HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djenkins@wang.com (Dave Jenkins)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: FCC Part 97
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:17:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew) writes:

>telnet archie.unl.edu
>login: archie

>prog part97

>and you'll get a list of 15 sites from which to ftp it...

All of which are (or at least were as of mid July) identical (allowing for
DOS vs UNIX and whitespace changes), incomplete and rather out-of-date (old
220 band and no no-code).  Someone was kind enough to e-mail me a more
complete, though equally out-of-date, version which I have already mailed to
the original poster.  (I would make it available for others to FTP but our
site doesn't currently have that capability.)

I too would be very interested in getting a COMPLETE and RECENT machine
readable version.  I can scan and OCR a hard copy if one were made available
(which I would gladly put on an appropriate site).
---
David E. Jenkins            Home: (508) 632-4164          Wang Labs, Inc.
52 Norman Street            Work: (508) 967-7284          M/S 014-690
Gardner, MA  01440-1916      Fax: (508) 967-2212          1 Industrial Ave.
HAM Callsign: N1MXV       e-mail: djenkins@wang.com       Lowell, MA  01851
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of 'No-Business' Rule
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:53:51 GMT
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Flame Cutting Craftsmen
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <501@arrl.org>, ehare@arrl.org (Ed Hare - KA1CV) writes:
|> Perhaps a good way to get the best of both worlds is to send us a letter
|> (to ward off the flames, email is a letter, too. :-) ) and post a copy
|> of the letter and our response.........................
|> I can think of no reasoned explanation
|> or justification for posting instead of mailing if your objective is to
|> attract our attention and elicit a response. I can accept any reasoned
|> explanation for posting *in addition* to mailing. 

You're right, the point taken. BTW, I assume that you're the right
person in ARRL to address such e-mail to?

Also, I sent an email, basically copying my posting to the
address Jon mentioned.  When do you think would it be
reasonable to expect at least acknowledgement (like
"Yes, we received your letter, understand your
concerns and are working on reply" :-), if
not the answer itself?

|> A concept I firmly believe in! Also, make your views known to your Division
|> Director, in person, via telephone, mail, email or, to be as public
|> as possible, at an ARRL Forum at a League convention or major hamfest.
|> These folks work hard and really want your input, especially on
|> controversial issues.


Will do. BTW, would you care to enlighten an ignoramus, telling
how to find his Division Director?  Director's phone, or e-mail 
would be fine (or the place to get those, of course :-).
-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: oxenreid@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: FCC Part 97
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:49:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota

In <28AUG199216074462@zeus.tamu.edu> jfs4892@zeus.tamu.edu (John Steele - N5ZKC) writes:

>This may sound stupid, but does anyone have FCC Part 97 in text format?
>It would be handy to have around on my computer.  

>John, N5ZKC

Hear Hear.   I would like to see this also.   Mabey even a complete CFR from the FCC covering
the whole communications act.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: hank_oredson@mentorg.com
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
X-Callsign: W0RLI
Originator: hanko@hanko
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:08:52 GMT

> Where were all these geniuses when the committee was asking for input, anyway?

In answer to the question (see below for contex) ... 

As an STA participant, my view is that:
We were all busy handling traffic and expecting the ARRL to keep
us informed of any decision making in which we should take part, 
as they agreed to do as adminstrators and coordinators of the STA.

We were not *asked* for input, and we *were* left out of the process.
This situation was corrected, as quickly as we could correct it, once
we *did* learn that some decision making process was going on.

Now things are moving in such a way that *everyone* concerned should
hear about the process, it's progress, who is involved, etc.

Oh yeah - I assumed by "geniuses" above you meant STA participants.
Thank you for the compliment.

   ...  Hank


> From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
> Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
> Message-ID: <7247@lib.tmc.edu>
> Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:26:33 GMT
> References: <1992Sep2.093726.1@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> <7240@lib.tmc.edu> <1992Sep3.134929.19591@tamsun.tamu.edu>
> Sender: usenet@lib.tmc.edu
> Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

> In article <1992Sep3.134929.19591@tamsun.tamu.edu> willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:
> >In article <7240@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >|> This is a perfect example of how the ultimate decisions are made by elected
> >|> Directors, and how the membership can (and does) make itself heard.
> >If you think this is a 'perfect' example, then you probably believe Cromwell,
> >the Wars of the Roses and the American Revolution are standard examples of
> >the British government at work....
> 
> You mean they're not? :-)
> 
> I've seen a lot of commentary about how the League is run by a bunch of guys
> in Newington...to which I politely say "INCREDIBLE!!!"
> 
> (The biggest accomplishment at Texas A&M is teaching Aggies to say
> "INCREDIBLE!!!" instead of "BULLSHIT!!!". :-)
> 
> What it looks like, to this non-anti-ARRL observer, is that the Digital
> Committee, after inadequate input from the membership, came up with a
> proposal; the Board, after inadequate input, approved it; the Executive
> Committee, after adequate input, sent it back for further discussion. Now it's
> getting more input. Don't like the original proposal? Give them INPUT!
> 
> Where were all these geniuses when the committee was asking for input, anyway?
> -- 
> Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>  "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
>             at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z

-- 

Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics
Internet     : hank_oredson@mentorg.com
Amateur Radio: W0RLI@W0RLI.OR.USA.NA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:06:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: Oh, get off...

In article <1992Aug27.143119.12422@edscom.demon.co.uk>, rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson) writes:

|> I thought the whole point of amateur radio is that it is an experimenter's
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> band and not for competing with telecom carriers.

OK, in that case please never ever use autopatch - it can be
handled over cellular phone and it "competes"...

[Oh, I forgot! You don't have those to begin with! :-]

Please cease using repeaters and long-haul HF rigs - those 
communications can be done through telecom carriers. Maybe
you think your QSO with <any forsaken place>  is something
"experimental"? "Bleeding edge of research"? C'mon... (:-)

Or you are doing something REALLY different from what's been done
with HF radio and repeaters so far?  If not - you don't qualify
for "experimenter" and have no right to compete with telecom
carriers by showing your ... on the air. (:-)


|> However much I hate seeing
|> British Telecom making large amounts of money, there is no way we can justify
|> amateur radio's existence except as a hobby. 

I always thought that "hobby" and "experiments" are two different
things(:-).

|> Fortunately, over the years we
|> have helped develop many telecom ideas and provided emergency help, so we
|> should be able to keep our hobby.

NO way! Or do you expect telecom companies to let you be just
out of gratitute for past ideas you might have contributed to
them?  Keep hoping! (:-)

[Oh, you're in Europe! So you basically have no rights 
by definition (:-),  no phone patches and so on...  So 
you have very little to lose, if anything - everything
was lost long time ago (:-).   I only don't understand 
why you jumped into discussion, which should be 
interesting only to inhabitants on USA. 
Or would seeing us losing our current
privilleges will make you feel 
better? :-]

Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of 'No-Business' Rule
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:20:41 GMT

In article <476@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>
..............stuff deleted..................
>Or, better yet, get a copy of ARRL's "FCC Rule Book."  If an answer
>to the question is known by ARRL, it probably will be in this book.
>For example, on page 7-4 (8th ed.) is a box containing common
>Q&As regarding music transmission.

This material is useful in so far as it is a guide to what the FCC
people may be thinking but it is likely to be years old.
>
>And, as John Johnston of the FCC said in the FCC Forum at the ARRL
>National Convention last weekend, when you call with a question,
>please have your copy of the rules open to the rule you wish to have
>read to you.  :-)

Typical arrogant government burocrat. 

This is the root of the problem. The "rules" as printed in a book have
*no* meaning by themselves. The *only* important issue is how the FCC
burocrats *will* interpret them in any given case. This is what gives
rise to the endless speculation about what is or may be allowed or
forbidden.

Since the apparatchiks lose a lot of their power if what they do is
predictable they will *never* give a "straight" answer as to what they
will do in any situation. Just parrot the "rules" and do whatever seems
right to them when they want to "enforce" their rules.

We should understand this, stop the speculation, and keep a very low (public)
profile. Keep quiet, mind your own business, do your own thing and *never*
get involved with FCC. We should all (except ARRL "gatekeepers") avoid any
contact with FCC lest we get them agravated - they can only hurt us all.

73 de Ed K9JMA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal,35-016,8621267,)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of 'No-Business' Rule
Originator: uri@aixproj.watson.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 22:32:58 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

From article <15403@ksr.com>, by jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods):
>>|> Once again I am forced to point out that the best way to get an answer
>>|> from ARRL HQ is to ask directly.  
>>I don't seek the "best way". I'm trying to ask my question in
>>such a way, that wide amateur population will see what I'm
>>concerned about, and probably will participate in my
>>attempts to clarify/fix the issue.
> 
> They maybe you could take the time to send a letter that *will* get answered,
> and type in the response?  Or isn't flaming about things worth any of your
> time?

Can't you read?  Didn't you see just above a reason stated why
the question was posted here instead of being mailed privately?

> Oh, you most certainly do sound rude:  if it isn't worth your time to send
> paper mail, why are your words of wisdom worth his time to wander around the
> halls with a copy of it until he snags someone who can answer?

About paper mail - see above. About why he should wander around - maybe
because it's his JOB being my representative and my voice for FCC and
the Congress? Even if I don't send him my opinion via certified
mail? 

Besides, I consider it silly to bitch about how the opinion 
is expressed rather than about the opinion itself. But it's
your business.

Thanks for your time. Dismissed (:-).

Regards,
Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
-- 
--
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy)
Subject: Would this be legal on packet?
Reply-To: ad815@yfn.ysu.edu (John S. Kennedy)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:25:45 GMT


I have a friend who works for a major corporation in Cincinnati, OH.  The
corporation wishes to donate supplies for the relief efforts in the areas
affected by Hurricaine Andrew.  The Red Cross notified the corporation that
they will have to arrange transportation to get the supplies to those
areas. 

Question:  Would it be legal now, or under the proposed rulemaking, if
adopted, to post a message on packet asking if anyone would know of
fruitful places to search for individuals or companies willing to donate
transportation or the funding to purchase transportation for such a
relief effort?

         Thanks!
             John   KB8GYS
                  axinar@tso.uc.edu
-- 
** John S. Kennedy (513) 541-3078 axinar@tso.uc.edu 72217.416@compuserve.com
The opinions expressed in this message are those of the person speaking,
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of St. E's Med Center, or the
NPTN, but Mr. Kennedy's opinions SHOULD be made federal law!
From: jfs4892@zeus.tamu.edu (John Steele - N5ZKC)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: FCC Part 97
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:07:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

This may sound stupid, but does anyone have FCC Part 97 in text format?
It would be handy to have around on my computer.  

John, N5ZKC
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:22:59 GMT

In article <7251@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> I guess a QST survey isn't asking for input?

When you receive the July issue in August??????  Also, not everybody sits
down immediately to read all those VERY INTERESTING tube projects!
Mine is placed in the "reading room" till I have time to sit down and have
a laugh or two....

-- 
Kurt Freiberger, wb5bbw	  kurt@cs.tamu.edu   409/847-8607  fax:409/847-8578
Dept. of Computer Science, Texas A&M University      DoD #264: BMW R80/7 pilot
"We preserve our freedom using three boxes: ballot, jury, and cartridge."
      *** Not an official document of Texas A&M University ***
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:26:33 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep3.134929.19591@tamsun.tamu.edu> willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:
>In article <7240@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> This is a perfect example of how the ultimate decisions are made by elected
>|> Directors, and how the membership can (and does) make itself heard.
>If you think this is a 'perfect' example, then you probably believe Cromwell,
>the Wars of the Roses and the American Revolution are standard examples of
>the British government at work....

You mean they're not? :-)

I've seen a lot of commentary about how the League is run by a bunch of guys
in Newington...to which I politely say "INCREDIBLE!!!"

(The biggest accomplishment at Texas A&M is teaching Aggies to say
"INCREDIBLE!!!" instead of "BULLSHIT!!!". :-)

What it looks like, to this non-anti-ARRL observer, is that the Digital
Committee, after inadequate input from the membership, came up with a
proposal; the Board, after inadequate input, approved it; the Executive
Committee, after adequate input, sent it back for further discussion. Now it's
getting more input. Don't like the original proposal? Give them INPUT!

Where were all these geniuses when the committee was asking for input, anyway?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: oxenreid@chaos.cs.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: FCC Part 97
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:27:27 GMT

In <1992Sep02.034653.5245@ssc.wa.com> markz@ssc.wa.com (Mark Zenier) writes:

>oxenreid@chaos.cs.umn.edu () writes:
>: In <28AUG199216074462@zeus.tamu.edu> jfs4892@zeus.tamu.edu (John Steele - N5ZKC) writes:
>: >This may sound stupid, but does anyone have FCC Part 97 in text format?
>: >It would be handy to have around on my computer.  

>: Hear Hear.   I would like to see this also.   Mabey even a complete CFR 
>: from the FCC covering the whole communications act.

>The CFR's come from the National Archives via the Government Printing
>Office, so check there first.

>Since the ARRL's "The FCC Rule Book" has the same strange typos in it
>that the CFR copy has (in the latitude and longitude of the monitoring
>stations), it must be available somehow.

>There's a phone number for the order desk of the Government Printing Office 
>in the front of copies of CFR's.  They even take Visa and Mastercard.  
>But, in my experience, dealing with the GPO without the exact title 
>or publication number is futile.

>The next question is "Is there a machine readable copy of the
>Federal Register?" so you can keep everyting up to date.

>[A last minute thought.  What about the Lexis legal database
>timeshare service?]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Its fine, as long as you got MONEY.
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Making a proposal to the FCC
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:29:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

Is there any online examples of a proposal to the FCC?? I am not looking
for the format for comments to an NPRM.  I am interested in the format
needed for a whole new proposal (and this has nothing to do with the
recent NPRM currently under discussion here.)  I remember a guy named
Stoner who proposed something a while back.  Is there an example of how
he put his together anywhere??

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

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: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:49:29 GMT

In article <7240@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
...
|> Well, ARRL bashers: Still think Dave Sumner runs the League?
|> 
|> This is a perfect example of how the ultimate decisions are made by elected
|> Directors, and how the membership can (and does) make itself heard.

If you think this is a 'perfect' example, then you probably believe Cromwell,
the Wars of the Roses and the American Revolution are standard examples of
the British government at work....
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:00:35 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <1992Aug26.215457.5089@ni.umd.edu>, louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
|> 
|> I believe at least one of these cases include control links.  For
|> example, in the Amateur Satellite service, control links can be
|> encrypted to ensure positive control of the satellite.  This might
|> also be the case for repeater control links as well, though I don't
|> know for certain.

Does that mean that encryption would be allowed as a means of ensuring the
accuracy, verifiability and true originator of a message, (ala RSA or some
other public key system??)

I applaud the effortgoing into making these changes.  There are a lot of 
important (in the real world) things like education that we could be supporting
if the rules didn't specifically forbid it, but after reading this, I think
a little more work is going to be necessary.  Has anyone (Phil??) considered
including a similar APPENDIX with what might be a more reasonable but less
ambiuous example in their comments??

All the best.

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,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of 'No-Business' Rule
Organization: American Radio Relay League
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:14:11 GMT

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal) writes:
  [regulatory questions/discussion deleted]
>ARRL, I know you're monitoring! (:-)
>Please respond!

Once again I am forced to point out that the best way to get an answer
from ARRL HQ is to ask directly.  In the case of regulatory questions,
it is by far the best way because the people who deal with those
questions on a day-to-day basis don't have direct access to this
medium.  When I see such a question that I can address, I try to
provide an answer.  But I'm only conversant with those rule
interpretations that impinge on the areas of amateur radio that I
deal with regularly, so often I can't help.  Of course, I *could*
give my uneducated opinion on those issues.  But I think there is
sufficient uneducated opinion on the net that mine isn't needed in
addition.  Besides, invariably someone will take whatever I say as
being what "ARRL" says in spite of liberally sprinkled disclaimers
to the contrary.

In short:  If you want specific questions answered, write to:
   rpalm@arrl.org
and ask.  Or call ARRL HQ on the phone and say you have a question on
the rules.  Or write via snail-mail.

Or, better yet, get a copy of ARRL's "FCC Rule Book."  If an answer
to the question is known by ARRL, it probably will be in this book.
For example, on page 7-4 (8th ed.) is a box containing common
Q&As regarding music transmission.

And, as John Johnston of the FCC said in the FCC Forum at the ARRL
National Convention last weekend, when you call with a question,
please have your copy of the rules open to the rule you wish to have
read to you.  :-)
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               |
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy