HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: ICOM service is GREAT
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:41:36 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

carrl@gordon-tsd1.army.mil (Mr Larry Carr) writes:

>My two cents worth:
>Sent my IC-751 to ICOM on Monday, got it back on Thursday of same week.
>They fixed my problem, and automatically realigned xmit/rec, checked
>all functions and returned posthaste.  It was in and out same day.
>Several years ago I owned a Kenwood 9130 rig.  Sent it to Kenwood for
>repair, did not see it again for eight weeks.  Which company would you
>do business with again?
>AA4DU in Augusta, GA

Let me second the motion.   ICOM fixed my 726 in just a few days.
Icom all the way!

73 DE KK6MY
-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: derry@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John Derry)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: N connectors...
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:28:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep2.172829.22349
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology



Hi GUYS
   ^^^^

If one can call an IC a "guy", then I reserve the right to call ALL
hams "guys".  (Even though some of the "guys" are females!).  But this is  
not the purpose of this posting/inquiry.

I wonder if I should replace all my UHF connectors with N-connectors...

NOT?

Probably would void warranty on all my rigs.  Besides, UHF connectors work
fine business through 148 MHz in my shack anyway.

Could someone explain to me how my station is being hurt by using
PL-259s and SO-239s and various barrels, Tees, elbows, etc?

If your response is that they are "lossy", please explain.

I'm NOT trying to bug anyone, but instead I'm very curious.

Quite a while back I made a similar inquiry about F-connectors and was
flamed for even considering them.  (Scars still show.)

Whether you're using N or UHF, be sure to keep your nuts TIGHT.

Tnx es 73 de jack, K9CUN
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: Link Budget Calculations
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:04:46 GMT

Jerry Burchfiel writes:
> What is the theory behind the 36 dB loss constant term in the [path loss 
equiation]?

It's just to make the units come out right.  If you use feet instead of
miles, or KHz instead of MHz, you use different constants.

> ...why did you pick -110 dBm as the minimum usable signal?

I just seem to recall that that's a common value for commercial comm
systems. My memory could easily be faulty, however.


> P.S. Any easily available references would be appreciated.

"Reference Data For Radio Engineers" tells you eveything you need to know,
and then some.

Cheers...

Mike, N4PDY

PS: don't know what could be wrong with the mailer... I get 
email at this address all the time.

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
From: jkearman@arrl.org (Jim Kearman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Common Enemy of Amateur Radio
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:32:57 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

<I've deleted my original comments, and much of Gary's
excellent response, only to save space.>
;
;Old geezers who crave the spotlight and hog the credit aren't helping
;amateur radio. Only active, involved, *excited* people will help 
;amateur radio. Those people need all the support and encouragement that
;they can get, from the League, and from ordinary hams. Next time your
;club is in line for some positive PR, push the youngsters to the front.
;It's their turn.
; 
;Gary KE4ZV (semi-geezer)

Bravo! Bravo! Reading this, I thought back to 1962, when
Grand Island, NY, was trying to ban all radio transmitters!
There was some obscure old law from the 20s, although we
had 2 AM BC station transmitters at the time. The problem 
stemmed from a neighbor of one ham, who didn't like looking
at his tower (he and the tower were there when she moved in).

We had no local club, but the word got around on 75 meters.
Three of us addressed the town board meeting, where the
subject of banning us was to be discussed. I was about 16,
then, and I remember the board members smiling as I made 
my spiel. They were paying attention! I doubt it was
my oratory skills. 

Gary's idea could well be extended to all fights to overturn
anti-amateur regulation. Send the young hams in to make 
their case for the hobby. Maybe if the public starts to see
this as not just another "middle-class, white-male" bonding
encounter group, we'll get more respect, AND more new hams.

********

By the way, I especially liked Gary's suggestions about
transmitter hunting. The beauty of this sport is, you
don't need a license to take part. There are some hunts
where hunters ask the hidden-transmitter operator questions,
but a hunt for hams and non-hams could certainly be
arranged. C'mon, guys. Get your clubs going, and send me
some photos. 

