QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/policy/940289.txt

Text File | 1994-11-13 | 19.5 KB | 460 lines

Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 04:30:12 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #289
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Thu, 30 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  289

Today's Topics:
                       900Mhz Part 15 (2 msgs)
                           CW ... My view.

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, 28 Jun 1994 18:32:14 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!ftpbox!mothost!lmpsbbs!NewsWatcher![e-mail]
Subject: 900Mhz Part 15
To: [e-mail]

In article <2uovl9$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Reid Savage)
wrote:

>
> I'm interested in using the 902-928 Mhz band. Specificly, using it part 15.
> I understand that as a ham I can transmit high power levels but I'm more
> intrigued in not having the restrictions that go with the amateur service.
> I think it's pretty cool that I could comunicate either 1 way or 2 way with
> anyone. What are the rules concerning building your own part 15 equipment??

Apparently you don't understand the situation very well.  Only hams get the
higher power, and ALL users are on a secondary, non-interfering basis. Part
15 devices MUST be submitted to the FCC for approval, unlike amateur
equipment which is NOT subject to type acceptance in the VHF frequency
ranges.  Amateurs can ONLY communicate with other amateur stations, not
with any other occupants of the shared frequency band.

>
> If anyone has any experience with this band I would appreciate hearing from
> you. The 1 watt ERP limit, for many applications is all the power you would
> need. A 1/2 watt transmiter right into jpole antenna on top of a tall build-
> ing would give great coverage. It might not penatrate to the depths of the
> concrete canyons. But it would be fine for any line of sight work with
> reasonable receive antennas. Now if there were just some 1/2 watt 900Mhz HTs
> for sale. Imagine a part 15 900Mhz repeater!!  - you wouldn't even need an

There ARE 900 MHz HTs for sale, you just haven't been reading the right
magazine ads!  Regarding the ID, remember that ALL amateur stations are
required to ID except when running the exotic spread spectrum modes.  Only
a few of them are legal for amateur radio use, as compared to the
commercial Part 15 units.

> IDer. There are so many posibilities.  Over a year ago a company that
> makes spread spectrum radios advertised one of their radios in a ham magazine.
> The spread spectrum radio was a part 15 unit operating in the 902-928Mhz range
> at 128kbps. They claimed 1 watt of RF power and in the picture was a radio
> with a little duck antenna. If you used a halfwave antenna that would put you
> over 1 watt ERP. Are there some forms of spread spectrum that are allowed
> slightly higher output powers because of their wide band nature?  I know that

No, in fact spread spectrum is power limited BECAUSE it needs more
bandwidth.  You are definitely limmited to 1W ERP to minimize the
interference problems for which you (as one of many secondary users) are
totally responsible.  And as for the commercial SS systems, they rely on
having multiple routes to get a message from node A to node B, so antennas
with directional gain are not useable.

> the wavelan cards put out a 1/4 watt of RF. It's very easy to exceed 1 watt
> ERP with any directional antenna.  Many of the things I'm interested in doing
> would operate right on edge of legality. Would the FCC require field strength

If you want to do things that are on or beyond the edge of legality under
the amateur rules, you would be much safer buying the commercially built,
already type-accepted units and not risking your amateur license
priveleges.  The hook is that you must buy the commercial units to be
considered NOT an amateur station; if you build your own boxes you're stuck
with the amateur rules and potential loss of your amateur license whenever
you violate the Part 97 restrictions.

> measurements in order to take into account things like the tower acting like a
> reflector? From what I gather the 1 watt ERP limit may not be strictly
> enforced but you don't want to be the one who is made the example of,
> especially if its not ham compatible.

In your location (Madison, WI) you may find that the power company and
cordless phones already occupy a significant portion of the time-bandwidth
product.  Just remember that you aren't allowed to cause interference to
any other user, all present band occupants are secondary, and four new
primary licenses have already been granted for high power nationwide
vehicle location and tracking systems in the band.

>
> Reid Savage N9SYW
> Internet [e-mail]
> --
> Reid Savage N9syw
> 4015 Hiawatha Dr.
> Madison,WI 53711
> (608)-238-9870

Good luck, but be careful not to jeopardize your amateur license


--
Karl Beckman, P.E.                 <The difference between stupidity and >
Motorola Comm - Fixed Data         <genius is that genius has its limits.>

Amateur radio WA8NVW @ K8MR.NEOH.USA.NA         NavyMARS VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI
The statements and opinions expressed here are not those of Motorola Inc.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:32:18 GMT
From: netcomsv!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: 900Mhz Part 15
To: [e-mail]

There are plenty of companies making 900 MHz Part 15 devices - both
wireless LANs and cordless phones. Companies are also developing wireless
WANs in this band for alternative Internet connections. Most of the
investment for next-generation products is in the 2.4 GHz band.

