HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:53:00 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C1HA8w.GHx@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
>Sorry Kurt, you must not have read the original post. Jay "The ignorant
>splut" Maynard implied (as has others) that closed repeaters are the
>only ones doing work in other bands.

Actually, what I was driving at was that those of us who have been running
systems on the 440 band for years were told to go off and populate a
then-unused band; those who are screaming for spectrum now have lots
available, on the same terms as we had to put up with. Your buddies are doing
the right thing; would that others would do so as well.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:26:05 GMT

In article <C17n9E.2I1@sugar.neosoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>
>The problem is that you won't be sued for "assigning a frequency to someone
>else"...you'll get trapped in a slander case or something similar.  The 
>simple fact that they get you into the suit at all will bring your coordinating
>functions to a halt...you lose, even if you win...

Why? Did they win an injunction against the Society? Otherwise, there's
no cause to stop business as usual.

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     |                     |
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:44:55 GMT
Organization: Colorado Concert Sound
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In article <1k1ilmINNb7m@tamsun.tamu.edu> kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger) writes:
>It would seem that if we nuke Georgia, we can reduce the static bandwidth of
>this newsgroup by at least 80%.    8-}
>Kurt Freiberger, wb5bbw	  kurt@cs.tamu.edu   409/847-8607  fax:409/847-8578

And if we also did Texas, we could reduce the static bandwidth by about
99.9%.  Between you and Maynard, you guys post about 90% of this group.
Do you guys in Texas work?

Close whatever repeater you want.  If I work simplex on the output, what are
ya gonna do about it.

(expletives deleted)
Galen Watts, KF0YJ, formerly N0RFX, formerly WD0GBH.

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, chuck@cmhcsys.cmhcsys.com (Chuck Stickelman) writes:

>	My question is:  Why can't the sys-op (or whomever) setup a 
>"filter" that does a Rot13 on the "obscene, indecent, or profane words"?
>Does this count as "Encryption", making _it_ illegal?

I don't think Rot13 would be illegal as such, so long as the decoding
algorithm is widely known (e.g. explained in the message itself.)

However, this would not make the dirty words legal:

97.113 (d):

     No station shall transmit: ... messages in code or ciphers where
     the intent is to obscure the meaning ... obscene, indecent, or
     profane words, language, or meaning ...

AL N1AL
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:52:27 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <8532@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.182428.28564@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Slander, or libel as Jay says, is the type of risk you open yourself
>>up to when you have a publication. Reasonably prudent publishers carry
>>insurance for such cases, and exercise some editorial care not to spread
>>gossip or tell tales out of school.
>
>We exercised such care, which is why the case had little legal foundation in
>the first place. Insurance? Have you priced such lately?

Yes, it's about $0.25 per $1,000.

>>Gannett gets sued about once a week
>>on average. We never settle, we nearly never lose, and we never let a suit 
>>interfere with the conduct of our business. In fact, it's turned into a 
>>minor profit center for the company since we've started getting damage 
>>awards for frivolous suits under tort reform.
>
>Gannett is also several orders of magnitude larger than the Texas VHF-FM
>Society, and can afford to defend such cases vigorously.

But the Texas VHF-FM society isn't getting sued once a week. For the
*one* suit you guys have suffered, you should have drilled the SOB
into the ground with a countersuit and fattened your treasury. Surely
you people keep a lawyer on retainer, it's only a couple hundred bucks
a year, just to write nasty letters and file complaints. Most of the
organizations I belong to do. One of the clubs has a lawyer member
who'll do such cases pro bono.

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     |                     |
From: heggers@eis.CAlState.EDU (Hank E. Eggers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Ham-Policy Digest V93 #21
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:42:08 GMT
Organization: ucsd usenet gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu



> Regrettably, there are a number of prudes extant whose attention to
> form rather than content will nearly always lead them to miss this
> point.  These same people are often among those who believe themselves
> to be so holy that their own shit don't stink.
> 
> Hang on for the ride.
> 	- Brian
> 
Oh....my my...Im **soooo** glad SOMEONE was able to be MAN enough to
express THESE IMPORTANT male bonding feelings to the rest of the
HAM-POLICY forum. I feel SOOOO much better now and soooo much more
informed about the knowledge that I have received from your comments. How
about doing us all a favor and start your own forum -- soc.ham.boneheads
or how about -- soc.ham.imbeciles...

Have a nice day !!!
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:10:07 GMT
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In article <C16Fvu.5zE@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
>I have a hard time getting excited about fm linked systems. We have
>several times considered a trunking approach here in Atl. We have enough
>440 repeaters give it a try. Rather than cross link all of them (which
>reduces the amount of information that can be sent). 

That's not the point of linking at all.  There's no value in linking radios
that cover the same area...the idea is to provide wide area coverage with
the same radio system.  Linking 5 or 6 radios together that cover the same
areas doesn't make sense.

In a city the size of Houston, for example, even a radio on a 1400 foot tower
won't give adequate coverage of the entire metro area.  Shorter towers that 
are close to the users works much better.

