HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:43:45 GMT

John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU> writes:

>pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>> bobw@col.hp.com (Bob Witte) writes:
>> 
>> >  [stuff deleted]
>> 
>> >>      (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
>> >> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
>> >   
>> >    This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of 
>> >    armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
>> >    through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
>> >    be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
>> >    could be accomplished via Citizens Band? 
>>
>> Glad to see I've stirred up a bit of discussion on the subject with my
>> posting.  I too have some trouble with the bit about "regular use" as
>> it's so vaguely defined as to be no better (perhaps worse) than the
>> previous rules.

>Docket 92-136 paragraph 9 states that the FCC is proposing to RELAX
>the prohibition against amateur stations transmitting any
>communications that could be furnished via other radio services.

Like when the IRS set out to simplify the tax code, and wound up adding
100 pages of "clarifications?"  While I do believe that the FCC is
sincerely attempting to relax the regulations, the horribly vague
prohibitions on "regular use" is bound to get misinterpreted, probably
during the next changeover of power at the FCC (Commissioners *ARE*
political appointees, don't you know).

>The copy of 97.112 I found in the library appears to be somewhat out
>of date (last update reference is May 2, '85) and doesn't mention this
>restriction.  Is there someone who has an up-to-date version of 97.112
>who can shed some light on what the current situation is?

The wherabouts of on-line copies of Part-97 are in the FAQ, so I won't
repeat them here.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.162548.3333@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> koning@koning.enet.dec.com writes:
>Thus I would argue that (a) all NECESSARY security functions for control
>links and the like are already available and permitted by the existing rules,
>(b) the special exemption for satellite control links is neither necessary
>nor useful.

Agreed, except that existing satellites do not use public key
authentication to protect their command links. To the extent that the
lowest levels of their command systems (e.g., the CPU reset function)
depend on hardware, they cannot be changed now that they are in orbit.
And although more sophisticated higher level software mechanisms could
indeed be implemented, there's much to be said for keeping the basic
hardware reset function as simple (and reliable) as possible.

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: FCC Part 97
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 09:31:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

telnet archie.unl.edu
login: archie

prog part97

and you'll get a list of 15 sites from which to ftp it...
-- 
"Partly it may be due to a phenomenon known since the very dawn of spaceflight
in connection with certain pharmaceutical drugs. They induced adverse
psychological effects, including radical changes of mood and personality.
However the fact that they were prescribed by a physician militated
against the patient's chance of deducing that they were the proximate cause
of his suffering; indeed, he would be more inclined to ask for further drugs
to counteract the first, and since the whole process was extremely profitable
for all concerned save the ultimate consumer, they would be provided.
				John Brunner in "A Maze of Stars"
From: steve@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Schallehn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: 30 Aug 1992 19:10:01 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Reply-To: steve@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Schallehn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu

pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:

>Let's face it, amateur operators will not stand to let their bands get
>taken over the business interests.  No matter how naive, or
>well-meaning we may be, no amateur is going to allow some greedy
>corporate interest to exploit the ham bands with no compensation to
>themselves.  There wouldn't even be any incentive for an unscrupulous
>person to get a ham license for the purpose of business communications
>as there would be no profit in it.

While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
want amateur radio to be a personal communications service.  For
example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
personal communications between family members.  I see this trend 
occurring all over the US.

On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio 
spectrum and it keeps our service growing.  It also may moderately enhance
our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
autopatch facilities.  

On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
just trivially enhance the art of radio communications.  Unfortunately,
with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
experimenters as it is.

Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture:  Are we a
personal communications provider or are we experimenters?  There should
be room for both, but where is the dividing line?  Comments welcome.


>There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
>networks.  Most of the legal problems that have thwarted meaningful
>network experimentation (business communications, internetworking,
>incidental benefit of ANY third party, etc.) would be eliminated with this
>simplified rule.

Not entirely.  We still have to do obscene filtering and control
operators are still responsible for everything going though their
repeaters.  Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.


-Steve Schallehn  KB0AGD
 Kansas State University
"I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing by." John Cougar Mellencamp


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:59:11 GMT

In article <5907.2a9a47b1@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.211129.2806664@locus.com>, dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
>> 
>> On a technical basis, unattended HF forwarding is attractive given the
>> long distance hops that are possible. 
>
>Agreed.
>
>> However, given the limited available
>> bandspace and the hoary technology in use on HF, it is not practical to
>> expect unlimited unattended HF forwarding to work well. 
>
>Why not? Did we not learn anything from years of STA? Is there some way we
>can set this up so that it will work well? What precautions do we need to take?

  Yes, we have learned from the STA. I do not recall which ARRL CNC the
paper appears in, but a report was presented which, among other things,
described a 3 day period in which the HF network suffered congestive collapse.
Keep in mind this is a couple of years ago, with less activity on HF
packet and a very limited number of unattended HF stations.

>> In fact, if 1000
>> stations all set up for unattended forwarding at once, we'd have a congestive
>> collapse in less than a day.
>
>Do you have any PROOF to back up that statement? Aren't there other countries
>that permit unlimited unattended forwarding. We haven't seen thier bands
>collapse.

Try this sometime; get a copy of AXMON (by Skip Hansen and Harold Price) and
set it up and monitor one of the HF unattended forwarding channels. After
that, come back and tell me that HF forwarding works well. In fact, come
back and tell me that HF forwarding is efficient.

>This type of statement reminds me all too well of comments made by the
>anti-no-code faction about the adoption of a code-free license class.

My gut level reaction to this statement is strong, and not printable.

>I happen to believe that open autoforwarding could be handled by a gentleman's
>agreement, much as CW, RTTY and Packet co-habitate now on our congested
>digital bands.

What leads you to believe this? Listening to the 2m frequencies used for
autoforwarding around here leads me to believe unmitigated access will
result in grossly reduced channel efficiency, which leads to a congestive
collapse. I don't believe a gentleman's agreement is worth diddly on
packet.


-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (213) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com  DoD #466 	| reflect those of my employer	*
 * "Dammit Bones, spare me the lecture and give me the shot!"   *
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 23:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.200244.30917@watson.ibm.com> uri@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
>|>      (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
>|> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
>
>This one really set me off. Do you realize, that with cellular
>phones coming into existence, ALL the communications can be
>furnished through this "other radio service"? 

How true.  This word "reasonable" has to be absolutely defined
or the whole re-write is a waste of time.
Personally, I think the price of cellular, business band, and
trunked radio systems are all unreasonably priced for the average
person.  Cellular has great potential but its already corrupted
with crooked pricing structures and poor quality of service.  So
I'm told.  Similar to the cable TV business I guess.

Fix this part or relegate Amateur Radio to an experimenter's band.

WA7LDV

-- 
Fan mail may be sent to:                 | 
zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com                | 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: bobw@col.hp.com (Bob Witte)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:52:54 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

steve@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Schallehn) writes:
> 
> While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service.  For
> example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
> personal communications between family members.  I see this trend 
> occurring all over the US.
> 
> On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio 
> spectrum and it keeps our service growing.  It also may moderately enhance
> our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
> repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
> autopatch facilities.  
> 
> On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
> VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
> just trivially enhance the art of radio communications.  Unfortunately,
> with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
> VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
> experimenters as it is.
> 
> Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture:  Are we a
> personal communications provider or are we experimenters?  There should
> be room for both, but where is the dividing line?  Comments welcome.
>
   This is a very important point. A recent article in QST (during the
   last year) was based on an interview with a ham whose name escapes
   me at the moment. I think the guy hit the nail on the head when he
   said that ham radio was seeing a shift to where the radio activity
   is coupled with other activities, but is more of a sideline. Examples
   are bicycling with am radio, hiking with am radio, hang gliding with
   am radio, boating with am radio, <whatever> with am radio.  This does
   start to sound alot like a personal communications service. Oh yeah,
   I forgot "talking to other family members with am radio." 

   I think this trend started years ago and has been accelerated (but
   not caused by) the no-code license. I can think of many cases where
   a radio amateur convinced, harassed or encouraged a spouse, hiking
   partner, bicycling partner, ... to get their radio license while 
   5 WPM Morse was still a requirement. 

   I expect this trend to continue in the future. I am not sure whether
   its good, bad or a "don't care", but I am convinced that its happening.

     Bob  KB0CY
     "An experimenter who also talks to the spousal unit on the radio"
~
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:46:08 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Aug20.211129.2806664@locus.com>, dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
> 
> On a technical basis, unattended HF forwarding is attractive given the
> long distance hops that are possible. 

Agreed.

> However, given the limited available
> bandspace and the hoary technology in use on HF, it is not practical to
> expect unlimited unattended HF forwarding to work well. 

Why not? Did we not learn anything from years of STA? Is there some way we
can set this up so that it will work well? What precautions do we need to take?

> In fact, if 1000
> stations all set up for unattended forwarding at once, we'd have a congestive
> collapse in less than a day.

Do you have any PROOF to back up that statement? Aren't there other countries
that permit unlimited unattended forwarding. We haven't seen thier bands
collapse.

This type of statement reminds me all too well of comments made by the
anti-no-code faction about the adoption of a code-free license class.

