QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940451.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 11.0 KB

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 94 04:30:07 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 #451
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sun, 18 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  451

Today's Topics:
                           PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
                            Regs Question

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: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 02:45:19 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!stat![e-mail]
Subject: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
To: [e-mail]

From: [e-mail] (James B. Laughlan Jr)
Subject: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Buffalo Free-Net
Date:          Fri, 16 Sep 1994 02:45:19 GMT


On Monday September 12, the town board of Lewiston, N.Y., a small town
north of Niagara Falls, passed a tower limitation law stating that
any attatched, or freestanding tower erected may not exceed 35 feet in
height and is limited to one tower per acre. But hams are given the
priveledge of having two towers every 20,000 square feet. Several hams
including Jim Laughlan N2ETE (yours truly), Brandy Scrufari WB2DNQ,
Don Burrows KO2J Communications officer for the Niagara County R.A.C.E.S.
attended the public hearing and stated to the board the existance of
FCC document PRB-1 which gives amateur radio stations a complete and
total exemption from any tower law. They also stated that the ruling
has been successfully defended in both state and federal courts. The
response from Councilman Michael Curtis was "ask us for an amendment,
don't sue us". Town attroney Edward Jeand that PRB-1 needed to be looked at closer to see if he could recommend
the amendment. The board also stated that there was no intention to
restrict hams at all and there needed to be a law on the books to protect
the town after a recent 3 year battle with a local radio station WTOR
which at first proposed to the town to place 3 AM radio towers along
Langdon Road in the Town of Lewiston. There was a long battle only to
have it settled in N.Y.S. Supreme Court in favor of the radio station,
which plans to run 5000 watts directed into Canada after the Canadian
D.O.C. denied him a license. As of this time, Attorney for the town
Edward Jesella is reviewing PRB-1 to see if any changes could be necessary.

If you wish to copy this to send to any Ham Magazine, ARRL, or FCC, you
have my total blessing and permission. Anyone who wishes to leave any
advise or messages, may e-mail me at this address.

GOOD LUCK AND GOOD DX 73'S

JIM LAUGHLAN N2ETE

                    "Don't do anything that I would do!!"
                                      J. Laughlan 10-83
--

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

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 19:01:32 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted![e-mail]
Subject: Regs Question
To: [e-mail]

I seem to remember someone here once saying that the FCC considered
bandplans to fall under the "good amateur practice" clause of 97.101.
Does anyone know if indeed the FCC holds this view, or what, if
anything, they think of bandplans?

Mike, KK6GM


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

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 05:19:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!eff!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Facts Speak volumes

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>
>>[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>
>>>Dan, please tell us more about Japan's Experimenters License Class,
>>>such as the limited amount of power output allowed, and about how only
>>>domestic communications are allowed, and what restricted frequencies one
>>>can operate on. You'll find that that class of `license' doesn't provide
>>>much more than our CB radio service.                             ^
>                                                                   |
>                                                                   |
>Dan - quit `speedreading' and instead read every word written------+
>``...doesn't provide more more...''. Do you understand my point?

Yes, I missread that. And I understand you point. I appologize for
the "CBer" comment in the following, I missread what you said.

However see below;

>>Wrong Jeff. As you well know. And calling hams accross the world "CBer"
>>does nothing to prove your point. Aside from that are you refering to just
>>the old "class D" CB, or do you count GMRS too?
>
>Apparently you didn't understand my point. The restrictions that
>accompany Japan's no-code HF license are about the same as with
>our CB radio service in regards to power, domestic comms, restricted
>frequencies.

Quoted from a reply to Michael P. Deignan;

From: [e-mail] (goh kawai - n6uok)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:01:40 GMT

Michael, you appear to be misinformed.  Operations of the Japanese
no-code license (Class 4 amateur radio operator license) are quite
different from those of the US CB service, although I'm unsure as to
which characteristics you perceive as being similar.