****************************************************************

JIM KEARMAN, KR1S                    Voice: 203-666-1541 ext 279
ARRL Assistant Technical Editor	     FAX:   203-665-7531
Author of `The DXCC Companion'	     ARRL Headquarters
Editor of `Now You're Talking!,'     225 Main Street
ARRL License Manuals,		     Newington, CT 06111
ARRL Instructor Guides		     e-mail: jkearman@arrl.org
Author of `Wally and Mike' stories

*****************************************************************
From: Derrick_White@d10.NIaid.pc.NIaid.NIh.GOV (Derrick White)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: adf
Date: 4 Sep 1992 12:22:47 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

SUBSCRIBE INFO-HAMS
From: Jim_Sollows@mindlink.bc.ca (Jim Sollows)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Antennas in trees, anybody?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:49:27 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

There is a ham in my neighbourhood who uses a 60 foot tree as a tower for this
8 element yagi complete with rotator. He has had it for years and it works just
great. He does have a problem when it comes to servicing the rotator, cables or
beam. However he has a son who is a professional tree topper so that problem is
easily overcome.

Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.misc:14642 alt.folklore.urban:22307
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:35:03 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> So when did these TV's become illegal and
> when can I expect the SS to come knocking on my door?

They're not illegal (yet), but listening to phone calls with them is.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: 240v AC -> 12v DC 5A PSU required 
From: jangus@skyld.UUCP (Jeff Angus)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 14:31:03 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Grendel's Lair


In article <1992Sep2.171306.21828@ll.mit.edu> jordan@ll.mit.edu writes:

  >  comfortable margin.  He is not really technical enough to build one,
  >  especially to withstand the rigours of travel.

  fair enough, an honest assessment of technical ability

  > Looking round the Ham stores here, I've seen various switching supplies,
  > by Astron and others, that will do the job for about $40-50 - from 110v
  > ac. The cheapest for a 240v model is $90, and is beefier than he needs
  > - 12amps.

  The extra margin for loads doesn't make that much difference in the cost.
  But, how much is your Camcorder and TV worth?

  Note, most (oops a generalization, let me rephrase, "a large number of")
  HAM's are willing to risk $1000's of dollars of gear to save a buck or
  two on some simple (and critical) piece of equipment.

xenon!skyld!jangus   < This space left blank intentionally. >
J Angus, PO Box 4425, Carson CA 90749-4425 voice (310) 324-6080
From: tstader@aol.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: was Cellular Frequencies
Date: 28 Aug 1992 07:25:37 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

> What used to be UHF channels 70-83 are no longer assigned to
> broadcast TV, >they've been reassigned to cellular telephones.
> See previous discussion on >listening in to cellular phones.
> Newer TV sets can only receive broadcast TV >channels up to Ch.
> 69 and no further. 
> 
> 
>> Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial 
>> that
>> went beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that
>> I've never heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local 
>> UHFPBS affiliate). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Geoff

Geoff, here in the Boston metro area we have UHF channels 60, 64, 66 and 68
in operation. When I worked for one of the NAP micro groups, the displays
stopped at 69 after about 1985 (maybe before that too) or so when the new
rules for the manufacturers came online.

73 for now.... c u on the shortwaves
Terry - KA8SCP/1, America Online Ham Radio Club Host
Internet: tstader@aol.com  _or_  tstader@attmail.com
KA8SCP@WA1PHY.#EMA.MA.USA.NOAM  _or_ 
ka8scp@ka8scp.ampr.org [44.56.4.82]
From: moisan@silver.lcs.mit.edu (David Moisan)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: HAMCOM and JVFAX--How to tune?
Summary: Need suggestions on how to tune for best decodable signal
Keywords: Hamcom, JVFAX, RTTY, FAX, CW
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:17:54 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

This isn't in the FAQ, so I'll ask anyway:  Are there any Hamcom users
who can offer suggestions to a new user on tuning in signals with the software. I don't mean "what does RTTY sound like? (let alone CW ;)", but rather, once I have the signal, how do I tune for intelligibility?
 
I also have JVFAX50, which uses the same interface;  anyone have tips for this program?
 



-- 
| David Moisan, N1KGH    /^\_/^\   dmoisan@pro-angmar.alfalfa.com |
| 86 Essex St. Apt #204 ( o ^ o )  moisan@silver.lcs.mit.edu      |
| Salem. MA 01970-5225     | |                                    |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------/
From: reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Cushcraft R7 measurements
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:45:10 GMT
Reply-To: reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation -- Maynard, MA



> If you read between the lines of this month's QST article, 
> you will see that a dipole actually works better, especially
> on 40m.
> 
> I'll spend my $400 on something else.

Monoband antennas will always outperform multi-band antennas, since any
multi-band antenna is a compromise.  I'd say Cushcraft compromised
pretty well on the R7.

73 - Jim AD1C

--
James J. Reisert                Internet:  reisert@sttng.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:      ...decwrl!sttng.enet!reisert
146 Main Street			Voice:     508-493-5747
Maynard, MA  01754		FAX:       508-493-0395
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of 'No-Business' Rule
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:06:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame

uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal) writes:
>In article <476@arrl.org>, jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>|> Once again I am forced to point out that the best way to get an answer
>|> from ARRL HQ is to ask directly.  
>I don't seek the "best way". I'm trying to ask my question in
>such a way, that wide amateur population will see what I'm
>concerned about, and probably will participate in my
>attempts to clarify/fix the issue.

They maybe you could take the time to send a letter that *will* get answered,
and type in the response?  Or isn't flaming about things worth any of your
time?

>|> deal with regularly, so often I can't help.  Of course, I *could*
>|> give my uneducated opinion on those issues.  But I think there is
>|> sufficient uneducated opinion on the net that mine isn't needed in
>|> addition.  
>Of course. Then wouldn't it be reasonable to pass it to
>somebody *inside* ARRL who can give an *educated* 
>opinion? [Sorry for sounding rude, I don't 
>really want to pick on you.]

Oh, you most certainly do sound rude:  if it isn't worth your time to send
paper mail, why are your words of wisdom worth his time to wander around the
halls with a copy of it until he snags someone who can answer?
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:16:05 EDT

ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>2.  The ARRL had a choice of supporting the continuation of this process or
>      banning it.

When the STA expires, HF automated forwarding will be illegal AGAIN, as it
CURRENTLY IS ILLEGAL for anyone not part of the STA who is using HF
autoforwarding
The FCC has stated that they will not extend the STA -- PERIOD.
The ARRL has submitted a proposal to modify the rules to allow semiautomated
HF packet but not automated HF packet to protect existing LEGAL users of the
HF spectrum.

Please advise which of your frontal lobes has been removed to prevent you
from comprehending that.

And people wonder why "cleveland.Freenet.Edu" is considered a site full of
fools in every single newsgroup.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:02:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: TopSecret


|> 
|>      2.  Section 97.113 would be revised to read as follows:
|> 
|>      97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
|>       ...................................
|>      (3) Music; 

Would it be nice to clarify once and for all the question of being
put on hold while using autopatch? If there's music in the
background - does that mean you have to hang up
immediately?   Would ARRL care to comment?


|> 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?


|>      (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"? At least in
Metropolitan areas?  Also, this outlaws NTS, since NTS
definitely intrudes into "other service" business.
[You want to send greetings to somebody - call
him on the phone, or send a telegram! :-]

Oh yeah, regular basis. So all you NTS trafficers, beware!
You can participate in the Net at most once a month, but
even that can be considered "regular", I'm afraid (:-).

Would ARRL comment on this, please?


|> It prohibits amateur stations from
|> transmitting communications as an alternative to other authorized radio
|> services.  

I have a feeling, that the way it's formulated - any lawyer could
make it mean whatever he/she wishes, including total prohibition
on ANY kind of amateur transmission, especially phone patches,
autopatches and NTS.


|> The yardstick the amateur operators would use
|> for determining pecuniary interest would be the business implication of
|> the licensee intitiating the communication, not the recipient.

This point DEFINITELY makes sense. At last! Thanks!

ARRL, I know you're monitoring! (:-)
Please respond!
 
--
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: koning@koning.enet.dec.com (Paul Koning)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:25:48 GMT
Reply-To: koning@koning.enet.dec.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Co., distributed systems architecture


In article <10973@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
|>Does that mean that encryption would be allowed as a means of ensuring the
|>accuracy, verifiability and true originator of a message, (ala RSA or some
|>other public key system??)
|>...

You don't need encryption (in the sense of "hiding information") do 
do this.  That's a common misconception which even carries over into the
existing rules (which allow encryption on satellite control links).