Trunking would be interesting, but it doesn't serve the same purpose as
inter-city linking.  Trunking would increase the number of users per
channel, but it would not necessarily improve coverage...unless you put
the trunked channels in different locations...

I can get in my car and drive from Houston to Dallas and never lose coverage.
This means I can get help or just talk to the friends back home during my
entire trip.  This is the purpose of linked systems.

-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:49:43 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan24.180215.28415@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Given that Jay will never win the Miss Congeniality award, why am I
>not surprised?

Only to you... I simply have little patience for inane positions that are
tenaciously defended even in the face of arguments from the real world -
exactly the position I'm arguing against: the world isn't as nice a place as
you and your comrades would make it out to be.

>Around here when someone joins the conversation we
>say, "welcome ya'll" and include the person in our conversation.

...as is the case around here, especially if it's someone new. (We always need
fresh blood, and have little trouble getting it.) If someone wishes to become
a regular user, though, and isn't a complete twit, then he is asked to help
support the system if he decides that we're a good bunch of guys that he'd
like to associate with. It's only a tiny minority that turns to antisocial
activities like jamming. The ones that drift away generally understand what's
going on.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: The Simpsons 1/21/93
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:32:29 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

So Aunt Selma Bouivet is a ham radio operator, eh?  Do not Selma and Patty 
live in a condo?  

Must be who got Bart the shortwave radio he never uses.

It is also interesting to see that the producers at Gracie Films think of 
amateur radio in the 1950's "large ugly boxes" way.  Still got a long way to 
go to overturn that stereotype.

Have to go back and see if there was a callsign on the rig somewhere.

73, bill wb9ivr
From: kurt@cs.tamu.edu (Kurt Freiberger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:30:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsls2.cs.tamu.edu
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In article <C1DHyE.3Kz@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie) writes:

|>   As I see it, placing a closed repeater in public airspace is not unlike 
|> placing a swingset in a public park and then placing a 10 foot chainlink 
|> fence around it. People in the park see that it is there, and may resent
|> being told some swingsets are for all to use, and that some are for  
|> "special people". This may cause resentment by itself.

Oh, Christ, yet ANOTHER analogy!!!!`

|> der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com

It would seem that if we nuke Georgia, we can reduce the static bandwidth of
this newsgroup by at least 80%.    8-}
-- 
Kurt Freiberger, wb5bbw	  kurt@cs.tamu.edu   409/847-8607  fax:409/847-8578
Dept. of Computer Science, Texas A&M University      DoD #264: BMW R80/7 pilot
"We preserve our freedom using three boxes: ballot, jury, and cartridge."
      *** Not an official document of Texas A&M University ***
From: agood@netcon.smc.edu (Aaron Good)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:10:46 GMT

>>Well I always thought these closed systems were thinly disguised commercial
>>operations, now we know for sure. And from some of the access fees quoted 
>>out of SoCal, apparently very profitable ventures as well. If you want to
>>operate machines for pay, Jay, then go into the commercial service where
>>you belong. Reread 97.113(b) before you flame. You can't *require* payment
>>for use of your radio station.

Right ON! I live in the Los Angeles area and the majority of repeaters are
private closed systems where one may not even talk without paying a large
fee. 
I agree if one wants autopatch privledges beyond summoning the EMS one should
contribute to the system, however this is not how it works in L.A. I have been
quoted minimum fees of 150.00 per year for simple systems up to almost 1000.00
for the first year and 300.00 for the subsequent years.
Closed and private repeters are a real disgrace IMHO because we in HAM radio 
tout ourselves as such public service minded individuals.
The 220 Mhz band, 440 Mhz band, and the 1200 Mhz band are virtually closed 
to the average HAm unless he or she is willing to shell out these MANDATORY
contributions.
At my place of employment I set up a monitoring system to find a seldom
used frequency in the 70 cm band for an open repeater. I used Karl Pagel's 
guide and chose frequencies where there were only one or possiblly two 
systems listed. All of the systems monitored by myself over a two month period
were inactive almost all day and night except for drive time to work and home.
NONE of the fifteen frequencies monitored had more than a half dozen ham radio
operators on them. IMHO these are private clubs tying up public resources for the benifit of a very few. 
I think in the coming years the commercial industry is going to look at our 
innefficient use of spectrum and say, " Hey.. get these guys into a smaller
allotment", just like 220 Mhz.

Sorry if I offended, but I'm sick of all of these private systems, quite a few
of which ARE in fact making money.

>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: n9ljx@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott A Stembaugh)
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 22:05:35 GMT

GEEEZ!!!! CW/No CW wars in .misc, Jay Maynard bashing here. I am starting to
run out of disk space due to the size of my KILL files!

Will it ever end!

--sas
-- 
Scott Stembaugh - N9LJX           internet: n9ljx@ecn.purdue.edu
Operations Supervisor, ADPC       phone:    317 494 7946 
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1061
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 26 Jan 1993 17:01:51 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <paulf.727986796@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU> paulf@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>This is probably the most valid argument for closed repeaters.  It simply is
>not fair to expect access to someone else's station, period.  Other factors
>may enter into the decision, but in the end, the only fair procedure is to
>let the trustee make the open/closed judgement.

Amen. Why can't the open repeater comrades understand this?

>This issue is only relevant when all of the spectrum in a particular band is
>in use, a phenomenon peculiar to a few urban centers.   In most of those
>centers, sanctions are not permanent; the continuance of a sanction is a
>value judgement of the coordinating body.  So, if open systems have inherently
>higher value, then obtaining a sanction over that of a closed (and little used)
>system is trivial.

The problem is that that requires a value judgment. That way lie lawsuits
galore; coordinators simply aren't going to change rules in midstream and open
themselves up to this kind of massive liability. I have yet to see anyone in
this discussion volunteer to accept the liability themselves. I'm the one in
the trenches. There are a lot of folks willing to put me in legal jeopardy,
but don't want it themselves.
-- 
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.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
From: steve@zero.com (Steve Urich)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Pres. Clinton speech via Packet?
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:41:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Beyonet - Zero Network


	Just wondering what the legal implications are if one would resent
	Pres. Clintons enaugural speech via packet? I read the speech and
	it looks pretty harmless, more like poetry :-). 

	What are the latest policies on political type information if it
	remains distrubuted in the usa? I know there is a limitation of
	political qsuos with stations ``outside'' of the usa.

	Just Curious, anyone else curious?

	73 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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Language on the net (was Re: Closed repeaters)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:22:29 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <Jan27.214742.55990@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:
>The ease at which I'm offended depends on the individual situation.
>I am not as easily offended as the minister down the street, but obviously 
>I am more easily offended than you.  When offended, I sometimes go
>for long walks near my rural home, or just laugh at the limited
>vocabulary of those that offend me.

Ah. You're prejudiced, then.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that there are those with large and
varied vocabularies that nonetheless find the words that offend you useful,
has it?

>My forbearance comes from long experience in how not to injure myself
>when performing menial tasks.

Accidents do happen.

>If my prudery is blatant, then your capacity to offend must be infinite.

Hardly; after all, if my vocabulary is as limited as you claim, then I must
soon run out of things to say.

>This is fun,

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

>Galen Watts, KF0YJ and president of the Bug Jay Maynard Society. 

You're no better than the second vice president; Julian Macassey and John
Stanley beat you to it by quite a bit. I routinely ignore both.
-- 
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.
    "begin 666 foo 266]U(&AA=F4@;F\@;&EF92X: ` end" -- Daniel Drucker
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:50:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.150617.3024@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
> 
>>2) As things stand, frequency coordinators _*CANNOT*_ "manage" the ratio of
>>open to closed repeaters; trying to do so will simply result in massive
>>lawsuits.
> 
> And if the FCC does change the FEDERAL law (applicable Part 97), just
> who is going to sue whom over what.  If the FCC changes part 97,
> surely you don't expect any repeater owner to prevail in a local court where
> the coordinator is just applying the FCC regs as proscribed?  Just
> what do you even mean when you say "massive" lawsuits?  I'm simply
> tired of seeing that threat tossed out as if it is supported by
> existing case law, etc.  I've yet to see anyone post an example of
> a coordinator being sued which might have resulted in anything more
> than the frequency assignment issue being changed, etc.  No one has
> yet to post any example of a financial penalty (monetary damages)
> ever being assessed against a coordinator.

Ahhh, but "who Bells the Cat" ? 

Even if the FCC "changes the rules", someone still has to perform the
co-ordination. If the FCC does not take on that role, then chaos will rule.
Every closed repeater that's asked to "open up" because the mythical percentage
of "closed systems" is too high will (rightly) say "Why Me". Some of the users
of these closed systems have access to far more resources (read $$$) than a
co-ordination group and will go to court in a heartbeat.

And you apprently haven't read any of the published stories about the Texas
VHF Society and their legal problems.

> 
>> *NOBODY* in this discussion has yet offered a solution to this
>>problem. If the FCC wants frequency coordinators to make value judgments of
>>this sort, it should recognize individual coordinators officially, and give
>>them explicit authority to assign frequencies to individual stations. Without
>>these provisions, coordinators are powerless to do what you want.
> 
> Then why would amyone ever sue a coordinator.  You clearly point out
> that coordinators do NOT have any power to assign frequencies on any
> type of exclusive basis.
> 

They'll sue because, although the co-ordinators have no power to explicitly
assign frequencies, the FCC bases enforcement actions on decisions made by the
co-ordinator in recommending assignments (or whatever you want to call it). 

Maybe with our new President's position that "you have to pay for what you get"
(per his innagural speech), in a year we'll see 'frequency auctions' on 450Mhz
and the co-ordination issue will become moot.


--------

   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  
                             |   Not my Employer's.... Licensed since 1959
                         )   |   Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV