QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940454.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 22.0 KB

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 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 #454
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue, 20 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  454

Today's Topics:
            Built first rig? (was Re: Facts Speak volumes)
                          CW as a language?
                         Facts Speak volumes
                             Get Over It
                    Manual vs Machine Code sending
                      PRB-1 IGNORED!!! (2 msgs)
                    Tech+ vs. Tech printed on lic?
                  Transmitter Sale to Non-Amateur?

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: 13 Sep 1994 22:39:23 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!bengal.oxy.edu!acsc.com!wp-sp.nba.trw.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Built first rig? (was Re: Facts Speak volumes)
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:
>In article <3546ee$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>>Feasible? Oh, I'd probably say every country SSB is feasible from. Likely?
>>That's a different story.
>
>Why is it when I read one of those DXpedition stories in QST, I
>often find some mention that the DXpeditioner worked CW because
>CW was rare from that place, because all the natives just worked SSB?

Heh-heh.

>The cheapest/easiest way to get on from remote places is not going to be
>homebrewing.  It's tough tracking down parts even in electronics-heavy areas
>of the USA.  Sure, QRP CW transmitters can be about the simplest circuits
>that actually do something.  But they're useless without a receiver.  (Where
>*is* Gary Coffman?) A usable HF receiver doesn't get built as somebody's
>first project out of old TVs that washed up on the beach.  And if a receiver
>shows up, what a surprise - the CW receiver works for SSB too.  Given that
>our hypothetical ham from Lower Slobbovia is going to have to scratch up a
>surplus or commercial receiver, getting a transceiver doesn't seem that much
>harder.

Richard is absolutely correct. Just because it is easier to build a CW
transmitter than an SSB transmitter doesn't make a lot of difference;
building a decent receiver is about the same work for both, and is more
work than building a transmitter for either.  I recall saying something
about this recently, in regard to the "CW makes homebrewing possible"
thread, but I'm not certain I made it clear in a post to the group.

>A question: who here built their *first* rig (assembling a high-quality kit
>doesn't count)?  Or even knows of somebody who did, within the last 30 years
>or so?

Oh, I did.  My first contact, as a Novice, was made using a 1W transmitter
I built.  I'd bought the transmitter PC board, partially completed, at the
local club auction for $.50.  I went to the local library, found the QST
article that described it, saved up the cash to buy the toroids and other
required parts, and got the transmitter built.  It was non-trivial effort.
My receiver was built from a kit, a Realistic Glober Patrol super-regen,
but I'm not sure it counts as a "high-quality" kit :-).

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?"                         *

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

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:01:13 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcomsv!skyld![e-mail]
Subject: CW as a language?
To: [e-mail]

 CW is a language. I keep hearing this consistant whining in the background
 about CW being some form of universal languge.

 For example I hear things like, "QSL OM, UR 59 LA, FB TNX FER QSO." This
 is not a language. This is no more learning a language than having your
 dog respond to sit, stay, or walkies.

 If the deal is to have a "universal" language to communicate with others,
 then the FCC should drop the CW requirement and instead require a
 proficiency in Esperanto.

 Obviously a message will fall on deaf ears if it is in the wrong language.

 In international business the most widely used languages are:

        English followed by Spanish.

 On an actual basis of number of people speaking it:

        Chinese. The Chinese government stresses a tri-lingual
        approach. Mandarin, a local dialect and English.

 73 es GM from Jeff who will go back to laying under his dashboard and
 talking to his buddies by sending Morse Code with the stripped mic wires.



 Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM | "You have a flair for adding
Internet: [e-mail]        |  a fanciful dimension to any
 US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749    |  story."
   Phone: [phone]                |           Peking Noodle Co.

Hate "Green Card Lottery"? Want to help curb ignorant crossposting on Usenet?
E-mail [e-mail] for more information, or read news.groups.

