HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ag684@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Stephany)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: 200xlt Hack.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 04:02:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


1) remove battery
2) remove 2 screws on back and 2 on bottom by battery area
3) remove 2 screws near base of circuit board
4) pull front panel off.
5) locate r-215 a 10k resistor, located above the letters
   'den' in uniden on the main ic.
6) remove said resistor.
7) reassemble.

-- 
There is nothing worse than sitting around listening old war
stories, with a bunch of people that were never in the war.
                          --- Mark S. Ag684 8-92
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: HR1674
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:47:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (RS PRO-2004) writes:


>The NY Times of Oct. 9, "Ban on Eavesdropping Scanners Advances," by
>Anthony Rameriz states:

>	The bill was passed by the House of Rpresentatives Tuesday,
>	approved by the Senate Wednesday, then sent to the White House
>	for the signature of President Bush, who did not oppose the
>	legislation.
>	
>Since HR1674 was passed quite awhile ago, was the cellular scanner ban
>included in some other legislation passed on that Tuesday (Oct. 6)?

>Further, the Chicago Sun-Times of Oct 11, "Law Seeks to Stop Cellular
>Phone Snoops," by Cindy Skrzycki, states:

>	Thomas Stanley, chief engineer of the FCC, said the new
>	law may help, but he expects that those who want to tamper
>	with scanners will get even more clever.
>	
>	"And," he said, "so will we."
>	
>Clearly, the FCC engineer thinks that a cellular scanner ban _DID_
>pass. Maybe someone should call up the FCC and ask if they are to
>start banning scanners?

	Obviously, there is a credibility problem SOMEWHERE.  I will
be unhappy if I find that the Senator's staffers are either lying or just
that stupid.

	If anyone has a good contact number within the FCC for such
questions, now is the time to call it.....or perhaps somebody else should
call THEIR senator's offices and see what THEY say.

	I think we need to know....

Duane
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Rubber ducky FAQs?
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 22:54:31 GMT

Radio Schlock sells a 5-draw antenna which, at full extension, works very well
at 49 Mhz, while I can't pick up anything with the rubber ducky...

The include a sheet listing the amount of the antenna that should be extended
for various freq. ranges, but the highest it lists is <54Mhz. I'm not sure
what's best for the higher Mhz ranges.
-- 
               Just say NO to unreasonable search and seizure!

technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
                         My Employer Disagrees.
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Weather Scans?
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:02:27 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <12OCT199215591050@utkvx2.utk.edu> egw@utkvx2.utk.edu (Wolpert, Edward Greenwal) writes:

>I'm just wondering, what are the main weather scan freqs?
>Where can one get a list of them?
 
Well, most people start with the National Weather Service.  Tune up
162.55, and 162.475, and a third frequency that escapes me.  Those are 
the frequencies picked up by Radio Shack's Weather Radios, etc.
You could call up your local weather bureau to find which frequency is
right for your area.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:41:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Scanner Ban is now law (Cellular coverage that is)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:44:15 GMT


The bill (section 9 of an FCC funding bill I think) that bans the
manufacture or importation of radio scanners that can eavesdrop on
cellular telephones was passed by both houses of congress and signed
by the President.  This according to the 10/9 New York Times.

So, guess this should make any existing scanner go up a few bucks on the
resale market :-)

In the mean time all those unsuspecting (ie. stupid) people will now
think they have privacy.  What a joke.

As Robert Grove, publisher of "Monitoring Times" was quoted, "all
it (the law) will probably do is stimulate the market for add-on
frequency converters" that restore cellular listening capabilities.

In contrast, John Rosch, chairman of Radio Shack said "the
legislation will be simple and inexpensive fpr Tandy to comply with.
It's positive legislation."

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: rjd@cup.portal.com (R J Decker)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: BC 200XLT mods?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 01:37:30 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The device labeled 103 is a surface mount 10K ohm resistor - EEE.
103 = 10*3 = 10,000

rjd@cup.portal.com
From: drawson@sagehen.Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Outside Antenna Cheap!
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:11:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

>(Now the purists will tell you that ...

An IMpurist might also suggest canting the TV antenna to midway between
horizontal and vertical, as a compromise between the TV signals
(horizontal polarization) and the mobile radio signals (mostly vertical
polarization).

You should get the best reception when the receiving antenna is
oriented the same way as the transmitter's, but signal strength should
be down by only a factor of .7 (one over square root of 2, strictly)
with a 45 degree tilt; TV and mobile strength would be reduced
equally.