I happen to believe that open autoforwarding could be handled by a gentleman's
agreement, much as CW, RTTY and Packet co-habitate now on our congested
digital bands.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 02:39:22 GMT


This John Woods states that the ARRL has submitted a proposal.  No
proposal has been submitted to the FCC.  Let's not get ahead of
ourselves here.  73, Steve, NO8M
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rdewan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rajiv Dewan)
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:26:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.142259.19332@tamsun.tamu.edu> kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger) writes:
>In article <7251@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>|> I guess a QST survey isn't asking for input?
>
>When you receive the July issue in August??????  Also, not everybody sits
>down immediately to read all those VERY INTERESTING tube projects!
>Mine is placed in the "reading room" till I have time to sit down and have
>a laugh or two....
>
>-- 
>Kurt Freiberger, wb5bbw	  kurt@cs.tamu.edu   409/847-8607  fax:409/847-8578

It is much worse to consistently get an issue for a month before
the month starts.  For instance, I got my copy of Sept QST a couple of weeks
ago (in AUGUST, that is) and now I am in the uncomfortable position of
having read all the articles when the month has only barely started. :) :)

Rajiv                                 
aa9ch    
Address: r-dewan@nwu.edu
Phone:   None. Only CW.
From: markz@ssc.wa.com (Mark Zenier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: FCC Part 97
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:46:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A last minute thought.  What about the Lexis legal database
timeshare service?]

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Date: 4 Sep 1992 00:05:43 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep3.210852.26945@PDX.MENTORG.COM> hank_oredson@mentorg.com writes:
>We were not *asked* for input, and we *were* left out of the process.
>This situation was corrected, as quickly as we could correct it, once
>we *did* learn that some decision making process was going on.

I guess a QST survey isn't asking for input?

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

Actually, I was referring to everyone who complained, but only *after* the
report was published...and didn't provide input to the committee in the first
place.

You qualify for the laurels without the sarcasm, though...

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Organization: Special Projects, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 1992 21:25:51 -0400 
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
	<pschleck.715102676@cwis>

pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
> bobw@col.hp.com (Bob Witte) writes:
> 
> >  [stuff deleted]
> 
> >>      (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
> >> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
> >   
> >    This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of 
> >    armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
> >    through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
> >    be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
> >    could be accomplished via Citizens Band? 
>
> Glad to see I've stirred up a bit of discussion on the subject with my
> posting.  I too have some trouble with the bit about "regular use" as
> it's so vaguely defined as to be no better (perhaps worse) than the
> previous rules.

Docket 92-136 paragraph 9 states that the FCC is proposing to RELAX
the prohibition against amateur stations transmitting any
communications that could be furnished via other radio services.

The copy of 97.112 I found in the library appears to be somewhat out
of date (last update reference is May 2, '85) and doesn't mention this
restriction.  Is there someone who has an up-to-date version of 97.112
who can shed some light on what the current situation is?

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
From: fms@sw.stratus.com (Faith Senie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:21:42 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <17ro0pINNqpe@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu>, steve@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve
Schallehn) writes:
> 
> While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service.  For
> example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
> personal communications between family members.  I see this trend 
> occurring all over the US.
> 

I guess I don't understand something here.  What's wrong with amateur radio
being a personal communcations service?  What else do you want me to do with
my radio?  I realize this is supposed to be a technical hobby, but one can 
only build so many radios before one wants to actually _use_ one, and what
else should we be using them for but personal communications?  Message-passing,
perhaps, but other than traffic nets and emergency drills/actual emergencies,
there isn't much call for message-passing.  And business communications are
out, for obvious reasons.  As far as I can see, the only thing left is
personal communications.  Whether family members or non-family members are 
involved shouldn't make one bit of difference...


73 de Faith N1JIT

-- 
Faith M. Senie            InterNet: fms@vos.stratus.com
Stratus Computer, Inc.    InterNet: fms@hoop.sw.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Blvd.       Pkt Radio: n1jit@ka1srd.ma.usa.na
Marlboro, MA 01752           Phone: (508)460-2632

"I'm afraid I don't know very much about Romulan Disruptor settings" --Spock
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.200244.30917@watson.ibm.com> uri@watson.ibm.com writes:

>|> Messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof,
>|> except as otherwise provided herein;  
>
>I love that "except". Would ARRL care to point to any "exceptions"
>noted either in the Part 97, or the ARRL FCC Rule Book?

I believe at least one of these cases include control links.  For
example, in the Amateur Satellite service, control links can be
encrypted to ensure positive control of the satellite.  This might
also be the case for repeater control links as well, though I don't
know for certain.

louie