QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940422.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 15KB

Date: Mon,  5 Sep 94 04:30:08 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 #422
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Mon,  5 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  422

Today's Topics:
              Another Simple Transmitter (CW, of course)
                 CW as a license requirement (2 msgs)
               How to get a shortwave licence (3 msgs)
        Questions: Digital Scanning, Cellphones, Transmissions
                        Rename this newsgroup!
                    Simplicity of gear ( (2 msgs)
Sum'tin for nut'in and the chicks for free (Was: Re: Simplicity of gear )

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: 02 Sep 1994 20:04:02 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!koriel!male.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Another Simple Transmitter (CW, of course)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>We'll have him with all-band capability before the weekend. [But
>only because he diligently studied the code rather than wasting
>his time whinning on UseNet.]

And he had the good sense to be born with a junkbox full of
"GE-1" transistors and crystals cut for the ham bands.

"All-band", eh?  Anxiously awaiting the 900 MHz versions!

Rich



--
Rich McAllister ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 01:42:20 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!F180-085.net.wisc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: CW as a license requirement
To: [e-mail]

In article <34a1ch$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Tomasone) writes:

>HOWEVER: I submit that since CW is no longer used on ships (except for
>a few? I'm not sure), and since there are so many modes available to
>hams, that having proficiency in ONE as a licensing requirement is
>no longer in the best interest of Ham Radio.   And, it's also unbalanced.
>Why not a proficiency test in satellite ops?  Or packet?

Agreed.  However, I believe some sort of proficiency testing is needed.
Let the testee select the mode in which they will be tested.  How  this
will be implemented needs to be worked out, but this is a step away from
one mode (CW) determining if you will upgrade.

>If you want to use a mode, fine.  But I don't think that forcing someone
>to learn any mode is neccessary anymore.   But, since CW is a requirement
>for under 30Mhz ops (currently), we are kinda stuck with it.

Not stuck with it, we just need to request that the State Department sees
that in the next ITU treaty, the US is given the right to select how it will
test for operational proficiency.

Bruce Micales
WA2DEU

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

Date: Sat, 03 Sep 1994 01:41:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
Subject: CW as a license requirement
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Bruce Micales) writes:

>In article <34a1ch$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Tomasone) writes:
>
>>If you want to use a mode, fine.  But I don't think that forcing someone
>>to learn any mode is neccessary anymore.   But, since CW is a requirement
>>for under 30Mhz ops (currently), we are kinda stuck with it.
>
>Not stuck with it, we just need to request that the State Department sees
>that in the next ITU treaty, the US is given the right to select how it will
>test for operational proficiency.

All member nations, I believe, are free to determine what 'proficent'
means. So 1 WPM could qualify if the US decided that was 'proficent. Also;

What is "A"?          (A)  Dit-Dit-Dit
            (B)  Da-Dit
            (C)  Dit-Dah
            (D)  Da-Dah

Would also qualify. As would a 5 WPM test. And LOTS of nations use ONE
test at 10 WPM.

(Those who have the text of the ITU agreement handy please correct me if
the above is inaccurate. Thank you.)

Dan N8PKV
--
"They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -- Benjamin Franklin

- Misspelled? Impossible, my modem is error correcting!

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

Date: 4 Sep 1994 20:38:11 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu![e-mail]
Subject: How to get a shortwave licence
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Copeland) writes:
>There are about five levels of radio liscensing. The first and easiest
>does not require you to know morse code, but is only for 145Mhz & 445Mhz
>bands. Shortwave ham liscense requires you learn morse code.

Make that all VHF and UHF bands, the most ones being approximately 145
MHz, 220 MHz, and 440 MHz.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 19:36:34 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!feenix.metronet.com![e-mail]
Subject: How to get a shortwave licence
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Don Anton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    Howdy, all. Just needing some information regarding how I can get
>going being a ham operator. Currently I'm in school learnin about
>computer tech. work. Alot of it centers around amplifiers, and such.
>Anyhow, if any of you can help out, it would be appreciated.

There are about five levels of radio liscensing. The first and easiest
does not require you to know morse code, but is only for 145Mhz & 445Mhz
bands. Shortwave ham liscense requires you learn morse code.



--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| [e-mail]                                                |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 4 Sep 1994 15:03:07 -0700
From: nntp.crl.com!crl4.crl.com![e-mail]
Subject: How to get a shortwave licence
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Don Anton <[e-mail]> wrote:
 >    Howdy, all. Just needing some information regarding how I can get
 >going being a ham operator. Currently I'm in school learnin about
 >computer tech. work. Alot of it centers around amplifiers, and such.
 >Anyhow, if any of you can help out, it would be appreciated.

Don -

To get some good info, send an email message to:

   [e-mail]

Each line of the message body should contain a command as shown below.
The subject of your message is not processed and may be omitted.  You
may place as many commands in a message as you want.  The files you
request will be sent to you in separate messages.  Only ASCII text
files are supported.

Valid INFO commands:

reply <address>  (may be needed - see below for explanation)
help
index
send FILENAME   (example: send prospect.txt)
quit

In the above message example, "help" retrieves a brief set of
instructions for info, "index" retrieves a list of available files
and "send prospect.txt" retrieves a text file containing information
on becoming a radio amateur.