TV would probably have a bigger impairment than that, however; it is
fussier.  You would pick up more ignition and other pulse noise:  it
tends to be vertically polarized.  And you could pick up more ghosts,
if the tilt put a side lobe of the antenna pattern in the wrong place.

Yours in the not so pure vein,
  Dick
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: anti-scanner bill
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:02:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Oct9.103829.10420@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> > According to a news story I just saw, Congress has passed the bill
> > outlawing the sale of scanners that can pick up the cellular band.
> > The sale of ``digital converters'' is also banned, in anticipation
> > of next-generation units.  Bush is apparently expected to sign it.
> 
> I wonder if a diode 'locking out' the celluar band will suffice for this bill
> (soon to be law)?

Probably not, since the NY Times article noted how easy it was to
alter current scanners.  Even if Congresscritters don't know, the FCC
does.

The real answer is cryptography -- which a colleague and I decided
would mean ``include a digital signature in your diode matrix''....

Btw, the NY Times article quoted the president (I think) of Tandy as
saying he thought the bill was a good idea.
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: egw@utkvx2.utk.edu (Wolpert, Edward Greenwal)
Subject: Re: anti-scanner bill
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.103829.10420@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes...
>smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>> According to a news story I just saw, Congress has passed the bill
>> outlawing the sale of scanners that can pick up the cellular band.
>> The sale of ``digital converters'' is also banned, in anticipation
>> of next-generation units.  Bush is apparently expected to sign it.
> 
>I wonder if a diode 'locking out' the celluar band will suffice for this bill
From my understanding, the bill has (is in the process of ) being writen to
make sure that the scanners can not be modified... or at least easily modified.
This includes the diode lock out.  However, I'm wondering about private
projects
that people can make... i.e. making your own homebrew cell phone reciever. All
one needs is the freq range, some knowledge on electronics, and parts from the
Shack.  Some of their books are also quite useful in this.  Will this be like
transmitting on FM?  Anyone can, but you need a license if your power is above
100mwatts.

	Edward Wolpert

>(soon to be law)?
> 
>BBrad Steinman
>University of Toledo Computer Services

>cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
From: dbm@cats.njit.edu (Dean McDermott - WB2CMN)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Pro 43 charger
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:15:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Originator: dbm@cats.njit.edu


 I received my Pro 43 charger yesterday (20-188). After charging batteries for 20 hours I wanted to see how long radio would operate on a full charge. So I turned on the scanner and started timing. In 4 hours and 8 mins the display started to flash. I consider this a very very short time.


In the past I have seen postings about this subject and the short operating time has been blaimed on the incorect charger. Has anyone else had this problem aftr getting the correct charger?


dbm@cats.njit.edu
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: REstriction!
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:22:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>Just how many of you complaining about this have been in favor of the
>War on Drugs and Civil Forfeiture or Gun Control/banning (including the   
>bans on automatic weapons and "assault weapons")?  All of you who were,
>or still are, in favor of one of the above is a hypocrite.

	This group isn't about drugs or guns.  If you want to talk about drugs
and/or guns, take it to an appropriate group, OK?

>Bah!  Go away and cry at home - you are getting exactly what you deserve.

	I'd like to know just exactly how you figure we "deserve" to
have our rights stripped away.  Sounds to me like you should be running
some Gulag in Siberia for the KGB......

I said:
>: 	If any of you are attached to the Clinton/Gore campaign or know 
>: someone who is, get the word to them NOW.  Point out what has happened and
>: give them some ammunition to use to get Bush OUT of the White House.

He said:
>There is a good chance that Gore voted for the ban. Clinton and Gore both
>appear to believe that government should be running more of our lives - not
>less.

	Instead of coming here and flaming me/us without first having looked up
how anyone voted on it.....

"There is a good chance that Gore voted for the ban."

.......if you want to flame Gore, make sure he actually DID vote for it, first.
This is alt.Bill.doesn't.like.Gore.

I said:
>: 	If we stand by and let the cellular lobby roll over us....if we
>: stand by and play dead on HR1674, we will start losing our rights
>: to free radio reception just as William suggested.  Every special interest
>: group will come out of the woodwork....

He said:
>They did that years ago. But, of course, you didn't pay attention -  did you?

	If you are referring to the ECPA, by chance, I stood opposed to it then
and I STILL stand opposed to it.  If you want to bitch at somebody, go bitch
at all the lemmings that don't bother to complain.  As for those of us who
are actively calling and writing to our congresscritters (and periodically
voting against those that suck), GET OFF MY BACK.

>Bill

	Bill, I don't know if you got up on the wrong side of the bed or
if you just decided to be an asshole today.  Maybe you're one of these
types that likes to bait people into flame wars.

	I will not get into a protracted flame war with you, period.  I
have posted one defense of myself and anything else will be a waste of MY
time, since I'm fighting HR1674 and NOT you, and a waste of this
newsgroup.

	If you have a point, MAKE IT. Otherwise take your pointless rambling 
flames to alt.flame and let us get on with the radio and scanner
business.

Duane
From: Dana.Sandefur@f28.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Dana Sandefur)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Bill to prohibit cellular scanners/receivers
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:37:00 GMT

On <11 Oct 1992 22:02>, 22501-sohl wrote to All:

 >: From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
 >: Subject: Re: Bill to prohibit cellular scanners/receivers
 >: Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
 >: Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 22:02:41 GMT
 >: 
 >: In article <1b4l88INN5ol@roche.csl.sri.com> dstine@cisco.com 
 >: (David Stine) writes:
 >: >Apparently, the paternalistic liberal cabal is about to pass 
 >: >and send onto the President a bill which would prohibit any reception 
 >: >device capable of receiving in the cellular band.
 >: >
 >: >Does anyone have the bill number on this legislation? Please 
 >: >email, as I"m going to call my SenatKritters today.
 >: 
 >: Too late, it has already been sent to and signed by Bush as 
 >: reported in Friday's NY Times.

Well then, it looks like we've all been Bush-Whacked again!
I only hope that it's not for much longer...

Are there any details as to how this ban will be implemented, where it will be focused, what it will cover or not cover, etc...?


 * Origin: U_SCANNER: <<<<<<<<<< RE-ELECT NOBODY! >>>>>>>>>> (1:112/28)
From: stone@Apple.COM (Glen "CRASH" Stone)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Blue angels freqs
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:29:42 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Okay I heard them on 251.6,275.35,302.15 all AM. This was on 
Wedn. Oct 14'92. It was interesting as while practicing you could
hear them looking for landmarks. Also they must have a new guy as there
was endless coaching along the lines of " You keep using too much throttle....
I see your stabilzers moving too much... do this do that etc.

-Glen

PS listen between 1 and 2 in the afternoon.
From: cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Pro 43 charger
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:43:29 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

dingman+@cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Dingman) writes:
> Next I tried charging six batteries in a separate charger.  Hooray!  Average 
> discharge time is now 7 hrs, 45 mins!!!  Almost double the time when "charged"
> using the scanner charge jack.  
 
Yes! The external charger makes a tremendous difference!  I was also aggravated
about the nicad charge time, but the external charger works great!

Have fun!

Brad Steinman
University of Toledo Computer Services
cscon0151@uoft02.utoledo.edu
From: rjd@cup.portal.com (R J Decker)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: BC 200XLT mods?
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 10:24:32 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Oct7.125921.5277@nrtpa038.bnr.ca>

The following mod is for the newer version of BC200-XLT scanners; those
with surface mount devices. Instead of cutting a resistor a resistor is
added.

The 'new' mod calls for soldering in a 1/8 watt (pref.) or 1/4 watt resistor
(range 2.2K ... 10K ohm) rather than cutting an existing resistor.

Connect the new resistor between the XXX end of the resistor the old mod said
to cut, and pin 8 of the K1013 IC.

XXX = the end away fron the K1013; the left end when reading the UNIDEN
UC-1147A label right side up.

Pin 8 = corner pin nearest the existing resistor (above); looking at the K1013
IC with the small semicircle cutout at top, pin 1 is upper left, pins count
counterclockwise from there so 8 will be upper right if IC in that orientation.

On my circuit board there are no typical resistors (cylindrical with bands of
color) just little numbered chips. You need to do soldering for this mod.
Difficulty - I have not done this [yet?]. Other scanners between BC-200 &
AR-1000 = ?

                         _____
                      -|     |-
                      -|     |-  <-- K1013
                      -|     |-
                     /-|8_ _1|-
                    |
        /--- AAA --/
       |
        \
         EEE
   ------------
  |   UNIDEN   |
  |  UC-1147A  |


EEE = existing resistor (or small rectangular component)
AAA = resistor to add
 not to scale

To paraphrase from my reliable source: procedure must not be attempted by
anyone unfamiliar with electronic circuitry; no liability assumed for damage;
this will void your waranty.

