rs are wonderful for
}: preserving a neighborhood's charm and character. If you live on a small
}: lot, you should be respectful of your neighbors.
}
}Worthless?  I keep reading that careful studies show that towers
}have no or almost no effect on house prices.  Can anyone point to
}real *solid* evidence on this?
}
}-drt
}
}------------------------------------------------------------------------
}|David R. Tucker        KG2S              [e-mail]|
}------------------------------------------------------------------------
}|           Adams: In the middle of the afternoon??                    |
}|        Franklin: Not everyone is from Boston, John.                  |
}|                        -"1776"                                       |
}------------------------------------------------------------------------
I concure with David. A friend of mine lived in an upscale area and had a tower.
Once at a party one of his other ham buddies mentioned the tower to a neighbor,
the neighbors reply was "What Tower."

Bruce, WB4YUC, el YUCCO. . .

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 16:27:43 GMT
From: microsoft!wingnut![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL's Lifetime Amateur licenses
To: [e-mail]

Just FYI - A pilot's license issued by the FAA is good for life.
You are required to hold a current medical exam certificate and
if you wish to take passengers, you must have completed 3 takeoff
and landings within 90 days. You also have to do a biennial flight
review with an instructor (every two years).

There is precedent for a lifetime license.

One problem with lifetime licenses is that there is no good way
to determine - in the ham case - when someone is no longer active
or even deceased. The result is an artificially high number of
Amateur radio operators listed in the rolls. From a political
standpoint this could be valuable to the Amateur community as
it creates a peculiar "smoke and mirrors" view of their being
many more hams than there might actually be. Today, with our
ten year license and the average ham age around 50 (I used
to know this stuff in detail but I could be off a bit), somebody
did a statistical analysis and came to the conclusion that 10%
of the currently licensed hams are possibly dead - a fact that
is not known until their 10 year life license was not renewed.

Ed Mitchell
KF7VY
[e-mail]
"These opinions are my own and nobody elses."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 19:33:38 GMT
From: nntp.ucsb.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!unixhub!fnnews.fnal.gov!att-in!cbnewsc![e-mail]
Subject: FCC Preemption ruling
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Cravit N9VWG) writes:
>to hams, but it also says that teh federal preemption does not apply,
>and I want to find out why not. Besdides, that way, if I have a
>problem I can say to the cops, "look, here are both state and Federal
>laws which prove I can have this radio in my car".

And then the cops can unholster their law and prove that you  _can't_  have
the  radio.  1/2  8-)  They may certainly seize anything they believe to be
evidence of crime.

Seriously, it isn't a good idea to try to argue law with the  police.   The
policeperson in the field isn't trained to, or expected to, make judgements
about the fine points of law.  If the  policeperson  thinks,  correctly  or
not,  that  a violation has occurred in its presence it is expected to take
action to bring the (suspected) perpetrator to court for trial  along  with
available evidence.  Issues of law are going to be decided in court, by the
trial judge - not in a debate with the policeperson in the street.

When talking to the police you are in a situation where they are trying  to
carry  out their duty to issue a citation, summons, or something similar or
make an arrest (for something more serious than a traffic violation).   The
policeperson  may  legitimately  add "resisting arrest"  or "obstructing an
officer" or some similar charge if you are argumentative.

The last thing we need  is  for  police  to  begin  to  think  of  hams  as
argumentative, jailhouse lawyer types who give them trouble.  Best to avoid
all contact with police and be circumspect in use of radios so  they  don't
even notice them.

73
--
Ed Schaefer                  K9JMA ham radio           N97178 aviation

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 00:11:30 GMT
From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!news.bu.edu!news.bbn.com!petra!zds-oem![e-mail] (Earl Morse)
Subject: Mail,etc. over packet
To: [e-mail]

In article <2i8gv3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Ian P McCullough <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>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?
>>
>
>Why is it even NECESSARY to transit profanity over amateur radio? It seems
>contrary to Part 97. I trust you have a copy of that document.
>

Besides the use of codes, ciphers, and encryption are not allowed.
See Part 97.117.

Earl Morse
KZ8E
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 23:16:25 GMT
From: world![e-mail]
Subject: Tech->General Upgrade Question
To: [e-mail]

: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Riba) writes:

: >I upgraded my original Novice license to my current Technician license
: >about eight years ago.  I'm thinking about brushing up on my code to go
: >for my General.

