QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940315.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 23.7 KB

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 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 #315
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Mon, 18 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  315

Today's Topics:
                      11 meters taking it back!!
                        3rd Party Traffic?????
                         Does CW as a pre-req
                     Emergency TX on police freq.
                    Home address or PO box on 610
                            Instead of CW
                         Re: CW ... My view.
                        Thoughts on CW testing

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: 15 Jul 1994 17:15:18 GMT
From: olivea!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu![e-mail]
Subject: 11 meters taking it back!!
To: [e-mail]

In article <304u2e$[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    I've heard some nosies made about trying to take back 11 meters,
>    if so I'm all for it because when 10 meters gets hot so will
>    11 and that gives us DX advantage.
>    Now heres where I will probilty(sp) get in trouble,when and if we
>    ever get back 11 meters why not dedicate that section to the
>    (now lets not have any heart attacks or turning purple with rage.)
>    No-Code Techs with a power limitation of let say 200 watts or
>    even 100 watts.
>    There I've proiblity(sp)stired up a hornets nest and I will
>    get yelled at by the people who didn't have a heart attack,

I'm not going to yell, but I will say I think the fact that there are about
8 jillion CB rigs floating around out there makes this pretty impractical.
I don't think there's any going back on this one.  Even if the FCC made 11
meters an Amateur band by fiat, you're never going to have anything at 27
MHz except a QRM ghetto.

Besides, why take the band away from CBers?  They've invested money in
their rigs.  We should have a better reason for taking their spectrum away
than "we want it now."

--
Mike Cummings  NX7E                [e-mail]
"Like jewels in a crown, the precious stones glittered in the Queen's
round metal hat." - Jack Handey

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

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 23:49:58 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com!netcom7![e-mail]
Subject: 3rd Party Traffic?????
To: [e-mail]

OK, is this pushing it?  My wife, a Technician, and I, an Advanced
(soon), are side by side in the front of the car with the TS50 between
us.  Can she make contacts outside her privileges, identifying the
station with my callsign, and herself with her callsign?  Obviously
this is third party traffic, so those limitations apply.  Something
like her saying "this is station N6TQS, KD6HXY here" for ID sounds
like it would be OK to me, but maybe confusing enough to be a problem.
It'd be great for when I'm driving and she wants to talk.
Next question:  who QSLs?  Her or me?
73, doug

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

Date: 17 Jul 1994 17:25:03 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: Does CW as a pre-req
To: [e-mail]

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: But Cec, we don't see half of all transportation being conducted via
: horses. But that IS the case with CW, where about half of all QSO's
: on HF are conducted using code.

Hi again Jeff, seems like a chicken and egg thing to me. (Re: HF) If
horses were allowed on all the roads and vehicles only on half the roads,
there might still be a lot of horses on the roads. How about opening all
ham frequencies to all modes and may the best mode win?

: Now, what do you think of my proposal to require a tech license for
: 11M? Expand it into the land mobile band (if possible), eliminate
: the channel-scheme in favor of VFO, keep the current power restriction,
: allow all HF modes. This would clean up 11M and also give the techs
: an HF band. I'll let the rest of you decide what to do with all the
: current users....  Of course this could never be implimented, could it?
: Jeff NH6IL

I once had an Amateur Radio Service license that covered 11m. For your
plan to work the licensed 11m operators would need an advantage over the
unlicensed operators... more power maybe?... SSB?... SS? One thing for
sure, 11m was better when it was a ham band and needs cleaning up now.

73, Cecil, KG7BK

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

Date: 16 Jul 1994 22:01:55 -0400
From: news1.digex.net!digex.net![e-mail]
Subject: Emergency TX on police freq.
To: [e-mail]

In article <306sjg$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> >I believe that I read a of a case in So. California where this happened,
> >if memory serve, the guy tried repeaters & cell phones and finally made
> >the call on public safety freq's.  He had his radio (license as well?)
> >taken away, the justification was that it was not FCC type accepted for
> >those frequencies.
>
> If this is the same story I heard, the ham was exonerated.  Naturally
> the police confiscated his radio, but mainly that was due to their
> ignorance of emergency justified transmissions.  If I remember right
> after a few weeks and a call to the local mayor by an ARRL
> representative, his radio was returned intact.

This was also a case of ignorance on the part of the ham, who should have
realized that the police can't just take your property without due process of
law (pesky thing, that 4th amendment).  My response to a 'request' from the
police to appear at HQ with my radio would have been to appear sans radio but
with my lawyer (who missed his last rabies shot and just *loves* cops who
step on their crank).

Education can only go so far:  sometimes you have to use a 20# sledge.

Frank Ney  EMT-A  N4ZHG  LPVa  NRA ILA GOA CCRTBLA 'M-O-U-S-E'
--
"Apparently on New Texas, killing a politician was not _malum in se_, and was
_malum prohibitorum_ only to the extent that what the politician got was in
excess of what he deserved."
    -H. Beam Piper, _Lone Star Planet/A Planet For Texans_

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

Date: 15 Jul 1994 15:02:57 GMT
From: lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!kgkmac.repoc.nwu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Home address or PO box on 610
To: [e-mail]

Hi

I'm fairly new to this newsgroup, having only taken my no tech test in
late June and am in the never ending waiting mode for my license to
arrive.  My question is, do a majority of hams use PO Box's or their real
address.  I could see the concern about using real address, with the call
sign database readily available and the amount of money some hams have
invested in equipment.

Is a PO Box the way to go, or is this not really a problem.  Being new, I
want to start off on the right track and set up correctly the first time
by using advice from experienced people.  Since I only have a couple of
HT's currently, this is not an issue, but may expand in the future after
taking the code test and perhaps even get some QSL cards printed up.

Thanks
Ken

--
-------------------------------------------------------- _--
Kenneth Kalan     PP ASEL                    ===_      /  |
Northwestern University               | ___/[__ ] \___/__ |
Prosthetics Research Laboratory       |\__ _|___|_____===/
Rehabilitation Engineering Program      |    \/
[e-mail]                                o     O
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 13:48:15 GMT
From: psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: Instead of CW
To: [e-mail]

How about additional privileges for using gear you designed
and built?  Wouldn't using your homebrew transceiver be a
good indicator of technical competance that flamers are
looking for?

At least in the 90s, it looks like EMI/RFI/TVI solving skills
are still quite relevant for amateurs.  Thus, how about hands on
test to see how people can fix these problems?



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

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

Date: 15 Jul 1994 17:03:57 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Re: CW ... My view.
To: [e-mail]

>And even more of a shame that the CW ops rely on old technology to get
>messages thru without backing them up with modern DPS technology that
>could continue a contact with after the CW signal drifts into the noise.
>If all the morse ops will equip themselves with DPS technologies to
>continue their contacts after the contact starts to fade, you might have a
>point. As it is you are just trying to force others into 'your' favorite
>mode. And that is, by no means, the most popular mode in use.

What makes you believe that CW ops do not use modern technology to get
their signals through better?  Call it a hunch, but I bet a DSP filter
works better with a discrete mode like CW than it does with an analog
mode like voice (SSB) ;)

Unfortunately, I still have the same problem with CW that I do on voice
when using a DSP filter.  I can hear stations that cannot hear me.  I
guess I am just going to have to run that 220V line and build that amp
:-)

---
Paul (Cliffy) Palmer, -.- . ....- .. -.. --.
New Technology, Inc.
700 Boulevard South, Suite 401
Huntsville, Alabama 35802

Internet:    [e-mail].
Telephone:    [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 04:39:58 GMT
From: pacbell.com!att-out!walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com![e-mail]
Subject: Thoughts on CW testing
To: [e-mail]

In article <306t78$[e-mail]>,
Ken A. Nishimura <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Interesting.  But your argument is based on the fallicy that the technical
>side of the current exams really do demonstrate technical excellence
>and knowledge, and by studying for them, you promote technical education.
>We all know that this is false.

Frankly, I'm fed up with this type of empty argument...that the testing
today doesn't foster technical excellence or interest in furthering
ones knowledge.  Becoming a ham as a teenager and passing the
general class license theory test in 1958 certainly dovetailed
with my becoming an electronics major in college and continueing
in electronics as a career.

>First, by having question pools, it is possible for a technically
>incompetent but a good memorizer to pass the Extra written with
>flying colors.

There have always been "question pools"of a sort.  I study in 1958
using an AMECO license guide of questions from prior tests.  So what?
Will some people with excellent memory ability simply pass the test,
sure, but I've met many who got through college that way to.

Please suggest how YOU would improve the testing over what is done
today.  Before you do though, keep in mind that"fill in the blanks"
questions and/or essay questions leave much room for interpretation
in many cases.  Remember to that this is a hobby, not an absolute
commitment to a career or to becoming an "expert" in radio
theory.

I've said before, I'd encourage those questions that involve use
of equations to not repeat the same variables so that a test
taker must actually apply the use of the correct formula and
calculate the answer.  But other questions just don't
lend themselves very easily to anything but multiple choice
type questions.

>Second, the material covered in the exam is mostly outmoded and
>insufficient to demonstrate an individual's ability to
>advance the state of radio art as it exists in the 1990s.   Most extras
>today couldn't pass a 1960s style written, when you had to go into
>the FCC office and DRAW CIRCUITS.  Can you draw a Colpitts oscillator?
>A Hartley?  A Pierce?

Guess how I passed that test in 1958.  I memorized the circuit
diagrams.  Guess how often I've had to rely on knowing those
diagrams over the last 30+ years?  If design interests are your thing then fine,
if not, who cares.

>Explain the differences, and why one would
>use one over another? Can you draw an impedance matching network
>to transform the output of an RF transistor to a resonant antenna?
>Use a Smith Chart?  How about a practical exam, say doing the RF
>plumbing for a repeater complete with directional couplers,
>isolators, and cavities?

Guess you only want electrical enginners to become amateurs.  Sorry,
I couldn't disagree more.  This is a hobby, not a carrer, BUT this
hobby is often the front end to a career path and that is what
this is all about, at least from my perspective.

>I am not saying that these are required to be a good amateur operator,
>but if you want to implement parallel tracks for "advancement"
>in the amateur licensing scheme, then make it worth something.
>A person with these (or similar) skills would be a great asset
>to the amateur community.

Seems to me we have many great assetts now and we'd have even more
in the future if we reduced the CW emphasis (pass/fail) of the
current testing requirements (NOTE - I didn't say eliminate all CW
testing...I've said reduce the emphasis.  How do you reduce the emphasis?
You either lower the code speed requirements while retaining the
separate element requiremnt OR you integrate the 10 CW questions into
the total test score and score the combined on a 75% correct
basis.

>What stymies me to this day is why the entire 50 MHz and up spectrum
>is given to anyone passing the Tech exam.  If there is any spectrum
>where the correlation between technical ability and ability to use
>the bands exists, it would be in the upper frequencies.  If you
>want to promote the technical ladder, the "carrot" should be
>slices of VHF and up segments, unless the FCC wants all of us
>to be "appliance operators."

>My 2 cents.  Oh, the above is not intended to cast any
>opinion on the CW portion of this proposal.  I'm staying out
>of that one, as usual :-)

Could have fooled me :-)

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: 15 Jul 1994 23:09:01 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <304u2e$[e-mail]>, <306g76$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>n.edu
Subject : Re: 11 meters taking it back!!

In article <[e-mail]>,
kevin jessup  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In <306g76$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Cummings) writes:
>
>>In article <304u2e$[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>    I've heard some nosies made about trying to take back 11 meters,
>>>    if so I'm all for it because when 10 meters gets hot so will
>>>    11 and that gives us DX advantage.
>
>>I'm not going to yell, but I will say I think the fact that there are about
>>8 jillion CB rigs floating around out there makes this pretty impractical.
>>I don't think there's any going back on this one.  Even if the FCC made 11
>>meters an Amateur band by fiat, you're never going to have anything at 27
>>MHz except a QRM ghetto.
>
>By a similar logic, I guess we never have to worry about
>the FCC taking away the 2-meter ghetto either!

I don't know where you get that.

If the FCC wanted to get the CB band back, it'd have to make the selling of
CBs illegal, and then wait 20 years.  Also, it would be relatively easy for
the FCC to shut repeaters down and make FM pretty unusable.  THe same is
not true for CB.

I don't agree that 2m is just like CB, like so many people say.  There's a
lot of traffic there, but it's not like CB, in spite of the bad spots.  In
our area 2m is generally polite and orderly.

--
Mike Cummings  NX7E                [e-mail]
"Like jewels in a crown, the precious stones glittered in the Queen's
round metal hat." - Jack Handey

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 16:57:42 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!news.eecs.nwu.edu!ahab.eecs.nwu.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin)
Subject : Re: Re: Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?

This is *my* personal opinion on the CW requirement, and since this
debate relates to U.S. rules I have set the distribution to "usa".

We, as hams, do have responsibilities as well as a privilege.  Two of
those responsibilities are to provide a trained pool of radio
operators and technicians for emergency communications and to advance
the state of the radio art.

Currently the licensing rules are heavily tilted toward the first.  I
consider CW to be an essential skill for emergency communications, but
it for sure is not advancing the state of the radio art.  In my
opinion, the higher CW requirements should be reduced, **not lifted**,
and the technical tests should be made significantly harder.  I
consider it to be strange that I as a high school junior in 1989 could
pass the Advanced without ever having looked at the study material (I
didn't even own any study material for that test) and fail the Extra
by only one question margin (since the Extra has quite a bit of
regulations on it I had no clue about, like space operation).  On the
other hand, why would you need to copy Morse code at 20 WPM in order
to be the licensee of a ham satellite (a privilege for Extras only)?
I certainly admire the people who can, but I am simply not interested
in CW operation enough to warrant that time expenditure; I'd much
rather spend it doing technical experimentation or learning more about
how to design a spread-spectrum correlator or how to create
high-performance error-correcting systems for data transmission over
unreliable HF skywave paths.

There is also an option that I think noone has considered: how about a
two-track licensing system?  One track would be the existing system
(20 WPM Morse code + basic Smith chart theory = Extra) and another one
which would require basic Morse code proficiency (say, 10 WPM) plus a
*significant* engineering knowledge in order to pass the theory; it
should not be feasible to pass without knowing how to design a working
transceiver, radio modem or any similar device.

    /hpa

--
INTERNET: [e-mail]             FINGER/TALK: [e-mail]
IBM MAIL: I0050052 at IBMMAIL     HAM RADIO:   N9ITP or SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/511 or 1:115/512  STORMNET:    181:294/101    Allah-u-abha
"NT is not a bad thing if I don't have to use it..."  -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 04:55:00 EST
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <303efi$[e-mail]>, <304reb$[e-mail]>n
Subject : Re: Existing regulations

[e-mail] (Bob Bronson) writes:

>JUST ME ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Hiatt) writes:
>: >I find a problem with this. Isn't ordering a pizza facilitating the
>: >affairs of a business?  I thought that was illegal use of a phone patch.
>: >What am I missing here?
>
>: You're missing the changes to part 97.  It is now legal to order a pizza by
>: autopatch, as long as you don't do it regularly, or as long as you don't profit
>: by the phone call.
>
>Looking at part 97.113, (1/93) I don't see any pizza changes.  Someone
>seeing a newer part 97 or a different interpretation?

In the anouncement made by the FCC and the person at the FCC who headed
the revision of the rules (can't remember his name see W5YI report of the
time) used the 'pizza' example himself. If anyone is interested I will
find and post the 4 part test that he suggested we use in determining if a
transmission is appropriate.

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: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 04:51:00 EST
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■╝
Subject : Re: Does CW as a pre-req

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>(Me)
>>(Yes a whole 38% of amateurs surveyed (by the ARRL) use CW regularly.
>
>I'd say that survey is a bit conservative - listen to the HF bands
>and COUNT the actual CW vs any-other-mode QSO's.

Not conservative, maybe not scientific either, just a survey.

>Earlier I wrote:
>
>>>Now, what do you think of my proposal to require a tech license for
>>>11M? Expand it into the land mobile band (if possible), eliminate
>...
>>>current users....  Of course this could never be implimented, could it?
>
>
>>Of course not Jeff, as you point out the ITU requires morse send and
>>recieve testing for operation below 30 MHZ (ARS only), since 11 is about
>>27(?) then it too would require both send and recieve testing.
>
>But you've argued that Japan found a way around the ITU requirement:
>low power and domestic communications only.
>
>Gee Dan, after 2 years in this debate I am finally compromising!
>You've got 24 hours to accept my proposal or I'll withdraw it ;)

Well, if you are willing to have us notify the ITU we are opting out of
the treaty requirement for SEND AND RECIEVE testing...

I would agree with anything that would give 11 meters back to the hams.
And I have proposed this myself (I doubt it was on usenet though).

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: 15 Jul 1994 12:58:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <303o5f$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Re: Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>1. Example: Tuning across 40M, CW QSOs run from 45% to 55% of all other
>modes I hear, depending upon the time of the evening and  the  night of
>the week (correlation? not sure yet.)
>Just perform a count yourself!
>Source: 40M and my receiver.

Example: Watching the traffic at my local airport, I see that 85% - 95% of
the traffic is multi-engined.  Logically, therefore, all pilots should be
required to be multi-engine rated before being allowed to fly.
Source: Looking up.

Works for us.

---Bill VanHorne

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #315
******************************