HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: OH Abandons ARRL Information
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 18:40:01 GMT


SB ALL @ ALLUS < NO8M $37693_NO8M
OH Sysops Abandon ARRL Information
R:920728/1812z @:NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA North Olmsted #:37693 Z:44070
 
 
To     :  Al Severson, Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division
From   :  Steve, NO8M@NO8M
Subject:  Ohio Sysops to Abandon ARRL Information
Copied :  ALL@ALLUS $37693_NO8M
 
 
 
     Ohio Sysops have expressed dissatisfaction with the ARRL
attempt to ban automatic forwarding on HF packet.  Current Ohio-
based packet activities are directed to the coordination of a
unified response to this ARRL ban.  The intended result of this
action is to
 
     (1) provide a show of support to those who may be
          writing alternative rule-makings and to those
          who may write comments on this action and to
 
     (2) provide those who will then act on those
          comments, be it the ARRL or the FCC, the
          knowledge that legitimate comments hold
          widespread support in the community and to
 
     (3) provide support to those HF forwarding stations
          that have attended to our mail for these many
          years and, finally,
 
     (4) to dispel the notion that we tacitly approve of
          the ARRL actions.
 
 
     To this end the Ohio Sysops have agreed by a strong majority
to end the support of propagating ARRL information and bulletins. 
As of this date, we are beginning this action.
 
     Perhaps you have heard of the actions taken in other areas of
the country.  Indiana is also in the midst of confirming their
support for the ending of the ARRL information flood bulletins. 
Colorado will shut down their packet network for two days.  Most if
not all current automatic HF forwarders will cease operation at the
expiration of this STA.  Some MARS HF unattended forwarders have
expressed concern about the changes in software they will now face.
 
     It is my understanding that you now fully support, approve and
have voted in favor of all proposals from the Digital Committee. 
It is hoped that you will recognize the current and future concerns
that your abandonment of this section of the amateur community will
cause.
 
73,
Steve, NO8M
 
cc:  ALL @ ALLUS
     N8AUH
 
          Note to Ohio Sysops:  I was led to believe that Mr.
     Severson was representing our interests in Newington.  This
     was entirely mistaken.  Due to this mistaken belief, I may
     have led some of you to believe that comments to our Director
     were not necessary.  Obviously, they are.
 
 
/EX
--
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Date: 29 Jul 1992 14:57:45 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Jul28.165700.28397@news.mentorg.com> rstory@simhp720.mentorg.com
> 	Is this file available via anonymous ftp from some site?  If it
> is not available, could some kind soul please post it, copy it to an archive
> site, or E-mail me a copy.

I've uploaded it to ucsd.edu. I don't know where Brian will put it, though.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
 you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:21:31 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul29.165105.8255@phx.mcd.mot.com> phx.mcd.mot.com!dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer) writes:
>I write:
>> Imagine:  Wanted, Pizza delivery driver, must have own car and amateur radio
>> licence.
>
>In article <103380018@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>Why? In the scenario you mention, the person hired would be taking money for
>>providing communications via amateur radio - i.e., "selling" ham radio
>>communications - and this would clearly be illegal under the proposed rule.
>
>No, they would be paid to deliver pizza.  They would simply get help finding
>addresses and optimum route via radio, the exact analogy of our trucker 
>friend who started this discussion.  The difference, of course, is that
>in a major metro area there are hundreds of delivery drivers.  I'm also
>sure that the PHARC (Pizza Hut Amateur Radio Club) would have no trouble
>getting corporate donations for a repeater (closed, of course). Same for
>Dominos, Emery, UPS, etc., etc.  

The line was crossed when the amateur radio license was stated as a
*requirement* of employment. That makes using amateur radio a part
of your job description for which you are being paid. Coincidentally
this brings up another point that has been in the news recently.
It seems that since "your own car" is a requirement of the pizza
delivery job description, you are operating *for hire* and require
a commercial driver's license and commercial vehicle insurance.
The Georgia Insurance Commissioner recently issued a statement
warning pizza delivery drivers that they are operating as uninsured
motorists in violation of the law if they don't have proper commercial
vehicle insurance. The State Patrol has also started checking license
class on these drivers.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:41:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <7cdm-rb.mont@netcom.com> mont@netcom.com (Mont Pierce) writes:
>I'm pretty new to ham radio, only being licensed for about 2 months.  Can
>anyone clarify what is considered business use?  The question pools hit very
>lightly on this issue, but not at all in this area.  Would it be permissable
>for me to seek input and suggestions for a project I am doing at work?  Any
>input I get will only help me make more money working on that project....

Then again, it may only be worth what you pay for it. :-)

I'll leave the trucker question alone, it does sound marginal, though many
hams can be heard asking directions on the air to places of business. That's
usually legitimate since the person giving the directions isn't profiting
from doing so. Now if the ham used the autopatch to *call* the business to
get directions, I'd say that was wrong. Let me address a slightly different 
area that you brought up. It's quite common to hear one ham ask another for 
help with problems that he encounters at work. For example, one ham may say 
something like this, "Bill, I know you use XYZ, I'm having trouble making 
it print. What should I do?" Now that's business related in a way, but it 
is also educational and that's one of ham radio's purposes. I don't see a 
problem with that sort of conversation as long as payment for the instruction 
is not required. It would be a different matter if Bill were the vendor of 
the program. Then it would be tech support and a business communication.

The interpretation of the no business rule is tricky. That's one of the
reasons that the ARRL and FCC are taking another look at it. I'm sure that
there are amateurs who would take exception to the examples that I provided
as acceptable conversational topics.  My rough rule of thumb is that most
topics that you might discuss in other casual bull sessions, such as
a backyard barbeque, are also ok over the air.

Gary KE4ZV
From: n4hy@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFUS
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:50:52 GMT
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj

From article <gdavis.712504637@griffin>, by gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis):
> 
> AMSAT'S 3D project is still in the planning phase with not too much
> consideration,to my knowledge,being given to packet operations.
>


This is not correct.  RUDAK III, active at human rates (up to 38400) will
be on board and is a major part of the effort for Phase III D.  The S band
transponder will be capable of operating in hard limiting mode and giving
us a few hundred kilobits per second for extremely well equipped amateurs.
This will probably be limited to national societies or AMSAT organizations,
etc. since it will involve dishes (not fixed and large) to move data through
the bird at these bit rates.

Bob
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: NO lots of things are Illegal
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:42:06 GMT

In a message of <27 Jul 92>, Jon Bloom wrote to All:

 JB> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

 JB> We missed several days of news here, so maybe someone commented on
 JB> this and I didn't see it... does anyone else find it amazing that
 JB> the Digital Committee's report refers to successful "semi-automatic"
 JB> operation by RTTY and AMTOR systems since the sixties--with no 
 JB> mention
 JB> of the blatant illegality of such operation?

No, who sez its illegal?  Amazingly enough ever time I find something that is
illegal and ask some of the "boys" its well....best we don't talk about
that.... Isn't it amazing that you haven't ever figured out that all ARQ Amtor
calls are illegal??  No callsign of the sending station is ever sent and no one
ever worries about it much.  Millions of people violating the rules....oh well.
 That's the real secret of this entire Digital Committee's proposal that no-one
that's opposed has ever figured out.  With just a little bending of the rules. 
Full automatic is a fact of life.  Now which one is in violation? Hmmm let me
see it must be Joe on the East Coast, nah its Linda on the West Coast, oh, Mr.
FCC I am sorry I thought it was ..... Fits right in with the hundreds of HF
Packet stations that are all ready running un-attended.


 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
From: bill@uofs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Deed restriction bans all ham antennas
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:20:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <1992Jul24.220632.27698@telesoft.com>, garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris @pulsar) writes:
> 
> Wouldn't similar reasoning work for CC&R's that attempt to restrict antenna
> height since they prevent you from installing an antenna as provided for by
> Federal law?  What we need is a sharp lawyer on our side :-)

First, what law, Federal or otherwise, gives anyone the right 
to have an antenna in their backyard??  Before you say PRB-1, 
let me remind you that PRB-1 is not a law, only an administrative 
clarification.    It also has not held up in court as well as
some of our USENET armchair lawyers would have you believe.

As to your second comment above, what we really need is less 
lawyers (period), but that is a discussion for another news group.

bill   KB3YV
 


-- 
     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: ARRL SNAFUS
Keywords: SNAF
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:57:17 GMT

     Well,sir, yup.. they went and did it again. Our esteemed national
 organization wishes to restrict packet to VHF. Its a pity that they
choose to do this at a time when no or few viable alternatives exist.
AMSAT'S 3D project is still in the planning phase with not too much
consideration,to my knowledge,being given to packet operations.

What possible motives or packetphobias the ARRL board may have had
may never be known. It is clear that hertz/hertz packet serves the needs
of more amateurs than an entire band devoted to cw or ragchew.

Yes, I suppose it is as I always suspected... they nostalgically have
placed the horse buggy before the turbo.

Yes.. lets revive the sparkys too while we're at it. A yeah!



YO!
WQ1F Gary    Alive and well and living in the 21st century

--
                  ** Gary E. Davis **
        - Dpt. of EE/CS University of Vermont - 802-656-1916
" It takes your enemy and your friend,working together,to hurt you:
the one to slander you,and the other to bring the news to you." Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 03:24:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.005415.273@qualcomm.com>, karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
> In article <l5dmhpj.pdh@netcom.com>, pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
> |> IMHO this is borderline.  If it is something more routine, such as actually
> |> planning or expecting to ask for directions over the radio, then it would
> |> certainly be a business use.  [...]
> 
> I think this is an excellent illustration of why the FCC's proposal
> to redo 97.113 doesn't go far enough.
> 
> 
> I plan to file comments that call for a very simple rule: the only
> thing you can't do is to *sell ham radio communications*. Period.
> Anything else goes.  This rule captures the *amateur* nature of the
> service, it is very simple and easy to understand, and it should limit
> any abuse to very low levels. After all, what ham wants to provide a
> large-scale common carrier service to a money-making company for free?

Oh, I see, then An Amateur who owns a Real Estate agency can put up
an autopatch, have all his Realators get Code Free Techs and have them
all Sell Houses over the Autopatch. Sure will save alot of Cellular Costs.

-- 
   John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                             |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                             |   Not my Employer's....
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 03:26:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.155024.15956@tamsun.tamu.edu>, willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.004054.26045@qualcomm.com-- karn@chicago.qualcomm.com writes:
> ...
> --
> --Of course, no one ever got cited for carrying traffic related to the
> --regular business affairs of the US military...
> --
> --Phil
> Whine, whine....
> 
> I didn't realize the US military was a business. Or do you have a specific
> example?

Certainly a "non-profit" organization.


-- 
   John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                             |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                             |   Not my Employer's....
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Reply-To: phx.mcd.mot.com!dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Organization: Motorola Analog Integrated Circuits Division
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:51:05 GMT

I write:
> Imagine:  Wanted, Pizza delivery driver, must have own car and amateur radio
> licence.

In article <103380018@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>Why? In the scenario you mention, the person hired would be taking money for
>providing communications via amateur radio - i.e., "selling" ham radio
>communications - and this would clearly be illegal under the proposed rule.

No, they would be paid to deliver pizza.  They would simply get help finding
addresses and optimum route via radio, the exact analogy of our trucker 
friend who started this discussion.  The difference, of course, is that
in a major metro area there are hundreds of delivery drivers.  I'm also
sure that the PHARC (Pizza Hut Amateur Radio Club) would have no trouble
getting corporate donations for a repeater (closed, of course). Same for
Dominos, Emery, UPS, etc., etc.  

*Apologys to PHARC, if it exists.

-Dave


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rstory@simhp720.mentorg.com (Ron Story)
Subject: HF Packet and a question...
Originator: rstory@simhp720
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:18:44 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


	My reading of this group is sometimes sketchy so thanks to
Brian Kantor for posting the Digital Committee recommandation.

My Question:

What is the advantage to using HF packet as opposed to VHF packet?

	I realize that HF packet will cover more ground per hop, but
the VHF stuff is persistant and a whopping 1200 Baud. ;^)  The extent
of VHF packet as far as coverage seems pretty good and the response 
time seems "reasonable" for what it doing.  Is HF packet this used 
outside North America frequently?  Or have I missed the boat....

Please respond via E-mail or posting.

Thanks,
Ron
-- 
Ron Story N7TLC (rstory@mentorg.com)| These are my opinions so: |
Mentor Graphics Corp. (503)685-7000 | #include <std_disclaim.h> |
 "...Yes,  I believe that's sarcasm,  the lowest form of wit."  |
From: n4hy@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Digital Committee Info Please
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:07:30 GMT
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj

From article <1992Jul27.115138.26901@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, by ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf):
> 
> Can anyone advise what commercial affiliations each digital
> committee member has?  Who works for what amateur company?
> Thanks, 73, Steve, NO8M
>


No commercial affiliations are allowed.  It is the reason (so I have been
told by one who should know) that I was never offered a position.  They
have been scrupulously clean about this.  Sinner operates the RTTY Journal
as a private enterprise but does not support or work for equipment
manufacturers to the best of my knowledge and the articles in it cover all
areas.

Bob N4HY
From: eri316@tijc02.uucp (Ed Ingraham         )
Subject: Re: Ham Radio "banned" at Iowa State?
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 12:49:20 GMT

From article <jeffries.711680413@pv7b87.vincent.iastate.edu>, by jeffries@iastate.edu (Anthony G Jeffries):
> 
> The rule is (from p.44, "The Guide to Residence Hall Living, 1991-1992"):
> 
>         Radio transmission of any type, including Citizen (sic)
>         Band equipment, is not permitted except through authorized
>         agencies such as KUSR and the Ham Radio Club.
>         
>         Outside antennae wires for radios and televisions are not
>         permitted.
>         
Clearly an opportunity for organized student demostrations, sit-ins, and
building occupations. :)
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Auto HF Ban
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:44:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: ksr.14075

ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>      In an attempt as unifying what is believed to be a wide displeasure
>over the ARRL's proposed ban on automatic forwarding, we in Ohio are trying
>to form a unified response to the ARRL proposal.  It is proposed that we drop
>support of the routing of ARRL materials in the deletion of the ARRL flood
>routing.
>      If you support the digital committee's recommendations:  Please do not
>expect a response to a line-by-line dissection of our efforts.  We have
>nothing to loose nor is there bargaining to be done.

Great.  Amateur radio at its finest.

Fortunately, unless the yammerheads in Ohio take to active jamming of other HF
packet stations (as opposed to the incidental jamming of HF non-packet
stations, which these folks are either too psychopathic to care about or are
too brain-damaged from exposure to CRT X-rays to understand), the ARRL
bulletins will still presumably make it through via other paths -- that's the
great thing about redundant networking.

>     This problem is due to our voice not being heard in Newington.

No, the problem is that you can't hear who you're jamming, and apparently are
incapable of understanding what the problem with that is.
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:59:23 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

You can retrieve Jay's copy of the ARRL minutes by FTP from ucsd.edu in the
directory
	hamradio/arrl/hffwd.arl


Plus I'm going to post it here; it's not that large.
	- Brian
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Pirating old Calls
Keywords: Ham Pirate Packet
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:19:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <389@beyonet.UUCP> beyo@beyonet.UUCP (Steve Urich) writes:

>Joe,
>  A few weeks ago, I was checking several of the calls on the heard list
>and noticed one call that did not come back, WB3AID.  I checked with a
>few servers and nothing kept coming back, however, someone just sent me a
>message saying this was you old call previous to 1984.  I think we have
>a radio pirate using you old call.  Do you want me to take this information
>to One Oxford Valley for you?  Do you think that a CB'er possibilily has
>your old call and it using it.
>
Does N3DFD (Joe) still have any rights over WB3AID?  I think not.
He shouldn't still be using the old call and you don't need to
ask his permission to report a suspected pirate, do you?  So
you wouldn't be reporting it for him anyway.  I'd say do what
you want and ignore his reply.  It really isn't up to him.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com)
Subject: Re: What is an emergency? (Was: Is it "business" if I to ...)
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 23:23:04 GMT

In article <+3nmqta.n1gak@netcom.com> n1gak@netcom.com (Scott Statton) writes:
>There has been a lot of discussion on what is and what is not appropriate
>traffic for Autopatch, and whether calling a tow-truck is illegal business
>communication.  I think that Hams could learn a little something from 
>pilots.  Just like in radio, in aviation in an emergency "anything goes"
>You may deviate from clearances, FAR's and instructions, in the name of an
>emergency.  You could declare an emergency for something really trivial
>....

When I was a student pilot, I came back from a flight complaining about how
busy another airport had been.  I couldn't get a word in edgewise on the tower
frequency, was finally assigned as number 7 in the pattern, and was asked to
execute a 360 on final for traffic sequencing.
The old guy laughed and asked me why I didn't declare an emergency.  "An
Emergency?", I said, "What for?".  "Tell em' you've only got one engine", he
said.  I was flying a Cessna 150.  Later I reflected on the reality of what
he really meant.

If amateurs are going to stick to the letter of the law, then ham radio
can only be used for the most frivolous things until a catastrophic emergency
occurs.
I'm for the new proposal: The only thing prohibited is selling ham radio.
It only takes a little common sense.  Too bad we can't test people for that.

WA7LDV

 
-- 
Fan mail may be sent to:
zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy