QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940166.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 10.0 KB

Date: Sat,  9 Apr 94 04:30:15 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 #166
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sat,  9 Apr 94       Volume 94 : Issue  166

Today's Topics:
                                (none)
                  Amateur Forwarding Rules Ammended
                 CB interference and FCC...need help

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: 8 Apr 94 19:28:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (none)
To: [e-mail]

Interest in discussion of packet radio and responsibility of message
forwarding especially using VHF to HF gateways.  Please respond for further
details...
Tnx, Jerry K4KBL

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

Date: 7 Apr 94 22:18:52 GMT
From: news.mentorg.com!hpbab33.mentorg.com!wv.mentorg.com![e-mail]
Subject: Amateur Forwarding Rules Ammended
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> [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.

Already available, but not applied to normal user login, only to "remote
sysop" capabilities. Guess we authors will have to turn that code on now.

Um ... there is just this one little problem ...
user authentication  will require a change to the message forwarding protocol.

   ...  Hank

|> --
|> 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

--

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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 15:16:31 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!adec23![e-mail]
Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:

>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.

In fact, the higher the antenna tower, if set up correctly, the *less*
chance of interference ...

Ciao -- 73 de VE6MGS/Mark -sk-

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

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 20:27:30 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2ntkaq$[e-mail]>ar
Subject : Re: CB interference and FCC...need help

Douglas Dever ([e-mail]) wrote:

: 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 the runaround.
: >: The CBer is interferng with her phone, television, and radios.

: >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."

Gosh, I really was only trying to help. I don't know what I did
to deserve this kind of response.

: 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.

Actually, it is not the OO I am talking about; it is the section
Technical Coordinator, Technical Specialist or local-club RFI
Committee. These volunteers often go into the field, work with
a ham and the ham's neighbor to identify and cure RFI problems.
I think some of your feeling of powerlessness stems from a lack
of complete knowledge of the roles of each of these types of
volunteers.

Reading between the insults, you are right; interference
will continue to plague the Amateur Radio and other Services until
the FCC can be persuaded to act on the real problem -- the
susceptibility of consumer-electronic equipment. Roanoke Division
Vice Director Dennis Bodson has been added as Board Liaison to
the ARRL RFI Task Group. Dennis brings years of experience with
standards bodies. We are having ongoing discussions on how we
can get things more on track. We have a long ways to go, but
it is a fight I am willing to fight. I am, of course, open to
help and suggestions from anyone who can offer some sound advice.

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: 8 Apr 94 14:31:28 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!adec23![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2ntkaq$[e-mail]>s.
Subject : Re: CB interference and FCC...need help

[e-mail] (Douglas Dever) writes:
>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.

Oh realy, are they realy powerless at trying to solve an RFI problem? What,
you want a bunch of people trying to get another bunch of people in jail, or
do you want the problem solved? Which is it?

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

A Telephone is not designed to receive and demodulate RF, please tell me why
one should `demand his rig at gunpoint' to solve this one (a set of capacitors
can do the trick normally).

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

Reality seems to be an issue hard to grasp ...

Ciao 73 de VE6MGS/Mark -sk-

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

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 01:36:52 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2o0t12$[e-mail]>■p
Subject : Re: 40 meter Broadcast QRM

In article <2o0t12$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CONTRACTOR Larry Keith;653 CCSG/SCT) writes:
>Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: The VOA mostly uses remote xmtr sites close to their target countries.
>
>
>I wonder where the VOA antennas located between Dayton and Cincinnati,
>Ohio are pointed?
>
>Larry, KQ4BY

``The VOA ***MOSTLY*** uses ....''  does not preclude them using state-side
xmtrs. But it is much more efficient to use remote sites. Could the Dayton
and Cincinnati sites be relay stations?

Jeff NH6IL

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #166
******************************