HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:10:20 GMT

In article <1gof0hINNqua@west.West.Sun.COM> flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE]) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.184153.2475@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Well let's see, I said that modifying a land mobile radio to work in
>>the ham bands  would void it's Type Acceptance. Therefore it would
>>now be legal to use in the ham bands where Type Acceptance is not
>>required, but would be illegal to use in it's original service.
>>
>>I also said in response to another query that one of the older land
>>mobile radios, grandfathered in before the user programability restrictions,
>>that could tune the ham bands *unmodified* would be ok in both services.
>>
>
>Just curious but what if the person doing the modification were a duly
>licensed commercial (General Radiotelephone) technician?  I would think
>that they would be allowed to make small modifications. No?
>
>-fred - General Radiotelephone Licensee
>	(formerly First Class Radiotelephone) since 1975

No. The rules say a land mobile radio must not be capable of out of
band operation to get Type Acceptance. This is a fairly new rule.
Any modification, regardless who does it, that makes the radio capable
of out of band operation voids the Type Acceptance.

Gary KE4ZV GRT (formerly First Class Radiotelephone since 1963)


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 10:18:17 -0500 
From: Keith Poole <kp2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: New licensing system?

With reference to retesting -- I think it is cruel to take away from men
in their 70s and 80s the hobby that they enjoy.  As a CW/AMTOR only amateur,
I often run into retired men in their 70s and 80s on both modes (re AMTOR,
they have switched over from Baudot).  So you are going to force men of this
age to retake examinations?  What a wonderful brave new world.

Keith Poole K7MOA/3
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: New licensing system?
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.150030.8314@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>While many amateurs *view* their participation in the Amateur Radio Service
>as a hobby, that word will be nowhere found in Part 97. Instead you'll
>find that the ARS is a service designed for voluntary self training, 
>advancement of the radio arts, public service in emergencies, and 
>to foster international goodwill. The Service exists only because it
>is in the *public* interest for it to do so. 

So, Amateur Radio isn't a hobby because that word isn't explicitly mentioned
in Part 97?  Be serious.  Both the ITU regs and Part 97 define an Amateur
Operator as "A person interested in radio technique solely with a personal
aim and without pecuniary interest...".  A hobby is clearly something pursued
solely with a personal aim and without monetary interest.  What is interesting
here is the use of the adverb SOLELY.  Nothing about public interest
whatsoever.  In short, if what you are doing is not SOLELY with a personal aim
AND without monetary interest, it DOES NOT belong in the Amateur Service.

>While certain old men may get pleasure from participating in the Amateur 
>Radio Service, like some others get pleasure by volunteering their time 
>and money to other pursuits like volunteer fire departments, or EMS services, 
>or Meals on Wheels, that is not the reason for the ARS to exist or the basis 
>for it's regulations. Nor should it be.

I'm hardly an old man at 28.  I pursue Amateur Radio solely because it's
fun.  It's fun to work pileups, it's fun to experiment with VHF propagation
anomalies.  It's fun to pump a half a quart of coffee into my system at
1am the last weekend in June just to catch a satellite pass.  The byproduct
of so many people having fun is a service which provides the benefits 
expressed in the opening of Part 97.

>The ARS itself, and it's regulations, exist only for the purpose of 
>furthering the public interest as outlined in the basis and purpose 
>statement at the head of Part 97. If that gives some people pleasure 
>as a *side effect*, so much the better, but that isn't it's primary 
>purpose. Amateur radio was not established to be a "hobby" even though 
>many have attempted to turn it into "just a hobby" for their own purposes. 
>If the ARS becomes widely viewed as "just a hobby", then it will no longer 
>be serving it's purposes and it's valuable spectrum can be reassigned to 
>commercial services without further adieu.

What you're saying here is that people go out and get a license in
in order to fulfull one of five tenents outlined in 97.1.  Not only is
this argument false prima facie, but such a person would not be, by
definition, an Amateur Radio operator.  The SERVICE exists because of the
HOBBY, not the other way around (historically and otherwise).


--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:19:46 GMT

In article <pschleck.724095731@cwis> pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Amateur equipment does *not* require Type Acceptance *ever*. Manufactured 
>>amateur equipment must be Type Certified to meet Part 15 limitations for
>>*intentional* radiators. This is totally unrelated to the requirements of 
>>Type Acceptance and is shared in common with certain ISM equipment, cordless 
>>phones, and the like.
>
>Uh, Gary, what about the requirement of type-acceptance for "regular
>manufacturers" of linear amplifiers capable of operation between 1.8 and
>144 Mhz?  Seems this was a topic of much heated discussion on
>rec.radio.cb a while back.

