HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steveb@inst-sun1.tmc.edu (Steve Bednarczyk)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:17:43 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA

In article <19107nINNhtj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>
> 
>145.29R SAREX Interference
> 
>     The SAREX uplink frequency of 144.70 MHz that has been used in
>the United States is 10 Khz away from the input of the 145.29 Mhz
>repeater pair.  There is a great deal of interest in this operation
>in our area.  There has been many stations attempting (and
>attempting and attempting and attempting) connects to the shuttle
>and bringing up our repeater.  No doubt, the 145.31 machine that is
>in our area is also being affected.
> 
>      Personally, I preferred the interference to the PacketCluster
>on 144.95.  Any chance they could go back there?
> 
>      The ARRL bulletin indicated they would use the 144.7 frequency
>over Europe.  Maybe if anyone on the road sees them they can knock
>on their window and mention it.
> 
>73,
> Steve
>  NO8M @ NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA
> 
>-- 

Steve - I don't think that there is much chance of changing the 
Shuttle uplink frequency . A lot lot of work went into finding
a compatible frequency for the operation. It was a compromise
which would not interfere with the shuttle operation (shuttle
safety), one which could be used by both the USA and the rest
of the world and cause the least interference to terrestrial
communications systems.
Many amateurs, such as myself want to work the shuttle and 
appreciate the chance to do so.  I think the easiest solution
would be to install a "pl" on your repeater during the shuttle 
operations. From your post, I assume that the packet stations
are  continuing to call long before and after the pass. This
is unfortunate and discourteous on their part.
The RACES repeater in the Los Angeles area has it's input
directly on 144.70 Mhz. I don't know what they has decided
to do. Good Luck .  The operation will last only a short time
and it will be business as usual for your repeater group.
73  Steve NJ6J
 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: aar001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Question on FM Trans.
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:30:01 GMT


	Everyone,

		I've got a quick question.  I am thinking about getting
	into radio and have no previous experience.  I want to build
	an FM transmitter tunable to any FM band with about a 100 ft range.
	This would be used for a Dorm Radio.  The best plans I've seen run
	the transmitter off of 2 AA batteries.  
		Anyway,  My Question:

		If I us an empty frequency and don't interfere with any
	commercial stations, do I really need a liscence (sp?)?  If so,
	what kind of costs am I looking at?

		Any help is greatly appreciated, and Flames on my spelling
	and ignorance are welcome (but will serve no purpose  :)

							-=[Andy Russell]=-

						AAR001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 16 Sep 1992 01:28:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


Hi ...
     Two outputs from the same site would be illegal.  Not my
retransmitting from another location.
     Today we had a ham in a disabled vehicle (N8VLX) who was
being assisted by another ham (K8SCI).  It took quite a long time
due to what are now keyboard-to-keyboard connects that have
begun with the packet users on 144.7.  One of the persons who
were interfering had already been advised of the damage he was
causing.
     Now it is five days.  Will it be two weeks next?  Will MIR
operate over 365 days on 144.7.  How long after the mission is
down will the keyboarders interfere?
     145.31 is unusable.  They are in full guard.  145.29 is unusable
because of high powered, home based stations.

73,
Steve, NO8M
-- 
From: Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 01:40:56 -0600

I don't post in this area very often, but this seemed like the right place to
post this (rather than .misc).

This evening, a friend of mine was stopped in his car for carrying a ham radio
and a scanner.  This friend was doing NOTHING illegal, and didn't only have his
amateur radio license, but also his civil defense license (for MARS) with him.
The police officier said that he wasn't supposed to be carrying that stuff.  My
friend tried to claim that this was incorrect, but after the officier started
looking like he would take the equiptment, my friend stated something to the
effect of "I didn't know that was true."  I believe the officier made some sort
of comment stating that it was against the city ordinance.  Arrrgh. Right.

Because of this, my friend was "printed up."  We're not even sure exactly what
that means.  But whatever it was, the whole thing seemed very unfair.

I am just looking for people who have had an experience like this.  I am also
looking for some suggestions on how to deal with this.

My friend doesn't take things like this lightly.  He doesn't have a bad temper
often, but when it comes to things like this, he goes off the handle a bit.
After this happened, he was making statements to the effect of "I am going to
throw all of my radio stuff away....  It's useless!"  My friend is the type who
just might want to prosecute.  He doesn't have money though :(

I would give out my friend's name/callsign, and the city/county involved, but my
friend doesn't want to deal with further hassels at this time.  (He doesn't want
to make the situation worse).  But if he says yes, I may be tempted to throw out
the city and county this happened in.  (And it isn't my city/county...)

I don't know how the police officer saw the HT/Scanner (both portible) but my
friend may have been talking on the radio or something as the police officer
passed by ???  They were NOT doing anything illegal...unless talking on an
amateur radio/lisening to a scanner is illegal.  Humph.  (As a side note, my
friend wasn't the driver).

One last question...  My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?

Erik
N0SVX

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table - N0SVX - Minnetonka, MN (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: lhurder@arrl.org (Luck Hurder KY1T)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:06:53 EST
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, hank_oredson@mentorg.com writes:
>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.
>

As much as I admire the huge amount of capable effort that Hank
has put forth for Amateur Radio in the last umpty ump years, the
above comment just doesn't square with reality, and I object to
someone twisting history like that.

So to insert some factual data here, and set the record straight:

First off, the STA folks (which Hank is one of, certainly) were
absolutely, most definitely asked for input.  With the exception
of those very few who were not ARRL members at the time, and the
additional very few who had not bothered to tell me that they'd
moved, so that I could change the STA roster, they ALL
got the survey in the January 1992 QST. 

In addition, I know that Paul Rinaldo sent out a survey to each
of them during the STA period of operation; perhaps more than one,
I can't recall, And *I* sent one out as well.

While we're still doing reality checks, folks, I'd like to note
for the record that of the 130-ish folks on the STA roster, 
a whopping total of 19 (count 'em on four hands!) responded to
that survey.

When asked why *he* didn't bother to give the Digital Committee
the benefit of his wisdom via the survey, one of the STA participants
remarked to me last week on the phone that he "thought ARRL HQ knew
exactly what was going on".  Yah, right...  How in heck *could* they,
if people never bothered to share their experiences?

Yah, but hey, it's easier to blame the folks in Newington for the
ills of the world, eh?


|       |   |         Deputy Manager, Field Services, ARRL.
|       |___|         The ARRL Amateur Radio Emergency Service, the ARRL
| uck   |   |urder    National Traffic System, The Amateur Auxiliary to
------  |   |         the FCC's Field Operations Bureau, the ARRL
     KY1T             Field Organization and the ARRL Monitoring System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lhurder@arrl.org   Prodigy - MGTS39A,  BIX - ARRL,
   MCI Mail - RPALM, MCI Mail - "ARRL HQ", America On Line - "ARRL HQ"
        Compuserve - 70007,3373 (ARRL HQ)  -- Genie ARRL.HQ
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Question about range/licensing...
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:30:17 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep9.172658.1@acad.drake.edu> agb001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>Just curious, but I remember ages ago looking at the old Radio Shack 200 in 1
>kits that had an FM broadcaster. I remember that it said something about the
>short range of the device allowed it to be used without a license. 
>
>What exactly is the limit? I.E.What are the minimum requirements to force a
>person to get a license? I always wondered about that and once I tried to 
>look up the law and found it but couldn't understand one bit of it. So I
>just found this group and thought I'd ask someone here...
>(So please don't flame me... :)

Tony, the regulations are in Part 15 of the rules and they can be
daunting if you don't understand the government language. There's
a precise microvolt per meter field strength limit, but simply
speaking, for a Part 15 FM broadcast band system, you are limited
to 100 milliwatts of power and a small whip antenna. That translates 
into a range of from a few hundred feet to perhaps 1/4 mile in good 
terrain. You're not allowed to generate any interference to existing
licensed users, so you have to find a clear channel on the band. 
Often that will be at the low end of the band.

Such Mr. Microphone operations can be fun for a while, but most
serious users wind up getting a license. It's not difficult to
get a low power broadcast license in many areas of the country,
and in some places a full power channel is available. The filing
will only cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars to become
a *real* broadcaster. Then you can charge real money for advertising
and make a decent living having fun.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe)
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Organization: GTE/MSED - Needham Heights, MA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:25:19 GMT

Steve Wolf (ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: 
: 	Our users are being covered by the high powered, home-
: based stations.  We are hoping that the institution of an output
: of our repeater audio on 145.55 will allow the local users to know
: that our repeater is in use and that their operation would cause
: interference.  In that way, the AMSAT users can operate knowing they
: will not be unknowingly interfering with the repeater.

That would be real mature.  The shuttle mission is only several days...why
can't you just suffer with the interference for the two or three
passes a day and stop whining.  Besides, aren't there a zillion other
frequencies to go and yack on?

Communicating with the shuttle does far more to further Amateur Radio
around the world than a bunch of people blabbing on a repeater.

--
Dave Pascoe KM3T
Internet: pascoe@rocky.gte.com
GTE/MSED - Needham Heights, MA
(617) 455-5704
From: Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 22:55:22 -0600

 SW> When your friend decided not to follow up on his beliefs, he
 SW> became as much a part of the problem as the original officer.

Ohh.  Now I see what you mean.  In your e-mail message to me, I didn't quite
understand what you were getting at. 

The problem was, he has a totally clean record.  He didn't want anything to
smudge it.  My friend is following up with it as we speak.  I wouldn't say that
he is going to go to court or anything since nothing was taken.  But you never
know.

It sounds like a sheriff friend of his is going to personally present the part
of the Minnesota law that says it is okay for Amateurs to carry
scanners/equiptment that can receive emergancy communications to the offending
police department.  

This should be interesting.  And it should get his name off the record or
whatever.  I guess the offending city has a collection of amateur radio
operators on file for things like this ??  I don't quite understand the
processes behind this.  I mean, they didn't take the radio... yet his name is on
a list of sorts somewhere.  Can someone clear this up for me?

I don't know much about what exactly happens when a person is stopped for
something in the way of getting something on the record.  

By the way, Steve, Thanks for your response.  I appreciate it.

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
From: Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 17:21:30 -0600

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) wrote:

 2> It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
 2> your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
 2> may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically

This is a good idea.  I think I will try to grab the actual law and carry it
myself.  This whole story seems to be getting a good ending.  I'll update
everyone on it here.

John said it would be fine if I gave his name, callsign, and the city/county
this happened in.

So..  The guy's name is John.  His callsign is N0PQK.  The city where this fun
stuff happened was Owatonna, MN.  This is in Steele county.  By the way, John
actually lives in Faribault, MN.  Owatonna is fairly close to Faribault.

My friend called the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and discussed this issue
with them.  The Bureau claimed that he was totally within his rights, and what
the police did was wrong.  Further, the Bureau is going to delivier (fax?) a
copy of the law directly to the Owatonna/Steele county police department.

It should be interesting to hear what sort of response this produces :)

So it looks as if this story has an actual good ending.  I'll keep you folks up
to date if anything more should happen.  I might just call the Owatonna police
dept and make a little complaint.

Erik

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table - N0SVX - Minnetonka, MN (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: agb001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Question about range/licensing...
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:26:58 GMT

Just curious, but I remember ages ago looking at the old Radio Shack 200 in 1
kits that had an FM broadcaster. I remember that it said something about the
short range of the device allowed it to be used without a license. 

What exactly is the limit? I.E.What are the minimum requirements to force a
person to get a license? I always wondered about that and once I tried to 
look up the law and found it but couldn't understand one bit of it. So I
just found this group and thought I'd ask someone here...
(So please don't flame me... :)

Tony Bossaller
AGB001@acad.drake.edu

Thanks...
From: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:06:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University

In article <1992Sep15.132519.21817@europa.asd.contel.com>, pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe) writes:
|> Steve Wolf (ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
|> : 
|> : 	Our users are being covered by the high powered, home-
|> : based stations.  We are hoping that the institution of an output
|> : of our repeater audio on 145.55 will allow the local users to know
|> : that our repeater is in use and that their operation would cause
|> : interference.  In that way, the AMSAT users can operate knowing they
|> : will not be unknowingly interfering with the repeater.
|> 
|> That would be real mature.  The shuttle mission is only several days...why
|> can't you just suffer with the interference for the two or three
|> passes a day and stop whining.  Besides, aren't there a zillion other
|> frequencies to go and yack on?
|> 
|> Communicating with the shuttle does far more to further Amateur Radio
|> around the world than a bunch of people blabbing on a repeater.
|> 

Now, boys, you miss the point:  He's reacting to this interloper on HIS
frequency!!!  After all, he owns it, doesn't he?????
8-} (for the humor-impaired)

-- 
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: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:01:04 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <Bu7pAz.J9E@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:

>     Ask the command officer for the # of the city ordinance which prohibits
>the use of ham radio (and/or scanners).
> 
>  Most likely, there isn't one.  Tell the command oficer that you think
>Officer ________ acted very unprofessionally and in your opinion, discredits
>the whole police force in that city.  I suppose for good measure you could
>briefly mention ham radio public service stuff like ARES, RACES, & Skywarn
>at this point.
>   Tell him/her that you were so irritated that you had planned on going to
>the media with this 'ham radio harassment' story, but that since the command
>officer seemed so sincere (heh...), you'll hold back on that, & settle for a
>note from the officer in question stating that he was made aware of the
>legality of amateur radio/scanners in his venue.
> 

I'd probably skip the part about the media unless the police brass
are real nasty about it.  The cop probably was misinformed and not
just a bully, but even if he was a bully, the last thing you need
is to have a bully with a badge and a grudge against you.  Probably
if you handle it right, you can get the cop's knowledge corrected
without causing a big stink.  In fact, I would say something to
the effect that "I don't want to get the officer in trouble, but..."
He needs to take some action or other hams will get harrassed
by the same cop.  Cops are not lawyers and often don't know the
law very well.  He may have read something about scanners listening
to cellular phone calls and jumped to conclusions.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tcs@ll.mit.edu (Tom Sefranek)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:20:08 GMT
Reply-To: tcs@ll.mit.edu (Tom Sefranek)
Organization: "Group	47"

Oh Super Steve,
		Do unto others as they have done unto you...


Repeater wars again???

Tom

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /-/-/-/-/             |                 Informal Class Sunday's @ 13:00 EST,
   /-/-/-/-/         /---/---/             followed by a N&T VE Session @ 15:00,
       |                 x         |       @ Navy Barracks @ Fort Devens, Ma.
    /--/--/              x     /---/---/   Second & Fourth Mondays of the month.
       x       .       --x--       x       @ Lura A. White School  Shirley, Ma.
      -x       |         x         x       E-Mail or call 617-981-3474 (Work)
       x       |       __x         x       Call in: 145.41, 145.45, 448.625 Mhz.
       x_______|_______||x         x       Ham Radio (Elmer) Night @ 19:00 EST
      /                ||x\      /   \     First, Third, (Fifth) Mondays.
    /-----------------/||x \   /___ ___\   Thomas C. J. Sefranek  WA1RHP
    | [ ] [ ] ## [  ]| ||x  | ||  | |  ||  112 Great Road  Shirley, Ma. 01464
    |         ##     | ||x  | ||  | |  ||  Home Phone: 508-425-6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:07:01 GMT

In article <BuCEn9.7Lr@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:
>    OK, I don't think I need to quote you any more.  I don't know what sort
>of nasty experience you've had with a police officer or department, but I
>think you are rather paranoid & have some sort of notion that the police are
>gestapo who can & will do as they please without checks & balances, & that
>the only escape we civillians have is to stay out of their way.  

Well, let me put it this way, Rodney King is paranoid, and the cops are
innocent. Uh Huh. 73
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:07:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.131948.7288@hou.amoco.com> jim@n5ial.chi.il.us writes:
>6) >In general, the police organizations maintain records of _everyone_ with
>   >whom they have _any_ contact detailing information believed relevant
>   >to the contact.  Whenever a cop interacts with anyone the _fact of the
>   >interaction_ is recorded and becomes probable cause to suspect
>   >criminal activity in future.
>
>ok, just one question....  are we talking about the police in the US?  or
>are we talking about some organization like the KGB?

I don't know about the KGB, but the above applies to police in the US.

The US criminal justice system doesn't have on-line felony conviction
records, but it does have on-line arrest and contact info.  Stale
records are not purged.  (It's reasonable to expect them to have
investigation records and warrants, but both should expire, and
don't.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:57:17 GMT
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

In article <1992Sep9.195719.21221@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer) writes:
|> I believe the proper course of action in interactions with police is:
 (list of basically submissive actions)

Although some of this advice is good (don't get mad or make threats,
be polite, etc), I think it goes overboard. The best way to protect
any threatened right, be it to encrypt your phone calls, criticize the
government or to possess a radio transceiver, is to EXERCISE IT. In
other words, be polite but also BE FIRM when you know you're in the
right. Far more freedom has been lost in this country by the gradual
nibbling away by our own government than by overt acts of repression.

Phil