QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940163.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 16.0 KB

Date: Wed,  6 Apr 94 04:30:12 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #163
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Wed,  6 Apr 94       Volume 94 : Issue  163

Today's Topics:
                  Amateur Forwarding Rules Ammended
             CB interference and FCC...need help (3 msgs)
                   FTP-able copy of AX.25 standard?
               Incentive Licensing (Fire Extinguisher)
                  Question about ID'ing... (2 msgs)

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: 5 Apr 94 11:08:19 GMT
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10![e-mail]
Subject: Amateur Forwarding Rules Ammended
To: [e-mail]

[This discussion belongs in .policy; followups redirected.]

In article <$[e-mail]>, Marc B. Grant <[e-mail]> reposted
from the FCC:
>The licensee of the first forwarding station
>must either authenticate the identity of the station from which
>it accepts communications on behalf of the system, or accept
>accountability for the content of the message.

This is about the best that we could have gotten, given that the FCC demands
the ability to exact retribution on _someone_.

They've made it easy for even the first forwarding station to get out of
having to monitor every message, though: Notice the bit about authenticating
the identity of the originating station? This tells me that, once a practical
authentication protocol is implemented, the responsibility is placed squarely
on the shoulders of the originator, where ti belongs. This would most likely
require validation of local BBS users, but that situation is very common in
the landline BBS world, and it's stated policy among nearly all Internet
providers that the identity of users of Internet-connected systems must be
validated as well.

BBS authors, here's your chance.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "Something in Windows must give more than the recommended daily
         allowance of the logical leap vitamin." -- Mike Dahmus

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

Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 23:38:10 GMT
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10![e-mail]
Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>What can I do to help her?  The FCC is obviously giving her the runaround.
>The CBer is interferng with her phone, television, and radios.  Any comments
>here would be appreciated.

Not much, I'm afraid. The FCC has completely gotten out of the business of
doing anything about interference. This is due, in part, to one fact that
she's not going to like: Consumer electronics manufacturers are building
shoddier equipment with every passing day. The vast majority of it does not
even approach doing an adequate job of rejecting signals it's not supposed to
receive.

If it's a CBer, then there's at least a good chance the guy's running illegal
power, and those that do are notorious for generating terrible signals. Even
so, the FCC has given up on regulating the CB band altogether except where
they can't ignore gross violations.

Basically, you have no jurisdiction in the radio domain; that's the FCC's job.
They're simply not doing anything, but that doesn't mean that you can.

If your area has regulations about tower height, you could see if he's within
those...but that's not directly related to interference, nor shold it be.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The difference between baseball and politics is that, in baseball, if you
               get caught stealing, you're out!" -- Ed Shanks

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

Date: 6 Apr 94 06:20:10 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help
To: [e-mail]

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Ed Hare KA1CV)) says:

>[e-mail] wrote:
>
>
>: What can I do to help her?  The FCC is obviously giving her the runaround.
>: The CBer is interferng with her phone, television, and radios.  Any comments
>: here would be appreciated.
>
>It's unfortunate that it is not a ham; we could locate a local
>volunteer to help out.
>


    Ha ha ha ha.... I'm actually quite amused by this. (The ARRL
tends to amuse me anyways.)  It's unfortunate, Ed, that local volunteers
are powerless to do anything also!  Let's face up to something.  The
OO's and Amateur Aux. are POWERLESS!  The FCC isn't going to do anything
about interference, and I doubt my local OO is going to march up and
knock on some bozo's door and demand his rig at gunpoint.

So I guess that leads us to a question, Ed:
    How exactly is this volunteer going to help out?

"Yup, he's interfering with that there telephone alright.  I'll the
FCC, wish there was something I could do."

So Mr. OO goes to his phone and does whatever it is OO's do, and
eventually word gets to the FCC.  Does anything happen?
Probably not.  This is a federal agency!  You know, they're part of
the people who steal money out of your paycheck every month and give
you nothing in return.

It unfortunate that these events happen, but it's a reality we have to
face until the FCC does somethig about it.

-DD
--
__ Douglas A. Dever __        [e-mail]
QSO on 146.82/R anytime!      [e-mail]
73 de N8VUR

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

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 13:01:28 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

: I work for a local government agency as an engineer.  Last week a lady
: called me complaining about interference from a local CBer (she thought
: he was a ham, at first).  She called the FCC in Washington, and someone
: there told her to call whoever enforced the local building code.  They
: told her that this local agency would measure the height of the CBer's
: tower.

: What can I do to help her?  The FCC is obviously giving her the runaround.
: The CBer is interferng with her phone, television, and radios.  Any comments
: here would be appreciated.

It's unfortunate that it is not a ham; we could locate a local
volunteer to help out.

I suggest that you download the following files from the ARRL
area at oak.oakland.edu, or get them by email from [e-mail]   :

rfigen.txt
tel.txt
rfiaudio.txt
tvi.txt
catvi.txt
rfisource.txt

These info files will explain most of the issues and tell how
to get started to fix the problems. While some of the TVI could
well be caused by spurious emissions from the transmitter, much
of what is described is fundamental overload. The only way to
improve the latter is to add filtering and/or shielding to the
affected equipment.

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed
--
Ed Hare, KA1CV, ARRL Laboratory, 225 Main, Newington, CT 06111
203-666-1541 [e-mail]
My electronic posts and email do not necessarily represent the policy
of the ARRL, but I can probably get in trouble for them anyway!

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

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:02:35 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!cnn.exu.ericsson.se!ericom!eua.ericsson.se!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: FTP-able copy of AX.25 standard?
To: [e-mail]

Johnny B. ([e-mail]) wrote:

: I'm too cheap (well, perhaps, "too cheap" is not an
: operative phrase in ham lingo) to buy a book with
: a description of AX.25.  Besides I'm a regulation
: kinda guy, and I would like to have a look at the
: official...(drum roll, please)...

: "American Radio Relay League, Inc., AX. 25 Amateur
: Packet-Radio Link-Layer Protocol, Version 2.0,
: October 1984 (or compatible),"

Well, the "official" version is in the ARRL book, AX.25
Link Layer Protocol. :-) An electronic version is available
from the email server [e-mail] or the ftp site at
oak.oakland.edu arrl area. You need the files ax25-1.doc and
ax25-2.doc (check case at oakland).

: as quoted from my FTP'ed version of Part 97.  I am
: assuming, of course, that my copy of Part 97 is
: citing the most recent revision of AX.25.

We also sell the FCC Rule book, which contains, among other things,
a copy of Part 97. :-).

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed
--
Ed Hare, KA1CV, ARRL Laboratory, 225 Main, Newington, CT 06111
203-666-1541 [e-mail]
My electronic posts and email do not necessarily represent the policy
of the ARRL, but I can probably get in trouble for them anyway!

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

Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 01:35:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!cnn.exu.ericsson.se!ericom!eua.ericsson.se!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: Incentive Licensing (Fire Extinguisher)
To: [e-mail]

Ken A. Nishimura ([e-mail]) wrote:

YYYq: OK, time to put the flames out on this one....

: I retract my suggestion about moving incentive licensing
: to the VHF+ bands.  It was a though based on "if incentive
: licensing is good on HF, how could it be implemented on VHF+"

: Anyhow, in all the discussion, one point still remains....

: Protection of new transmission standards is done through band
: plans, which are constantly under pressure from FM repeaters.
: There is space in 1240 to play NOW, will it be there in 2 years?
: If a frequency coordinator has to make a decision about
: whether to preserve a occassionally used play area and putting 50
: more FM repeaters in, guess who wins?

: Several people have told me that 10GHZ is the place to go.
: Well it is, if the goal is to make a QSO and use equipment
: that is give or take a few MHz.  What about systems that are
: truly spectrum efficient and use complex frequency synthesizers?
: They aren't readily available to the ham community at 10GHz.

: There is plenty of work being done in the commercial world for
: the PCS bands for digital communications that I think would be
: great for ham bands.  They are pushing the state of the art at 1.8
: GHz.  10 GHz is out of the question.  If I make efforts to
: make this work in the ham bands in 1240, is my slice of the spectrum
: going to be there?  I guess what I am looking for is a long
: term commitment from the band planners.  There is 60 MHz
: of spectrum in 1280, all that would probably be needed is 2 MHz
: in a duplex pair, though much work is TDMA simplex....

: Anyhow, if there is going to be any more discussion about this,
: please rename the subject line to "Band Plans of the Future" or
: something like that.

: Apologies to those that were offended.

: Ken
--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

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

Date: 5 Apr 94 16:30:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question about ID'ing...
To: [e-mail]

K7ITM (no name) wrote...

>The copies of FCC regulations I can easily lay my hands on are
>getting a bit old (yeah, I know, I ought to update them), so
>something I'm noticing locally on 440 has me very curious:
>
>What are the current regulations about required identification
>of transmissions from repeaters?  Is there anything band-
>specific in them?
>
>It appears that several local repeaters (including what one
>might call unidirectional cross-band repeaters, used to
>link remote 2m receivers to the 2m repeater they serve) don't
>ever ID, and somehow that doesn't seem right.
>
>73,
>K7ITM

The current regs require that ALL stations ID at least every 10 minutes in
voice
or CW, not to exceed 20 WPM.  ATV (450MHz and above) may ID within the
picture
that they are sending.  SSTV is still required to ID via CW or voice.
 Generally the ID
for a repeater that has a 450 (or whatever) cross link can be done on the
cross link.
That way both the cross link and the main output send the ID.
ex:
146.34/146.94 repeater with an auxiliary receiver somewhere else -
The aux receiver is linked to the main transmitter on 445.10 Mhz.  The
445.10 transmitter sends the ID for the repeater,  thus the transmitter
transmits
the ID for the main repeater (146.34) so that both the 445.10 and 146.34
transmitters
are ID'ed.  One can also have an id on the main transmitter (146.34) also.

If your 2m repeater is not ID'ing, you should let the trustee know.  As far
as I know, they are
in violation of FCC rules.


Kevin (WB5RUE)

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

Date: 5 Apr 94 21:54:53 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!crash!telesoft!ignite![e-mail]
Subject: Question about ID'ing...
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns) writes:
>What are the current regulations about required identification
>of transmissions from repeaters?  Is there anything band-
>specific in them?

Basically every 10 minutes or at the end of a conversation.  No.

>It appears that several local repeaters (including what one
>might call unidirectional cross-band repeaters, used to
>link remote 2m receivers to the 2m repeater they serve) don't
>ever ID, and somehow that doesn't seem right.

Every transmitter must be identified (except space or telecommand stations).

Do you have CTCSS decode programmed on your radio?  If so, it's possible
that the repeater isn't transmitting a PL tone while it ID's.  Some system
do this.

It could also be identifying with Morse code that you aren't hearing on your
radio.  If your radio (or speaker) filters out audio below 300 hz and their
CW ID audio is at 250hz, you won't hear it.

The other possibility is that they just aren't identifying as required.

A lot of dual band radios on the market today have cross band repeat
capability but totally ignore the ID requirements.  I've been trying to
figure out a way to add an ID'er to my TM-742 for cross band repeat but
there doesn't seem to be a way.  I have to ID it manually on both bands.
--GaryM

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

Date: 5 Apr 1994 14:37:04 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!spot![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 40 meter Broadcast QRM

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey D. Angus) writes:
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>  > It's amazing that after years of IARU work we still must, more or less,
>>  > live with the megawatt AM broadcasters.
>>
>>  Yeah, good thing we'd never stoop to that.
>>
>>  I wonder where VOA have their antennas pointed?
>
>The VOA mostly uses remote xmtr sites close to their target countries.
>For example, their bcsts directed to Viet Nam are transmitted from
>a site in the Philippines. Antennas are oriented towards the target
>countries.
>
>Jeff NH6IL


I wonder which countries the (very impressive) VOA site in Delano, CA
that I drove past yesterday transmits to?


--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD 466    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #163
******************************