The 1 W power levels are permitted ONLY to spread-spectrum devices.
Devices that do not use spread-spectrum must use lower power. Not all
spread-spectrum products use the full 1 W, though. Repeaters are permitted
in Part 15 now.

The products must be certified by the FCC. There are special rules for
building your own devices that will not be marketed. All of this is in FCC
Part 15 rules at your library. Ask for 47 CFR 15, especially 15.247 and
15.249.

There are heated controversies going on about both of these bands. In the
902-928 band the threat of Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) devices
is of concern to amateur and non-amateur operations. In the 2.4 GHz band
the government proposes to introduce new, unspecified commercial
operations that also worry hams and Part 15 manufacturers.

Bennett Kobb
KC5CW WashDC

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 15:37:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
Subject: CW ... My view.
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Robert Everitt Heiss) writes:

>One more view ...
>
>Once you know CW, there is a lower hurdle from being an appliance
>operator to building or even designing a homebrew rig.  CW technology
>is more accessible than SSB and the minimum cost is much lower, too.

This is not totally accurate. Simple SSB transcivers can be made at
similar costs to morse ones. As previously posted here on .policy.

>My 35 Watt CW rig with a dipole reached out about as far as a 100 Watt
>SSB appliance with a beam, and since most hams "speak" CW, I could
>have fun "talking" with the simple little thing.

No arguement, enjoy your favorite aspect of amateur radio to your hearts
content. No one is suggesting differently. And I will be the first one to
take exception with anyone who does!

>Most importantly, I learned electronics while tinkering with the rig.
>I feel that spreading knowledge of RF technology is one of the main
>justifications for amateur radio.  Code is a stepping stone towards
>education.

Code CAN BE a stepping stone, I will not argue (I could but won't). But
code is not the ONLY stepping stone, nor is it a particularly relevent one
to the rest of the RF uses in the country.

>The 13 WPM code test is not too much to ask.  Typical CW chats are 15
>WPM or more even in the novice bands.  An operator who can just barely
>copy dots and dashes at 5 WPM does not yet appreciate the possibilities
>of code.

IF your desire is to communicate with manual morse I would agree, however
if that is not your desire it is hazing to require it.

>  If all you could do was crawl, walking would seem impossibly
>hard, but it's actually easier.

And if walking was not your goal? If you could fly around like superman
why learn to crawl or walk at all?

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: 29 Jun 1994 22:03:43 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!bigboy![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2uqe71$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

In article <2uqe71$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:
>Ed Ellers ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: H. Peter Anvin <[e-mail]> writes:
>:
>: >    "Reverse autopatch for N9ITP this is WB9AET repeater"
>:
>: Sounds like a classic example of a transmission by one amateur station intended
>: to be received by one other specific station.  The only difference is that the
>: transmission is sent automatically rather than by a (human) control operator.
>:
>: -- Ed Ellers, KD4AWQ
>
>Show me the gray area of the law that allows a third party to
>automatically control an amateur repeater station.

Of course, the third-party operator is remotely controlling the
repeater, not automatically controlling it.  However, Bob is right...

--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:58:15 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!nntp.msstate.edu!emory!rsiatl!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Field Day (was Re: CW ... My view.)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX) writes:
>
>Wow, no wonder I didn't catch you on field day!  What was the code speed
>you were copying?  If you don't recommend MCW for BCD or ASCII, what mod.
>technique will you use? :-)

The telemetry was at 20 WPM. That's above my normal copy speed for
random text, but since the telemetry was formatted rigidly, it wasn't
much of a strain to copy the 3 digit number groups, at least not at
first. After an hour and 56 minutes of it though, it became very tedious.
We'll use 1200 baud AFSK next time (single chip modems).

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:02:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2uqe71$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Existing regulations limit our advancement.

[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:

>Ed Ellers ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: H. Peter Anvin <[e-mail]> writes:
>:
>: >    "Reverse autopatch for N9ITP this is WB9AET repeater"
>:
>: Sounds like a classic example of a transmission by one amateur station intended
>: to be received by one other specific station.  The only difference is that the
>: transmission is sent automatically rather than by a (human) control operator.
>:
>: -- Ed Ellers, KD4AWQ
>
>Show me the gray area of the law that allows a third party to
>automatically control an amateur repeater station.

The thrid party is not in control of anything, the automatic control
operator is in control. All the automatic control operater is doing is
advising a control operator of and external sensed input, same as a clock
or a temperature.

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 15:22:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW - THE ONLY MODE!

[e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:

>Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: [e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:
>
>: >Dan Pickersgill ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: >: [e-mail] (Tim Marek) writes:
>: >
>: >: >Sorry Gary.. CW IS a second language! Once you develope the ability to
>: >: >copy 30 -50 WPM in your head you will know this to be true.
>: >:
>: >: Then ASCII is a language? No. It is not. Your wetware modem decodes the
>: >: morse encoded ENGLISH, that is all.
>: >
>: >So which is it - is English (or French, or Spanish) not a language,
>: >or is something besides my wetware modem decoding it?  Gotta be
>: >one or the other, right?  I have no innate knowledge of it.
>
>: Then ASCII is a language. As is EBCDIC. And PGP must be a language
>: too then correct?
>
>No.  You didn't answer the question.  You said that morse was not a
>language and that your wetware modem merely decoded it.  Seems to me
>that one of the things that distinguishes languages from ASCII and
>such is precisely that your wetware modem understands it.  (Don't say
>you *understand* ASCII unless you can read words written in it with
>some fluency, the way people understand words, not just letters, in
>morse.  That's only the "5 wpm" level).

ASCII no, EBCDIC yes. And I am sorry for not answering the question. Yes,
english is a language. It stands alone as a language. Morse, ASCII,
EBCDIC, et. al. encode the roman alphabet. Morse used to communicate the
characters that make up english (or any other language that is used).

> Anyway, if you're right about
>wetware modems, English cannot be a language, can it?  After all, a
>wetware modem is necessary to decode it.  My point is that that alone
>isn't much of a point against something.  And if you say "machines do
>telegraphy better," well, they're working on the day that's true of
>telephony, too.  "Wetware modem" as a term generates much more heat
>than light.

It is descriptive of the activity. And I did not coin the phrase, I just
used it.

>(Is morse a language?  Depends entirely upon your semantics.  Under
>Webster's 3d definition 2b, it pretty clearly is.  Under some others,
>it isn't.  No one should care too much, because even conceding that
>morse is a language, it doesn't follow that knowledge of it should be
>required for a license.  No others but limited Exam English are.  It
>works in reverse, too - even if ASCII isn't a language, that alone
>doesn't mean knowledge of it shouldn't be required.  The language
>question is irrelevant to radio.  So, who cares?)

Well, we agree to the extent that the question should be the relevence of
the testing. However, I did not bring up the language issue. The pro-code
side chooses to use that as a reason for keeping the code testing. I was
attempting to refute the arguement.

Dan
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
=+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 16:25:57 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!sundog.tiac.net!usenet.elf.com!rpi!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW ... My view.

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Most of the complexity of either SSB or CW is in the receiver, not the
: transmitter. And a receiver for one mode also typically works for the
: other. In the realm of transmitters, FM transmitters are about as
: simple as CW transmitters, and much cheaper to operate since no manhours
: are wasted programming wetware modems. FM receivers are simpler than
: most competent CW receivers too, today a single chip in many cases.

Is there a simple FM or SSB transceiver you would recommend for people
to build these days, or is this something that could be done but
nobody has documented yet?

An example of a competent CW transceiver is the QRP Three bander, page 30-19
of the 1994 ARRL Handbook.  Even though it has full break-in, a sidetone,
and a receiver that sounds decent, it is an example of a single board
transceiver without jumper wires.   I've built a few SSB transceivers,
but none really come close in terms of design elegance.

--
Zack Lau  KH6CP/1           2 way QRP WAS
                           8 States on 10 GHz
Internet: [e-mail]   10 grids on 2304 MHz

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 06:40:23 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW ... My view.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>[e-mail] (Robert Everitt Heiss) writes:
>
>>One more view ...
>>
>>Once you know CW, there is a lower hurdle from being an appliance
>>operator to building or even designing a homebrew rig.  CW technology
>>is more accessible than SSB and the minimum cost is much lower, too.
>
>This is not totally accurate. Simple SSB transcivers can be made at
>similar costs to morse ones. As previously posted here on .policy.

That was a particular person's opinion rather than fact (he does that
quite often!)

Just looking transmitters, CW requires far fewer parts. My latest xmtr,
a 30M pup, only took 30 components. I scrounged all  the parts except
for a $1.50 trimmer capacitor from RS.

Oops, it's actually 31 components including the key which was make from
a hacksaw blade.

Ah, the simplicity!


Jeff NH6IL

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #289
******************************