QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940517.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 19.1 KB

Date: Thu,  3 Nov 94 04:30:18 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #517
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Thu,  3 Nov 94       Volume 94 : Issue  517

Today's Topics:
                      I PASSED MY TECH TODAY!!!
                     Is this a Part 97 violation?
                        May I transmit or not?
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (3 msgs)
       Open Letter to Jeff Herman was Re: Deleting Richard Cris
                               TPK-182
       Type Acceptance - What is the logic behind it? (2 msgs)

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: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 22:38:53 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Meredith)
Subject: I PASSED MY TECH TODAY!!!

-> Path: stat!news.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!howlan
-> From: [e-mail] (TOM SUNMAN)
-> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
-> Subject: I PASSED MY TECH TODAY!!!
-> Date: 30 Oct 1994 13:09:03 -0500
-> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
-> Lines: 11
-> Sender: [e-mail]
-> Message-ID: <390nfv$[e-mail]>
-> NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com
->
->        I Passed my Technician exams today!!! I can hardly contain mys
-> Thanks to all who answered my questions about HT's, I went with the
-> HTX-202. Nice Rig.
->       Now comes the hard part......waiting for the license!!! What a
-> thrill, I can hardly wait!
->
-> 73's to all
->
-> Tom Randall
-> (waiting for his callsign!)
->


Congratulations and welcome to the ever growing Ham Community!


Dan


-----                      \---------------/                          -----
                     Arizona Network Intertie Group
                 "Serving Az's Digital Needs Since 1993"

Daniel J. Meredith - N7MRP                    Voice: [phone]
P.O. Box 44563                                Fax  : [phone]
Phoenix,  Arizona                             BBS  : [phone]
          85064-4563

List Owner: [e-mail]
Arizona Amateur Radio Packet Coordinator

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

Date: 1 Nov 1994 23:55:06 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Gregspiv)
Subject: Is this a Part 97 violation?

In article <36i3sa$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (jfilner)
writes:

I would think that using the autopatch as a preplanned way to respond to
your employers emergency would at the least be a very grey area that
should be avoided if at all possible.  I work in commercial radio and
there are many alternatives to using Ham radio for communications, all of
which your employer should provide you.  After all what if, for example,
all volunteer firemen used digital beepers and called in on the Ham
autopatchs for there calls.  All are emergencies and would problaby
qualify for loss of life or property, but they have a suitable home on
other freq. If you get paged once a month and have to call in for a
emergency then you are probably entering the very grey area.   Hams must
not profit in any way  from ham radio is the way I see it.  Just be ready
if it is ever questioned, but don't worry the FCC is very understanding
after all they were trained by the same people at the IRS....Hmmmmm.....

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 15:20:45 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dr. Arata)
Subject: May I transmit or not?

Hi this is Arata W5/7K3RFF(till I will receive US license).

Thank you everyone replying my massage.

You all are correct.

I sent e-mail to KJ4KB who is a Regulatory Information Specialist
in ARRL HQ. Within 30 mitutes, he reply me and he said
"You can be still on the air (great!) till you will receive US license."
As you know, the reason someone said "wait" is my BAD english.
He might not understand my situation.

I am now W5/7K3RFF.
Thank you again and see you on the air.

73 de Arata Miyauchi W5/7K3RFF
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 22:21:48 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Wolf) writes:
>What's to understand?  It seems like people keep trying to assign intent
>to the receiving station ... but intent for what?  Why take a bulletin that
>walks like a _bulletin_ and talks like a _bulletin_ and call it a "message"?
>
>All bulletins are broadcasting.  They are sent in many directions.  When being
>forwarded, the receiving station did not ask for them.  The sending station
>has no expectation that the receiving BBS will read or reply to them.
>
When I post something (be it a mod file, or an image file, or short
program, or recipe, etc) to @WW or @USA or whatever, I anticipate that
someone out there would be interested in reading it.  I do get replies
thanking me for image files (a teacher in France told me he's going to
use the "comet hitting Jupiter" images I posted in his class, which
might get some of his kids interested in ham radio maybe, another
set of replies when I posted an image of myself, all positive, no flames).

As Gary K____ (sorry, forgot your call) (the guy at a destructive test lab)
pointed out, the FCC considers all the packet posts as 3rd party traffic.
As long as you don't do something of "percunary(sp) interest" or use
dirty words, it's okay.  Somewhat similar to hams on HF or 2meters
talking about the weather or health problems, in that the content is
not directly related to radios.

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

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 23:04:09 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steve Wolf)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Robert Casey ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
: As Gary K____ (sorry, forgot your call) (the guy at a destructive test lab)
: pointed out, the FCC considers all the packet posts as 3rd party traffic.

Please do advise when and where the FCC made such a determination.  Please
post the text!

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 94 10:32:38 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

Steve Wolf <[e-mail]> writes:

>Clearly, a BBS phone port with a annonymous check-in allows the public access
>to relayed transmissions.  There are LOTS of phone ports that allow
>anonymous check-ins.
>
>So, originators of bulletins which are sent by any means to a BBS that has
>a public phone port that are not about amateur radio would fall under
>broadcasting.

No, because the members of the public are not receiving the bulletins *via
amateur radio.*  They are receiving them by telephone.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 14:39:40 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Open Letter to Jeff Herman was Re: Deleting Richard Cris

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>>Hey Jeff, what does this rot have to do with shortwave?
>
>Rich: I was responding to Paul Schleck's slanderous statements
>here on rec.radio.amateur.policy - ask him why *he* cross-posted it
>to .policy, .shortwave, and .scanner. Hopefully, now you can understand
>the confusion and noise that may result from cross-posting.
>
>Jeff
>

I have never had any trouble understanding the confusion. It is you that
is confused. If what Paul said was true, there was no slander.

It is intersting that I received a telephone call from another
person about two days before Paul's post. The caller, whose name
need not be mentioned here, said essentially the same thing about Jeff's
rantings regarding the Lambda Radio club, gays cruising the bathrooms
etc. Jeff, you have got quite a following! By the way the caller
was not Paul.

--
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                [e-mail]
[phone] wk                                         [phone] fax
             For PGP Public Key, type finger [e-mail]
 In the US we have three boxes that matter, the soapbox, the ballot box,
 and the cartridge box. Let's effectively use the first two so we do not
 have to resort to the third!

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

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 23:25:58 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Meredith)
Subject: TPK-182

SB TPK @ WW $TPK-182
TPK Version 1.82 NEW RELEASE!


Hello All,
The LONG Awaited release of TPK-182 has occured...It was released
this October and is Now Available...

-----------

TPK-182.ZIP Is Available from the F6FBB-SUPPORT BBS in The United States
at:

[phone]     300-28.8KB V.34 Protocol  All Common Protocols....

-----------

-----------

TPK-182 is Also Available from The Internet By UUEncoded E-Mail Request:

Send E-MAIL To:

[e-mail]

No Subject or Message Necessaary,  You will automatically receive an
E-Mail that contains TPK-182.ZIP UUEncoded

PLEASE NOTE:  The File Is NOT Split,  So Be Certain Your Mail Server Can
              Handle LARGE Pieces of Mail.

-----------

-----------

TPK-182 Is Also Availabe by SASE Disk Mailer,  Enclose (1) One  1.2 or
1.44 Formatted Floppy Disk and a Postage Paid Return Envelope and
Send To:

Daniel J. Meredith N7MRP
P.O. Box 44563
Phoenix, Az  85064-4563

-----------


Enjoy TPK-182!!!


73 de Dan [e-mail]
White Page-World Server Station...
/EX

-----                      \---------------/                          -----
                     Arizona Network Intertie Group
                 "Serving Az's Digital Needs Since 1993"

Daniel J. Meredith - N7MRP                    Voice: [phone]
P.O. Box 44563                                Fax  : [phone]
Phoenix,  Arizona                             BBS  : [phone]
          85064-4563

List Owner: [e-mail]
Arizona Amateur Radio Packet Coordinator

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

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 94 10:36:21 -0500
From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Type Acceptance - What is the logic behind it?

Ken A. Nishimura <[e-mail]> writes:

>No.  Nothing says that you can't operate a fire dept. radio in the ham
>bands.  If you can get the radio tech at the FD to reprogram your FD
>radio to operate on the ARES rept frequency, you're all set.  It IS
>ILLEGAL to use your 2m HT on FD frequencies for the reasons above.

That can't be emphasized too strongly -- the programming must be done by
someone with a commercial ticket, or else the radio can no longer be used in
the public safety services (or anywhere else but the amateur bands) until it
has been checked out by a licensed technician to ensure compliance.

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

Date: 2 Nov 1994 00:57:07 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ken A. Nishimura)
Subject: Type Acceptance - What is the logic behind it?

In article <[e-mail]>,
JOE BRANDT <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>I have heard of something called type acceptance. In my case I am a member
>of a small volunteer fire & rescue squad and also a ham. I have authorization
>to use the radio frequncies dedicated to this service, when conducting
>rescue operations.

Type acceptance means that the FCC has examined a sample of the product
and found that it meets all technical requirements for that service.
As long as the manufacturer makes each unit "identically" to the sample,
each unit doesn't have to be approved by the FCC -- hence the type of
radio is approved.  Incumbent in type acceptance for radios in Part 90
and I believe Part 80 is that the user not be able to select the
frequency of operation other than through a predetermined channel.

This is why you need specialized software and hardware to program Motorola
radios.  You cannot have direct entry of frequency, either by keypad or dial
knob in a type accpeted radio.

>Can I modify my 2-meter HT for use in the Fire-Dept band?  Why not?

No.  Your 2-meter HT has the ability for the user to determine frequency
of operation.  Thus, it is ineligible for Part 90 type approval.  Technically,
I am confident that any modern 2-meter radio passes the technical requirements
for Part 90, but the FCC doesn't want users to pick frequencies at random.

>Do I really have to carry two radios to coordinate efforts between
>ARES & the local Fire Dept?

No.  Nothing says that you can't operate a fire dept. radio in the ham
bands.  If you can get the radio tech at the FD to reprogram your FD
radio to operate on the ARES rept frequency, you're all set.  It IS
ILLEGAL to use your 2m HT on FD frequencies for the reasons above.

                    =ken

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

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 02:26:04 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mr. Black)

References<3938vv$[e-mail]> <393eec$[e-mail]>, <3964l1$[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW exemption for Old Fellows?


michael silva <[e-mail]> wrote:

>The guy who submitted the petition is a 67 year-old Tech, and he claims that
>old age results in diminished faculties and that people 65 and older were
>severely disabled in terms of passing a code exam...


Hmmm, perhaps the FCC was a bit too hasty in denying the waiver... I'd say we
make a fair trade: since his faculties are diminished we give him the waiver
but take away his driver's license.

-Dave

,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|              --------v--------                                              |
| Dave Munroe          |     xx7xxx   Tech+HF, just another  QRP  DX  addict  |
| [e-mail]   |                                                      |
|                                              (awaiting license)             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| You know you've been studying code too long when you automatically try to   |
| decode random clicks and rattles inside your house, car, or office.         |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 00:16:12 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: I WANT, I WANT, I WANT, I WANT Wah Wah Wah

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed Hare (KA1CV)) writes:
>
>Actually, I think it is the slowness that I like, although at 40 wpm, using
>normal CW abbreviations that bring the effective rate up to about double
>that, I really can't call it slow. What I like about CW is that I have
>plenty of time to think about what I am doing, and what I want to say. When
>I get in front of a microphone I find myself at a loss for words (believe it
>or not!) and really don't have a good time at it.

Ah well, I've never had *that* problem. :-)

But I understand what you're saying. Having time to think and review
is even more true in the digital modes due to the usually non-realtime
nature of the messages.

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: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 02:27:32 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)

References<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <38rm5k$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Kindness and ham radio

In article <38rm5k$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gregory brown) writes:
>
>Sure enough.  And while this thread is getting very far from ham
>radio, it actually does shed some light on relevant discussions,
>believe it or not.
>
>The libertarian would say that since the _difference_ in speed kills,
>not the speed itself, they conclude that, since so many people break
>the law by speeding, we should raise the speed limit so those slow
>law-abiding folk don't cause accidents.  Is that logical, or what?
>
>This is the same sort of logic these people apply to amateur radio.
>In their own (strangely) logical minds, it makes perfect sense.
>
>How bout if everyone just obeyed the speed limit?  Wow, what a
>concept, huh? I'm sure your time isn't _that_ valuable.

Ah, but that's where you move off into fantasyland. Since most
people *don't* obey the arbitrarily low speed limits, how do you
propose to make them change? They've voted with their right feet
to obey the *natural* speed limit of the road rather than the
arbitrarily imposed one, even in the face of speed traps and
fines. One could attempt to impose more and more fascist and
draconian enforcement and fines, but that only leads to resentment
of authorities, and disrespect for laws seen as being contrary
to physics.

It would be like declaring that the value of pi was 3.0 by legal fiat.
People would soon realize when the circle didn't close that the law's
an ass, and that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. The same holds here.
The interstates were designed for a 70 MPH speed with 1950s vehicles
and suspensions. That's reflected in the 1000 foot minimum radius for
turns, the 3% maximum grades, the angle of bank in turns, and a host of
other design factors. With modern vehicles and suspensions, the natural
limit is even higher.

Cover the speedometer, and people will drive at the natural speed
of the road. Uncover it and require them to maintain a speed below
that natural speed, and they'll constantly be having to slow down
as they notice they're going over the limit. Since that's unnatural,
they'll soon begin to question whether it's rational. Since it's
relative speeds that determine hazard, the arbitrary limits are
irrational, so people will tend to disobey the irrational limits.

The law and physical reality have to mesh if laws are to be obeyed
consistently. The situation here requires either raising the arbitrary
speed limits, or changing road design to lower the natural speed of
the roadways. Until one or the other is done, compliance with the
law will be poor.

This tells us something very deep if we care to consider it. And
it has implications for other intersections of natural and manmade
law.

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     |                     |

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #517
******************************