QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940508.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 20.0 KB

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 04:30:10 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 #508
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Thu, 27 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue  508

Today's Topics:
                 NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins
                      Questions on this and that

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 94 22:58:22 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Steve Wolf <[e-mail]> writes:

>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 most certainly *does.*  If you can't transmit, how can you receive the
bulletin?

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

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 01:37:58 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: Questions on this and that

[e-mail] writes:

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>>[e-mail] (David Jenkins) writes:

>>>2)  I heard WB9RUM talking to a CBAGV (I'm pretty sure) on CW last night.

>>Might it have been C6AGV? Or even CB1GV is a possibility - some folks,
>>after the first exchange of callsigns, may shorten the numeric charac-
>>tor to just the first two elements: A = 1, N = 6, T = 0 (not legal!).

>What isn't legal?  As long as no one is encoding text to obscure meaning,
>and properly identify with a complete callsign every ten minutes (for US
>amateurs), the callsign may be abbreviated.
>
>What makes you think this isn't legal?

The 10-minute ID is what I had in mind, Dana. But I still wouldn't test
the FCC regarding this.  Along these lines:

Here's a cute anecdote provided by Chuck K5FO: During the late 50's,
the phrase `Shave and a haircut - two bits'' became popular on
either the broadcast AM radio or TV (might have been a commercial).
Hams started using the first part (.  ...  .) in place of CQ on
HF. Another station hearing the psudo-CQ would answer with the
``two bits'' part:  .  .  and the QSO would then take off. This
got very popular with US hams but the FCC took a dim view of it
and started handing out lots of pink slips. The dit dit is still
retained on HF today - you'll hear a CW op end a QSO with that.

Why would the FCC not like the  .  ...  .  /  . .  exchange in
place of CQ and the proper response? Only recognized prosigns
are to be used on CW. Thus, I wouldn't test the FCC regarding
sending an A or N or T in place of 1 or 6 or 0, respectively,
with regard to a callsign exchange.

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 22:56:54 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>

References<389n39$[e-mail]> <38gkij$[e-mail]>, <38h4mn$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Todd Little <[e-mail]> writes:

>In addition, the actual messages in any PBBS are relayed to *specific*
>stations, i.e. they are *not* broadcast.  If the FCC is going to start
>limiting the content of amateur communication to the extent described
>in the original post, then we have a serious problem.  All those roundtables
>on 75 meters talking about their hemorrhoids and gallstones are in for
>big trouble. ;-)

Now there's a good point -- is an ALLUS messaage (for example) readily
accessible, over amateur radio, to someone who can't transmit?  W1AW bulletins
and Newslines certainly are -- that's why the FCC restricts their content to
prevent such bulletins from being used to broadcast to the general public.  I
don't see how a transmission between PBBSes, which can only be read either as
it's being sent to the PBBSes or upon request on the PBBS's frequency, would
flout the one-way rule.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 23:04:10 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>

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

Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> writes:

>With W1AW all you *can* do is listen, because they don't monitor
>the frequencies on which they broadcast.

Hmmm...does that mean that, if a QSO is in progress on the frequency, that they
are causing interference?

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

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 06:11:22 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Sanders)

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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:
>
>As many have said, this newsgroup is more relaxed as far as what we
>can and can't post.  What would happen, though, if that guy posted a
>cookie recipe on rec.radio.amateur.misc?  He'd get flamed off the net.
>He would be told that this is not the place to post cookie recipes.
>
>Ditto for the Packet BBS system.
>

[ Note I removed .misc from Newsgroups: line ]

This is not a valid analogy.  Cookie recipes belong in a newsgroup other
than the rec.radio.amateur.* groups, but how does one choose an appropriate
"newsgroup" within the context of packet bulletins?

This is a deficiency of the packet bulletin system which I as a longtime
Usenet Junkie find glaring.  I have tried perusing packet BBSs and the
difficulty of sorting out topics of interest is only matched by the
frustration of the slow response ;-)

                                  _____________
                                 |     ___     |
    Kevin Sanders, KN6FQ         | o o \_/ o o |      Try Boatanchors
    [e-mail]        | o o  @  o o |      For A Real Lift
                                 |_____________|

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

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 01:15:56 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: The (1929) Amateur Code

[e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

>>[e-mail] (Dale Piedfort) writes:

>>>THREE:
>>>
>>>THE AMATEUR IS PROGRESSIVE....He keeps his station abreast of science.
>>>It is well-built and efficient.  His operating practice is above re-
>>       ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>proach.
>>If the above code is a mark of a REAL HAM then you have eliminated
>>not only all the no-codes but many of the know-codes, too - maybe
>>maybe even yourself!

>>Notice that the `progressive' amateur above (in 1929) built *everything*
>>in his station.

>Whoo-ha!  Jeff, it said *well-built* not self-built.  And even if
>it were self-built, what evidence do you have that this would
>eliminate all the no-codes?

Show me a *commercially* built amateur transmitter/receiver for the
1929 ham, Rich! Just what do you think was available back then?

And even if there was one (which there wasn't), it would have been
up to the manufacturer, not the ham, to insure it was ``well-built''.


Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 26 Oct 1994 06:43:57 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The (1929) Amateur Code

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:
>
>>Whoo-ha!  Jeff, it said *well-built* not self-built.  And even if
>>it were self-built, what evidence do you have that this would
>>eliminate all the no-codes?
>
>Show me a *commercially* built amateur transmitter/receiver for the
>1929 ham, Rich! Just what do you think was available back then?
>
>And even if there was one (which there wasn't), it would have been
>up to the manufacturer, not the ham, to insure it was ``well-built''.

Not exactly, Jeff.  A "well-built" station can refer to equipment
that is well-constructed, but I tend to think it means something
more; a well-put-together station.  A station with adequate
lighting, adequate room, safely connected equipment.  More than
just a transmitter and receiver.

Anyway, even when you buy equipment, it isn't the manufacturer that
is held responsible for the proper operation of the station; it is
the station licensee.  In other words, the ham is always the
the one to insure the station and equipment therein, is
"well-built".

--
 * 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: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 07:45:25 -500 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul D. Walker II)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul D.
>Walker II) writes:

>>What incentive would he have had to even *try*  {CW] had he not
>>been required to learn it first?

>Perhaps other hams might have described to him the fun things they do
>with CW?

>I'm beginning to wonder if the code requirement is actually *keeping* many
>people from trying code.  If the only way people can be motivated to use it
>is by bludgeoning them with the law, it must not be much fun, eh?

Amateur Radio must not be fun at all, since we are all bludgeoned with the
requirement that all must be licensed to operate legally.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 13:38:13 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rajiv Dewan)

References<389n39$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <38k0lg$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <38k0lg$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gene Wolford) writes:
>Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: [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
>
>Oh, goody. We can all snooze away in compliance.
>All bow to the mighty ARRL, (Anally Retentive Regulation Lovers).
>Beware the dreaded "OO"s, (Kilocycle Kops).
>Heil!

You have clearly missed the whole point of amateur radio in US being
a self policing hobby.  Would you like ham radio turn into the chaos
of CB?

Rajiv
double a neuf ch

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

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 23:15:51 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf NO8M)

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

>What 'One Way' bulletins??? What this idiot OO forgets is the each and every

...snip

>David Tiller                | Network Administrator | Voice: [phone]   |
>[e-mail] |  n2kau/4  | Randolph-Macon College| Fax:   [phone]   |



Your reference to "idiot OO" negated the need to reply.

73,
Steve
     internet      :  [e-mail]
     packet        :  no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na
     MSYS Mail List:  [e-mail] ("info" for subject)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 05:46:21 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: CW: Law or Choice ?

[e-mail] (Ray Whitfield) writes:

>Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>[e-mail] (Ray Whitfield) writes:

>>>CW once was the only game in town.
>>>Now it is a part of the game, and one that is loosing popularity daily.

>>Ray, can you provide us with some data to back up your statement?
>>At least when I claim that about 1/2 the HF QSO's that I hear
>>here in the Central Pacific are conducted via CW, I can back
>>up that claim by showing folks my monitoring log with times,
>>dates, and bands.

>    Just as you use the modes you like best; I use the ones I like best.
>All of my contacts are FM phone.  Not once have I ever heard a Code contact
>on 2m or 70 cm.  But I do not base my opinion on just my contacts on the
>air.  Rather at every HAM event I have ever been to, no one there used
>code.  Even on FIELD DAY, the Coppel HAM club did not use CODE while I
>was present and I am told that it was not epmloyed for anything other
>than catching the W1AW message for points.  If you do not employe any
>mode (or tune into any band that is commonly used for that mode ) then
>you will never take part in that mode. ( same for me too )  I can also tell
>you that the Irving ( it is to the west and little bit north of Dallas )
>Amateur Radio club has three VHF/UHF repeaters and lots of equipment for
>Phone contacts including autopatches on all three units.  They have no

CW has never been as prevalent above 30 MHz as it has been (is) below
30 MHz, so for you to say it's losing popularity daily (above 30 MHz)
is not a completely truthful statement.

During Field Day the CW subbands are jammed with stations, so one
might surmise that the Coppel Ham Club might have a collection
of folks that have just tech licenses and were operating during
Field Day under a coded licensee on HF. And it sounds like Irving
ARC is a V/UHF oriented club. There's a lot of factors to take into
account prior to making a statement such as ``...code is losing
popularity daily.''

I invite you to listen to the HF CW subbands ocassionally!

.73 Watts output from Hawaii,
Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:55:46 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paul H. Bock)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <38ktrd$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The (1929) Amateur Code

[e-mail] (Dana Myers) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:
>>
>>Show me a *commercially* built amateur transmitter/receiver for the
>>1929 ham, Rich! Just what do you think was available back then?

     A lot more than you are aware of, obviously.  While it is true
that hams of that era built their own transmitters as a rule, there
were indeed commercial receivers available, bought and used by hams.

     According to magazine ads of that era, it would also seem that
there were many "ready-built" components available which would have
simplified construction somewhat.

     Tomorrow I will post what I can find in the way of "ready-built"
equipment descriptions, which date back to the early '20s, in some
cases.

>>And even if there was one (which there wasn't), it would have been
>>up to the manufacturer, not the ham, to insure it was ``well-built''.

     Better read the FCC regs again, Jeff.  It is *never* up to the
manufacturer to ensure that a piece of equipment *once installed in
a station* complies with the FCC regulations for purity, stability,
etc., etc.  It is *always* the responsibility of the station
licensee.  The FCC does not inspect every piece of manufactured
equipment to see that it complies, it merely tests a sample and
then depends on the manufacturer to ensure that all units comply.
If your rig "gets you in trouble" with the FCC you can try filing
suit against the manufacturer (lots of luck!) and if it happens
a lot the FCC may take a closer look at the manufacturer, but in t
he final analysis it is *always* the licensee who is responsible
(that's why your station is *licensed*, to ensure that *someone*
is responsible for it).

>Not exactly, Jeff.  A "well-built" station can refer to equipment
>that is well-constructed, but I tend to think it means something
>more; a well-put-together station.  A station with adequate
>lighting, adequate room, safely connected equipment.  More than
>just a transmitter and receiver.

     Read "200 Meters and Down" for a historical perspective on this
issue.  The problem in those days was that a lot of the wonderful,
homebuilt stations Jeff is crowing about had *abominable* signals:
Chirp, drift, lots of AC modulation (from using raw AC on the plates),
out of band (very common in those days), etc.  All of which made the
amateurs look like - well, amateurs!  ARRL was so concerned about
the public image this created (by the way, BCI was a *real* nuisance
then, as bad or worse then the worst days of TVI in the '50s) that
a lot of effort was put into getting hams to "clean up their act."
Had that not been done, the support that the U.S. Government had
always given to protecting amateur frequency allocations at the
international conferences (where most of the rest of the world
wanted to ban amateur radio once and for all) might have dwindled
and we might all be talking on the Internet instead of the radio.
:-)   As it turned out, amateurs did finally clean up their signal
quality and operating habits (some very grudgingly, BTW) but even
so, retaining amateur allocations always has been (and still is)
a close-run thing.

>Anyway, even when you buy equipment, it isn't the manufacturer that
>is held responsible for the proper operation of the station; it is
>the station licensee.  In other words, the ham is always the
>the one to insure the station and equipment therein, is
>"well-built".

     Correct.

     One final note:  It was in the 'teens that "amateur wireless"
began to take on a distictly different character, from "wireless
experimenters" to "wireless communicators."  In other words, the
enthusiasts were more interested in communicating on the radio
than just tinkering with it.  This is what led HPM to form the ARRL
and establish the first nationwide trunk lines.  It was a fortuitous
move, because had that not happened and the aspect of "amateur radio
as a public service medium" never developed, there is little doubt
that the U.S. Government, tired of amateur wireless interference to
commercial and government interests and seeing no "saving grace" to
the hobby but merely a bunch of obnoxious, unorganized attic tinkerers,
would not have supported amateur frequency allocations at the
international conferences and amateur radio would hve been banned.

     Remember that, even in the 1920s, many European countries
would not allow their amateurs to communicate with other countries.
One Swiss ham had his license cancelled, his station confiscated, and
all his logbooks, notes, correspondence and postcards (the forerunners
of the modern QSL card) conficated because he had contacts with
other countries.

73 DE K4MSG

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #508
******************************