QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/941156.txt

Text File | 1994-11-13 | 28.8 KB | 746 lines

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:32:15 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: List
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #1156
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 25 Oct 94       Volume 94 : Issue 1156

Today's Topics:
                                (none)
                             Call Sign ID
                          HOW TO LEARN CW???
                   IPS Daily Report - 24 October 94
                      Motorola Amateur Group????
           Murder or Accident?  --Old Radio-related Picture
            NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins (4 msgs)
                Passed my Tech today! Now the wait...
                     PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO
                       Question: DTMF, CTCSS ??
                       radio/car compatibility?
                       repeaters in Ottawa area
           Right Newsgroup for remote control discussions?
                          The Kenwood TH-79

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 Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

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: 25 Oct 94 19:36:47 GMT
From: [e-mail] (William T Blake)
Subject: (none)

     help
     quit

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 02:25:32 GMT
From: [e-mail] (John Hughes)
Subject: Call Sign ID

Is it appropriate or not to state a call with a double letter (i.e., xy8ppq) as xy8 double pq?  An older Ham indicated this was not proper.  Seems minor, with all the imaginative phonetics heard and people who say zed for the z in thei
in their calls...which is supposed to be some fancy british pronunciation?
What does the group think?

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

Date: 21 Oct 94 23:58:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Donald Davis)
Subject: HOW TO LEARN CW???

BS>I give up!   I have been trying to learn the code since before I was
BS>licensed with no luck.  I have tried tapes... all I do is memorize
BS>the tape... not the code.  I sit in front on my computer pounding my
BS>head on the keyboard (figuratively).  I HATE CW!!!  I don't even
BS>recognize my own call in CW.  I will use it ONLY to upgrade.  I have
BS>no intention ever to participate in a CW QSO.

Hey Bob, don't give up so easily.  I felt the same way but kept trying.
I purchased a Yaesu FT-900 and listen to W1AW after a year of listening
to the tapes and using Super Morse and it all clicked in one week.  I
think you have it down but need to listen to on the air broadcast like
the code practice from W1AW.  I also tried the ARRL tapes which I didn't
like at all.  I found the tapes by Gordon West of the W5YI group were
better and more enjoyable.  Give it a try, you can do it, I DID!!!!

73's - Don - N2RHB
---
. CMPQwk 1.4 #9206 . The truth is more important than the facts.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 23:16:35 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Regional Warning Centre)
Subject: IPS Daily Report - 24 October 94

SUBJ: IPS DAILY SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL REPORT
ISSUED AT 24/2330Z OCTOBER 1994 BY IPS RADIO AND SPACE SERVICES
FROM THE REGIONAL WARNING CENTRE (RWC), SYDNEY.
SUMMARY FOR 24 OCTOBER AND FORECAST FOR 25 OCTOBER - 27 OCTOBER
-----------------------------------------------------------
1A. SOLAR SUMMARY
Activity: low

Flares: none.

Observed 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number :  82/23

GOES satellite data for 23 Oct
       Daily Proton Fluence >1 MeV:   4.4E+06
       Daily Proton Fluence >10 MeV:  1.1E+04
       Daily Electron Fluence >2 MeV: 4.5E+07 (normal)
       X-ray background: B1.5
Fluence (flux accumulation over 24hrs)/ cm2-ster-day.

1B. SOLAR FORECAST
             25 Oct             26 Oct             27 Oct
Activity     Low                Very low           Very low
Fadeouts     None expected      None expected      None expected

Forecast 10.7 cm flux/Equivalent Sunspot Number for 25 Oct:  80/20

-----------------------------------------------------------
2A. MAGNETIC SUMMARY
Geomagnetic field at Learmonth: unsettled

Estimated Indices : A   K           Observed A Index 23 Oct
    Learmonth       16  3333 3433
    Fredericksburg  24                          37
    Planetary       27                          47

Observed Kp for 23 Oct: 6566 5433
2B. MAGNETIC FORECAST
DATE      Ap    CONDITIONS
25 Oct    12    Quiet to unsettled
26 Oct    10    Quiet to unsettled
27 Oct     7    Quiet to unsettled

-----------------------------------------------------------
3A. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION SUMMARY
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
24 Oct      normal         fair-normal    poor-fair
PCA Event : None.

3B. GLOBAL HF PROPAGATION FORECAST
                LATITUDE BAND
DATE        LOW            MIDDLE         HIGH
25 Oct      normal         normal         fair
26 Oct      normal         normal         fair
27 Oct      normal         normal         normal

-----------------------------------------------------------
4A. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC SUMMARY
       Observed
DATE   T-index  MUFs at Sydney
24 Oct    15    near predicted monthly values

Predicted Monthly T-index for October: 20

4B. AUSTRALIAN REGION IONOSPHERIC FORECAST
DATE   T-index  MUFs
25 Oct    10    Depressed 10 to 15%/near predicted monthly values
26 Oct    20    Near predicted monthly values
27 Oct    20    Near predicted monthly values
COMMENT: Degraded HF conditions may have been experienced at times
due to geomagnetic activity. Depressed / degraded conditions expected
during first half of today then improving to near normal.

--
IPS Regional Warning Centre, Sydney       |IPS Radio and Space Services
RWC Duty Forecaster   tel: [phone]  |PO Box 5606
Recorded Message      tel: [phone]  |West Chatswood NSW 2057
email: [e-mail]  fax: [phone]  |AUSTRALIA

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

Date: 25 Oct 94 13:34:38 GMT
From: William=E.=[e-mail]
Subject: Motorola Amateur Group????

>I didn't think Motorola made HAM gear??? (So I heard..)
>-Evan Platt
>Southern Region Director
>Bay Area Fire Photographers Association
>Internet:[e-mail]

they don't make stuff for the amateur market, yes.

but they do make stuff that amateurs can have set up for the ham bands. there
are a couple of Motoheads around here that have picked up some recent model
moto stuff and had it programmed with the amateur frequencies in mind. seems
to work OK (you would expect something else?) but for bang to buck ratio,
there's a lot missing in a commercial radio reprogrammed for amateur use. The
big one is lack of frequency agility. Then comes things like being able to
change parameters on the fly and such.

the moto rigs sound good, perform well and for the way the guys that have them
use them they're just fine. I'd rather have something a bit more flexible and
not requiring a trip to the radio store everytime i needed to QSY to a new
frequency.

bill n.

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

Date: 24 Oct 1994 19:52:34 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Leigh)
Subject: Murder or Accident?  --Old Radio-related Picture


Recently at a local bookstore I ran into a fascinating but nightmarish
photography book that contained a mysterious photo that is almost
certainly of an accidental death of an early ham operator or SWL.  The
book's title is "Evidence"; the author/editor is Luc Sante and is
published by Noonday Press.  It is currently in print.

Evidently the author was researching archives in New York City for old
police records, and came upon several dozen photographs of murder
victims and crime scenes taken around 1914 to 1918.  The photographs
were large format and illuminated by flash powder, so many details
are evident.  Most of the pictures are of impoverished-looking corpses
in dingy rooms or alleys.  While many pictures had notations by the
original police investigators, the information was usually very brief.

The picture on page 17 caught my attention:  it was of a dead young
woman with Jewish or Eastern European features, lying on the floor
near a set of old-style headphones.  Also on the floor are two metal
boxes that might be part of a homebrew radio set.  Her right hand is
upraised and appears burned, almost certainly from electrocution.
The room looks well-furnished and clean, but a small table is
overturned and a dresser on casters appears to be out of place.

This photo had but a single sentence of information from the orignal
investigator:  "Homicide Roshinsky taken Chas. Adams #1033 518 Fourth
Avenue Astoria 2/15/16".

At the end of the book the author speculates on each photo.  On this
photograph he ponders if the victim was murdered or accidently killed,
and decides it was probably homicide, due to the orignal note.  He
wonders if the equipment in the room might be a "telegraph set", but
then states "what telegraph equipment might have been doing in a
private apartment is anybody's guess".  Certainly the author has
never heard of ham radio!

I suspect the young woman was an early YL ham op, or perhaps was
a friend or relative of a ham.  Perhaps she was attempting to operate
an unattended station belonging to someone else, and touched a very hot
circuit of some open-chasis homebrewed transmitter.  The police
investigating may not have known of the physical violence of
electrocution, and may have assumed that the overturned furniture
was from a struggle with an attacker.

If anyone has an ancient callbook or records of early New York ham
operators, I would be very interested if there is a listing for a
"Roshinsky" or the address of "518 Fourth Avenue, Astoria".  Also,
if anyone else online sees this strange book and photograph, I'd
be interested in other theories.

I almost bought the book, but most of the pictures are just too gruesome
for me.  Still, it's worth looking at once.

73 DE KM6JE\Leigh Marrin in Santa Barbara, California.



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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 00:51:07 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary Phillips x397)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

I think you are nitpicking about the wrong thing. The reason that part 97
restricts "broadcasting" has little to do with the actual content (even
though content is used as one of the restrictors) and much to do with
bandwidth and interference. The part 97 rules limiting broadcasting were
written with HF in mind and are concerned with preventing stations from
just parking on one frequency and blathering away for hours on end even if
no one is listening. A packet BBS does not do this. It only sends a bulletin
on demand and when there is known to be a receiving station. Also, packet BBSes
operate at VHF and above, where band space is not at so great a premium and
they do share the frequency with other stations if all parameters are set
properly.

I note also that in spite of part 97, we seem to have plenty of "broadcasters"
running off on 20 m. so why doesn't this OO do something about THAT! It would
be a much greater service to the amateur radio service to clean up that
garbage than it is to hassle VHF packet stations.


--
  Gary Lee Phillips                  <[e-mail]>
  Computer Services Librarian        [phone] x397
  Columbia College, Chicago          #include <std_disclaimers.here>

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 03:54:56 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Bushong) writes:
>[e-mail] (Larry Rappaport) writes:
>
>>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 is right.  We are talking about the guy who posts his mother's
>cookie recipe to ALL@USBBS, not outlawing the 40-meter Cookie Net.
>
>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.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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.

>
>Ditto for the Packet BBS system.
>
>
>Dave, KZ1O
>
>Disclaimer: I like cookies.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Me too!

>--
>Dave Bushong
>OPEN/image Recognition Products


Patrick
KB8PYM
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 07:05:23 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject: NoCal OO goes after Packet BULLetins

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Whitlock) writes:

|>Fred Sober, as OO, was asked a question by a local ham:
|>
|>    If broadcast bulletins of non-amateur subjects are illegal on voice,
|>    why is it OK on packet?
|>
|>Fred did not know the answer (nether would I), so he started up the ARRL
|>chain of commands asking the Section Manager etc.  Each level in turn
|>said that they did not know the answer and referred him up to the next
|>level.  Finally he was talking to ARRL HQ.

Using the wording of the question, the answer is relatively straightforward,
i.e. it's *not* OK.  But then again it's almost impossible to violate
the broadcasting prohibition using packet radio due to the wording of
the definition of broadcasting in Part 97.  It's also almost impossible
to violate the one-way transmission limitations given the connection
oriented nature of packet.

|>They also said they did not know and referred him to the FCC and asked him
|>to "let them know what the FCC says."  (I don't know who I was at HQ that
|>said this, but it sure does not sound like a good idea to me).  So,
|>Fred started corresponding with the FCC.  The results he got were right
|>out of Part 97.

Why was this even brought up to the FCC?  We're supposed to be self-policing
and have been generally given a fair amount of latitude by the FCC.  Asking
them is like holding up a red flag and saying, "Don't *you* think this is
prohibited?" or "Isn't this what you meant by broadcasting?".

73,
Todd
N9MWB

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 04:19:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>The OO is then correct.  Packet bulletins are informational bulletins
>and subject to the restrictions of that definition.  Information
>outside of that which is of direct interest to the amateur service is
>not allowed.
>
>I would be pleased to see the FCC interact with the amateur service
>by way of NALs.  Our ability to self police our service would be
>greatly facilitated by occasional guidance.
>
>Please, if you are going to reply, don't do a line-by-line rebuttal.
>Write something original.  You also might note that the thread deals
>with BULLETINS, not QSOs.
>
>73,
>Steve
>        Internet:     [e-mail]
>          Packet:     no8m@no8m.#neoh.oh.usa.na
>
>
>

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.

If this causes the packet police to loose sleep, I guess I'll just include the
line "This item is addressed to all licensed amateur radio operators who have
an interest in ________.  Please reply to KB8PYM CQ CQ."  Sending a packet
message to CHESS or RECIPE is no different from keying up your 2m mobile and
calling out "Help, I'm lost - anyone have directions to xxxx KB8PYM" - does
anyone have a problem doing this?  If I were on packet it might look like
"TO: INFO   SUBJECT:Directions to xxxx"

If I can't do this I might as well stop working on upgrading, sell all that
nice radio stuff to some poor sucker and start practicing smoke signals - no,
then the enviro-heads would get after me!!!

Patrick (I like trees as much as the next guy)
KB8PYM
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Oct 94 13:25:51 GMT
From: William=E.=[e-mail]
Subject: Passed my Tech today! Now the wait...

>>Well, maybe you should stop calling them so that they can process your
>>application.  I've heard that the same people who answer the phone
>>process the apps.
>
>I've heard that too, and because even government employees are often
>human, I'll bet they put the applications of those who call the most
>at the bottom of the pile.
>Gary

actually, the guys that call hourly end up with their paperwork being set
aside so it will be at the beck and call of the folks working the phones
instead of over in the processing pile getting entered.  if it was put on the
bottom of the pile, they would have to keep digging it out again...so you keep
the application out of the stream in order to be able to answer questions
about it.

ob: the above is tongue in cheek.  the right answer is to sit tight for about
10 weeks before making the first call. go to some club meetings, subscribe to
some magazines, get some equipment set up and checked out.

bill wb9ivr

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 02:52:18 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Grady Ward)
Subject: PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO

An excellent use of PGP in amateur radioi.
Last year I even had a PGP fingerprint exchange on 40 meters.

--
Grady Ward       |  For information and free samples on | "Look!"
[e-mail] |  royalty-free Moby natural language  |  -- Madame Sosostris
[phone]  |  lexicons (largest in the world),    |     A91F2740531E6801
(voice/24hr FAX) |  run:        finger [e-mail] |     5B117D084B916B27

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 10:36:44 GMT
From: [e-mail] (R. Jager)
Subject: Question: DTMF, CTCSS ??

Almost every handset has default a tone system to open a squelch, a
repeater or a local QSO ;-). The most used systems are DTMF and CTCSS.
Questions:
- Those systems or not so common in Europe, is it typically for
North-America?
- What kind of applications are those tone systems used for?
- Is there any literature (by example articles in ham-magazines) about
these subjects?

Tnx, Ruurd, PE1DXQ.


--
-- Bloemenveiling Holland -- FLOWERING THE WORLD -- Flower Auction Holland --
using the NLnet Internet Services: E-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 05:28:43 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Crilly N6ZFX)
Subject: radio/car compatibility?

I'm thinking about getting a new car, and it would be a real bummer
if I find that my 100 watt hf rig screws up the car computer.  Kinda
like the fiasco a few years ago witht he older camry.  So I'm
considering one of them sport utility vehicles.  Maybe the 94 Isuzu Trooper
as I think I can get a good deal on it, and the insurance is not too
bad compared to other SUVs.  So, anyone out there running HF in your
trooper?  How about other Isuzu vehicles?

Lets take a little poll: If your radio *causes* problems with your
vehicle let me know, and I'll summarize for the newsgroup.

Btw, I've been using the HF radio (a kenwood ts440/at) in my mazda 323 turbo.
It has a computer, but doesn't seem affected by the radio.