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

Date: 13 Sep 1994 21:54:14 GMT
From: news.cerf.net!bengal.oxy.edu!acsc.com!wp-sp.nba.trw.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!koriel!male.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Facts Speak volumes
To: [e-mail]

In article <3546ee$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Feasible? Oh, I'd probably say every country SSB is feasible from. Likely?
>That's a different story.

Why is it when I read one of those DXpedition stories in QST, I
often find some mention that the DXpeditioner worked CW because
CW was rare from that place, because all the natives just worked SSB?

The cheapest/easiest way to get on from remote places is not going to be
homebrewing.  It's tough tracking down parts even in electronics-heavy areas
of the USA.  Sure, QRP CW transmitters can be about the simplest circuits
that actually do something.  But they're useless without a receiver.  (Where
*is* Gary Coffman?) A usable HF receiver doesn't get built as somebody's
first project out of old TVs that washed up on the beach.  And if a receiver
shows up, what a surprise - the CW receiver works for SSB too.  Given that
our hypothetical ham from Lower Slobbovia is going to have to scratch up a
surplus or commercial receiver, getting a transceiver doesn't seem that much
harder.

A question: who here built their *first* rig (assembling a high-quality kit
doesn't count)?  Or even knows of somebody who did, within the last 30 years
or so?

Rich





--
Rich McAllister ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 94 13:15:21 -0500
From: news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Get Over It
To: [e-mail]



I have been peering into the cesspool that
rec.radio.amateur.policy has become lately, and find it
fascinating that the "code vs no-code" argument is still in
full bloom!  Get over it.  You have a fine amateur radio
service which affords you a HUGE chunk of spectrum without a
morse code proficiency requirement.  If you want to work HF
bands, you study some theory, some regs, some manual morse, and
away you go.  If you can't learn CW, I mean if you have a
handicap, the regulations allow for this.  Get a waiver.
Otherwise learn the code.

Many of the hams who grabbed the No-Code end of incentive
licensing are now offended that they may have to learn code!
Well, that is the way it is.  The question of pirate and
unauthorized operation is big enough, without having to figure
"is that an "Advanced Phone" licensed ham or just an
"Advanced"?

If you are irrational, stop reading now

As much as i hate to agree with J. Herman, CW is allowed from
band-edge to band-edge, and not knowing CW on the HF bands is
not a good idea.  Besides, how would you know when you were
being called a lid for calling CQ over an ongoing QSO?  But
Jeff, the simplicity of CW gear is not a justification for CW
profociency.  We should be looking to make complicated designs
accessible through education.  Building a 30 year old circuit,
many times over, is not furthering the technical
state-of-the-art.

I have not even seen one (though i admit to having been
avoiding this group for a while) attempt to organize a proposal
for a rule change.  Like the ones that got incentive licensing
and the codeless-tech going.

I posted the original "CW is....History" with the intent of
watching the frenzy as the respective sides tried to ignore the
fact that it is a very old method of encoded communication.
Not as old as VOICE, but pretty old.  I like the idea of
bandplan modifications to give some elbow room to HF Digital.
And the Phone subbands (ahhhhhhhh....sweet, soothing,
band-plan) seem to have the room to spare.  Additional segments
would alleviate the crowding and expansion of the current
allocations.

One big wake-up call has been the CW-ists noticing the extent
of digital allocations in "their" areas.  Notably 14030-ish.
So if a few phone nets get washed out, or a cw qso has to move
up a few... it is a hobby, not a Land-Grab.

Enough Pontificating, i will let you get back to bickering,
hopefully keeping you lids off of the air!

n1qdq



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

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 18:03:10 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcomsv!skyld![e-mail]
Subject: Manual vs Machine Code sending
To: [e-mail]

                  "Real men do it with it their hands."

                     73 es GM from Jeff, QCWA #25779


 Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM | "You have a flair for adding
Internet: [e-mail]        |  a fanciful dimension to any
 US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749    |  story."
   Phone: [phone]                |           Peking Noodle Co.

Hate "Green Card Lottery"? Want to help curb ignorant crossposting on Usenet?
E-mail [e-mail] for more information, or read news.groups.

