QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940502.txt

Text File | 1994-11-13 | 17.4 KB | 405 lines

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 04:30:11 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #502
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Mon, 24 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue  502

Today's Topics:
                            CW QSO Content
                    Ham Radio & More Station List
                     HOW LONG TO GET A HAM LIC ?
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (3 msgs)
                       One great leap to Packet

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: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 00:44:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: CW QSO Content

[e-mail] (TOM SUNMAN) writes:

>[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes (wrote?) sarcastically:

><People fail the tests because they don't even bother to open a book
><and memorize the Q&A.
>
><People don't get 100% because they don't memorize enough of the Q&A.

>     This kills me. I'm 8 days away from taking my tech exams. I've been
>studying my head off, NOT MEMORIZING the question pools. How the hell is
>anyone going to memorize 645 questions and answers?! It's not very likely.
>Don't say you don't have to know all the questions because no one knows
>WHICH of the 645 will be on their tests. No-codes will NOT ruin amateur
>radio folks, the problems would be here already. I've been monitoring the
>2 meter freqs for months and the techs are treated with the SAME respect
>as any other license. The techs respect and properly abide by the rules
>like everyone else. Sure, you MAY find an idiot now and then but they
>quickly go away and the higher class licenses can have misusers just like
>any other class license. Just because we don't do the code doesn't mean
>we'll mess up the airwaves. Also, a LOT of us WILL upgrade eventually. I
>plan on it. I'm not much into cw but I respect it and those who use it.

Easy there, Tom. My sarcastic remark wasn't directed at any particular
class of (future) licensee. I just hate seeing Q&A pools released,
for many folks just end up memorizing the answers. If *just* the
questions were released along with references to, say, the ARRL's
Handbook that would be just fine. Then one would have to study *why*
a particular answer it true. That's cause for true learning.

.73W,
Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 17:35:38 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Len Winkler)
Subject: Ham Radio & More Station List

Ham Radio & More Station List:
The following list can change often....

Alabama:    WHRT, 860am,  Hartselle
            WAJF, 1490am, Decateur
Arizona:    KFNN, 1510am, Phoenix
Colorado:   KBCO, 1190am, Denver/Boulder
Conneticut: WATR, 1320am, Hartford
Illinois:   WKTA, 1330am, Chicago
            WBGZ, 1570am, Alton
Indiana:    WPDJ, 1300am, Huntington/Ft. Wayne
Kentucky:   WMTA, 1380am, Central City
Massach:    WSSH, 1510am, Boston (50,000 watts)
            WKPE, 1170am, Orleans
Missouri:   WBGZ, 1570am, St. Louis
N. Carolina:WEEB, 990am,  Fayetteville
            WCRY, 1460am, Raleigh/Durham
            WNCT, 1070am, Greenville
Nebraska:   KICS, 1550am, Hastings/Lincoln
Oklahoma:   KTMC, 1400am, Mcalester
Oregon:     KBNP, 1410am, Portland
Utah:       K26DI,Channel 26, TV, Castledale

Ham Radio & More is on the Talk America Network. It is aired live every Sunday
at 6:00pm EST, originating from Phoenix, Arizona. It can be heard via TVRO
satellite on Spacenet 3, Transponder 9, 6.8 audio. Our toll free listener call-in
line is 1-800-298-TALK. The originating station number is 1-602-241-1510 for more
information. Any radio station can air the show FREE OF CHARGE.

73, Len, KB7LPW

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

Date: 22 Oct 1994 16:22:18 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Craig Strickland)
Subject: HOW LONG TO GET A HAM LIC ?

Kenneth Wimmers ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO ASK IF ANYONE HAS ANY IDEA
: ON HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THE F.C.C. TO RETURN A PERSON THEIR TICKET SO
: THEY CAN GET ON THE AIR ?
: Kenneth Wimmers
: [e-mail]

We wer told 8-10 weeks by our VE's, and were right in the median
arriving in 9 weeks + 1 day.
--
Physical:    Craig Strickland        Amateur:    KE4QJN
FreeNet:    [e-mail]    CompuServe:    [76545,1007]
Internet:    [e-mail]        MCI Mail:    CStrickland
UUCP:        uunet!encore!tgi!tgi        Telex:        650-272-3350
Voice:        [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 10:16:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:
>
>>This was found floating on the Amateur Packet BBS system. What do you think?
>
>I think it's always in the benefit of the ARS when a clarification
>of the rules are made in advance to violation notices being handed
>out. All it probably took was for a few to stretch what was considered
>appropriate use of packet for this clarification to be made.
>
>On the back of our license it says, in part, `Operation of the station
>shall be in accordance with Part 97 of the Commission's Rules.' Our
>signature on the front binds us to this statement.
>
>If someone has a problem with this OO and this clarification, I hear
>that packet might now be in use on the CB frequencies....
>
>>*** Yes, Fred, keep up the good work. I'm glad that you are doing all
>>*** that you can to make Amateur radio packet boring.
>>*** 73 George K7WWA @ K7WWA.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
>
>Boring maybe, but legal!
>
>
>Jeff NH6IL
OK guys & gals - if you don't like the "official" clarification of the rules,
get off your butt and petition the FCC to change the rules to allow the
traffic you want to send.  It worked for the "I just gotta have a pizza right
now and am too cheap to go to a pay phone so I'll use the 'patch" crowd.  Don't
get me wrong, I like the idea of being able to order a pizza via the patch, but
the pizza place is not goin to deliver it to me when I'm in the middle of
nowhere.  If I'm at or going to a place where they will (They won't deliver
to my house - "bad neighborhood") I can wait the few extra min and use the
phone - that's what it is there for.  Back to the point - if you don't like the
current rules, get enough people in the right places to support your position
and get the rules changed!  That is the true beauty of a democratic society.

Personally I don't read much of the stuff addressed to FOOD, RECIPE, BUTTHEAD,
ECT but someone must enjoy it - and that's ok with me.  The alternative to a
rule change would be having each BBS in the forwarding chain forward all
traffic addressed to the BBS callsign.  Then the users posting the offending
traffic" would now be within the rules since it is addressed to the BBS.  The
BBS operators would be covered if they adress all the forwarded stuff to the
regional forwarding BBS - oh no, that takes ORGINIZATION.  TCP/IP can do that
if it is set up properly - I bet the AX.25 BBSs can too.  Anyway, the subject
area could be used to describe what's in the messageand its audience.  That's
the proper place (under this scheme) for the FOOD, RECIPE, ECT.

So, what's it gonna be??  Do we risk screwing up the hobby by petitioning the
FCC, or do we implement a system like the one I described to keep everything
"legal"?  It really isn't that hard to stay within the regs.

Patrick
KB8PYM
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Oct 1994 23:38:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Wes Harrell)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Bob Wilkins  n6fri ([e-mail]) wrote:
: This was found floating on the Amateur Packet BBS system. What do you think?

I think this guy is a weenie with nothing better to do with his life. He
should tear up his license and get the hell off the air if he doesn't
like it.   You have to remember,  this is  HIS interpretation of the
rules.  In the bbssig mailing list they posted the copies of the letters
from the FCC and you'll see clearly that most of what this guy says is
bent out of shape into something that he wants.  Funny that anyone that
reads the letters from the FCC and also Part 97 will see it differently.

I'm an experimenter and have been licensed for over 15 1/2 years now.
I've seen all kinds of people come in and think they own this hobby and
they have nothing better to do with their lives but to look for
something illegal. If you are looking all the time you'll find something
whether it's legal or not.  Your mind becomes distorted when you spend
all day looking for errors and trying to distort the rules to make it
what you are trying to see.   The FCC is not some evil government group
trying to get rid of ham radio. I've talked to the same person that he
has talked to before on the phone and the FCC is very flexible with the
rules and {willing to cooperate with us to make them work.  If we feel
that a rule needs to exist or a clarification of a rule, submit it or
talk to them about it.  I dont' go around looking for what he does
because I grew out of that phase years ago,  instead I'm more interested
in doing the new and more advanced technology (the stuff that scares the
hell out of people like this guy) and if it's not legal or there is a
doubt, then I'll try to change it or get a waiver (STA).

On 'amateur radio related'   give me a break. If everything in this
hobby had to be ham radio related then who would want to be in this
hobby. I'd set up shop in the CB band instead along with most other
hams.  This is communications plain and simple, whether it's CW, SSB,
digital modes,  ATV, etc...  We experiment.   I run TCP/IP and if you
look at what it does adn it's legal for ham radio, I say it ham radio
related. Anything I send through is ham radio related and I can easily
bend or distort any rule to prove that too if challenged just like this
person is trying to do to prove it is illegal.

Most people like this end up just getting treated badly for trying to
wreck the hobby and put more restrictions on it and it ends up just
hurting them.  I've seen this same thing over and over again and it
never seems to stop.   Maybe a year or two from now he'll probably end
up just changing his callsign and try to start over like other people I
know personally that were just like him.

Ron N8FOW      [e-mail]

(don't do an autoreply to me,  this is my friends account due to
system maintenance on my normal machine.  I just kill flame messages
anyways to me, so don't waste your time with those, they won't get read)

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

Date: Sun, 23 Oct 94 09:19:02 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Larry Rappaport)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

[e-mail] (Kevin Jessup) writes:

> In article <389n39$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fr
>
> K7WWA (NOT Bob Wilkins, above) writes...
>
> >From  : K7WWA@K7WWA.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
> >To    : INFO@ALLUS
>
> ...stuff deleted...
>
> > we requested FCC clarification regarding
> >the definition of "One-Way Bulletins" and "Bulletin Message Content"
> >as it specifically applied to Amateur Packet Radio.  The position of
> >the FCC is as follows:
>
> >3.  The Information sent MUST BE RELATED TO, AND OF INTEREST TO
> >AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS ONLY!
> >
> >4.  Any Packet Bulletin which contains material which relates to
> >anything not directly related to amateur radio, or of interest to
> >amateur radio operators only, is considered to be "Broadcasting."
> >This includes material on Cars, Guns, Politics, Food, Jokes,
> >Current Events, etc. etc. etc.
> >
> >In the above listing the emphasis was supplied by the FCC in the
> >letter I have on file.
>
> >73, keep up the good work!  Fred Sober, AB6GQ
>
>
> Now I THINK it was Bob (N6FRI), who replied with this...
>
> >>*** Yes, Fred, keep up the good work. I'm glad that you are doing all
> >>*** that you can to make Amateur radio packet boring.
>
>
> A BIG QSL on the "boring" aspect, OM!
>
> My OPINION is that the message "content" is just as important (if not
> more so) as the method by which the data is transferred.  I LOVE the
> freedom of the Internet.
>
> I have enough of a problem trying to keep my interest in advancing the
> amateur radio sota (via cooperative investment in packet infrastructure,
> TCPIP/NOS, SS, etc) alive here in Wisconsin what with the total lack of
> interest by the vast majority of the AX.25 1200 baud beacon fanatics
> around here.  Most just don't care about cooperative INVESTMENT (yes,
> this takes $$$) in a high-speed backbone.
>
> Now lets make that investment even LESS attractive by LIMITING the type
> of  traffic to that typical, BORING amateur blather about the weather
> and your current health problems.  I sware the FCC WANTS us
> to die! They'll then have even more spectrum to auction off.
>
> There is a difference between BROADCASTING and POSTING AN ARTICLE
> so as to encourage intelligent discussion.  While SOME packet
> posts are in poor taste (and approach broadcasting), many result
> in interesting discussion threads (and yes, a few flame wars).
>
> BIG NEWS: people have different opinions on almost every topic.
> One of the advantages of living in a "free" country is the exchange
> of those ideas in an open manor.
>
> Commercial telecomm looks better and better every day.  Then again,
> I'm sure we'll see Internet regulated and censored soon enough.
>
> Maybe those in rec.radio,pirate are right! ;-))

Bear in mind that what is being discussed are one-way bulletins. In
legitimate discussion, the FCC has very little power to regulate anything. I
think if their power were ever challenged in that regard, that under the
first amendment, it might becomes very difficult to censor anything... :)

That said, IANAL, so maybe I'm full of crap. :)

Larry W1HJF
--

Larry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. M. Rappaport &  Associates, Inc.   [e-mail]   voice [phone]
Colebrook, NH  03576-0158             CIS 72427,2567    fax   [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 16:33:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: One great leap to Packet

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sayyed Garba)  writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Sayyed Garba)
>Subject: One great leap to Packet
>Date: 19 Oct 94 16:42:00 GMT


>Hi Fellows,
>I am one of the thousands of Ham Licence holders with unused
>call signs.  I really feel guilty for not utilizing the priviledge
>associated with having the licence, as such I am taking a bold step to
>enter into Packet radio.  Could any of you 'Ham Gurus' involved with
>Packet Radio give me a chance to have a hands-on session as an eye
>opener ?.

>I have had my tech. licence for the last three years and could
>not afford the gear required for a Packet Radio.  I am now kind of ready
>to take the first step and then invest on the gear and see what is
>really going on. My ultimate goal? delve into satellite comm if possible

>I will appreciate help from any one!

>Your 'Baby ham friend'.

>----
>Top Of The Rock BBS - Lilburn, GA         SYSOP: Steve Diggs
>UUCP: totrbbs.atl.ga.us               Snailmail: 4181 Wash Lee Ct.
>Phone: [phone]                           Lilburn, GA 30247-7407


You might inquire around your area for packet that is available from a phone
port. Here in Phoenix, we have a number of hams who have made their packet
equipment available via telephone. They will probably have to talk to you on
the phone to verify your license but it is a way of trying out packet without
buying equipment. All you need you have, a phone, computer, modem and
software, besides of course, a valid ham license.
73 and don't limit yourself to packet. Try cw and all the other modes. You
will enjoy it. I kinda gave up packet as the internet is much quicker. Packet
can take days to get replys back.
barry k7yym

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

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 01:10:30 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)

References<389n39$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

On the SSB phone bands, or 2M FM repeaters, you can hear a lot of stuff
not related to ham radio (weather, health problems, cars, name it).
No "business" or "commercial" traffic of course.  So, if someone posts
a food article, image files, or a debate on something, is that significantly
different than the voice stuff?  One has phone nets,where each ham in it
is talking to multiple reciever hams.   On packet, I've recieved many
thank you's from hams after posting several "comet hits Jupiter" image
files.   That's a kind of 2 way.  I don't think the FCC is that worried
about it.  We're not charging money for packet posts, it's just a big
exchange of various kinds of non-commercial information.

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #502
******************************