BTW - the mor will restore cellular, but the radio will still scan in 
30MHz steps. Not really too bad.
     
rjd@cup.portal.com
From: jpotts@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (John Potts)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: AOR-900 Purchase
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:15:46 GMT
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA

I purchased an AOR 900 a yr ago and the unit would not stop on active
channels and the squelch control was extremely sloppy.  I returned to
to the store and exchanged it for a new one.  The second radios
squelch control did not work at all though it would stop on some
active channels.  It would also stop on what seemed to be inactive
channels for a short period of time and then just continue on.  I finaly
asked for my money back.  I don't think I would recommend this radio
to anyone.  

I finally purchased the RS pro43 and love it.  It is about the same size
and has twice as many memory channels without all of the quirks that the
AOR 900 has.  

John Potts
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Bill to prohibit cellular scanners/receivers
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:12:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Oct10.001803.4766@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> Both houses of congress are full of democrats. I have heard of
> conservative democrats, but one seldom hears of liberal republicans.
> I would say the characterization is fair.

For the most part, the liberal Republicans were more or less purged
from the party by the far-right movement that gave us Ronald Reagan.
There was even an organization of them, the Ripon Society, but one
seldom hears of it any more.  (Does it still exist?)

I'll let y'all characterize George Bush (but he's sure no liberal);
he's expected to sign the bill.  Near as I can tell, it had bipartisan
support -- after all, Congresscritters of all stripes use cellular
phones....
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: REstriction!
    <1992Oct14.185953.6953@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> 
    <wb9omc.719158950@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:23:50 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:

>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>>Just how many of you complaining about this have been in favor of the
>>War on Drugs and Civil Forfeiture or Gun Control/banning (including the   
>>bans on automatic weapons and "assault weapons")?  All of you who were,
>>or still are, in favor of one of the above is a hypocrite.

>	This group isn't about drugs or guns.  If you want to talk about drugs
>and/or guns, take it to an appropriate group, OK?

 Duane, the point he makes is valid. Like it or not. The issue of losing
our personal freedoms (bee they guns or scanners) is something we all need
to be more aware of. I see nothing wrong with him making the comparison at all.

>Duane
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Best place to purchase pro 43
Organization: UMCC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:35:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.175743.18422@athena.cs.uga.edu> mellerso@uga.cc.uga.edu (Mike Ellerson) writes:
>Where is the best place to purchase a PRO 43 ? Outside of Radio Shack
>that is ....

  Marymac Industries: 800/231-3680.  $275 C.O.D.

-- 
 Tim Tyler   Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735  C$erve: 72571,1005
P.O. Box 443     Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Ypsilanti MI
48197-0443                  PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc.
From: rani@barsoom.nhh.no (Ragnar Nielsen)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: handheld scanner
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:38:52 GMT
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics

cchang@cs.tamu.edu (Charles Chang) writes:

>I am planning to buy a handheld scanner.  Can anyone tell
>me about your experience with the handheld scanner that
>you have used?  The modeles that I am interesed right now
>are: Icom R1, AOR 1000, and Realistic Pro-43.

I have the R1 and I like it. Good frequency coverage (.1-1300 MHz in
my version), diminutive size (lives in a shirt pocket) and good
sensitivity.

The sensitivity is the problem with this receiver, it is way too sensitive
and prone to overloading. This will be remedied somewhat by inserting a
-20 dB attenuator between the antenna and the receiver.

The R1 has only 100 channels, no memory banks (or one, depending on how
you define a 'bank'), 10 scan edge pairs, and that's about it.

If you need to monitor 100+ utility stations in your area and couldn't
care less for SW, go for the AOR 1000 or something similar (I don't
know the Pro-43). But if you can do with the 1/10th of the memory capacity
and you want a sensitive scanner in a small physical package, with an
amazingly good SW performance thrown in for good measure, IMHO you can't
go wrong with the R1.

regards,

ragnar


Disclaimer: My only relation to Icom is as a satisfied customer.
From: worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jason Worthington)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: FTP site for modification files..
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:16:41 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

wally@mik.uky.edu (walter francis) writes:

>Could someone MAIL me the FTP address where the modifications are?
>I searched my name server for "garfield" but didn't come up with
>anything..

>I appreciate it..

>--
>                _
>     Walter  _ //  Wally@UKCC.UKY.EDU    Wally@MIK.UKY.EDU
>     Francis \X/   Francis@UKPR.UKY.EDU  AN723@FREENET-IN-A.CWRU.EDU

This information should be posted.  I have seen a couple of requests for it.  I
would like to know this as well.  If this in the FAQ, then that should be 
posted, assuming it exis.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Worthington             |The Commodore 64 lives!
worth@matt.ksu.ksu.edu        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner