QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940147.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 15KB

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 04:30:24 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 #147
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Wed, 23 Mar 94       Volume 94 : Issue  147

Today's Topics:
                          License Exam Fees
                        Morse Whiners (3 msgs)
                           Need Dayton room
              Rich has flipped out (was: Morse Whiners)

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: 22 Mar 94 13:15:05 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!news.nd.edu!bsu-cs!bsu-ucs.uucp![e-mail]
Subject: License Exam Fees
To: [e-mail]

I am going to take the license exams at the Dayton Hamvention. I need to know
the ptevailing rates for the the novice and technician class licenses. Could
someone send me some information on these rates or give me advise on where to
get these rates.

Thank you

Trenton Thomas
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 21:53:08 -0500
From: yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

Michael P. Deignan <[e-mail]> writes:

>two boxtops? At what point do we stand up and say "enough is enough",
>and take the unpopular position of making people EARN their license.

There's one little problem with that -- all the license does is give BACK to
the licensee what the Federal Government has TAKEN AWAY by law.  Why should we
have to EARN something that used to be ours anyway -- as opposed to simply
showing that we have the knowledge to use the spectrum well?

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

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 22:13:28 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

Michael P. Deignan <[e-mail]> writes:

>Good, then let's take some frequency privs away from the entry-class
>licenses. "Everything > 30mhz" is way too much for the "entry" level
>codeless technician. What incentive is there to upgrade at that

Technician is NOT the entry level.  Novice -- with DRASTICALLY limited
operating authority -- is.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 04:04:18 GMT
From: brunix!pstc3.pstc.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

Ed Ellers <[e-mail]> writes:

> Technician is NOT the entry level.  Novice -- with DRASTICALLY limited
> operating authority -- is.

Uh, Ed, don't know where you've been for the past few years,
but the No-Code tech is the de-facto entry-level license in Ham
radio now. Ask any VEC for their testing statistics if you don't
think so.

The no-code tech, by its very definition, was designed to be an
entry-level license, since the only license you could get
"below" a no-code tech was novice, and that had code, which was what
the no-code tech was designed to eliminate, so you can't say the no-code
tech ISN'T an entry-level license.

Your two entry-level routes into the hobby were either novice or no-code
tech. Most people have chosen the latter.


Although, I guess technically you could call the no-code tech a
non-entry level license, since the people who were supposed to be
attracted to  that license category were people who had no
interest in code, and thus would never upgrade, so technically they
were at the "top" of the license ladder, as far as their
interests were concerned. But, that's another debate.

MD

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

Date: 22 Mar 1994 23:09:44 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!udel!news.udel.edu!brahms.udel.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Need Dayton room
To: [e-mail]

 Please forgive the cross posting if you will.

I need a room for two for Thursday, Friday and Saturday night at Dayton.
We have one room at the Hampton House with the FRC, and want one more
closeby if possible.

CU at contest forum and dinner, FRC suite, hamfest etc.

Tnx Bob

--
Bob Penneys, WN3K   Frankford Radio Club  Internet: [e-mail]
Work: Ham Radio Outlet (Delaware) [phone];  fax [phone]
Mail at home:  12 East Mill Station Drive   Newark, DE 19711  USA

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 06:06:56 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcomsv!skyld![e-mail]
Subject: Rich has flipped out (was: Morse Whiners)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

  Commenting on Jeff Herman and sums it up with...

  > I don't (hardly) expect you to be able to understand this.

  Be careful Jon, or Brian will start killing your postings as well.


 Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA  |  "You have a flair for adding
Internet: [e-mail]       |   a fanciful dimension to any
 US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749   |   story."
   Phone: [phone]               |            Peking Noodle Co.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 09:08:13 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2mii21$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Coord. priority for open repeaters

Michael P. Deignan <[e-mail]> writes:

>Gee, great logic. Shut down a machine that hundreds of people use just
>because one person shows up.

No, turn it off TEMPORARILY.  Wait a few minutes, then bring it back up.  If
the guy is doing something that's against the rules you're REQUIRED to shut
down; the same principle holds for a "mere" nuisance.

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

Date: 22 Mar 1994 06:56 EDT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!cs.umd.edu!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov!stocker@network.
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>sf
Subject : Re: Rich has flipped out (was: Morse Whiners)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>>>I guess this is what differentiates me from other people. I was brought up
>>>to believe that one should work hard, and rewards will follow.
>>
>>Ah, that explains it.  You were apparently raised by Marxists who taught
>>you the labor theory of value, which I believe is generally discredited
>>even among liberals these days.
>
>Oh my. Do you mean to say that the work ethic our country was founded upon
>is based on Marxist theory? Really? In those countries that subscribe
>to Marx-Lenin-Maoist ideals can a diligent worker there achieve anything
>close to what a diligent worker here achieves? I guess the millions who have
>been slaughtered  this century in the name of Marxism just didn't work
>hard enough, huh Rich?

[stuff deleted]
>
>
>Jeff NH6IL
>

Well! As a matter of fact the work ethic as practiced by capitalism is not
the work ethic as preached by the purtains.  In captialism, regardless of
how hard the work, the pay is not necessarily commenserate with it. Ergo,
the late 19th and early 20th century where workers including children were
working up to 16 hrs a day with extremely low pay.  You might be interested
in the congressional records of hearing on these issues.  Here we had an
example of people working tremendously hard and not getting any reward for
their labors.

On the other hand during this same period, capitalistics like JP Morgan, John
Ford, John Rockefeller, et al were doing very little work and getting very
richly rewarded for it.  Why?  The general answer is "ideas" and "risk". This
individuals supposedly had an outstanding idea and were willing to take
financial, and sometimes personal, risks to bring about their ideas.  As a
result, the purtain ethic was also subverted to say that their success in
such risk taking was a sign that they were among the "favored".

Generally, in our western society it is not the individual who works hard who
gets ahead but the individual who is willing to take risks whether or not
they work hard.  I know a lot of small business people who work very hard
(sometimes up to 18 hours a day) and they are not doing nearly as well as
the chairman of GM who led his company into decline.  When one asks why, the
answer is risk.  The GM chair supposedly had greater risk and therefore
greater responsibility than the small business person.  This supposedly is
true even though the small business person did all his own work while the
GM chairman is living off the labors of his workers.

The whole concept of "work ethic" is considerably more complicated that the
simplistic answers and principles stated by the various posters.  Also, they
have very little if anything to do with the efficacy of CW in radio
communications.

Erich
N3OXM

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

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 17:36:12 GMT
From: ncar!csn!cherokee!walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2mii21$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Coord. priority for open repeaters

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

>>I know that packet stations can reserve the right to lock out lids using
>>the good BUDdy list, I am not familiar with how voice repeaters can
>>effect the same operation. How does your repeater lock out Lids?

>The way voice repeaters would lock out lids is to shut down as soon as they
>hear the creep, then come back up later.  If that fails, it seems to me that
>the trustee can write to the guy, tell him that he is not welcome on the
>repeater, and that if he attempts to use it again that he'll be reported to
>the FCC -- which, as has been noted, most certainly allows repeater trustees
>to exercise control.

Not sure why I'm jumping into this discussion, but...I see nothing
that the FCC can be asked to do if a legally licensed amateur
continues to access any repeater.  If the input/output frequency
is idle, then anyone can use that frequency.  Sure, the control
operator can shut down the system, but there's nothing in Part 97
that prohibits legal operation by anyone just because a repeater
is closed.  Again, this assumes that the "lid" is a licnesed
ham.  Also, this assumes the "lid" is operating in an acceptable
manner (i.e. This is XXXX listening, or some other standard
operating procedure).  I really doubt that the FCC has any
legal standing to forbid an amateur from accessing any
repeater just because the control operator doesn't want that
person to use it.  Again, nothing in my statements should
be viewed as supporting jamming, malicious interfearence, etc.

Just my .02

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 04:41:12 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!crash!beacons![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2mdgcc$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Morse Whiners

In article <[e-mail]> Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> writes:

>... In my opinion, photons are not commerce. I
>believe that radio spectrum, just like land, should have originally belonged
>to the individuals who homesteaded it. They, in turn, should have had the
>right to sell it. The federal government expropriated the radio spectrum
>just like it expropriates land for its own use and expropriates half my
>income for uses with which I disagree.

    Thank goodness this is not the way the airwaves are managed.  If
it were, we would have lost *all* our spectrum long ago to commercial
interests.

    Think of our spectrum as a national forest.  It exists for all
amateurs to use, experiment with, and serve the public with.  You need
a permit to camp in a national forest, and we must have a license to
operate the amateur bands.  Now the camping permit does not prevent
the land from being abused, but it does provide some amount of
accountability for those who camp there.  Abusing national forest land
violates the public trust and jeopardizes the privilege for everyone,
and allowing the ham bands to be abused will have the same effect.

    If it were not for the government controlling the airwaves, the
Amateur Service simply would not exist today.

                                  _____________
                                 |     ___     |
    Kevin Sanders, KN6FQ         | o o \_/ o o |      Try Boatanchors
    [e-mail]        | o o  @  o o |      For A Real Lift
                                 |_____________|

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

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 18:50:35 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!news.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!mixcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2m86ho$[e-mail]>xcom
Subject : Re: The Dirty words????

In <2m86ho$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (prvalko) writes:


>  Seventythrees (Best Regardses to you, too!)

The one that really gets to me is "My very best 73s!".

        My very best best regardses???

Yeah, right!  And my very wost 73s to you, good buddy! ;-))

Enough for now, I'm destinated...

                     delineated,

                      declinated,

                       demented,

                         devastated,

                          and constipated!

--
  /`-_           [e-mail]
 {     }/     Marquette Electronics, Inc
  \    /      N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio
   |__*|   N9SQB @ WD9ANY.#MKE.WI.USA.NA

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #147
******************************