First, some facts: Class 4 operators share many HF bands with the rest
of the world.  Operation in all modes except CW is allowed.  Bands on
which Class 4 ops cannot operate are 160, 30, 20, 17 and 12 meters.  All
VHF/UHF bands are permitted.  Output is limited to 10 watts on all
bands.

Second, an observation on propagation distance: From Japan to the west
coast of the US, 10 watts works remarkably well.  From California, I
have worked over a thousand JA stations running 10 watts or less.  The
distance between San Francisco and Tokyo is just about 5,000 miles.
This is not considered an unusually long distance; indeed, textbooks for
Class 4 license exams clearly (and accurately) state that 10 watts in a
reasonable HF antenna can work the world.  Many people get their Class 4
licenses because they want to communicate with overseas hams.

Finally, a note on JA ham population: Dan says he thinks Japan has three
million hams.  To be more accurate, there are just over one and a half
million stations currently licensed (JARL statistics, fall 1993).  There
are over two million individuals who have operator licenses.  The reason
why the numbers don't match is because station licenses and operator
licences are completely distinct, and must be applied for separately.
Many people join a club station instead of applying for their personal
callsign.  Estimates based on license issuance and amateur equipment
sales suggest that about ten percent of Class 4 licensees are active on
HF.

For your info, I have a Class 2 amateur radio operator license from
Japan, and an Amateur Extra license from the US.

|           | SRI International              |      work:[phone] |
|           | Speech Technology and Research |       fax:[phone] |
| Goh Kawai | Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493 USA  |      home:[phone] |
|           | internet: [e-mail] | radio: N6UOK and 7L1FQE |

---- End Quote -----


On the basis of the above quote, I feel that your comments are a bit thin
to say the least requarding the similarities between the two respective
services. If in frequency allocation alone. Also in the fact that they are
licensed Amateurs, and as such it is legal for US hams to communicate with
them (again according to the above post, or not as a US haw would not be
violating part 97 in any case THEY might be in violation not the US ham).

>Your problem is that you don't read what you're
>followingup to; you make up things: Show me where I called the
>world's hams CBers. It's becoming a waste of time to clarify my
>posts to you.

No Jeff. I was wrong. I missread you and responded in error. It is
obviously not a waste of time or I would not have egg all over my face and
be appologizing now. I stand corrected. I will try and be more carefull in
the future.

Too many times I have seen the vilification of ex-CBers and the use of
that term in a derogatory mannor here by pro-code-test advocates. Calling
people names and generalizing them like that upsets me, for that I do not
appologize. For missreading your post and lashing out at you I do!

You have then Sir; my humble appologies.

Sincerely Yours,

Dan N8PKV
--
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
 ordinary Americans.." -- President William Jefferson Clinton

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

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 06:56:42 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <3546ee$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <357iaj$[e-mail]>na
Subject : Re: Facts Speak volumes

In article <357iaj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hi Ed, let's see if we can collect some clues and use deductive logic to
>backtrack. Let's assume that "primitive" conditions exist for many hams
>in the world. An AM transceiver is not _appreciably_ more complex than
>a CW transceiver. Let's say a ballpark figure for hams who prefer phone
>to CW is 50%. Then I would expect to hear quite a few "primitive" ham
>conversations taking place using AM... much as it was in the US in the
>late 1950's when some of us were more "primitive" than others.

Next time I visit Viet Nam I'll ask the locals about this ~50% figure.
That figure seems to be accurate here in the US but we can't pretend
our statistics fit the rest of the world.

I believe people will operate with the mode they can both afford and
and that will insure them a large number of contacts.

CW satisfies both requirements; AM only provides for the former, not
the latter.


>About the only AM QSO's I hear are on 10m between domestic hams. Therefore,

I hear a couple AM roundtables on 160M in the evenings, and maybe one
on 80M. That's certainly not enough to encourage one to build an AM
xmtr.

I deleted the rest of your post Cec, but you used the word `primitive'
about 10 times in referring to third-world hams. My best math students
are students from very poor countries; they were held to *very* high
educational standards back home regardless of how economically depressed
their country is. Their countrymen are poor but certainly not primitive.


Jeff NH6IL

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #451
******************************