QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940506.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 10.2 KB

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 04:30:15 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 #506
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Wed, 26 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue  506

Today's Topics:
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (3 msgs)
            Northern California Packet Police on rampage?

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: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:16:42 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

[e-mail] wrote:
:
: Extending this line of thought, and twisting it ever so slightly:
: If a packet bulletin addressed to CHESS is not amateur related since it gives me
: (an amateur radio operator) information from the author (another amateur - his
: call is in the header info) about a mutual interest is considered a bulletin
: since it is effectively addressed to all amateurs interested in CHESS and hence
: a one way communication, all that has to happen if for the originating station
: to receive one reply to the message to make it a two way (read non-broadcast)
: exchange!  If this is not correct, the next thing to be "attacked" in this
: manner will be the net control operators starting the net.  I have addressed
: messages to groups like HARDWARE and received a number of replies - as far as
: I'm concerned this is just another way to initiate the exchange  of
: information between two (or more) stations and therefore allowed under Part 97.
:

A "CQ" is indeed defined as a one-way transmission in 97.111.  It is allowed.
Appending a "CQ" to a signature file would be an obvious attempt to get
around the content being a bulletin.

73,
Steve
     Internet:  [e-mail]
     Packet  :  no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 17:45:01 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Bushong)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

[e-mail] (Dr. Michael Mancini) writes:

>I'm certain that his opinion doesn't represent the official opinion of the
>League. Still, if you'll allow a single ham with a big mouth to stand
>between you and that, you must be pretty gullible. Would you like to buy
                                          ^^^^^^^^
>some swampland in Florida, or perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge?


He must be pretty *what*?  I tried to look that word up, but it's not
in the dictionary.

Dave
--
Dave Bushong
OPEN/image Recognition Products

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:56:52 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
>
>The point is being missed.  Are packet bulletins addressed to either
>"all" or a like form of "all" (MUSIC, SEWING, CRAFTS, NAFTA, etc.)
>indeed informational bulletins?
>
>Is there a difference between:
>
>1.  My tuning in a W1AW transmission and listening to an ARRL bulletin.
>2.  My tuning in a packet BBS station and reading an ARRL bulletin.
>
>I submit that both forms of the bulletin are the same.  I end up with
>identical information.  In both cases, the bulletin is an
>"informational bulletin".  In both cases, the transmission is
>one-way.  There is not an exchange between two stations.  The form
>that the data takes is irrelevant.  The mode upon which the data is
>transferred is again irrelevant.

I disagree. You have to do more than "tune in" to a packet BBS. You
have to establish a two way connection and *request* the information.
It's third party traffic pure and simple. Two amateur stations are
participating in information exchange.

>Then, what is the difference between:
>
>1.  My tuning in a packet BBS and reading an ARRL bulletin.
>2.  My tuning in a packet BBS and reading a bulletin about cooking.
>
>I again submit that both forms of bulletin are identical.  Even a
>request (buried in the recipe) from a cook for more cooks to respond
>is nothing but a "CQ" and, again, a one-way flow of information.

Again, you do more than "tune in", you must *request* the
information. Unlike broadcast, you are an active participant
in the process. A CQ is not a true one way transmission. It
is an intergal part of establishing a two way exchange of
information. It's a solicitation for a response.

>If there is no difference, could W1AW begin harassing Clinton about
>his viewpoints on foreign trade (in their bulletins)?  Could they
>discuss cooking or sewing?  We must agree that the rules would
>prohibit such bulletins.

Yes, because they are true broadcasts. Anyone passively listening
gets them. Packet bulletins are fundamentally different in that
active participation is required.

>Because we use error correction causing a "connect" to be required does
>not change the fact that a packet radio bulletin is a one way transmission.
>It is not addressed to a ham.  It is addressed to the ham community,
>to the general public, just like the W1AW bulletins.  The changing of
>the definition of a "bulletin" due to the medium upon which it is
>transferred is not proper.

If you take this line, then you must squelch all roundtable and net
operations. Just like the packet bulletin, each station makes statements
to the participants and awaits responses from whomever is interested
in the topic. Packet bulletins are no different except that they are
not conducted in realtime. They are simply the packet version of the
roundtable or net. If the topic of disscussion is allowable on a net
or roundtable, it's also appropriate for packet bulletins.

Bulletin is misleading terminology in this respect. The destination
address header should instead be considered as a special interest
group address, or as we call it here in netnews, a newsgroup. In
other amateur use, we'd call it a net or roundtable. The key is that
people have to "check in" to participate, on packet or on a voice
net. It's not primarily a passive activity like listening to W1AW.
With W1AW all you *can* do is listen, because they don't monitor
the frequencies on which they broadcast.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 15:31:23 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
Subject: Northern California Packet Police on rampage?

I received an interesting letter yesterday.  An "ARRL" imprinted envelope
contained nothing but a photocopy of the Northern California Packet Association
packet bandplan.  The definition of "keyboard-to-keyboard" station has been
highlighted in blue, as also "145.01 Keyboard-to-keyboard".  A smaller blue
tick mark is next to "145.75  TCP/IP".  I get the impression someone
in the Stockton area (based on the postmark on the envelope) had somehow
noticed my PBBS on 145.01 and felt I should move to 145.75 since I happen
to use WG7J NOS as my operating software.  Sure, I support IP services,
but the vast majority of my channel use is as a PBBS.  PBBS *are* allowed
on 145.01, according to the NorCal Packet Association plan.

I was mildly amused; I happen to live in Southern California, well south
of what folks normally call "Northern California".  145.75 has not historically
been a recognized packet frequency in our area.  Yet, someone tried to tell
me to move my PBBS to this frequency, citing the NorCal plan!

The best part?  The person that sent me this note included no identification.

I've saved the NorCal plan for reference, but no changes are taking place
in my station operation.

Have the Northern California packet folks decided to start rampaging on
other operators?  Good grief!  First we have someone open the Pandora's
box of "digital bulletins" (which is all based on mis-use of the regs, by
the way) and now I have secret police tacitly ordering me to change
frequency!  What is next?  An OO notice for operating packet?

;-)

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are      *
 * [phone]               | mine and do not necessarily   *
 * [e-mail]      | reflect those of my employer  *
 * "Antenna waves be burnin' up my radio" -- ZZ Top                *

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 15:29:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Bushong)

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

[e-mail] writes:

>So you wouldn't be upset if I were to dedicate a packet BBS just to
>posting cookie recipes?  How about developing packet news groups?
>Then the only poeple who would see the latest and by far tastiest
>cookie recipe would be amateurs who wanted it.  Oh, I forgot - you
>can do that now, just ignore the posts to cookie, recipe, ect.  Maybe
>we should get the ARRL to propose to the FCC what topics are to be
>talked about on each frequency for each band.

I don't think that would be a good idea.  I think you should be able
to talk about whatever you feel like talking about.  The same is true
for packet, or any other mode.  It's just that indiscriminately
posting bulletins to every PBBS in the country about things that are
not of interest to the general ham population is a waste of resources
and annoying.  Depending on the interpretation of 97.113(b), it might
also be illegal.

Dave, KZ1O

--
Dave Bushong
OPEN/image Recognition Products

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #506
******************************