QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940205.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27KB

Date: Sun, 15 May 94 04:30:11 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 #205
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sun, 15 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  205

Today's Topics:
                  FCC/VE exams overseas - problems?
               Question abt Digital Modulation Legality
                        Question Pool - Where?

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: Sun, 15 May 1994 09:52:32 +0000
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!demon!g8sjp.demon.co.uk![e-mail]
Subject: FCC/VE exams overseas - problems?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] "Sandy Lynch" writes:

> Potential flaws in the VE Exam system??
>
> A question was raised recently as to whether or not non-citizens of
> the USA are eligible for US ham licenses; they are.  The question
> reminded me of one of the peculiarities of the current VE system.
> The bottom line is that it seems possible for the following to occur:
>
>    1.  US exam sessions can and do occur outside of the USA.
>           (i.e. out of direct US legal jurisdiction)

Actually, I don't see any (particular) relevance to *who's* legal jurisdiction
a VE session is held under. In the final analysis, the VE's are directly
answerable to their VEC, and also by definition to the FCC. Geography isn't
an issue.

>    2.  The "question pool" can (I think) be translated into a foreign
>        language (i.e. non-English). I see no requirement that says
>        the language of the exam MUST be English, nor that any translation
>        MUST be certified or accredited by the VECs or the FCC.  The
>        requirement "may" exist, but I haven't seen it, yet.

Like yourself, I see no requirement for the exam to be in English. If that
*were* the case, all the question pools would be invalid :-)

>    3.  "Accredited" VEs can be non-US citizens/permanent residents.

True. What of it?

>    4.  Applicants can be non-US citizens/permanent residents.

True. What of it? Perhaps we should examine the motivation behind an
an application by a non-US citizen for an FCC Amateur license. It is my
understanding that a large number of these are, in fact, British. And the
profile of these applicants is interesting, too.

On the whole, they will have already qualified (some time ago) for either a
U.K. Amateur Licence 'A' or 'B' - with 'A' being roughly equivalent to
General, but also including a 12 WPM code sending test. The 'B' licence
requires the same passes in the written papers, but does not include any
code requirements. Nearly the same as a Technician, but not quite :-)

As you will know, on an annual basis, the U.K. exports quite a lot of a)
money and b) tourists to Florida and California (plus some other places),
and a number of these will be amateur radio enthusiasts, who would find the
availability of a dual band HT an useful asset on their trip(s) to the U.S.

All these folks have to do is to file a Form 610A and apply for a reciprocal
permit (actually, it says an Alien permit, but we're fresh out of UFO's
right now ...). The *problem* with that strategy is this: that permit is
valid for one (rather than ten) year, and allows the operator privileges
which he *would* have on his home soil, where these are less than or equal
to those privileges available to an equivalent U.S. license class. For U.K.
amateurs this means: 50-52MHz, 144-146MHz, *no* 220MHz, 430-431MHz, 432-440
MHz. I'm sure if you consider what these allocations mean, you'll realise
that a reciprocal permit is in fact less than useful to a British amateur.

>    5.  Successful applicants can receive US licenses without ever once
>        setting foot on US soil; that is, being directly subject to US
>        legal jurisdiction.

Yes, that can happen. but *why* would it happen? Let's assume that I have a
desire to spend 3 months travelling the U.S. for a vacation. When I arrive,
I'd like to buy an R.V. and install a mobile rig in order to chat to local
folks whilst on my travels. Given the frequency restrictions (necessarily)
imposed by the reciprocal permit, it would be really useful if I had a
"proper" FCC license when I arrived on U.S. soil. Yes - I *know* that there
are frequent walk-in testing sessions, but with the turn-around time at the
VEC/FCC, and the fact that I'm (notionally) planning to be on the move the
whole time, how do I obtain a license if I don't arrive with it already in
my possesion?

> Question:  How many other countries in the world would permit foreign
> nationals, on foreign soil, to administer exams for amateur licenses
> (or any other license) in, potentially, a foreign language without
> the requirement to have "approved" translations?  Think of it.  There
> is absolutely nothing that the FCC nor the US law enforcement or judicial
> system can do .... except maybe revoke somebody's license.  No penalties,
> no potential jail terms, etc.

Well ... there is an interesting, if not contentious question! I can't speak
meaningfully about the licensing strategy of countries other than the U.S.
and the U.K., but .... The U.K. Radiocommunications Agency (FCC-equivalent)
grants franchises for amateur licensing testing to "appropriate applicants".
This is proably effectively an identical strategy to that employed by the
FCC, who have seen fit (under their rule making processes) to grant a
number of franchises to various VEC organizations. Here in the U.K., there
are only two such organizations - the R.S.G.B. have the franchise for
supplying Morse code testing, while the City and Guilds of London Institute
have the franchise for the written testing. The result? On almost any given
day, you could go somewhere in the U.K. and take a code test, with the
proviso that you would *usually* be expected to book in advance (around one
month). The written tests are a different, sad story. You'll need to book
many months in advance, for one of only *two* (or is it three??) dates in
the year, for a test at a restricted number of sites.

What would make life fun would be this: when the C&G's franchise expires, the
ARRL (and possibly W5YI) ought to apply to take it over. As I understand it,
the decision criteria is based only upon the suitablity of the examination
syllabus. It is my belief that, on the basis of the VEC program's success,
that the U.K. authorities might well be persuaded to adopt this approach.

> Discussion:
> BEFORE anybody gets excited and thinks I am xenophobic on this, I'm just
> raising the subject as a matter of "potential" abuse.  I have coordinated
> quite a number of ARRL/VEC test sessions in Japan - and yes - I've also
> used a Japanese VE.  (Never mind that this fellow is/was also instrumental
> in facilitating "reciprocal licenses").  And, my XYL took the exam (not
> from me) even though she was/is not a US citizen nor permanent resident.

Well, a story with a happy ending :-) I'm not a U.S. citizen. I am an ARRL
accredited Extra Class VE. I took my tests in Rochester, NY. What is it about
that you think could bring abuse into any test sessions at which I serve? In
any case, I'm sure that the immigration folks whould take me to one side and
attempt to hold a deep and meaningful discussion on the subject of any
misdemeanours I may be accused of upon my arrival in the U.S. for one of my
frequent business trips :-)

> I am also aware that in Europe CEPT licenses are available to citizens
> (and maybe others?) of the European Community to operate thruout the EC.
> That's NOT exactly the same as having Germans giving exams in Germans
> for individuals to receive FRENCH operator/station licenses, is it?

Actually, a CEPT license is more of a "reciprocal without paperwork" than
what you've imagined. A few extracts from the rules, as applied to U.K.
licensees:
    "CEPT Amateurs shall comply with the terms of their CEPT equivalent
    licence, unless such compliance would result in a breach of the
    requirements of the United Kingdom."
  and
       "CEPT Amateurs who possess the equivalent of a CEPT Class 2 licence
    shall use only those frequencies above 144MHz ....."
  and
       "The licensee shall be a temporary visitor and non-resident in the
    host country ..."

I've already discussed the U.K. franchise situation. Let's put the boot on
the other foot for a few moments. Here, the code tests are organized by the
R.S.G.B., who have appointed a number of Senior Morse Examiners - one for
each county (London is an exception - it is further divided into North and
South). These folks are described as "Senior County Morse Examiners". The
qualifications necessary for this "job" (it's a volunteer position ...)
are simple: 100% copy of 5 minutes at minimum 20 WPM. 100% sending for 5
minutes at 12 WPM on a straight key. Applicants must have a suitable
disposition towards their task and the test candidates. Morse examiners are
not required to be British citizens. Morse examiners are not required to be
British residents. Morse examiners are not required to hold an amateur radio
license of *any* description. Morse examiners are not required to be members
of the R.S.G.B. Simple.

Thereafter, it is the responsibility of the Senior County Morse Examiner to
recruit and select appropriate "County Morse Examiners", according to
identical selection criteria. In order to gain a "pass" for the U.K. code
test, there have two be two examiners present, who must agree that you "made
the grade". A simple, effective process. As you can see, the Senior County
Examiner has a lot of latitude to abuse the testing process if he/she should
desire to.

So ... where's this all lead? Up until a few weeks ago, one of our Senior
Morse Examiners was an American citizen. He's now finished his assignment
here in the U.K. and returned home. How do you suppose, in the event that
we discover he had abused our system, we could hold him accountable? Well,
we couldn't - simple as that. I'm not bothered, either. And I'm not bothered
for these reasons:
    * I can read and send Morse code far in excess of the requirements
          to be a U.K. Senior Morse Examiner
    * I *am* a U.K. Senior Morse Examiner (adjoining county)
    * I personally knew this chap, and trusted his integrity

> Another point is that in some countries (i.e. Japan), a Japanese citizen
> with an Extra Class license from the USA will be automatically eligible
> to receive a 1st Class Japanese license ..... even though the Japanese
> exam is considerably more difficult from both the technical AND CW
> requirement perspective.  So,  a situation can/may develop whereby
> JA operators (among the finest in the world, I might add), may flock to
> VE sessions in Japan and sign up for calls in KH6, KH0, KH2, etc.  This
> is not altogether bad ..... but there has been some discussion of late
> concerning "Vanity Calls" in the USA and how residents of Hawaii have
> discovered that all the "prime" extra class calls have been allocated ...
> ... and many of those to non-Hawaii residents (mainlanders and foreigners).

But where are they going to use these KHx calls? I have zero idea of the
license regulations in JA-land. But I do know that if I attempted to sign
G/N2TLY, it wouldn't be long before the radio police jumped on me, asking
to see my reciprocal permit. Of course, they will *not* issue reciprocal
permits to British citizens ...

> My personal perspective is that reciprocal licensing should be made as
> "universal" as possible.  I would much rather be JA1/WA6BXH rather than
> the fairly unique 7J1ABV - which also is distinctive to foreign hams only.
> However, there is a certain amount of appeal and prestige felt by many
> hams overseas (this I KNOW) who take great pride in collecting the
> wallpaper (foreign license) that they will never actuallyl use.

I agree with your perspective. However, we are not even off of the starting
grid yet .... CEPT, as I have demonstrated, is a paperwork reduction
excercise rather than a universal license. I have a number of calls for
different parts of the world. Each call I hold has been activated (at some
time or other) in the country it was issued for. I wouldn't have it any other
way - the associated paperwork and processes are just too difficult otherwise!

> Is this a problem?  Should anything be done about it?
> I raise the issue simply as a discussion topic.  I am not necessarily
> advocating a particular position, nor am I offering a solution (yet).
> I am just curious to see if there is any interest in the topic.

In my opinion, no, and no.

--
Iain Philipps

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

Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 09:56:44 -0400
From: ftpbox!mothost!lmpsbbs!NewsWatcher![e-mail]
Subject: Question abt Digital Modulation Legality
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John J. Ernandez) wrote:

>
>     Are modulation formts like QPSK,QAM,or GMSK permitted in the amateur
> VHF/UHF and microwave bands? If so, what part of the Rules&Regs cover this
> topic?
>

John, the Amateur Radio Service rules & regs are Part 97. The specific
sections that you will want to read are:

97.305  Authorized emission types
97.307  Emission Standards
97.309  RTTY and Data emission codes

The FCC regulates the bandwidth and "language," but not the specific
modulation format of data transmissions. Thus you can send a message
using GMSK on 223.500 MHz but you must use 5-level Murray with ITA#2,
CCIR 476 or 625, orANSI X3.4-1977. Note that 8-bit ASCII is NOT
included, which technically disallows standard 8-bit binary file
transfers. The symbol rate cannot exceed 56 kBps and the bandwidth
cannot exceed 100 kHz

> Thanks in advance
>
> --
> John J. Ernandez
> Communication Systems Engineer
> Public Broadcasting Service
>
> E-Mail [e-mail]    Member:PRR Technical & Historical Society
> Phone: [phone]                Southern Railway Historical Association
> Amateur Radio: KA2YAP

--
Karl Beckman, P.E.         < The difference between genius and stupidity >
Motorola LMPS- Analog Data < is that genius has its limits.     -Unknown >

The statements and opinions expressed here are not those of Motorola Inc.
Amateur radio WA8NVW @ K8MR.NEOH.USA.NA         NavyMARS VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI

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

Date: 14 May 1994 16:28:06 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news.ans.net!rainbow.sosi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Question Pool - Where?
To: [e-mail]

Hi all,

Is there by chance a FTP site where the latest question pool
 is kept for technician class license.

I am also looking for recommendations for a code practicing program.
Windows version preferred.


Thanks

 ___________________________________________________________

   John P. Morphet                         [e-mail]
   Advanced Systems                     voice [phone]
   Colorado Springs, CO., USA           fax   [phone]
 ___________________________________________________________

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

Date: 13 May 1994 00:38:24 GMT
From: parc!biosci!agate!kabuki.EECS.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2qp6r0$[e-mail]>, <hawley.768683905@aries>, <1994May12.150314.3237@eisner>■Æ
Subject : Re: Newbie WARNING to fellow Newbies

In article <1994May12.150314.3237@eisner>,
Michael D Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Although this discussion is better carried out in policies newsgroup, when I
>was a ham in Indiana I was told to only have one ear covered. Also, at the
>time, it was STRONGLY reccommended that we carry a photocopy of our license
>with us at all times even if we had ham plates on the car. Sometimes that
>little piece of paper with an FCC seal on it helps convince the local deputy
>that you are legit.
>
>
>Mike
>KF9VC

Hmm... I think this recommendation is kinda moot, since we all follow
the FCC rules to the letter, which states:

  97.9 Operator license. - (a) There are 5 classes of operator li-
  censes: Novice, Technician, General, Advanced and Amateur Extra.  An oper-
  ator license authorizes the holder to be the control operator of a station
  with the privileges of the operator class specified on the license.  The
  license document or a photocopy thereof must be in the personal possession
  of the licensee at all times when the person is the control operator of a
  station.

Looks like driving a car or not, you have better have that little piece
of paper with an FCC seal on it.  The Candy Company may have a field
day with you if you don't :-)


Ken

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

Date: 14 May 94 16:06:10 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

kevin jessup <[e-mail]> writes:

>I am an EE involved in systems design and DSP.  The issue is not what
>is a challenge for EEs, but your post stating that there should be
>even further code speed tests/amateur_classes beyond 20 WPM. I
>simply suggested that a little more emphasis on theory would be
>more appropriate.  Apparently even you, a fellow engineer, feel
>the CW over theory mentality is well and good.  Sorry I brought
>up the subject.

No, that's not quite my position.  What I'm saying is that I think
the licensing tests should emphasize operating skills and only those
technical skills directly supporting operations.

I'm told that in the early days of the automobile, to get a driver's
license, one had to demonstrate the ability to repair the engine.  We
can laugh about that now, but at the time, it probably made sense, since
cars of the time probably did break down constantly and if the driver
couldn't fix it, you have to wonder who might be around who could.

OTOH, we do require (minimally, I admit) more operating skills today.
Can you parallel park?  Can you recognize the road signs?  I doubt
these were part of the test 80 years ago.

Amateur radio has gone thru a similar transformation from an age where
if you didn't build it yourself, you didn't have it to one where most
of the equipment is a maze of microprocessors, ASIC's and multilayer
boards.

The technical skills that make sense to insist on today are not those
related to circuit design.  They are things like understanding bandwidth,
coding techniques, propogation, EMI, safety & health, and fundamentals
related to those few areas (such as antennas) where it is still practical
(or even necessary, in case of emergency) for amateurs to routinely construct
their own equipment.  There should be a link between any requirement for
theoretical credentials and the actual operations problems an amateur
really will face.

When you and other complained about my suggestion for an "Extra-Extra"
class, I think you focused too sharply on the possibility it might
carry an even higher code requirement.  That was only part of what I said.
The other part was that it might also involve demonstration of special
skills in emergency response.

As I said in another message, let's keep in mind this is the Amateur
Radio Service and I believe we must take that third word seriously.  Does
it really matter whether anyone knows the difference between an NPN
and a PNP?  OTOH, I think it does matter whether any of us might be able
to do the right thing in case of emergency.  Would you be able to function
as a net control?   If you suddenly heard an emergency cry for help,
how good would your response be?  Would you get all the right information
copied down (correctly!) and to the right people in seconds? or would
it be minutes?  If your life was in danger, would you feel safe if the
guy on the other end had just exactly your level of preparedness?

Frankly, I admit I do not have the operating skills I'm describing here
and my guess is that neither do most of us.  Yet it is the operating
skills, not the (minimal) technical abilities we could expect of an
amateur that justify our service.  This is why I believe incentive
licensing should focus on operations (and yes, including CW), not
theory.

Regards,
Doug Hamilton    KD1UJ    [e-mail]    Ph 508-358-5715
Hamilton Laboratories, 13 Old Farm Road, Wayland, MA  01778-3117, USA

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

Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 01:09:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!modem110.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■ú
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

kevin jessup <[e-mail]> writes:

>BTW, why are ALL the contests related to making contacts.  Why
>are there no theory contests?  Why is ALL the prestige in amateur
>radio associated with code, contacts and contests?

How about a contest where after a regular two day cantest instead of
submitting your logs you submit the name and call of the ten best operators
you contacted during the two days.  this way the more contacts you make the
greaterr your chances of winning, but you can't just exchange calls or the guy
won't list you.  The thing to do is to make brief, polite meaningful exchanges
that are likely to get you on someone elses submissions.  The person who shows
up most often wins.

any takers?,
Dan
=========================================================================
Dan Todd       [e-mail]           kc6uud@ke6lw.#nocal.ca.us.na
Charter Member: Dummies for UNIX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When radios are outlawed, only outlaws will have radios
- David R. Tucker on rec.radio.amateur.policy
==========================================================================

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

Date: 11 May 94 01:30:09 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!mixcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2qfp70$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2qneiu$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Gilder's Concerns

In <2qneiu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kein{nen Paul) writes:

>kevin jessup <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> True.  This assumes you are not allowed to change the "center frequency"
>> about which you "spread" your signal.

>If you change your modulation parameters, you have to make sure that
>every other station you are communicating with knows what you are doing.
>You have to have constant full duplex contact with all station involved.
>In a master/slave configuration (base station/mobile stations) this is
>not a big problem, as only the base station has to know that you are
>changing the modulation parameters, but in a round-table environment
>(radio-LAN) you get a lot of problems.

Yes.  A repeater makes a good master.  Finding where it might
be in it's spreading sequence or where it's sin(x)/x curve originates
would, however, pose a bit of a problem to those tuning in for the
first time, but we'll get it figured out. :-))

For me, the most interesting aspect of SS is the synchronization/correlation
problem.

>However, this soft limiting forces _all_ services to reduce their
>cell sizes, even if the traffic load for that particular service
>would not justify reducing the cell size. Assuming that amateur
>spread spectrum systems share a large SS-band (such as 900 MHz).
>Can the amateur community build and maintain such a large number
>of base stations in large cities, where there is a large demand
>for commercial spread spectrum services and consequently, the cell
>size has to be small.

Well, I cannot argue with that!  Around here, some repeater clubs
find simple remote receive sites just too complex! ;-)


>On HF the conditions are much more stable than in a microwave
>mobile system and thus it should be easier to adopt some "smart"
>system.

Some of us are already having HF QSO's using FH.  Want our
hopping sequence?  So far, there are only five of us in the net.
The more the merrier.  :-)))))


>However, I am afraid that the radio amateur community is not ready
>for such "outrageus" ideas.

They're too busy learning code.  Oops...there I go again. ;-))

Looks like we're the only ones in the discussion here.  I was
hoping some more would join in.  Want to take it to Email??

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

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

Date: 14 May 94 14:25:58 -0500
From: yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.tufts.edu!news.hnrc.tufts.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>net
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (hamilton on BIX) writes:
> [e-mail] (Daniel D. Todd) writes:
>
>>No, that is not true, I worked on Super Morse for two months straight, 1/2
>>and hour a day, every day, and I still can't copy 10 much less 13 wpm.  And
>>here I am with my advanced csce.
>
> I started with SuperMorse and I will say that it did work to help teach
> me the individual characters.  But beyond that initial step, it just
> didn't work for me.  It seemed like I was getting good at pressing keys
> but without having any clue what the code was.  It certainly wasn't
> helping me develop any ability to copy on paper and know what I was
> copying.

Just out of curiosity, which version?  4.10 generates random QSO with changing
templates (e.g, one time it will be "My name is . . .", next time it might be
"Name hr is . . . ", and other variants.  Sometimes it's WX; other times
"weather", and so on.)

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #205
******************************