: >Is it still just a code test, or is there more to it with the new
: >license structure?  Is there some statute of limitations time period
: >that I should be concerned with?

An original Technician license issued *before 21 March 1987* is good
for credit on 2, 3A, and 3B (as well as 5 wpm).  So in that case only
the 13 wpm code test is required for the General license.  An obscure
grandfather clause.  97.505a(1).

-drt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker        KG2S              [e-mail]|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|           Adams: In the middle of the afternoon??                    |
|        Franklin: Not everyone is from Boston, John.                  |
|                        -"1776"                                       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 19:57:12 GMT
From: hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>a.ED
Subject : Re: Antenna Lawsuit/CC&Rs

In article <[e-mail]>,
hamilton on BIX <[e-mail]> wrote:

>a CC&R placed on their neighbors; it was how on earth can they be
>enforcable.  It's a legal question:  what is the applicable law?

The applicable law is the maintenance of contracts between individuals.
Ned AB6FI

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 19:53:13 GMT
From: hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■░
Subject : Re: Antenna Lawsuit

In article <[e-mail]>,
Marc T. Kaufman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Small correction.  The government only records CC&Rs.  It does not enforce
>them, as it has no standing to do so

Yes it does in the judicial system. You violate my CC&R's, I sue you in
court.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 01:15:46 GMT
From: brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Thomas Collins) writes:


|>     Then I suggest you make that clear in either your message,
|>     or the *quoted* portion you include.  If you re-read your
|>     you original message it can be taken either way.

Since the point of the whole thread was retesting those who let
their licenses lapse, I didn't think it was necessary. I'll
endeavor to do this for the uneducated in the near future.

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 16:27:55 GMT
From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Xenon.Stanford.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>ewsHost.
Subject : Re: Antenna Lawsuit

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carole L. Hamilton) writes:
>You guys still don't have the concept of CC&R's correct. I'm against them
>too but let me explain them:
>CC&R's have nothing to do with the government. They are filled by landowners
>to maintain certain restrictions. The only role that the government plays
>is to record them as a public record and to enforce them. But CC&R's are
>nothng more than contracts between PRIVATE individuals.

Small correction.  The government only records CC&Rs.  It does not enforce
them, as it has no standing to do so unless it owns some land covered by
the CC&Rs.  Enforcement is entirely in the hands of the Homeowners association
or other entity that owns the CC&R rights.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 14:09:27 GMT
From: hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2i42rf$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Antenna Lawsuit

In article <[e-mail]>, Clay Jackson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>John Blake ([e-mail]) wrote:
>copy at 5:00 PM on the third day.  I then got the builder (who WAS the
>Homeowners Association, in conjunction with the developer, a different
>group) to SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT IN WRITING a couple of little 'add-ons'
>(like a storage shed, my 'weather station mast' (the guy wires of which are a

Unfortunately this little add-on may not be legally binding and you may
have no additional rights.
Once CC&R's are recorded they then "belong" to the surrounding property
owners. The original author can not later lessen the restrictions with
a separate agreement with you. If the add-ons that you got were made
as an excemption by the "recorded" administrator of the Covenants
then perhaps you are OK but it sort of makes the CC&R's meaningless
if the builder is granting exemptions to new-comers.
Again caveat emptor, CC&R's are extremely difficult to fight.
Ned AB6FI

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 18:31:22 GMT
From: mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!world![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Antenna Lawsuit

In article <[e-mail]>,
Ed Ellers  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Michael P. Deignan <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>People in this country no longer want to take responsibility for their
>>own actions. Mr. Stoner bought a piece of property with a contractual
>>restriction on it. The law does not excuse one from those contractual
>>obligations just because "he didn't know about it" or "forgot to ask
>>about it".
>
>The law also does not allow unconscioonable restrictions to be placed on
>property, even by "contractural obligations."  You can't bar resale to someone
>of the "wrong" color or religion, for example.  Don feels that an antenna ban
>is another example of a restriction that is unconscionable and contrary to
>public policy, and I happen to agree.

Agreed. As an aside, what was the FCC's rationale for stating that
PRB-1 does not apply to CC&Rs? If they can overturn local and state
laws, why  do the not have the power to overturn CC&Rs with the same
restrictions?

/Matthew

--
Matthew Cravit, N9VWG               | All opinions expressed here are
Michigan State University           | my own. I don't speak for The World,
East Lansing, MI 48825              | and they don't speak for me (luckily
E-Mail: [e-mail]        | for both of us).

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #32
******************************