QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940317.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 18.7 KB

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 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 #317
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue, 19 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  317

Today's Topics:
                              Color SSVT
                Emergency TX on police freq. (2 msgs)
                                reply
                              The Patch
                       The Universal CW Thread
                        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: 19 Jul 94 14:01:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Color SSVT
To: [e-mail]


Hello Gang,

I am posting this question, after a friend of mine (sv1bto) informed me about t
his. Any answers will be greatly appreciated from both of us. Here it goes :

SV1BTO is interested in purchasing a TNC. He is considering AEA's PK232 or PK90
0and the MFJ 's equivalent. His main interest is tcp/ip operation *AND* SSTV,WE
FAX etc. He's been told that AEA's products, althought they can support the
modes he wants, do not have any software available for them, that will send and
 receive *color* images. In short, the h/w is ok but no s/w to do it. Is this t
rue? I found it rather difficult to believe, that no one has written an SSTV
or WEFAX program to send and receive color, using AEA's TNCs. On the other
hand, MFJ's comes complete with software that supports color and this seems to
be remarkable.

My personal interest in the story lies simply in the fact that I presently own
a PK232, and I thought that it supported all modes. Not yet involved in SSTV
etc, but plan to in the near future.

If you have any idea about it, we would appreciate your opinion, product sugges
tions etc.

PLEASE, due to summer vacations, reply directly to my e-mail address at home.

Best 73 de John (SV1CEC)

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Caradimas       | email: [e-mail]  (home) |
| P.O.Box 31689        |        [e-mail]       (office) |
| Athens 100-35 GREECE | tel. : +(301)-6451541 (h) +(301)-8831511 (o) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   DISCLAIMER : For all these, you can only blame me, nobody else!   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+



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

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 21:57:32 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!cherry.atlanta.com!spcuna!starcomm.overleaf.com!n2ayj![e-mail]
Subject: Emergency TX on police freq.
To: [e-mail]

>... a case in So. California...
>  He had his radio (license as well?) taken away,
>The  owner  of the  HT  was given the OPTION of either turning over
>his  radio  or face an FCC hearing; an FCC official was present
>
>Everytime this tale gets retold the story changes a bit!
>

Ooo-oooooo-weeee-oooo (<--spooky music), The "Hookman of Ham Radio" Lives! ;{)
Didn't Newsline and Spectrum put this guy to rest YET?

--
Stan Olochwoszcz, N2AYJ - [e-mail]
"Please keep your seat belt securely fastened, keep hands and feet inside the
car at all times, secure loose items, exit to your right, and enjoy your day at
SixFlagsDisneyKing's GreatMagicDominionIsland BerryFarmGardensParkWorldLand."

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:28:34 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!F180-196.net.wisc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Emergency TX on police freq.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel F. Frederick) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Joel F. Frederick)
>Subject: Re: Emergency TX on police freq.
>Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 21:46:36 GMT

>John O. Feher ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: A question to all:
>:       Suppose a ham radio operator is in a
>: life-threatening emergency with a modified radio
>: in his hand. Should he attempt to call/break in
>: on a public safety (ie police) dispatch freq.

>: Would this be legal in case of a true e,mergency?
>: Would it work or are such main dispatch frequencies
>: "protected" by some squelch system?

>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.

>Joel
>KG0IL

I think only his radio was taken away.  It was the local police that asked
for the action.  The FCC was understanding but still took the radio.  I hope
we talking about the same case.

Bruce
WA2DEU

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 02:31:46 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!news.eecs.nwu.edu!ahab.eecs.nwu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: reply
To: [e-mail]

Followup to:  <[e-mail]>
By author:    [e-mail] (Mack Ray)
In newsgroup: rec.radio.amateur.policy
>
> First the question:  What the heck is IMHO?  Can we PLEASE use
> English (or at lest American)?  We don't need to save that many
> bytes that we can't spell out exactly what we mean.  To do
> otherwise distracts from the message you are trying to send.

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion.  It is a very common piece of net.jargon;
in fact quite a few net.addicts I know (including myself) use it at
least occationally in speech, just like many hams use Q-codes and say
"73".

> N9ITP must have sent in his suggestion about the same time as me.
> "Great minds think alike!"  (Modesty is my best quality!)

:-)

> The only reason I suggested leaving the current testing alone was
> to make it easy for the FCC.  They seem to have a great deal of
> inertia for adding new things.  Rearranging what they have seems
> to go much easier.  I base this on the comments and rationale
> they used to add the no-code techs.  I agree with Ken and N9ITP
> that a more difficult technical exam would be more appropriate to
> a technical ladder license.