Oops. You are correct, external power amplifiers do require a form of
Type Acceptance.

Gary KE4ZV
From: jbromley@joshua.intel.com (James Bromley~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: New licensing system?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 04:16:12 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: joshua.intel.com
Keywords: Retesting

--------------
 Keith Poole <kp2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

 With reference to retesting -- I think it is cruel to take away from men
 in their 70s and 80s the hobby that they enjoy...
--------------
 gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

 If they can no longer demonstrate the *minimum* competence required to
 be an amateur radio operator by retaking the exam, then either they
 shouldn't be on the amateur bands, or the exams are irrelevent to the
 usage of amateur radio spectrum...
-------------
I say:
 
 I think retesting is the big stick that is waved at the OF's when they
 become too insistent about holding onto the high-speed code licensing
 requirement.  It's a counterforce - mutually-assured trouble if some
 kind of _detente_ isn't reached.  And that is a sure indicator that the
 discussion has escaped the bounds of reasoning together.


+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Jim Bromley W5GYJ       |                                                  |
| Intel Corp. m/s CH3-91  |   Celebrating 30 years as a No-Code Technician   |
| 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.  |                                                  |
| Chandler,AZ 85226       |                                                  |
| tel: 602-554-5183       | Internet: jbromley@sedona.intel.com              |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: email, USENET, and other TCP/IP goodies..
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:51:53 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> 1) Is it illegal for somebody to reply to SMTP email that is sent through
>   a HAM-INTERNET gateway if that person does not have a license?
>
>  2) What about USENET, where most people who post articles do NOT have
>  licenses?


You're going to have to be a little more explicit about what you mean
here.  It is not ever illegal to reply to mail.  What gets illegal is
transmitting it on the air, depending on the circumstances.

If you are asking what the general implications of a gateway between the
two services, this gets hashed out here on a regular basis.  You'd better
have all you Third-Party ducks in a row if you are going to allow non-hams
to send messages through your station.  It makes little difference whether
the message originates on USENET, some landline BBS system, or from your
4 year old daughter banging on the keyboard.

-Ron
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: FCC change of address change of policy?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:01:16 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

Just called the local FCC office to get a form:

FCC: "Good Morning, FCC.  How may I help you?"

Me: "I need to a copy of a form 610-B-as-in-baker."

FCC: "I have form 610-A.  610-B forms are sent directly from Washington for
renewal."

Me: "What about change of address?"

FCC: "You don't need to send in a change of address for Amateur.  It's not
required."

Me: "Thank you. Goodbye."
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:47:24 GMT

Gary:  You say that modifying the radio (land mobile) to work outside of the
ham bands would violate it's type acceptance for the land-mobile service.
What about these older radios, which had such a wide bandwidth that no
physical modification was required, it was just a matter of entering
444.525 rather than 460.025, for example.

-ks

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: email, USENET, and other TCP/IP goodies..
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:31:24 GMT

In article <1gav19INNd0u@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
>
>If you are asking what the general implications of a gateway between the
>two services, this gets hashed out here on a regular basis.  You'd better
>have all you Third-Party ducks in a row if you are going to allow non-hams
>to send messages through your station.  It makes little difference whether
>the message originates on USENET, some landline BBS system, or from your
>4 year old daughter banging on the keyboard.

I'll predict that a fiasco of neo-fascism such as occured over the Infamous
900 Gulf War Telephone Number will not occur again.

Operating under that assumption, because of a overall realization of the
rapidly changing role of Amateur Radio, I'll be putting up a 19,200BPS
radio link to Turing.ORG as soon as I can afford it.
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: New licensing system?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:09:59 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com
Keywords: Retesting

> or the exams are irrelevent to the
> usage of amateur radio spectrum...

I don't think anybody has ever argued that the FCC's exams were relevent
to anything.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:29:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.184724.7594@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith) writes:
>Gary:  You say that modifying the radio (land mobile) to work outside of the
>ham bands would violate it's type acceptance for the land-mobile service.
>What about these older radios, which had such a wide bandwidth that no
>physical modification was required, it was just a matter of entering
>444.525 rather than 460.025, for example.

That would be ok since no changes to the radio are made.

Gary KE4ZV

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith)
Subject: Re: Commercial Radios on Ham Bands
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:21:16 GMT

I'm pretty sure Gary was referring to the multi-band aircraft radios not
specifically intended for AM aircraft band operation.  For example,
Wolfsburg makes a 25-950MHz continuous coverage (NFM and AM) aircraft
radio that is fully keyboard programmable and type-accepted for
aircraft use.  It's useful for things like LifeFlight and fire/police
helocopters which can be used mutual-aid in various areas.  Looks like
a neat radio.  I'd love one for my car.  :-)

-ks

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:14:47 GMT

Isn't the non-user programmability of Land Mobile radios a fairly "new"
rule?  The older Icom and Regency land mobile products were keyboard
prorammable right out of the box (newer stuff requires diodes to be
removed to enable field-programming), so arn't they grandfathered, or
does the FCC expect all users with older radios to junk them and buy
newer non-programmable radios?

An email conversation with another net-ham pointed out to me that it is
illegal to have a land-mobile radio programmed with both amateur and
non amateur (ie: business band, public safety, etc) frequencies, even
if the user is licensed for both, unless the radio owner made provisions
in his land-mobile license to include the amateur frequencies.  This would
make it rather difficult to comply with the law, as ham frequencies change
frequently depending on the repeater the ham wanted to access (or simplex,
or whatever).  Anyone want to provide input on this?

Don't worry, I'm not going to call the FCC so they can clarify this.  :-)

-ks

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:41:53 GMT

In article <9212141020.tn05394@aol.com> tstader@aol.COM writes:
>Not sure what happened Gary... but your post never made it into the "digest"
>version.... but must have showed up in the mailing-list format.
>
>Could you please resend your reply to my query.

Well let's see, I said that modifying a land mobile radio to work in
the ham bands  would void it's Type Acceptance. Therefore it would
now be legal to use in the ham bands where Type Acceptance is not
required, but would be illegal to use in it's original service.

I also said in response to another query that one of the older land
mobile radios, grandfathered in before the user programability restrictions,
that could tune the ham bands *unmodified* would be ok in both services.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: coolidge@zko.dec.com (Bayard R. Coolidge)
Subject: Re: FCC change of address change of policy?
Reply-To: coolidge@zko.dec.com (Bayard R. Coolidge)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:10:31 GMT



I think what they're trying to tell you is that no official form is needed
to report a change in MAILING address.

However, a standard 610 (suffixless) is needed to report a change in station
location (regardless of any change, or lack thereof, in the mailing address).

On the other hand, you can use the 610 to renew your license and report a
change in mailing address at the same time. Otherwise, a simple letter to
Gettysburg advising them of your change of mailing address will suffice.

73,

N1HO

Bayard Coolidge, coolidge@zko.dec.com
The opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and are not those of
Digital Equipment Corporation or any other entity.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: eric@j30264293.reslife.cornell.edu (Eric L. Beyer)
Subject: Re: email, USENET, and other TCP/IP goodies..
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Nntp-Posting-User: elb1@cornell.edu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: The Solaris Development Group
X-Newssoftware: GRn-beta 1.16g (10.12.92) by Michael B. Smith & Mike Schwartz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:06:30 GMT

In article <1gau1oINNimc@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.171924.15793@mail.cornell.edu> eric@j30264293.reslife.cornell.edu (Eric L. Beyer) writes:
> 
> >  1) Is it illegal for somebody to reply to SMTP email that is sent through
> >   a HAM-INTERNET gateway if that person does not have a license?
> 
> Of course not. How is a user supposed to know where the mail originated?
> How can it be illegal for him to reply in the same medium in which he
> received it?
> 
> >  2) What about USENET, where most people who post articles do NOT have
> >licenses?
> 
> Also of course not. Posting to USENET, other than posting material
> illegal for other reasons, is not illegal.
> 
> Neither of those questions asks whether it is illegal for the amateur
> involved in taking the material from the net and transmitting it in the
> amateur bands. Either from the FCC side of things, or from a copyright
> violation viewpoint.

-- 
   I had just assumed that an amateur would have permission to access
internet through amateur bands, but that the lay user would not necessarily
have permission to access users in a way that would utilize amateur
frequencies..

   That clears up a lot though. Thanks.
--
  Eric L. Beyer
  Proud owner of his rusty A500
  Paper pusher of Solaris Devlopment Group
  (elb1@cornell.edu)

 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Xerox 820 packet applications?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:32:33 GMT

I'm clearing out my shack and one of the items is a Xerox 820 system 
(with dual 8" drives no less!). I believe at one time these were used
for packet applications. Are they still useful, or are they the dinosaurs
of packet technology? I'm trying to decide whether to break it up for the
parts, or to try to sell it to someone who can use it. Please reply by
email if possible as I don't often get the time to read this newsgroup.

Thanks

Bob Atkins  KA1GT   AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
email direct to  rma@clockwise.att.com
                 att!clockwise!rma

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: kb7uv@panix.com (Andy Funk)
Subject: Re: 1200 bps modem standards: deviation?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:16:57 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

There's an article on deviation in a recent "By Any Other Name...", the
newsletter of the Radio Amateur Telecommunications Society, which explores
this issue fairly thouroughly.

If you'd like a copy of this issue of our newsletter please send me email
with your address.

73, Andy
-----
    Andrew Funk, KB7UV                     Internet: kb7uv@panix.com
    Vice Chair (& Chair-elect)               Packet: kb7uv@kb7uv.#nli.ny.usa
    Radio Amateur Telecommunications Society    BBS: 718-956-7133

-- 
    Andrew Funk, KB7UV                     Internet: kb7uv@panix.com
    ENG Editor/Microwave                     Packet: kb7uv@kb7uv.#nli.ny.usa
    WCBS-TV Channel 2 News                      BBS: 718-956-7133
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: IP Address Coordinator in VA??
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:12:51 GMT

In article <1gbh9dINN8od@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co862@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Don H. McGee) writes:
>
>Does anyone know the call or name or email address of the IP 
>address coordinator in Virginia?? I would love to get a
>number assigned. 

[stifling a guffaw]

Try Jim De Arrass. WA4ONG, @WA4ONG in Richmond Virginia.

Then, let us know how successful you are.

Then send me mail and I'll tell you how to get in touch with people who are 
working with TCP/IP in Virginia and can give you an address.


>
>Thanks, 
>Don McGee KF6CJ ecudhm@erigate.ericsson.se
>-- 
>Don H. McGee    ecudhm@erigate.ericsson.se    KF6CJ
From: bmehlman@trirex.COM (Ben Mehlman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: KA9Q - What is it?
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:23:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

> The KA9Q package includes AX.25 protocols (and NET/ROM). You don't  
need
> another terminal program to connect to regular AX.25 packet  
stations
> (including PBBSs and PacketClusters). 

> 


I was under the impression that the KA9Q software is a router,  
period, and that all contacts I made through tcp/ip would be  
accomplised by using tcp/ip based network protocols/programs such as  
telnet and ftp on my workstation...

Can someone please explain what exactly the KA9Q software is used  
for, the basic gist of how it is used, and what other solutions it  
replaces or enhances.

My basic goal here is to get my unix workstation to the point where I  
can telnet, smtp, etc with other hams and (maybe)to the internet, ie  
make my machine a presence on the TCP/IP network.  What software is  
used to accomplish the interface to the TNC??  If there's more to  
TCP/IP packet networking than I'm stating here, could someone please  
set me straignt on it?

If there's someone in SE Connecticut who's doing this kind of thing,  
I would very much like to talk to you about what's going on around  
here (possibly even see your setup in action if you are so  
inclined!).

Thanks.
 

-Ben KB2ERP
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

    \|/        Ben Mehlman                      Indigo..
   ^   ^       Trirex Systems Inc      

   #   #       bmehlman@trirex.com                   Indigoing..
     @
   \___/       >NeXTMail Welcome<                           Indigone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: u2d92@seq1.keele.ac.uk (MJ Gumbley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Is there an Internet AX.25 gateway?
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:40:49 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

Hello everyone, having recently packed my packet equipment away whilst at
University, I've started reading Usenet, and using electronic mail.

I was wondering if there is a gateway between Internet and the AX.25 network,
so I could still "chat" to the amateur community? 

(I realise that this may be problematic, in terms of the licencing conditions,
and allowing non-amateurs to effectively send data over the air - just
wondering...)

If you could send any replies to me at my e-mail address, I'd be most
grateful.

73 de Matt G7JFJ, formerly @GB7SAM.#11.GBR.EU

--
Matt J. Gumbley 
u2d92@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk 
University of Keele, England
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet