QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940276.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 25.2 KB

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 04:30:14 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 #276
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue, 21 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  276

Today's Topics:
                       440 in So. Cal. (2 msgs)
               Existing regulations limit our advancem

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: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:37:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Roger Buffington) writes:

>Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: >Come on, Jay.  You knew that.
>
>: I hope YOU knew THAT Roger.
>
>: Dan N8PKV
>: --
>Well of course I did.  I'm the one who wrote it, remember?
>
>Now, do YOU understand that the FCC, which requires all amateurs to
>observe "good amateur practice" considers adherence to coordination
>(including forgoing interfering with a coordinated station) to BE "good
>amateur practice?

Pardon me for being rude;

"Huh???"

If I understand the question, interference is covered specifically in Part
97 (including repeater to repeater interference) the catch all of "good
amateur practice" does not need to be invoked requarding interference.
Coordination is the FCC's way, IMO, to have amateurs reduce amateur to
amateur interference. The "BAND PLAN" is good amateur practice (the FCC
defined that one for me).

If I missunderstood your question I appologize. Could you please rephrase
if so and I will try again.

73,

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:12:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>
>> "So, in essense, a coordinated repeater can have excusive use of a frequency
>> pair in relation to other coordinated repeaters."
>
>> Part 97.101 (b) says;
>
>> "Each station licensse and each control operator must cooperate in
>> selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use
>> of the amateur service frequencies. *No frequency shall be assigned
>> for the exclusive use of any station.*" (emphs added)
>
>Please quote me the relevant part of Part 97 which states that a coordinating
>body must coordinate more than one repeater on a repeater frequency pair.

Since I never said that why do you expect me to defend that comment?

>A coordinating body may decide, as a policy rule, not to coordinate more than
>one machine per frequency pair. Therefore, in relation to any other
>"coordinated" repeater, that repeater has exclusive use of that frequency.

No, it does not. It says that the repeater has exclusive rights to
coordination by that coordination organization. Not exclusive rights to a
frequency. Exclusive rights can NOT be given to a particular station as
that violates Part 97.101.

>(I'll repeat it once more so you can understand, since you appear to be doing
>the same thing you're accusing me of - not reading or not understanding. Please
>read carefully:)
>
>This does not mean that the repeater has exclusive use of the frequency in
>relation to other amateur stations, simply in relation to other repeaters
>coordinated by that coordinating body. Anybody can use the frequencies
>simplex or set up an uncoordinated machine if they so desire.

You said "Therefore, in relation to any other "coordinated" repeater,
that repeater has exclusive use of that frequency." Exclusive use of a
frequency is a direct violation of Part 97.101 in relation to ANT type of
station. Exclusive use is NOT PERMITTED. As to simplex on a repeater pair
it is a violation, also of Part 97.101.

>> >My statement stands, and is correct. In relation to other coordinated
>> >repeaters, a repeater can have exclusive use of a frequency because a
>> >coordinating body may decide not to coordinate more than one machine per
>> >frequency.
>
>> Coordination does NOT equal exclusive use. You are wrong again. Why not
>> just give up instead of PROVING how wrong you can be.
>
>Please contemplate the following phrase: IN RELATION TO OTHER COORDINATED
>REPEATERS...
>
>Since a coordinating body may only coordinate one repeater per pair,
>that body has decided the exclusive issue for you, haven't they.

They still do not have exclusive use of anything except the coordination
from THAT PARTICULAR body, certinly NOT exclusive use of the frequency.

>> This is WRONG as it is directly a violation of part 97! You can NOT give
>> exclusive use to any station.
>
>WRONG! IN RELATION TO OTHER COORDINATED REPEATERS.

You confuse coordination with frequencies. You are right, the theory tests
are badly in need of updating if you are making that mistake. A frequency
is a particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum. A coordination is a
paper issued by a coordinating body. They are not analogus. If you insist
calling an apple an orange don't expect me (or others) to understand.
Again you delibertly miss state things to argue. Read a good book on
electronics before you continue to argue that coordination is a frequency.
I suggest Now You're Talking by the ARRL. After you finish that come back,
you MAY have an intelegent comment to make (I doubt it, but stranger
things have happened. Klinton got elected president, anything is
possible).

Now repeater W1W is coordinated by the Ohio Coordination Group, next door
N1N is coordinated by the US Coordination Councle. Both on the same
frequency, both coordinated, both leagle, both coordinated on the same day
at the same exact second. Which one has (in your words) "inated" repeater,
that repeater has exclusive use of that frequency. Which repeater has, in
your words, "exclusive use of that frequency" in relation to the other,
coordinated, repeater?

Guess what, you're wrong again, but you knew that already. (Or is it brain
dammage from beeping at yourself?)

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 01:44:09 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!mixcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Existing regulations limit our advancem
To: [e-mail]

In <2u4ubt$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dana Myers ) writes:

>I'm not saying we shouldn't use amateur radio for many purposes, I'm just
>pointing out the danger of making amateur radio too appealing as an
>alternative to the other commercial radio services.

Currently, IMO, there is NO danger!   ;-)

I'll limit my use of digital
encryption: the cypher key is only known to members of the "closed digital
repeater club".  And, obviously, the system trustee.  There also is a bit
of a difference between using a "somewhat secure" autopatch for a rare
call to your boss and REGULARLY conducting daily business operations over
the same patch.  I see no reason, even today, why you should not be able
to use the autopatch to tell your boss your stuck in a traffic jam.  Such
an occurance is relatively minor and is not enhancing or benefitting
the employer's operations on a regular basis.

I don't see a great deal of difference in using the patch to
order a pizza or calling a financial instutution (or your family physician)
to set up an appointment.  Again, I am assuming a digital system here,
used on a more or less closed basis among members of a private repeater
club.

What if direct sequence spread spectrum repeaters and radios (or CDMA)
were a reality for amateur radio?  Think of what a private repeater
club could do if the radios had a user configurable spreading code (pseudo
noise).  Trouble with a regular jammer?  Change everyone's radio and the
repeater to the new code at the next meeting.

While hams who were NOT members could not monitor the signal, it would still
be the responsibilty of the system control operator, trustee and the regular
users to abide by the rules of amateur radio.

Basically, I am in favor of relaxing the rules to the point where there
would be greater demand for integrating a variety of services such as
digitized voice, voice mail, paging, etc AMONG THE AMATEUR COMMUNITY
and perhaps immediate family members.  I am not at all in favor of
opening this up to every small businessman who passes the no-code
technician test!

>>In the first few paragraphs of the initial post, I referred to integrated
>>digital systems from cellular carriers.  I guess when I broke up the
>>amateur equivalent into individual examples, it was not obvious that I
>>was referring to integrated digital amateur systems to accomplish all
>>of the given examples.  Sorry about that.

>OK... it might be interesting for amateurs to demonstrate integrated
>voice/data services via a cellular infrastructure.  If so, we better
>hurry... :-)

In all honesty, I don't think we CAN catch up.  Assumimg we (as a whole)
cannot catch up or remain technically competent, should the technology
(and associated band space) be allowed to "trickle down" to radio amateurs
as the cost of these systems drop?


>>Again, why do you not make this same argument for every other aspect
>>of amateur radio.  Why are integrated digital service bad but anything
>>analog is good?

>I'm not arguing against integrated voice/data services.  I'm suggesting that
>Part 97 forbids us from using amateur radio as an alternative to other
>appropriate radio services.  If you want to yak with non-amateurs, there's
>cellular telephones.

I was making the reverse autopatch analogy.  So long as a licensed radio
amateur is involved, I feel it should be allowed.  If my wife wants to
contact me via some amateur network, I feel it is ok.  If she want's to
call someone else who, like her, does NOT have a licence, then it should
NOT be allowed.


Thanks for your comments, Dana.

--
  /`-_           [e-mail]  |  Vote Libertarian!
 {     }/                                 |
  \    /      N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio  |  Call 1-800-682-1776
   |__*|   N9SQB @ WA9POV.#MKE.WI.USA.NA  |  for more information.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 04:12:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2u4l5i$[e-mail]>¼
Subject : Re: CW - THE ONLY MODE!

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

{SNIP}

>Thus, the truth is, OOK or CW is NOT the most efficient manner in
>terms of power (and is not the most spectrally efficient either), but
>in terms of sending and receiving complexity, it is by for the simplest,
>thus accounting for its popularity.  (Fiber optics make use of OOK
>all the time for the same reason.)
>
>
>                    -Ken

Hummmm, UC at Berkeley? Why am I not supprised with the origin of this
post? Thank you Ken. You did a thousand times better explaining that then
I could have even dreamed!

73,

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 07:17:28 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■ù
Subject : Re: Question about Radar Jamming

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>>It's no wonder auto insurance is so costly in SoCal with lunatics like this
>>on the road. Why be so proud about breaking the law? Stay under the speed
>>limit and save a  life or two.
>>
>>Jeff NH6IL (an ex-fireman from SoCal who has seen, many dozens of times, the
>>            end result of a speeding motorist fly through a windshield at
>>            70 mph. Quite nauseating to have to pick up the pieces.)
>
>You *should* know then that the roads with the highest speed limits have
>the lowest fatality rates.

Really? Not in the county I worked. Orange County is not Hicksville,
GA with a hundred mile stretch of road and cactus. Our roads with the
highest speeds are crowded freeways with speeding motorists weaving
between one lane and another. The end result is always a mess with
broken bodies. Ever see someone with their steering column through
their chest? The CHP estimated he was going 90+. He killed a family
of four in the car he hit. In another speeding incident the driver
was decapitated; that was the first TC (but not the last) where I
vomitted when we returned to the fire station.

You can take your `facts' and your radar detector and shove them up
your okole (look that up in a Hawaiian dictionary). In your selfish
desire to justify speeding you've forgotten about the innocent lives
that you'll kill or maim when you eventually have an accident. Feel
free to speed into a tree or a guardrail or a cement column on a
freeway but do try to avoid the other motorists.

Jeff NH6IL ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 04:16:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■â
Subject : Re: CW - THE ONLY MODE!

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>I'm curious about something that might seem completely unrelated to the
>code vs no-code debate: Most 4-year colleges/universities still require
>2 years of a foreign language. Those of you who believe that code is
>outdated and/or shouldn't be given the present weight it enjoys on
>the amateur exams, please ask yourself the following: Is this 2-year
>foreign language requirement outdated  in that there are other necessary
>skills required for students to master in order to be ready for today's
>work-force upon graduation?
>
So you are saying that wetware morse decryption is unrelated to amateur
radio and RF in general (the degree) and is added to the ciriculum
(testing) to add breadth? What an admission Jeff!

>No need to respond to the net, but I would bet my terminal that there is
>a corrolation in viewpoints with regard to the two above-mentioned
>`unrelated' topics.

Sorry my friend, I just had too!!!  :-)

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:58:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2u5i8n$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:

>Ed Ellers ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> writes:
>:
>: >Ed, you keep insisting to use the term 'open' on a policy forum. There is
>: >no such thing as an open repeater. I seriously doubt that ANY trustee
>: >would allow his repeater to be truly 'open'.
>: >
>: >Since there is little differance between what you refer to as 'open' and
>: >'closed', and NO leagle differance, I can't see why you insist on using
>: >that ters (as it is very misleading and inaccurate).
>:
>: Then I guess the dozen or so carrier-operated, no-tone-needed repeaters I'm
>: able to use in the Louisville area -- with no prior consent needed from the
>: licensees -- don't really exist, huh?
>
>I find your policy discussion quite amusing as there are several local
>repeaters listed as closed in the directory that run in the carrier
>squelch mode most of the time.

Just what I said. Open refers to carrier operated squelch.

>Maybe the only repeaters that are open are the repeaters that have no
>squelch circuit at all. Just a lot of white noise punctuated by the
>babblings from Dan. You must agree the squelch circuit closes the
>repeater.

No, the squelch circut closes the RECIEVER, not the repeater. Wanna try
again? You'll loose!

>OH WELL ....  Just trying for the perfect squelch      ;)

(Anti Flame mode on)

(My rude and obnoxious response has been deleted, use your imagination.)

(Anti Flame mode off)

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:48:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2u3aea$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

[e-mail] (Roger Buffington) writes:

>Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>SNIP
>
>(Referring to the ARRL Repeater book.)
>:
>: Now, it seems that the term "open" is refering to "HOW REPEATERS MAY BE
>: ACCESSED" and not the relitive 'public use' of the repeater. The term
>: "OPEN" as used in the ARRL repeater book is stating that the normal state
>: of the repeater is in carrier operated squelch, NOT that it is open to
>: general use. The term closed is used to indicate a private repeater.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>: Please note that 'p' is used to indicate packet so it could not be used to
>: mean private. If particular coordinating bodies misuse the term, neither
>: the ARRL nor I can be responsible for that.
>
>: Did you know that the ARRL RULE BOOK points out that ALL repeater
>: operators can limit access to their repeater? (That in effect, there is no
>: such thing as an "open repeater".)
>
>: Now we can use the term 'open' correctly , to mean a carrier operated
>: squelch system.
>
>:
>: Dan N8PKV
>: --
>
>Wrong.  Quite simply, wrong.  That's not what it means at all.  "Closed"
>in the book means exactly what those in this thread have claimed it
>meant: i.e. restricted access of one type or another.

Part of my commets that you deleted said

c  - Closed, private system

Which of those three words did you not understand?

I said "OPEN" refers to "usually carrier squelch". How you got from there
to a comment about closed not meaning private I do not know since I said
EXACTLY that. A closed system means PRIVATE. See above from your quote of
my comments.

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:32:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2u3aea$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2u4g5u$[e-mail]>■í
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:

>Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:
>: NOTES - How repeaters may be accessed and other specialized features are
>: indicated by the following abbreviations:
>
>: o  - open (usually carrier-operated)
>: bi - Bi-lingual
>: c  - Closed, private system
>: t  - Tone-access (CTCSS tone) tone required to access.
>:      Standard EIA are listed on page 54.
>: tt - Touch-Tone access to specialized repeater functions.
>:
>: End Quote.
>:
>
>: Did you know that the ARRL RULE BOOK points out that ALL repeater
>: operators can limit access to their repeater? (That in effect, there is no
>: such thing as an "open repeater".)
>
>: ⁿNow we can use the term 'open' correctly , to mean a carrier operated
>: squelch system.
>
>There are hundreds of OPEN repeaters here in California breaking Your
>law. This is a matter of local policy. These OPEN repeater groups have
>found that using ctcss tone access they can limit access to Any amateur
>that wants to access just Their repeater and not another near by repeater.
>
>I sure hope Your policy would allow good OPEN repeaters that have
>operated in the finest tradition to enhance their operations by using
>state of the art technology to limit access to only those stations
>wishing to use the repeater.
>
>What is Your policy on CLOSED repeaters that list their ctcss tone?
>
>I would suggest that ctcss tone access does not close a repeater, it
>enhances the operation of the repeater for everyone.
>
>Dan   I have allways felt that open and closed were too limiting in
>describing the operating charactoristics of the repeater group. Would you
>care to add any new designators or definitions to repeater access that
>would make it clear to an average amateur user of repeaters.
>
>Your logic seems to indicate that all public roads are closed as there is
>a speed limit.
>
>Bob

You carefully deleted the part where I said I was QUOTING the ARRL
repeater directory, in response to a comment about the repeater directory.
I made no comments about MY policy or MY way of doing things in the
message you quoted. My comments pertained to MY opinion of the ARRL
publication and their way of describing things. Please read more
carefully before you post.

By the way, your editing of my post to try and get me to say something I
did not was well attempted. However, IMHO, I think you failed, but there is
always next time.

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 07:42:47 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■ù
Subject : Re: Question about Radar Jamming

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Despite government propaganda, speed doesn't kill,
>it's those sudden stops that get you.

What a comical statement. Those sudden stops wouldn't be so sudden if
one weren't speeding.

>Most fatalities occur within 10 miles
>of home, on surface streets, at speeds of less than 40 MPH, caused by people
>failing to pay attention to traffic, often because they're drunk.

Tell that to the commuters on the SoCal freeways - many of whom drive
over 120 miles each day - sober.

>Buy a clue,

Better idea: Ride along with a paramedic team in one of your larger
cities rather than spewing these `averages'. While you were sit-
ting home reading your magazines I was out on those roads trying to
piece speeders back together again. On one TC we spent 45 minutes
searching a field beside the freeway for an arm. CHP estimated he
was traveling 95 on the offramp.

>55 MPH speed limits on roads engineered for 70 MPH are going to be ignored by
>a sizable fraction of drivers.

May they rest in peace.


Jeff NH6IL ([e-mail])

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #276
******************************