I tend to agree with this in principle; the FCC would most likely
refuse any major reorganization of the testing procedure; such as the
"over-the-air" testing that occationally is proposed.

> My point is that right now if one wants to further the radio arts
> on the longer wavelengths as an amateur, he must waste time and
> effort to become proficient at a skill (13 wpm CW) which does
> not, by itself, contribute to furthering the radio art.

Indeed.

> >Seems to me we have many great assets 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 requirement OR you integrate the 10 CW
> questions >into
> >the total test score and score the combined on a 75% correct
> >basis.
>
> Bill, this is an idea that hadn't even occurred to me.  That is
> an excellent alternative to my proposal.  I hope we get some
> discussion on this possibility.  Hopefully those of us who are
> focusing on how to merge and modify the current excessive
> emphasis on CW can find some middle ground between those that
> would throw CW out entirely and those who believe CW should
> remain as it is.  I believe both of those views represent the
> extremes of the spectrum of thought on CW.  I wonder how many of
> us are somewhere in the middle.
>
> If there are enough of us in the middle, why don't we make some
> sort of a proposal for a dual ladder to the FCC?  I have been
> really reluctant to make a solo request, since I am only a
> technician.  It might seem rather self serving.  I had intended
> to get my advanced ticket the current way before making this an
> official request.  However, I got married an have 3 kids under 4
> that take almost all of my spare time.  So much for code
> practice.

I really think we have an idea going here... I think we should try to
get a proposal hammered out and maybe submit to the ARRL and/or the
FCC.

    /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
ICMP: The protocol that goes PING!

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

Date: 18 Jul 1994 17:46:37 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!apple.com!apple.com![e-mail]
Subject: The Patch
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:

>Thus, if the last name of the control operator is "Dominoe", well...


Aaarrrggghhhhh!  Dan Quayl(e) is a ham!

:-) :-)


Kok Chen, AA6TY                [e-mail]
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 22:27:08 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!cherry.atlanta.com!spcuna!starcomm.overleaf.com!n2ayj![e-mail]
Subject: The Universal CW Thread
To: [e-mail]

***READER ADVISOR: Place tongue firmly in cheek.***

I propose that the following topics be moved to this thread:

          1. CW as a pre-req (or not)
          2. CW as a fun mode (or not)
          3. CW as a spectrum efficient mode (or not)
          4. CW anything else!

This conversation is EVERYWHERE.
The redundancies are making me CRAZY.
I'm don't have time to track them all down!
I'm out of disk space! ARRRGGHH!

BTW, I 1) agree that it (CW) should be a requirement only for those who want
code privileges, 2) enjoy it, am not real good at it, but use it when I can,
3) disagree that it is the most "efficient", because no one has yet set
the parameters on "efficient" for the sake of this discussion, IMO.


What d'ya think, sirs? (Oh, sorry, that's rec.arts.tv.mst3k...) :{)

--
Stan Olochwoszcz, N2AYJ - [e-mail]
"Please keep your seat belt securely fastened, keep hands and feet inside the
car at all times, secure loose items, exit to your right, and enjoy your day at
SixFlagsDisneyKing's GreatMagicDominionIsland BerryFarmGardensParkWorldLand."

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:53:26 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!F180-196.net.wisc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Thoughts on CW testing
To: [e-mail]

In article <306t78$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken A. Nishimura) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Ken A. Nishimura)
>Subject: Re: Thoughts on CW testing
>Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:57:12 GMT

>What stymies me to this day is why the entire 50 MHz and up spectrum
>is given to anyone passing the Tech exam.

To which Tech exam are you referring do?  The no-code Tech exam, Tech PLUS (
post-1987) exam or the Tech PLUS (pre-1986) exam.  I am a Tech PLUS (pre-
1986), I have the General theory elements (pre-1986), now all I need is the
code.  If you are worried about Techs getting the full spectrum (50 MHz ->)
then you have to worry about the General class also!  Please clarify this
statment....thank you.

I assume you mean the present day Tech exam.

Bruce Micales  WA2DEU


Bruce Micales WA2DEU :-)

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:09:03 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <3061sk$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <30ehqb$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Does CW as a pre-req

In article <30ehqb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Silva) writes:
>>Wow.  Do yourself a favor and spend a couple of hours in the library
>>convincing yourself that you can get statistically valid results by
>>sampling a population.  After all, these methods are being used every
>>day in ways that affect our lives, so you might as well become
>>convinced that they work.
>
>I know such methods work.  However, this is not what Jeff says he has done.
>There are too many variables in what he sampled, and he claims his "scientific"
>method gives this result.  What he has done is not scientific in the least.

Hmmm, no name nor call again. I don't know what to call you other
than Mr. 3061sk$7ne:

If you are a licensed ham (if not, why are you even in this discussion?)
and if you have an HF receiver then it's simple to repeat my experiment
as many times as you have time for; the more counts done on the various
bands at various times of day will yield will an accurate picture
of the real-time QSO situation.

I never stated my methodology so how can you say that it wasn't
scientific? I also never used the word ``scientific'' nor
ever claimed my results to be ``scientific'' - I'm just telling
everyone my observations. It's not nice to falsely attribute
comments to someone, then not sign your name!

Just like the false F=C article on .misc your imagination has
run wild.


Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:45:18 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>>
>>2. Example: The Northern California QRP Club, NorCal, produced a
>>40M CW-only transceiver kit ($70); at least 300 units  were
>>produced - supplies were depleted within  a short time.
>
>Gee, a whole 300 units. GRAPES has shipped an order of magnitude
>more 56 kb RF modem kits than that, and that's a highly specialized
>unit.

Ouch! Something important seems  to have been cut from my statement
above: ``I could give more examples...'' or something like  that.
If I listed them all the article would have been  too long. Want
to guess how many clubs around the nation have produced kits?

Watch that editing, my friend.

There is very little we agree on, Gary, but setting that all aside
I hope your home survived the floods.

73,
Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:25:30 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!F180-196.net.wisc.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Emergency TX on police freq.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Dave Bushong)
>Subject: Re: Emergency TX on police freq.
>Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 20:37:22 GMT

>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:

>>What I think (or you, or the ARRL or whoever) is irrelevent. What matters
>>is how the FCC will interpret it.

>Not true.  If I'm in a life-threatening situation (which is, I think,
>where this started), what *I* think matters more (at least, to me)
>than what a rule book says.

>I'd rather lose my ham license than lose my life.

>Dave, KZ1O

>(but I'd rather keep both, thank you)

>--
>Dave Bushong, Wang Imaging

Ditto...  I am sure the FCC would understand (at least I hope they
would! :-) ).

Bruce Micales  WA2DEU

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

Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 06:19:34 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>■º
Subject : Re: Emergency TX on police freq.


Here's an idea: If your HT will transmit and receive on 156.80 MHz
and if you live near the coast or a large lake, then in life/death
situations you'll be able to call for and receive help on that
frequency. It is the international distress and calling channel
of the VHF marine band. Along the coasts it is monitored by
all Coast Guard stations, state, county, and municipal
marine agencies such as harbor patrols, and even lifeguard
agencies. It is a civilian-to-government frequency so you
won't get in any trouble with the local authorities if you
need to use it (although the FCC might want to know why you're
not holding a shipboard license, and why you transmitted
from an inland location).

You probably won't get your HT taken away from you like you
would if you transmitted on the sheriff's frequency.

Note that the Coast Guard's remote bases are located atop
choice mountaintops along the coast and coverage is continuous
along the coasts and offshore to 50-100 miles; no claims are
made as to their inland coverage, though.

I'll deny I ever posted this article... (someone else was
using my account!)

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 19 Jul 1994 07:47:32 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news1.oakland.edu!condor.ic.net!grex.cyberspace.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <306g76$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <3074ud$[e-mail]>ex
Subject : Re: 11 meters taking it back!!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Well, you're lucky if you've got a orderly 2-meter band.  Here in
Michigan we have:

   1) Intermod from 159-MHz Paging Systems
   2) "Repeater Idiots": syn., jammers, bootleggers, ham-wanna-be's
   3) Intermod from commerical repeaters on the same towers as
          amateur repeaters.

It's a pain, beleive me. <G>

73 de KB8RBF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQCVAgUBLizkZ53s65i04xhVAQFIbgP/cm71ZCl8cIiPhXnYpg5Vqig9CGZqBRCv
P2qCaUC3ZiuCb1bJlH9PazWg+v1e/80XJSnJkAJhzqqITmx2jdEHRQUBMQ9CN7+7
gzn1ORxuURTyAXWZoFqQv5EErrqWeWZQcJXCrRw1dG2IIqyJ2HkcxDIGtuC+l6IK
hJTGf0P14J8=
=AiGg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas R. McLarty     [e-mail]         PGP Fingerprint
KB8RBF/5                [e-mail]        C8 8D 9A D6 E2 7A
Waterford, Michigan                                     BE 61  63 D5 11
PGP Key Available by fingering [e-mail]       6B 5F AC 7E 2B
  or by E-mailing me at one of the addresses above

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #317
******************************