What you need is to include an additional piece of data into the message
that authenticates it (the "signature" or "message authentication code").
It takes cryptography to construct and check such a signature, but it
isn't necessary or even useful to encrypt (hide) the body of the data
itself.  The only reason why encryption of data is ever needed is when
you want to keep the message confidential -- which is a valid concern in
business communication but not in amateur communication.  (As an aside:
some countries prohibit encryption of ANY messages coming across their
borders.  But they allow authentication.  Thus you cannot have any privacy
when communication into or out of such countries, but you can nevertheless
have authentication of your messages.  Curiously, some of these countries
are ones that are generally regarded as "free"...)

Maybe there's a belief that you have to encrypt the message data in control
links to hide the meaning of the messages -- for fear that someone will
record the message and then replay it.  But if that's a cause for concern
(and it certainly seems a valid concern) then encrypting the command data
does not help!  It might prevent the attacker from knowing what the command
means, but it does not in itself prevent a replay from doing harm.
The way to deal with this problem is to take explicit replay-prevention
measures (of which there are a number).  This adds work to the authentication
part, but again it does not require hiding the message content itself.

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.

	paul, ni1d

|>bill     KB3YV
|>
|>-- 
|>
|>     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
|>     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
|>     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
|>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:34:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: Flowers & Cute Callsigns

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.

Fine. You don't, I do.  I think it's great if family members
share a hobby, twice as great if that hobby is such a useful
one as Radio.  Besides, it helps to strengthen family values,
which are definitely down the hill in this country...

As a note of personal attack, please rest assured, that I'll
have a lot more desire and need to talk to my family members
[over the radio], than to YOU. 


|> 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.

"Experimenters"?   I dare say there's much less "experimenters"
on the air, than communications providers.   The dividing line
is very simple.  If you want and have enough knowledge to play
with radio PLUS your brains are capable of producing something
innovative - you can count yourself as "experimenter".  On the
other hand if all you do is  [maybe] build your  own equipment
and communicate with other folks over it -  gosh, what kind of
great "experiment" is it?!  You proved that water is wet,  and
what was done by lots of people during long radio history- you
can do too... In that sense we all are "experimenters"...

As another attack - would you mind telling, what "experiments"
are you performing with the radio? Any innovation lately?

Besides,  who told you that Amateur Radio *should* be 
"experimenters"? It's just ONE of SEVERAL prposes of
of Amateur Radio, that's all... 


|> We still have to do obscene filtering and control
|> operators are still responsible for everything going though their
|> repeaters.  

Great! If you have enough time to do stupid work of filtering
the whole feed of your computer, and if you're strong and
jobless enough to be awake 24 hours a day to monitor 
your repeater lest somebody slips dirty word on
the air - by all means do it.

But if others are less free/stupid and want to relax the 
rules somewhat - by all means I'm with them.


|> Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
|> want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.

Don't worry. By performance and widespread-nessInternet
is way ahead, and there is no [visible] way AMPR can
catch up with it. So your wish is granted (:-).
--
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio
From: rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:31:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.233406.28017@intelhf.hf.intel.com> zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com) writes:
>
>Fix this part or relegate Amateur Radio to an experimenter's band.
>
>WA7LDV

I thought the whole point of amateur radio is that it is an experimenter's
band and not for competing with telecom carriers. However much I hate seeing
British Telecom making large amounts of money, there is no way we can justify
amateur radio's existence except as a hobby. Fortunately, over the years we
have helped develop many telecom ideas and provided emergency help, so we
should be able to keep our hobby.

Richard G4TGJ

-- 
Richard Tomlinson, EDS Scicon, Wavendon Tower, Milton Keynes, UK MK17 8LX
rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk   Tel:  +44 908 284539          Amateur radio: G4TGJ
All opinions expressed are mine, and are not necessarily those of my employer.
From: jgm+@CMU.EDU (John Gardiner Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: FCC Part 97
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:33:48 GMT
	<6gkn-nb.bart@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Special Projects, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew) writes:
> telnet archie.unl.edu
> login: archie
> 
> prog part97
> 
> and you'll get a list of 15 sites from which to ftp it...

Of which, all but one omits 97.113.  The one copy of 97.113 on NCSU
does not have revision dates, limiting its utility.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up