QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940465.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 16KB

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 04:30:18 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 #465
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue, 27 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  465

Today's Topics:
                   More complete, interesting data
            Question about PRB-1 and antenna restrictions
                Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free

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: 26 Sep 1994 19:07:05 GMT
From: lll-winken.llnl.gov!koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: More complete, interesting data
To: [e-mail]

I wrote a little shell script with awk, grep and wc to sift through all
the articles from rec.radio.amateur.policy on my local server, and this
is a complete list of the results.

The authors are based on addresses appearing in the "From:" lines.
I used the username portion (from user@domain) to search, then listed
all the complete addresses which a user appears in.  It looks pretty
consistent (i.e., no user seems to appear to be in more than one
domain).

Total articles:  178
Total authors:    62
First article date: 9/19/94

23 [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill)
14 [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
14 Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
13 [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
11 [e-mail] (William J Turner)
8 [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
6 [e-mail] (Dana Myers), [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
6 [e-mail] (Todd Little), [e-mail] (nuts2u::little)
5 [e-mail] (Dr. Michael Mancini)
5 [e-mail] (Paul Flaherty)
4 [e-mail] (Dave Horsfall)
3 [e-mail] (C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX)
3 [e-mail] (Robert Everitt Heiss)
3 [e-mail] (gregory brown)
3 [e-mail]
3 [e-mail] (Larry Roll)
3 Earl=Morse%EMC=Srvc%Eng=[e-mail]
2 [e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri)
2 [e-mail] (Richard McAllister)
2 kevin jessup <[e-mail]>
2 [e-mail] (Robert Barron)
2 William=E.=[e-mail]
2 Tony Stalls <[e-mail]>
2 [e-mail]
1 [e-mail] (Zack Lau (KH6CP))
1 [e-mail] (Scott Ehrlich)
1 [e-mail] (Bill Starkgraf)
1 [e-mail] (William Bode)
1 [e-mail] (Rob Swider)
1 [e-mail] (Steve Wilson)
1 [e-mail] (Sailou)
1 [e-mail] (Teh Aik Wen)
1 [e-mail] (Bob Snyder)
1 [e-mail] (Paul D. Walker II)
1 [e-mail] (Pat Wilson)
1 [e-mail] (Nick Sayer)
1 [e-mail] (Niles Stacey)
1 [e-mail] (Stan Olochwoszcz N2AYJ)
1 [e-mail] (Mike Tracy (KC1SX))
1 [e-mail] (Mike Tracy (KC1SX))
1 [e-mail] (Michael Silva)
1 [e-mail] (Mark G. Salyzyn)
1 [e-mail] (Joel B Levin)
1 [e-mail] (Len Winkler)
1 [e-mail] (  Larry CONTRACTOR Keith Mr.)
1 [e-mail] (Joe Tomasone)
1 [e-mail] (John Mollan - Harm)
1 [e-mail] (Jay Maynard)
1 [e-mail] (James W Chandler III)
1 [e-mail] (Jeffrey D. Angus)
1 [e-mail] (James H. Haynes)
1 [e-mail] (Scott Richard Rosenfeld)
1 [e-mail] (Eddie D. Tuggle)
1 [e-mail] (David Tiller)
1 [e-mail] (Francis A. Ney, Jr.)
1 [e-mail] (Chuck Bowden)
1 [e-mail]
1 [e-mail] (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake)
1 [e-mail] (James B. Laughlan Jr)
1 [e-mail] (Kenneth Wimmers)
1 Mike Lyon <[e-mail]>
1 [e-mail] (John Hardwick)


---
 * 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: 26 Sep 1994 19:58:47 GMT
From: newsgw.mentorg.com!wv.mentorg.com![e-mail]
Subject: Question about PRB-1 and antenna restrictions
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eddie D. Tuggle) writes:
|>
|> Does PRB-1 only apply to local government.  Does it have any jurisdiction
|> over CC&Rs?  I live in a VERY restrictive area.  Antennas are not allowed,
|> dishes in the back yard are not allowed, towers are definitely not allowed!!
|>
|> Is there anything I can do to change this?  Do I have any rights to put up an
|> antenna/tower?  I'm willing to put up a crank-up tower and keep it down when
|> not in use.  I'd only require ~40-50 ft tower.
|>
|> It seems like there is no place you can buy a house that will allow antennas
|> anymore.

For this very reason, the ARRL is currently discussing the matter with the
FCC (or so I understand). The FCC excluded CC&Rs on the basis that they are
voluntary. Well, as you say, reality is something else.

What can you do ?

    * Petition the neigbours to see if there is any strong and
      widespread opposition to changing the CC&Rs. If not, persuade
      a number of followers to go to a meeting, and vote in the change.

    * Get yourself, and a few like-thinkers elected to the "architectural
      committee" - these people are the arbiters of good tases, and can
      usually grant waivers ...

    * Read the CC&Rs CAREFULLY.
      In a previous life, I lived on an estate in France which had
      very strong rules about external antenas. this was extended to cover
      satellite dishes. Some careful reading showed that they had screwed
      themselves, it was VERY specific about mounting any sort od antenna
      on the roof or walls. It said NOTHING about putting the mast on the
      patio ...

    * Check the wording to see if it refers only to FIXED structures.
      If not, think about a trailer mounted mast. If there is objection to
      that, you take exception to all of those unsightly radio and cell
      phone antenas on cars and trucks parked outside people's homes :-)

Philip

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

Date: 26 Sep 1994 20:51:08 GMT
From: lll-winken.llnl.gov!koriel!male.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]
Subject: Sum'tin for nut'in and chicks for free
To: [e-mail]

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

>The digital crowd surely runs full power ignoring the law

This is either unwarranted speculation, ignorance, or malicious lying.  Some
of the "digital crowd" have gone so far as to automatically reduce power
until the error rate goes up.

>They're probably not even listening
>to the frequency they're transmitting on (``Oops - sorry for smashing
>your QSO guys - we keep the volume turned down - can't stand the
>chirping noise.'')

Of course we don't listen to the signal.  One of the things that makes
digital operation so pleasant is that one doesn't have to listen to all the
QRN.  This doesn't cause QRM, since we listen *first*.  Anyway, CW signals
are clearly visible in the tuning indicator LEDs.  I'm sure that some people
have had their CW QSOs trod on by a digital station starting up, but then I
hear CW people tuning up and calling CQ on top of the W1AW code practice
transmission almost every night.

Rich

--
Rich McAllister ([e-mail])

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

Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:25:09 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!sedona![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <35v30j$[e-mail]>, <361ro8$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Deaf Ham & CW

In article <[e-mail]>,
Robert Barron <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In <361ro8$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>While receiving, write down the dots and dashes as dots and dashes.
>>The Morse code characters have earlier been memorized... i.e. 'A' is
>>dot-dash, etc. Then, during the multiple choice test, one can take one's
>>time in deciphering the dots and dashes.
>
>Ugh.  I think I recall someone doing this for a Novice test that I gave some
>years back.  I don't imagine it too effective at 13 and much less so at 20.

I repeat, this was Wayne Green's idea and is not to be used if one ever wants
to acutally use _manual_ Morse code. If one doesn't care for manual CW, this
will allow novices access to HF (10m) SSB.

>Does anyone remember that classic Wayne Green editorial in which he starts off
>saying that CW causes brain disorders...

Obviously, he was kidding although there seem to exist hams whose brains
are so occupied with CW processes that there is no room left for rational
concepts... akin to the porpoise and its sonar brain function. :-)
--
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC           Most of the doors in amateur radio can
(Not speaking for Intel)         not be opened by a  -.-.  .--  key.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 12:00:34 -0800
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news.cs.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nwnexus!news.halcyon.com!pacsci-20.pacsci.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <366qha$[e-mail]>on.a
Subject : Re: Get Over It

 [e-mail] (Bill Sohl  Budd Lake) wrote:

> And, as has been pointed out over and over again, this debate/dialog/
> discussion is not on a total elimination of CW testing...it is: Justify
> the need (in the USA) to test at 13wpm for the majority of HF access.
> I think I'm pretty safe in saying that all of us that want to see a more
> reasonable testing scenario (i.e. where 13wpm isn't a pass/fail element)
> have said we would accept the continuation of 5wpm, but we see no
> justification for the 13wpm requirement to gain the majority of HF
> access.  And, I think all of us have said we would be favorable
> to a band plan for HF that set aside a special CW only segment on
> every HF band.  If you want, subdivide the CW only segment and require
> 13/20wpm certification for use.
>  --
> Bill Sohl  K2UNK      ([e-mail])
> Budd Lake, New Jersey

Exactly!

I have been reading this newsgroup for only a couple of days, but am
dissappointed by the flaming going on...  I especially take offense at the
messages that denigrate No-Code Techs and/or "appliance operators".

I hold a Technician license, received in 1984.  Long before "enhancement",
the only reason I am not a General is because of my lack of ability to
pass the 13.  If it were not for the code requirements, I would be an
extra.  The written tests are a breeze for me.

I have been trying for 10 years to get up to 13 wpm, with very little
success.  You see, I have a definite problem with patterns, very similar
to dyslexia.  For example, when I hear a Q, Y, F, or L, I immediately know
that ONE of them was sent, but not WHICH one.  However, the way the
Handicapped provision is written, I don't qualify for the waiver.

CW is an extremely difficult mode for me to work with.  I get absoutely no
enjoyment from it, and don't expect to ever use it in "real life".  Why
should I?  In over 10 years I have YET to see (actually, hear) any
instance where code was used except by individuals using it for fun and/or
practice traffic.  Never in any emergency situations.

As an example, go back to the San Fransisco Earthquake a few years ago.
At that time I had a complete HF station that could handle 10-160.  I even
had the PK-232 hooked up to the system (and to a 2m radio for packet).
The 232 can decode (and send, too) morse.  I spent the first 18 hours or
so after the quake at that station, trying to find SOME way to help.  I
was receiving phone calls from local friends who wondered if I could help
getting/sending messages into/outof s.f....  Of course, not having become
a general, I could not join all the nets on 20 and 40 PHONE that had
popped up to pass traffic.  What did I find on CW?  Nothing that
mattered.  The ONLY qso's I found in CW that night that even mentioned the
quake did so in passing.  No traffic handling at all.

Work 10meter, you say?  Yeah, sure.  Again, nothing there.  All the action
was on 20 and 40.

I simply do not understand why I am not allowed to use PHONE on HF when
the only barrier is a CODE test.  I can do 9wpm; that passes the
international requirement (where no actual SPEED is listed!!).  i agree
with what Bill said above; in essence, make the frigging test MATCH the
privilege!

As for the code tests being filters to keep the riff-raff out, that is
hogwash.  Just look at all the messes on 20m (and elsewhere), not to
mention the nasty and hateful messages HERE by (alleged) extras...  I
would also wager that the majority of hams could not pass their current
level of morse if retested today.

And before you start putting me down by calling me a "whiner", just
remember that I have >been trying for 10 years< to get up to 13wpm, with
no success.

One last thing while I am up on this soapbox:

I qualify as being an appliance operator.  At least according to the
definitions in this news-group.  I currently do not own/use any ham-gear
that I built myself.  In fact, I only own 1 radio right now.  My first
radio:  a Kenwood 2500 2m handheld.  This is not to say that I have never
built anything; I have.  I have also owned a number of radios and related
equipment.  I got rid of all my HF stuff after the earthquake (previously
mentioned).

I drive a 93 Eagle Vision TSi (Chrysler corp LH platform sedan).  It is a
very comfortable, competant vehicle.  I am a good mechanic.  Over the
years I have done major repairs, even re-builds to my vehicles.  When the
time comes, I will not have a problem doing such to the Eagle.  It is
probably quite possible that I could assemble a car as complex as the
Eagle from parts (not probable, tho), and it is even possible that I could
design a passable car (however crude it might be).  BUT WHY?  Chrysler as
already done a >fine< job designing and building the vehicle.

I did not participate in the designing or building of the car.  Does that
make me a lousy driver?  Certainly NOT.  I did not design or build the
Kenwood 2500.  Does that make me a lid?  Again, certainly NOT.

Yes, I >do< build electronic items for myself; hifi pieces, some
micro-controllers, etc.  But why should I re-invent the wheel, so to
speak?  If ICOM or KENWOOD can build a competant, feature laden radio that
I want, why should I be inclined to try and build something similar? It
would be a waste of my time!

I am in this hobby to be an amateur radio OPERATOR, not manufacturer.

If >YOU< enjoy building all your own gear, then by all means do so!  But
please stop denigrading others who are not retired that are more
interesting in USING radios as tools to communicate rather than building
the tools...

73,
Mitch Robinson, N7GOW

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #465
******************************