Thanks for any info.

jeff
[e-mail]

p.s. I checked the faq.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 02:53:38 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ross Frederick Blakeney)
Subject: repeaters in Ottawa area

Hi, a friend of mine will be going to the Ottawa area, sometime during
the middle of Nov., and she asked me to try and get a list of Ottawa, and
area repeaters, both VHF and UHF, with their offset, and QTH.
any help is greatly appreciated.
thx in advance, 73 de VE1RFB, Ross


--

          ___________________________________________________
      |            /                |
      | Ross Blakeney       \  " No man has a good      |
      | VE1RFB              /   memory to make a        |
          | Grid: FN84fp        \   successful liar."       |
          | [e-mail] /  --Abraham Lincon--       |
          |            \                |
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:40:41 GMT
From: [e-mail] (B.A. Doehner)
Subject: Right Newsgroup for remote control discussions?

Hi,

Does anyone know what the newsgroup is that covers the R/C hobby?

Bernie nu1s/9

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 00:01:21 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Kenwood TH-79

Anyone have the Kenwood TH-79? Any opioninos on it?? performance? I'm
considering purchasing it, and not sure....

-Evan Platt
Southern Region Director
Bay Area Fire Photographers Association
Internet:[e-mail]

--
---- Sent by: InfoDude Communications,
              [phone]
              Palo Alto, Ca.
              Via Major Gateway/Internet

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 01:56:33 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Todd Little)

References<[e-mail]> <384obd$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject: Re: Logging systems???


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Landis - Systems & Network Mgr) writes:
|>
|>[Good description of Logic for Windows deleted]
|>
|>Thanks Todd, This sounds exactly like what I want!
|>So... how can I get in touch with PDA? Internet? Got a phone number?

Sure, call PDA at:    Orders        404-242-0887
            Fax        [phone]
            Tech Support    404-417-1899

PS  When you call tech support, you get Dennis, he's the developer of Logic,
    so you get it straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

73,
Todd
N9MWB

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

Date: 24 Oct 1994 21:47:52 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Henry B. Smith)

References<[e-mail]> <phb.782747783@melpar>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CW Learning: Going slow. : (

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
: ... deleted lines...
:
: Morse encoding is never "language". It's an encoding of Roman
: alphanumeric symbols, no different in principle than ASCII.
: Those alphanumerics may be combined to represent tokens in a
: natural language, or they may just be encrypted groups, but
: the Morse encoding itself isn't language. Copying Morse is
: a modem process. Most people don't confuse what a modem does
: with language, but because Morse modems are generally wetware,
: some people do confuse the medium with the message in that
: case.

Gary,

You are absolutely correct.

But then on the other hand, I can tell a lot by a person's "fist".
For example: I can tell if he is new at this or an old timer; if he is
using a straight key or a bug; if he is nervous or at ease.

Could we say that CW can have a certain "inflection" in the "fist"
that can tell us somthing about the individual?

Smitty, NA5K
--
Henry Smith ([e-mail])

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

Date: 25 Oct 1994 15:11:03 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)

References<[e-mail]> <38ghcq$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PGP-Signatur in PACKET RADIO

[e-mail] (Dave Halverson) writes:
>  So what is to stop you setting up your station with a bogus call sign
>  or someone else's call sign and sending stuff. Would the recipient
>  know that it was bogus? Could they check?

Several thousand dollars in fines, possible imprisonment, and loss of
your license.  At least here in the USA, it's illegal to use a callsign
improperly.
    - Brian

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

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 02:50:46 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David Finster)

References<38di94$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Passed my Tech today!  Now the wait...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (K.X. Gerling ) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (K.X. Gerling )
>Subject: Re: Passed my Tech today!  Now the wait...
>Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 13:32:26 GMT

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>writes:
>>
>>I dunno - I took the exam the same day as you - and I've called the FCC
>>repeatedly - and they have no record of my application...I guess I'm one of
>>the 8 -10 week stories you've been hearing about..
>>

>Well, maybe you should stop calling them so that they can process your
>application.  I've heard that the same people who answer the phone
>process the apps.

>-Freff

And when you call they pull your paperwork out, look at it, and place it back
at the bottom of the pile.

-- Dave
[e-mail]

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

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #1156
******************************