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

Date: 18 Sep 1994 08:49:10 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!primenet!stat![e-mail]
Subject: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
To: [e-mail]

From: Clark Savage Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
Date:            18 Sep 1994 08:49:10 -0700
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Message-ID: <35hnhm$[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James B. Laughlan Jr) writes:

>Subject: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!

>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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS IS NOT CORRECT!  PRB-1 DOES NOT EXEMPT HAMS FROM LOCAL TOWER
REGULATIONS. Please read it.  It purposely explains that local authorities
have LOTS of leeway in regulating towers of amateurs, subject only to
"reasonable" needs to communicate.  There are Federal cases that
interpret this to be pretty tiny towers, and some cases even worse.
Please read Wayne Overbeck's article in June CQ (94).  There
is even a court decision that seems to state that a city can DENY
a tower permit of ANY KIND to an amateur, and that this is consistent
with PRB-1. Some other courts have seen things more reasonably, but
be aware that PRB-1 is not some strong Federal law that is going to
guarantee you a tower.  Not so.  Speak with an attorney about it.
Please.  If we, as hams, wander around quoting the law incorrectly
we can do ourselves a lot of harm in the long run.  We need to be
realistic.

If you are completely denied a tower, or if you have a lot of money
and time, I welcome your challenge to the local authorities, but
based on more realistic views of the law.  In New York there may be
some Federal cases that support the spirit of PRB-1 better, but you
really need to check on this very carefully, then plan out your
response with some good legal background.

73

Clark
.....................

Clark Savage Turner, Graduate Student Researcher
Irvine Research Unit in Software
Department of Info. and Computer Science    1514 Verano Place
Irvine, CA. 92717                Irvine, CA. 92715
[phone]                    [phone]

WA3JPG, QRP #3526, active on HF, VHF and UHF.
Admitted to practice law in California, Massachusetts, and New York.
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

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

Date: 19 Sep 1994 03:27:33 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!primenet!stat![e-mail]
Subject: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
To: [e-mail]

From: [e-mail] (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake)
Subject: Re: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
Date: 19 Sep 1994 03:27:33 GMT
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ
Message-ID: <35j0f5$[e-mail]>

James B. Laughlan Jr ([e-mail]) wrote:
Originally-To: [e-mail] (James B. Laughlan Jr)
Subject: Re: PRB-1 IGNORED!!!
Newsgroups: rec.radio.info,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ

In article <[e-mail]> you wrote:
: Date:          Fri, 16 Sep 1994 02:45:19 GMT
: 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.

Jim, be careful here.  PRB-1 is not so broadsweeping.  PRB-1 states
there should be a balance between the interests of the governing
body (i.e. the zoning requirements) and those of hams.  If the
antenna tower limit was going to be anything over 50 feet or so, you'd
have a tough time fighting it from what I've read before in other
cases around the USA.

Remember too, you want to win the war, your best course of action is
to work WITH the city council, not against it.  Ask yourself what would
be reasonable for most local hams?  50 foot, 60?

: They also stated that the ruling
: has been successfully defended in both state and federal courts.

But, unfortunately, not always.  If the city attorney does some
research, the attorney may uncover the cases that have gone favorably
for hight restrictions.   Be careful here.

: 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.

This is encouraging.  Work with the attorney for the city and the city
council.  Don't take an adverserial position.  They have said that
hams are not the problem.  How high was the proposed AM antenna towers?
Would a hight limit lower than the AM tower hight be agreeable?

I'm both a councilman in my home town (Mount Olive Township, NJ) and
an ARRL Local Government Liason.  Let me give you some inside
perspective on elected officials...they all have egos a mile wide,
they want to play the politically safe thing to do.  Show them that you
want to work with them and you have a far better chance of succeeding
than trying immediately to go to court.  By going to court you
threaten their entire position (i.e. their opposition t the AM
towers).  Why not suggest that any tower limit not apply to residentially
zoned areas.  That is, the limit should be one of a commercial
zoning area only (the AM towers would certainly be a commercial
endeavor and require their placement only in a commercial zone IMHO).

Again, TRY to work with the city, not against.  I can't stress that
enough.  Be right in principle and losing the battle isn't something
you want to see happen.

If you wish to discuss this by telephone, please don't hesitate to
call me:  Home  201-691-8116 evenings,  Office 201-829-2879 days

--
Bill Sohl  K2UNK      ([e-mail])
Budd Lake, New Jersey

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:30:45 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.csuohio.edu!shien.ist.csuohio.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Tech+ vs. Tech printed on lic?
To: [e-mail]

Got my Tech+ in Jan, '94, a few months before FCC started actually
printing "Technician Plus" on the license if you passed your 5WPM CW.
My license of course only says "Technician".  Can I resubmit my CSCE
for 5WPM CW and get a new license printed "Technician Plus", but NOT
lose the original callsign?  All I'm after is a license printed
with "Technician Plus".


Thanks for any info.

Mike

--
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v Catch the WAVE ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Michael Mayer, Senior Technical Support Engineer      Amateur Radio KB8RJO
Visual Numerics, Inc.  32915 Aurora Rd.  Suite 160, Solon OH  44139  USA
Email: [e-mail]   Human: 216-248-4900   Fax: [phone]
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v Good * Cheap * Quick  (pick any two) ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

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

Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 16:08:11 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcomsv!skyld![e-mail]
Subject: Transmitter Sale to Non-Amateur?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

  > So ... would it be leagle to sell a fully functional transmitter such as
  > this to a non-ham?

  Despite what some of the net.cops out here might want you to believe, there
  are no laws or regulations covering sale of transmitting equipment.
  The laws and regulations as such cover the use of transmitting equipment.
  Thank God that so far, Janet Reno and types like her haven't decided to
  include transmitters on the list of things to make criminals out of other-
  wise lawabiding citizens. Interestingly enough, they have made it illegal
  to sell/use/etc receivers that can receive "secret" frequencies. Go figure.

  > I have just replied to the individual asking their licensing status while
  > I check this out.

  Again, licensing status should have nothing to do with it. Yes, it is even
  legal to sell modified for 27 MHz equipment to CB'ers. Linears, echo mikes,
  roger beeps, and etc. the whole nine yards.

  Ethically it is *your* choice to sell or not sell to an individual based on
  what you think they might do with it once in their possesion.

  Jeff




 Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM | "You have a flair for adding
Internet: [e-mail]        |  a fanciful dimension to any
 US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749    |  story."
   Phone: [phone]                |           Peking Noodle Co.

Hate "Green Card Lottery"? Want to help curb ignorant crossposting on Usenet?
E-mail [e-mail] for more information, or read news.groups.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 06:11:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <35g7a1$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Maritime CW vs  Ham CW

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>In article <35g7a1$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake) writes:
>
>>If the emphasis today still involved CW ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore
>>emergency communications, then why has the US Coast Guard abondoned
>>its training of new radio operators for CW skills?
>
>$$$. Same reason the Coast Guard uses Air Force uniforms and Navy
>second-hand radio equipment: $$$.

EXACTLY! You admit that the "cost of the mode" must also include the
training of the person using it. Thank you Jeff!


>Aside from that, *all* commercial coastal maritime stations in the US
>are still monitoring 500 kc, as  are all maritime nations other than
>the US. Send ``CQ CQ CQ DE <your ship's call> QTC1 AMVER K'' on 500 kc
>and you'll get at least one shore station to take your position report.

I would be VERY interested in just how many of this kind of traffic is in
manual morse CW. Not that that has anything to do with the discussion.
Just currious.

Jeff, what was your experiance back when you were in? And what year did
you leave? Might be a nice 'intelectual exersize'.

>I've started including a `reply-to' in the header with my corrected
>address so those wishing to to reply via email will not have problems.

Where have I heard this before.........     ;-)

Great idea Jeff. Thank you. Not that I need it NH6IL is an alias on
amcomp. Well, on my account anyway. ;-)

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

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #454
******************************