Lou
------------------------Usual Disclaimers Apply-------------------------
Internet:  [e-mail]                    [e-mail]
Ham Radio Packet: N5SGL @ K3WGF.#SAT.TX.USA   tcp/ip: [e-mail]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 03:22:29 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!wariat.org!malgudi.oar.net!utnetw.utoledo.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Questions: Digital Scanning, Cellphones, Transmissions
To: [e-mail]

In article <33iefs$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laurent PELLISSIER) writes:
>In article <333n3t$[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Berton Corson) writes:
>
>> First, does anyone know when this will come, or even equal 50% of
>> such calls?  Digital cell phones are very expensive, when compared
>> to the regular models, which are literally being given away.
>    Here in France the GSM system is very very inexpensive. In fact
>some store sell one to you for FREE (but you have to subscribe for one
>year to a telephone company). Also they are two operators of the GSM in
>France (a third one is expected for soon!) so the competition between
>them is very hard and the price decrease a lot. For example in the
>beginning of the GSM (3 years ago) a such device cost 6000 FF (1 US$
>for 6 FF) now you can find some at less than 1000 FF. It's totally
>crazy (especially for scanner listenner). Moreover the GSM system is
>scrambled so there is no {easy} way to listen them.
>    So I am very surprised to learn that in the US the digital
>cellphones are so expensive.
>
>--
>Have fun, Laurent.
>
>Laurent PELLISSIER                    Ecole des Mines d'Ales
>School of Engineering (Computer Science Department), /bin/su
>e-mail:[e-mail]

Cell phones can be has for $ 29.95 US, but they require a subscription to
one of the cellular carriers.  The more features you add the more $$$ you
add :-)

Patrick
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 15:28:20 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Rename this newsgroup!
To: [e-mail]

This is ridiculous.  Doesn't this newsgroup have anything better to
discuss than CW?

I suggest the name of the group be changed to
rec.radio.amateur.stuck-in-the-mud-about-a-mode-of-communications.


--

L. Floyd                *     The more things change,
[e-mail]       *     the more they remain things.

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

Date: 2 Sep 1994 22:04:32 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!sedona!cmoore@network
Subject: Simplicity of gear (
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Alan Wilensky <[e-mail]> wrote:

>All CW revisionists please email me at [e-mail] to start the
>motion toward a code free future. >Alan Wilensky, N1SSO
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi Alan, please don't take away my free dinner but as a user of the CW
mode, I sure hope you meant "a code-test free future". "CW will get
through when no other mode can" is a true statement if all you have is
a CW rig. :-)

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Not speaking for Intel)

--
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

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

Date: Sat,  3 Sep 94 22:41:00 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!ns.channel1.com!channel1![e-mail]
Subject: Simplicity of gear (
To: [e-mail]

%f>ws.intel.com>
%f>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
%f>Organization: Intel Corporation, Chandler, AZ

%f>In article <[e-mail]>,
%f>Alan Wilensky <[e-mail]> wrote:

%f>>All CW revisionists please email me at [e-mail] to start
%f>the  >motion toward a code free future. >Alan Wilensky, N1SSO
%f>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

%f>Hi Alan, please don't take away my free dinner but as a user of the
%f>CW mode, I sure hope you meant "a code-test free future". "CW will
%f>get through when no other mode can" is a true statement if all you
%f>have is a CW rig. :-)

%f>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Not speaking for Intel)

Thats what I meant , code test free future, higher technicak testing
standards and a practical bench exam. A frozen kosher dinner is in the
FEDEX right now.

Alan Wilensky, N1SSO
[e-mail]
---
* CmpQwk #UNREG* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

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

Date: 4 Sep 1994 19:06:23 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!pstc3.pstc.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in and the chicks for free (Was: Re: Simplicity of gear )
To: [e-mail]

Over the past, oh, I believe two years now that I've been posting
to this newsgroup, I've claimed over and over again that many of
the "I want HF no-code access! I want HF no-code access! Waaa!
Waaa!" crowd are the typical "I want something for nothing"
whiners.

In the course of reviewing messages today, I thought the following
.signature of Alan Wilensky (N1SSO, a new "I want no-code HF access!"
voice here) was quite revealing:

> Alan Wilensky, N1SSO
> [e-mail]
> ---
> * CmpQwk #UNREG* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

It appears that Mr. Wilensky has not paid for the offline reader he
is using.

Anyone else notice the trend? I don't want to work for HF access. I
don't want to pay for shareware. I want everything given to me. I'm
breathing, aren't I? Its my right.

MD
--
--   The best way for Bill Clinton to keep his legal
--   fees down is to keep his pants zipped up.
--

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

Date: 4 Sep 1994 23:32:52 -0400
From: gti.gti.net!gti.gti.net![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <3451qg$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Tandy's Proposed Family Radio Service

Problem with a fee-based license is that money can't go to the FCC to be
used to enforce the rules. The FCC gets whatever money Congress says it
can have, and every dime the FCC collects for anything goes into the
General Fund, a.k.a. that great black hole all your tax money goes into.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 07:45:17
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com!s146.phxslip.indirect.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <34046r$[e-mail]>, <3451qg$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>t.com
Subject : Re: Tandy's Proposed Family Radio Service

>>The US of A had a serviec like this.  It started on 450 MHz and
>>was called
>>
>>                    Citizen's Band.
>>
>>It evolved over the years and ended up around 26-29 MHz.
>>
Actually, we still have the "old citizen's band" available to all with a
license and small fee, using repeaters, fm, and more, just over 450mhz.
Al Gross, W8PAL, was the 1st to have a CB call when it first began there, and
he uses it to this day! Al has priority of invention for the 1st walkie-talkie
ever made. He had to sue David Sarnoff of RCA to win that!
73, Len, KB7LPW

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #422
******************************