HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dstine@cisco.com (David Stine)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Date: 31 Dec 1992 07:43:36 GMT
Organization: 9th Flying Pig Combat Squadron
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: glare.cisco.com

In article <1992Dec31.000158.11575@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.143224.14901@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.E. Piggott ) writes:

>>I've never asked anybody this question, but have been curious about it.
>>What's entailed in getting a commercial radiotelephone license?  (testing,
>>fees, etc.)  Is it more or less work than the ham licenses?
>
>You take a written exam, of about the same difficulty as the amateur
>Advanced exam. When I took it there was no fee, but that was many
>years ago.
>

My knowledge here is quite like no longer valid, but there used to be three
classes of Commercial Radiotelephone licenses:

First -- required for operating (ie, chief) engineer of a commercial radio
         or TV station. There used to be a seperate TV endorsment. This 
         used to be quite the heavy-duty test. The RADAR and TV endorsments
         on this used to be very exhaustive as well.
Second -- you could be the operating engineer of a radio/tv station as long
        as there was a First to look over your work
Third -- used to be required for DJ's and on-air people; was a simple
        20-question technical and regulations test.

There also used to be three classes of commerical radiotelegraph tests; the
first class was all of the first-class 'phone test _and_ a 30WPM CW test. I'm
told that there are no longer any radiotelegraph licenses at all.

All this info if at least 10 years old, but I know a couple of people who had
"first-phone" tickets from the early 80's with the TV endorsments and they
were justly proud of the accomplishment.

dsa
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: byrnes@sunsmart.dab.ge.com (Arthur Byrnes (ATS))
Subject: True and correct information 
Organization:  no organization here
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:41:36 GMT

Keywords: 


Comments about the FCC commercial license;
>It is required to be chief operator 
>of a *broadcast* station, or for repair of marine radios.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is false information the transmitter license holder is now the entity 
responsible for incorrect operation of the broadcast station.
This was pushed by the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) because they 
did not like paying engineers wages.  So now the person working on the station
transmitter can be anyone.

A license is still required for the marine service because of treatys.

Another thread talked about Type Accpetance(SP?) of radios and using business
radios for ham frequencies. 
There are several business TA radios that will work in the ham bands and still
not violate the TA.  The important consideration of the FCC is that the radio
can only be tuned by the operator to the preset frequencies.  This is why there
are no ham radios that can be used for business, since the vfo will allow the
operator to tune to business frequencies not preset.

Some of the radios will tune 130-174 or more, and are still TA since the 
operator can only tune to the freqs programmed.

--
Arthur J. Byrnes

Disclaimer; These views are those only of the author, Arthur.
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: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:12:59 GMT

In article <Bzuo0n.F62@iat.holonet.net> bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri) writes:
>Since de regulation a first phone or general radiotelephone is not
>required to work on land mobile equipment. Many service shops still
>require it but most will accept a certification from neighbor or apco or
                                               NABER--^^^^^^^
>some of the other technical groups. Now days it is more important that the
>tech be certified on a particular piece of equipment by the manufacture.
>GE and Motorola have training sessions that lead to certification. The
>only place the first phone is required is on marine radios. The test is
>now more oriented toward the marine service.

The First Class Radiotelephone license no longer exists. (sniff) All
holders should now have the General Radiotelephone license after their
last renewal. This is good for life. It is required to be chief operator 
of a *broadcast* station, or for repair of marine radios. A radar endorsement 
is still required to work on shipboard radars. Note that technicians working 
under the supervision of a General Radiotelephone license holder do not 
require any certification. The old First Class Radiotelegraph license once 
required for shipboard radio operators is also no more since Morse equipment 
is no longer required aboard US flag ships.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton)
Subject: Re: FCC change of address change of policy?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:53:51 GMT


In message <1gtcedINN1g9@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes


>> FCC: "You don't need to send in a change of address for Amateur.  It's not
>> required."
>
>I don't think it was ever REQUIRED by regulation (unlike the FAA which
>requires pilots to notify them when they move).  But it's a good idea.
>It's not going to hold any water a year from now when some spurious pink
>slip they sent to your old address gets lost or returned marked forwarding
>order expired and you also get hit up for failure to respond.

  Yep, probably a good consideration.

>-Ron

I think it is a good idea.  I am not sure if it is required, but when my
neighbor filed an RFI complaint against me at my present QTH I was glad I
had filled out a 610 for a change of address.  As it was, the neighbor
mispelled my name and I got a notice from the FCC sent to CBers as they
found no record of me having an amateur license based on the spelling of
my last name by the neighbor.  Probably better safe than sorry.  Of course,
now the FCC has given up on handling RFI complaints.  Why didn't they do this
a couple of years sooner?  Would have saved me a few months of grief (the FCC
had to finally come out and check out the situation.  Result, I was causing
no RFI).

Also, another benefit; when you file a change of address, your license gets
renewed as of that date for another 10 years.


73,

John L. Broughton, WB9BGJ
AT&T
Naperville, IL
john.l.broughton@att.com
att!john.l.broughton
From: cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.E. Piggott )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:32:24 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: cep4478@ultb

In article <1992Dec26.161259.14598@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>It is required to be chief operator 
>of a *broadcast* station, or for repair of marine radios.

I've never asked anybody this question, but have been curious about it.
What's entailed in getting a commercial radiotelephone license?  (testing,
fees, etc.)  Is it more or less work than the ham licenses?

-- 
Christopher E. Piggott, WZ2B                    cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu
President                                       wz2b.ampr [44.69.0.1]
Rochester Institute of Technology               wz2b @ WB2PSI.#WNY.NY.USA.NA
Amateur Radio Club K2GXT                        CEP4478@RITVAXA.BITNET
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, 24 Dec 1992 22:26:02 GMT

In article <y6oZVB5w165w@n3eop.pgh.pa.us> paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> >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?
>> 
>> 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.
>
>It seems to me that if a tech did nothing more than a simple realignment, 
>then it should not affect type acceptance.
>
>Also, doesn't type acceptance only affect manufacturers, rather than 
>repair shops?

A shop is only supposed to do repairs. Out of band modifications for
land mobile rigs would seem to fall under the same criteria as modifications
to CB rigs to transmit out of band. The FCC doesn't allow modified radios
in services requiring Type Acceptance. Such modifications are considered
*remanufacture* of the radio and would require new Type Acceptance. 

Note that the rub here is not in transmitting on the ham bands. That's 
perfectly ok for a licensed amateur. The problem is that modifying the 
land mobile radio to do that voids it's Type acceptance in tne land mobile 
service. If all that's required is a crystal change, as in older land mobile 
radios, then Type Acceptance wouldn't be voided. But the newer radios have 
been restricted so that their synthesisers can't be programmed outside the 
land mobile service under the new Type Acceptance rules. So you'd have to do
modifications to the radio to make it work in the ham bands and that would
void the Type Acceptance for land mobile use.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:59:33 GMT
Organization: CrossRoads in Elizabeth, PA

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> >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?
> 
> 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.

It seems to me that if a tech did nothing more than a simple realignment, 
then it should not affect type acceptance.

Also, doesn't type acceptance only affect manufacturers, rather than 
repair shops?
From: chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: True and correct information
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 09:04:32 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Total and Complete Disorganization

jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:


> In article <1993Jan1.155038.24275@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) 
> >Sorry, this is not false information. Broadcast licensees have *always*
> >been responsible for the proper operation of their equipment. In addition,
> >the chief operator is also directly responsible for the operation of
> >the transmitting equipment, and (s)he must hold a General Radiotelephone
> >license.
> 
> Not so.  You must now only have a Restricted Radiotelephone Permit.  The
> requirement that you have a General Radiotelephone went away several years
> ago.
> 

What are the requirements for a Restricted/General Radiotelephone Permit and
what will they allow you to do.  I would assume that the business class of
licensing is vaguely familiar to amateur, but maybe not.

------------
Jim Chandler, KD6IRV
jwc@sactoh0.sac.ca.us
sactoh0!beagle!chandler
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: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:01:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.143224.14901@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.E. Piggott ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.161259.14598@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>It is required to be chief operator 
>>of a *broadcast* station, or for repair of marine radios.
>
>I've never asked anybody this question, but have been curious about it.
>What's entailed in getting a commercial radiotelephone license?  (testing,
>fees, etc.)  Is it more or less work than the ham licenses?

You take a written exam, of about the same difficulty as the amateur
Advanced exam. When I took it there was no fee, but that was many
years ago.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Repeater Warz (was Re: 430mhz band ...) 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 04:56:32 GMT

This has been an interesting thread, but I suspect that both sides in
their extreme views are missing the main ideas of each viewpoint. 

"As a licensee and station operator, I have absolute say over who
operates my equipment."

Yes, you do, without question.  If you put a repeater on a frequency,
there is no obligation to retransmit all signals that appear on your 
input channel.  If you offer it as an "open" repeater, there is an
expectation to provide it as a service, but doing otherwise will only
affect your public image (and possibly the status of your coordination,
if the repeater pair was granted on condition of your service being
"open").

"As the recipient of one or more coordinated frequencies, I own the
channels."

Whoa, not quite.  Coordination is an instrument of interference
prevention/reduction, NOT an assignment of ownership.  Having a
coordinated repeater does not necessarily give you control over
everything that is transmitted on your coordinated frequencies within
line-of-sight range (usually 75-80 miles).

I agree that as repeater pairs fill up, this is likely to become a very
controversial issue.  The likely solution (I know of at least one
east-coast coordinator that is considering this) is to use automated
monitoring tools to gather usage statistics on all coordinated repeaters
and make low-usage (or substantially non-conflicting in the time-domain)
pairs or triplets of repeaters share a channel, with the use of PL
and/or directional/notched antenna arrays.

A repeater pair assignment CANNOT, for the sake of the state-of-the-art,
be a transfer of ownership, in perpetutity, of radio frequencies 
over a wide geographic area.  Coordinating bodies made the mistake of
unconditionally assigning channels in "unwanted" frequency ranges,
without making them conditional on future usage patterns and technology
considerations.  The FCC took the gutless path of stating that they will
not endorse coordinating bodies, while simultaneously claiming that in
the case of conflict, the "coordinated" repeater will win out in
interference disputes.

A messy situtation, to be sure.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 14:48:35 GMT

In article <y6oZVB5w165w@n3eop.pgh.pa.us>, paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul) writes:
> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> 
>> >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?
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> It seems to me that if a tech did nothing more than a simple realignment, 
> then it should not affect type acceptance.
> 

A 'simple' realgnment, if done incorrectly, can cause transmitted spurious
over a wide bandwidth. This is especially significant if a radio is re-tuned
to try to cover a broader bandwidth than it's designed for, which it would
be in the case of 'out of band' operation on the ham bands. Re-tuning the
radio for 'out of band' operation would not be 'simple' realignment.

> Also, doesn't type acceptance only affect manufacturers, rather than 
> repair shops?

No. A Commercial FCC liscense is required to perform any transmitter
maintenance on any radio used in commercial service.

   John Rice -  K9IJ         |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was    
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially  
   (708)-940-9000 - (work)   |   Not my Employer's.... Licensed since 1959
   (708)-438-5965 - (bbs )   |   Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV
                                 (and FCC 1st Phone - when it was a 'real'
                                  license)


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under thSKIP
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 17:41:37 GMT

In article <8229@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.235602.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>>Excuse Me ? "Invited" to use the spectrum. Where does the FCC say that ANY
>>Amateur has to be INVITED to transmit on a frequency?
> 
> In Part 97, section 97.205, paragraph (e):
> 
>      S 97.205 Repeater station.
>      (e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to
> users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled
> functions of the station. Limiting the use of a repeater to only
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> certain user stations is permissible.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep, that's what it says. What it does NOT say, is that the owner/operator
has any exclusive ownership to the input or output frequency or right to
control who transmits on that frequency. All it says is that the owner/operator
can TURN OFF the repeater if they don't want the station on the input to
be repeated.



> 
> This is devolving into a discussion about rules, and so belongs in
> rec.radio.amateur.policy; I've redirected followups there.

You are correct.


--------

   John Rice -  K9IJ         |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was    
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially  
   (708)-940-9000 - (work)   |   Not my Employer's.... Licensed since 1959
   (708)-438-5065 - (bbs )   |   Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: randy@n1gva (Randy - KA1UNW)
Subject: Re: What to do about station address...
Organization: Evil Weather Machines LTD
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:58:06 GMT

Where do you recieve your mail?

If NOT a PO box No. then use that address.

FCC mainly needs a place to send you mail ( for what ever reasons ).

On the form where it askes for station site if not same as mailing address,
you can put in Marine-mobile , and your current slip/ address of marina.

Technically tho, each time you 'move' you ought to submit a new 610 form or
else face unforseen problems.

FCC is not stupid, just overworked...so a short note explaining your 'odd'
address would help...they DO realize not everyone can be pigeon-holed...

So as long as they have a way to reach you in a way they they approve of,
you'll be ok.



-- 
[ Randy Floberg - KA1UNW  I         Assistant to Dr. Sponge             ]
[ 136 West Spring St.     I        Evil Weather Machines LTD.           ]
[ West Haven, CT. 06516   I---------------------------------------------]
[                         I   email: ...uunet!hsi!a3bee2!n1gva!randy    ]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: High Speed links
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.221401.3046@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Note we suspect the limitation is in the KA9Q async handler and not
>in the TNC. Other software may work fine at this data rate. Laplink
>and it's ilk run up to 115 kb over the standard async port, but in
>half duplex mode of course.

The SLIP router on my home Ethernet is a lowly 10 Mhz 286 with
NS16550A's running NOS, and it has no problem at all handling a Codex
3260 FAST dialup modem with a DTE speed of 115.2 kb/s. This is the
same speed as Laplink, and the fastest speed an unmodified PC serial
port can support. And that's full duplex. Of course, actual throughput
is lower since the modem's line speed is only 24.0 kb/s, but V.42bis
compression can improve throughput substantially. I typically get 7.5
kiloBYTES/sec on FTPs of compressible ASCII text, but only 2.7
kilobytes/sec on compressed or encrypted files. Nevertheless, NOS is
still receiving and sending at burst speeds of 115.2 kb/s.

I need to stress that the 16550s are absolutely crucial here. I
program them to trigger an interrupt when the receive FIFO hits 4
characters, but by the time my creaky 286 has finished responding to
the interrupt, it has typically read 13 characters -- with 3 to spare.
A slightly faster DTE or a slower CPU and the 550's FIFO would
overflow, but this combination does quite nicely. Of course, it does
help that I don't generally use the machine as anything other than a
dedicated IP router. In particular I don't usually use it as a
terminal or FTP server, so I avoid other sources of interrupt latency
that could cause it to drop modem characters.

So it *is* possible to use an asynch port on NOS to run at high
speeds. But having said all that, I still agree that a special HDLC
card is the preferable way to drive a high speed radio modem. I just
wish there were better chips than 8530s...

Phil


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet