HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clmorgan@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Why do we have license requirements?
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:21:51 GMT

In article <yq5oTB8w165w@n3eop.pgh.pa.us>, paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul) writes:
> rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF) writes:
> 
>> Will 5 WPM satisfy the ITU treaty regarding use of the HF amateur bands?
>> That seems to be what most people on the net say but a local Extra tells
>> me that the treaty requires 10 WPM, and when I questioned him on the 5
>> wpm that allows Novices on HF he said it yes but there power is limited.
> 
> The ITU treaty simply requires knowledge of the code; there is no 
> requirement for a receiving test of any speed.  In fact, to satisfy the 
> reg, all they have to do is have a question on the test like "Who is the 
> Morse code named after?" (the Morse/Morris debate notwithstanding).
> 
> To toss my couple of copper clad aluminum disks into the fray, I am for 
> seeing Morse being required for HF, but only at the 5 wpm level.  This 
> will silence the "plane crash with a broken mike" critics, yet there are 
> very few people that can't learn code at 5 wpm.  I've taught people 5 wpm 
> code in an afternoon, so I know how simple it is.
> 
> To save the torchbearers the effort of getting out the callbook and 
> looking up my call, I am one of the "old time" Techs (full element 3), 
> with only 5 wpm credit.  However, the last time my call had graced HF, I 
> was working Novice Roundup a couple of years ago at a solid 15 wpm, and 
> was copying the ARRL bulls at 18 wpm.  With about a week's preparation, I 
> would have no problem passing my 20.  Yet, I don't.  First, I don
> 't have an HF rig (sold it when my car blew up).  Second, I don't really 
> care to join the mess on (insert favorite HF band here).  Third, I still 
> don't see the need for it.
> 
> Oh well...


As amateur radio is known for having "something for everyone", perhaps as an
Extra, you would gain fullfillment in being a Volunteer Examiner.  As you've
probably guessed, I'm not taking issue with your comments but attempting to
address the "third reason" noted above.

73 >< Carl
  K8NHE
From: ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:03:20 GMT
Subject: Seeking Costa Rica ham advice
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

Lemme try again (since I got no replies) in a more appropriate place
(oops, the first posting was a mispitch).

Lucky me, I get to spend a week in Costa Rica soon.  It will include
some backcountry adventures.  Should I bring my 2M HT with me?  I'd
appreciate any mailed advice about the likelihood of it being useful
there, and any agencies to contact for official information.  Thanks in
advance!  (And apologies for popping in to ask, I haven't been able to
keep up with this newsgroup.)

Alan Silverstein, N0MFW, ajs@hpfcajs.fc.hp.com
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:1842 rec.radio.amateur.packet:2921
From: steve@zero.com (Steve Urich)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Bulletin FWDING on 2Meters.
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:37:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Beyonet - Zero Network


	Hello, I would like some input on policies about forwarding bulletins
	on 2 meter user freqs. Could anyone acknowledge if there is a national
	forwarding policy that limits or restricts forwarding bulletins on
	2 meters? I would like to hear from you and what kind of agreements 
	have been made and what future outcome will be considered with this
	"dark ages" practice. This practice is getting many users on the 
	frequency that is happening really upset. Please understand this has
	been happening for many years now and most of the pbbs's have switched
	to multi-tnc multi-user software like msys, fbb, cbbs, and so on.
	However there are 2 remaining systems that are still using the old
	One user at a time type pbbs's that ARE NOT willing to upgrade their
	software and at least another tnc for a fwding freq. 

	I have found out that there is a policy made with these 2 remaining
	systems that they are not allowed to forward bulletins between the
	time of 6pm to 11pm since this is prime time. This does not include
	the serious binary transfers that happen frequently in these time
	lines. It seems this person with his limited gw basic programming
	ability is doing all the damage. He and his pal that he sends large
	.exe files over on his single user pbbs will not upgrade software
	because A: He doesn't want to use other multi-users software since
	he programs his own pbbs. B: He don't want to write a mult-user
	multi-tnc pbbs because he doesn't want to "re-invent the wheel".
	To top it all off he has the tnc parms set so tight that nobody
	can get inbetween his packets and the paclen and frames are maxed
	out so all the other pbbs's in the area are completely held
	up during the whole process. Also these 2 pbbs's are using amplifiers
	from 80 to 170 watts output. This seems like a complete selfish
	act on their part against all of the other users and pbbs's on that
	freq.

	I personally feel if they want to continue to use 2meters for bulletin
	forwarding they should: A: Only get a restricted distrubution.
	B: Use Beams instead of amplifiers so it will cut down on the user
	interference. C: Reevaluate their worth, are they contributing or
	hindering fellow packet operators with their operations. Consider
	the future of packet and how large the distrubutions are going to
	be an weather single user pbbs's are a asset or a liability to
	the community.

	Please let us know how you have handled your local areas policy
	on this matter so we have a references and a goal to achieve here.

	Thanks for your help.
	Steve

-- 
|Stephen Urich|        Internet:steve@zero.com         | "Cattle mutilations |
|NIC: SU2     |        UUCP:uunet!beyonet!steve        | are up!" --Sneakers |
|ARS: WB3FTP  | Packet:WB3FTP@WB3FTP.#EPA.PA.USA.NOAM  | ax25<->PBBS<->IPGATE|
|Bensalem, PA |Radio:wb3ftp@wb3ftp.ampr.org[44.80.8.44]| TCP/IP-FTP-SMTP-UNIX|
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Subject : Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:37:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsd.9211121511.AA21035
Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

>the 13wpm requirement that is NOT universally applied by other
>countries for access to HF operation.  So again and again the
>question needs to restated...Why does one need to exhibit CW
>proficiency at 13wpm in the USA
>(versus an ITU acceptable 5wpm) as a requirement
>for operation of non-CW modes in the HF bands?
> 
>Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)

it's 13 WPM because we're better than they are. just part of being the last 
remaining world superpower - have to set higher standards for our own people 
to be able to set the standard for the world.  the question should be why 
don't they have the same lust for performance and complexity as the US.

(and for the humor impaired:


	 8888		)
	8    8		 )
	8    8		  )
	 8888		   )
		--------    )
	 8888		   )
	8    8		  )
 	8    8		 )
	 8888		)

)

(although i do think that "the europeans don't do it that way" isn't reason 
enough to change things here.)
From: kb7uv@panix.com (Andy Funk)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:05:11 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

In <m0mpfnM-0000tPC@ricard.utmb.edu> fbq@ricard.utmb.EDU (F.B.Quinn) writes:

>Suppose I (KB5USK) use the phone patch on our repeater to issue a page
>to another ham, sending only the frequency of our repeater as the text of
>the pager message, whereupon receiving the page he turns on his
>handie-talkie, tunes it to the repeater frequency, and keys the
>repeater with a "monitoring" call.  I then initiate a QSO with him on
>the repeater.  I think it does not violate prohibitions concerning
>broadcasting or business or commercial use of amateur radio facilities.
>Is this legal???
>Thanks.
>Francis - KB5USK


I don't see how it would be considered illegal.  You're doing the same
thing as calling a ham's house via the autopatch and asking whoever
answers to get them on the air, right?  That's perfectly OK.

A note, though...   Don't ask the FCC if it's legal, ever, about anything!
 They have to be as strict as can be when issuing policy statements and
it's much easier to say something isn't legal than that it is.  It's also
a lot better to say, "Gee!  I thought it was legal.  Now that I know
different I won't do it again" than to have something declared illegal
first. 


Well, that's my opinion.

73, Andy

-----
Internet: kb7uv@panix.com          CompuServe: 74756,2055
KB7UV Landline ROSErver/PRMBS: 718-956-7133, 1200 - 9600  V.32
The Radio Amateur Telecommunications Society: askrat@kb4cyc.nj.usa
From: paul@n3eop.pgh.pa.us (paul)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Why do we have license requirements?
Date: 4 Nov 92 03:55:21 GMT
Organization: CrossRoads in Elizabeth, PA

rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF) writes:

> Will 5 WPM satisfy the ITU treaty regarding use of the HF amateur bands?
> That seems to be what most people on the net say but a local Extra tells
> me that the treaty requires 10 WPM, and when I questioned him on the 5
> wpm that allows Novices on HF he said it yes but there power is limited.

The ITU treaty simply requires knowledge of the code; there is no 
requirement for a receiving test of any speed.  In fact, to satisfy the 
reg, all they have to do is have a question on the test like "Who is the 
Morse code named after?" (the Morse/Morris debate notwithstanding).

To toss my couple of copper clad aluminum disks into the fray, I am for 
seeing Morse being required for HF, but only at the 5 wpm level.  This 
will silence the "plane crash with a broken mike" critics, yet there are 
very few people that can't learn code at 5 wpm.  I've taught people 5 wpm 
code in an afternoon, so I know how simple it is.

To save the torchbearers the effort of getting out the callbook and 
looking up my call, I am one of the "old time" Techs (full element 3), 
with only 5 wpm credit.  However, the last time my call had graced HF, I 
was working Novice Roundup a couple of years ago at a solid 15 wpm, and 
was copying the ARRL bulls at 18 wpm.  With about a week's preparation, I 
would have no problem passing my 20.  Yet, I don't.  First, I don
't have an HF rig (sold it when my car blew up).  Second, I don't really 
care to join the mess on (insert favorite HF band here).  Third, I still 
don't see the need for it.

Oh well...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:28:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering and ARC

Yes, we use the phone patch to page our local ARES Emergency Coord. onto the
repeater when we need to bring up a severe weather net.  The repeater passes
DTMF, while another local repeater doesn't pass DTMF, so it wouldn't work 
on that one.
73
KF0YJ
From: grier@bnr.ca (Brian Grier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Licensing reform and retesting
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:54:56 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research

> After reading this thread for what seems like forever, my $.02:

         < Many lines deleted for brevity >

> But most of your learning throughout life WILL be outside the 
> classroom.  

I agree whole-heartedly. Re-testing will not change anything, other
than reduce the number of operators.


My extra class license does not make me a better operator.
It is just a goal I wanted to attain. If you want a good
example of extra class operators in action just listen to
a DX pile-up and listen to the call signs of the people not
paying attention to the "listening up/down xxKhz." 

I normally live on 2 meters with occasional forays to the HF
bands.

Brian, WS1S formerly KC1QG formerly KA1UBW
Bell Northern Research
Research Triangle Park, NC
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:04:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.192744.21893@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>NO one has argued here for the total elimination of CW testing.

You apparrently didn't read the article I was responding to...

andy@newton.cs.clemson.edu (Andrew J. Greenshields N3IGS) wrote:
+  That might be an argument in favour of CW, but it is not an argument
+in favour of the CW requirement.  As has been said many times before,
+there have been many arguments in favour of CW, but not one in favour
+of requiring CW in order to be able to use the HF bands for voice and
+other digital modes apart from CW.

It's pretty clear that Andy was arguing against *any* CW requirement for
access to HF.  Thus the ITU argument, in conjunction with the utility
argument.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 19:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.184634.27080@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>Demonstrating the utility of CW lends credence to the argument that
>CW is a skill that the average (read general class) amateur should acquire.
>
>As for access to HF, there's the oft cited treaty restriction.  My read
>of the ITU at this point is that this requirement is UNLIKELY to disappear
>anytime some, as the majority of countries continue to support the Morse
>requirement.

NO one has argued here for the total elimination of CW testing.
Therefore the ITU requirement isn't at issue here.  THE ISSUE is
the 13wpm requirement that is NOT universally applied by other
countries for access to HF operation.  So again and again the
question needs to restated...Why does one need to exhibit CW
proficiency at 13wpm in the USA
(versus an ITU acceptable 5wpm) as a requirement
for operation of non-CW modes in the HF bands?

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: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Usefulness of Morse Code (and MicroSats)
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:57:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Nov11.184634.27080@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.021345.11013@hubcap.clemson.edu> andy@newton.cs.clemson.edu (Andrew J. Greenshields N3IGS) writes:
>>  That might be an argument in favour of CW, but it is not an argument
>>in favour of the CW requirement.
>
>As for access to HF, there's the oft cited treaty restriction.  My read
>of the ITU at this point is that this requirement is UNLIKELY to disappear

   Come on guys...doesn't this belong in rec.radio.amateur.policy?  I've
noticed little traffic in that group and I'm getting tired of this
endless debate about the merits of CW.

   I'm not picking on these two indivituals in particular, this just
happened to be the most handy article.

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: fbq@ricard.utmb.EDU (F.B.Quinn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Is this legal?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:45:00 GMT
Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

Suppose I (KB5USK) use the phone patch on our repeater to issue a page
to another ham, sending only the frequency of our repeater as the text of
the pager message, whereupon receiving the page he turns on his
handie-talkie, tunes it to the repeater frequency, and keys the
repeater with a "monitoring" call.  I then initiate a QSO with him on
the repeater.  I think it does not violate prohibitions concerning
broadcasting or business or commercial use of amateur radio facilities.
Is this legal???
Thanks.
Francis - KB5USK
From: seb9551@cuphub.cup.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re:
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:13:47 GMT
Organization: California University of Pennsylvania, California, PA

n article 
> 
> 
>
> 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: Bill Luciw <luciw@apple.com>
Subject: Please send [or post] FAQ
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:21:57 GMT
X-Xxdate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:25:57 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72014D50D03031A@kip-26.apple.com>
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Thanks in advance.

-- Bill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Luciw                      Voice: (408) 974-3845
Newton Products Group           Fax:   (408) 974-1794
Apple Computer, Inc.    
10300 Bubb Rd.  MS: 50-B        AppleLink:  Luciw
Cupertino, CA 95014             Internet:   luciw@apple.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: lucky@ece.iisc.ernet.IN
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: PAX: A Terminal Program
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:44:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: ece.9211130538.AA04908
Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu



Hi everybody and greetings from Bangalore, India

Just saw requests for software to be used on packet. Well, PAX is a
neat program written by Raj/VU2ZAP which you could check out. Am
appending Raj's WHATIS.PAX file for more info:

*** WHATIS.PAX

 PAX is a TSR terminal program. Easy to use and many features. Split screen
 for send and receive, scroll back review, capture and file send, print,
 10 brag buffers, automatically sets date and time, 3 color schemes and
 many more .. Interrupt driven, so no drivers required. You can use 9600
 baud between PC and modem even in the slowest machines ! Supports COM 1,2,3
 & 4. Quick switch between 2 modems and any hot key can be selected.
 Download PAX and read the document file for full information.
 NOTE: PAX.COM version 2.10 is 9890 bytes long.
 
 for syntax "PAX /?"  and for Help   "PAX /H"
 
 * From VU2ZAP Raj * Comments are welcome VU2ZAP@VU2RSB.BLR.IND.AS

***

Anybody who'd like to check it out can drop me a line and I'll mail
you the UUed version with the document. Any queries can be sent to
me on the Internet. (It's faster than the ham route!).

73 de Lucky, VU2LBW

Internet: lucky@ece.iisc.ernet.in
Ham radio: VU2LBW @ VU2RSB.BLR.IND.AS
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: regmad@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Michael de Kraker)
Subject: Re: Wirelsess Data Comunication
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:51:36 GMT

hendrix@haber.Eng.Sun.COM (George Haber) writes:

>Hi Guys and Girls
>=================

>  I need some HELP "please"
> I intend to build (For my home) a wireless radio network for data
>        - Does any one know how to build such a best cheaply  ??
>        - Can I use some "portable phone" components to do it.
>        - How do you detect collision in for such an Network ??
>        - What is the best protocol for this ??

>Any help is greatly appreciated.

>George T. Haber
>~

Hello George:


	How many stations?
	How fast?
	Bidirectional?
	max distance?
	Are you a ham is this for "business" purposes?
	Reliability required? is this a personal security system.
	Minimum range required?
	RS2-232 type connection?


I like the portable phone idea, have pondered it before but to add more than
2 stations ( an originate and answer ) would require some interesting work.

I have used cheap "K-Mart" toy walkie talkies hooked up to 300 baud modems
for uni-directional links. +'s include few regulations (FCC part 15), cheap.

Hams currently use AX.25 or packet radio which is a CSMA type network allowing
many stations to address data to other stations in a shared medium
using simple FM type radios. Refer to Amatuer radio handbook for more info.
This is a good solution for low throughput turnkey type system. Cost wise
a little expensive. Another problem is the content of your transmissions
are somewhat restricted. I am fortunate to have both a base and portable
packet station unfortunately rules prevent me from reading my internet mail
using ham radio (non-business rule).

If you are not a ham you could perhaps use Radio shack FM type walkie
talkies. I have thought of trying this for personal and internet Email type
apllications. The big thing is the packet controller must be able to key
the tranceiver and I have yet to check if these radios would be compatible.

Any others out there, I wonder if this is in violation of FCC part 15????

I suppose that my solution was running alot of cable. I run serial cable
to each room to a rj45 jack. When I want to read net news or get on packet 
with dinner or in bed just lug the laptop and plug in. To use the 386 I run
a remote program like PC-ANYWHERE .Fun Fun.

Good luck lets hear more ideas.


 
     _______  ______
    /        /        /       /    Michael A. de Kraker
   /        /______  /       /     Georgia State University  404-651-2390
  /    ___        / /       /      Internet:REGMAD@GSUSGI2.GSU.EDU
 /_______/ ______/ /_______/       BITNET  :REGMAD@GSUVM1  PACKET:KD4FKW@W4QO
 
   To iterate is human, to recurse devine
 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: unbham@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (UNB Amateur Radio)
Subject: Packet Internet Gateway
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:10:37 GMT

We now have a dedicated computer (with link to the internet), 2m rig
and packet controller which we are going to use to provide a link from
packet//internet.

I am not really looking to start from scratch and would like to get
help from people with such a beast already set up.

Thanks,   
Derek Billingsley
pres UNB Amateur Radio Club
From: jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: TCP/IP on HF?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:47:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <1550@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM> chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer) writes:
>I finally got my hamshack setup with TCP/IP on VHF, which is fun.  I would
>also like to do TCP/IP on HF, which would probably be even more fun.
>What HF freqs are currently being used as the standard for HF TCP/IP?
>
>
>Charles (Chuck) Rissmeyer    KE0VG
>(612) 638-7669  (VP 652-7669) -  charles.rissmeyer@StPaul.NCR.COM
>NCR - An AT&T Company             NCR  CCS-PM&S NPD St. Paul

I don't know about "standard" frequencies, but I have ran a gateway
service between Salt Lake City, Utah and Western Washington a 
couple of years ago on 17 Meters...

John
-- 
John D. Hays [KD7UW]           |Email: [UUCP]          ...!hplabs!hpdmd48!jhays
Firmware Engineer              |       [INTERNET]              jhays@boi.hp.com
Boise Printer Division         |       [GEnie]                             HAYS
Boise, Idaho                   |       [Compu$erve]                   72725,424
From: slafetra@pollux.svale.hp.com (Skip La Fetra)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:08:06 GMT
Subject: Re: baycom software for HP-48sx?
Organization: Hewlett Packard CPCD, Sunnyvale CA