HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Reciprocal Licences in the U.K
From: julian@bongo.UUCP (Julian Macassey)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:00:43 GMT
Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey)
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.

In article <979@vk2bea.UUCP> michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann) writes:
>The examination requirements for a B class licence are the same as 
>that for an A class licence with the exception of morse. This is also
>true of the Australian 'Limited' licence BUT the US technician
>licencee must pass more theory (i.e. general class) and morse before
>he is granted the baseline HF privilages. 
>In other words UK class B > US technician hence no reciprocity. 

	Really? In fact the difference between a U.S. no-code
Technician and a U.S. General is 13 wpm Morris. There is no futher test
for General, but there is another test for Advanced.

	See the ARRL manual for further detail.

	And talking of reciprocity in the strict meaning of the word.
Back in the days when U.S. Technicians needed 5 wpm Morris and U.K. B
licences needed no-code, a U.K. B license could get a U.S. recip
licence - still can. Does this seem fair? All those years that the ARRL
was saying "Morris is good for you", snotty Brits with their no-code
calls could come over here and clog the local repeaters. Not only that.
The U.S. recip license is free and the U.K. one if you could get it is
fifteen quid.

	I got tired of sending in my recip application every six months
and having to explain to dimwits where a "G" call came from. so I
schlepped down to the FCC and took the Technician test, Morris and all.
	
	So, now I just have to renew my Brit call every year and send
fifteen quid to Maggie Thatcher and Successors. My U.S. call is free,
lasts 10 years and gets re-upped automatically for another 10 years if I
file a change of address.

	
-- 
Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495
From: crawford@ENUXHB.EAS.ASU.EDU (Brian Crawford)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Inquiry: So. CA area University Ham Clubs
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:59:56 GMT

If any members of UC, USC, or UCLA ham clubs read this, please 
contact me.  I am associated with Arizona State University ham
club.


Thanks,


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Crawford KL7JDQ InterNet crawford@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu          (Temporary)
PO Box 804                     crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org          (Permanent)
Tempe, Arizona  85280          crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Alternate)
Vox: +1 602 921 1643  UseNet:  bcrawf01@apsc.com
Fax: +1 602 921 4022  FidoNet: 1:114/15.12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: HWells.El_Segundo@xerox.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Ham Radio in Europe
Date: 31 Jul 1992 12:59:31 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

>  Does anyone know if it will be possible
> for me to transmit with my 2m radio?  Will I need to get a license in the
> country that I end up in?  Do they even use 2m in Europe?

A reciprical license is required in most countries and the ARRL is a good
source of info regarding that aspect.

> You should request some info. from the
>manufacturers about the differences in the radio version and the
>possibility of getting a foreign spec. radio which will also work here.
>(A problem could be that the FCC would not have approved the rig for use
>here)

As for FCC approval of radios for ham use; no approval or type certification is
required.  The individual ham has the responsibility for the radio to meet and
be used in accordance with part 97 requirements.

73   Hugh,  W6WTU
From: lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Amateur Operators in History
Summary: Hambone History
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 12:49:19 PDT
Reply-To: lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

> > Does anyone else know of similar historical (or biblical) figures?
Yep, Adam got kicked out of Eden Gardens Estates for erecting an antenna
(under the influence of some snake and his wife) contrary to local
zoning laws...talk about original sin.

-- 
Brett Breitwieser                     KC6UPU, Grid CM86XX
The Crown Project                     lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
425 Ninth Ave.                        ..netcom!cruzio!lancelot
Santa Cruz, CA 95062-3715             Fido: 1:216/509
Julian Jaynes:"...hypnosis can cause this extra enabling because it 
engages the general bicameral paradigm which allows a more absolute 
control over behavior than is possible with consciousness."
From: rtaylor@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Roger Taylor)
Subject: Eico 753 ????
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:21:37 GMT

Does anyone have a manual for an Eico 753 SSB transceiver or can copy one?

Anyone know where to find the Mods to make the VFO stable?  K9ALD
From: oo7@ut-emx.uucp (Derek Wills)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Tetherless Access
Keywords: eh?
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:04:31 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

michel@bbn.com (Tony Michel) asks:

>Can someone advise me on how to contact Tetherless Access?

Not sure, what city does he live in?


Derek Wills (AA5BT, G3NMX)
Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, 
Austin TX 78712.  (512-471-1392)
oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu 
oo7@emx.utexas.edu
From: pjml@swmis.nerc-swindon.ac.UK (Pete Lucas)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: music over the radio.
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:46:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

I frequently make use of music over ham radio for test purposes! My normal
test-piece is '4 minutes 33 seconds' by John Cage. This is *totally* legal 
in *all* countries.

BTW, I have numerous live recordings of this work  :-) :-)
 
(For the musicologically disadvantaged, '4 minutes 33 seconds' consists of
 four minutes and 33 seconds of total silence; it is therfore perfectly legal
 to transmit either as a conventional audio transmission, or using any 
 conceivable form of encryption/encoding)
 
        ---G6WBJ---   Pete Lucas   PJML%SWMIS.NSW.AC.UK@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:51:15 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <Jul.24.14.02.24.1992.26406@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>>As someone who regularly operates in the digital section of the bands
>>(mostly AMTOR, occasionally RTTY, almost never packet).  I am
>>extremely disheartened by the ARRL digital committees decisions.

>I agree.

>>First:  The ARRL themselves have been one of the prime offenders of
>>contrary to good amateur practice in the 14.07 to 14.15 MHz digital
>>zone.  It was only a few years ago that they decided to pay attention
>>to the band plan that they themselves proposed and move the automated
>>CW transmissions off the AMTOR calling frequency.  They're broadcast
>>transmissions still rarely pay much attention to existing
>>communications on the frequency.

>I'd say they pay *no* attention to existing QSOs, they just fire up
>and blare away without regard for prior channel occupancy. Sometimes
>the skip is such that they *can't* tell that the frequency is in use,
>and that's excusable, but most of the time they just don't listen at
>all. That's contrary to good amateur practice.

Well, to be fair, the nature of scheduled, multi-channel bulletins is such
that you just have to fire up the transmissions (which *ARE* announced
in advance, please no flame wars about frequency "ownership.)

What would you have the W1AW operator do, get on the 5 (or 7) channels
that the bulletins are starting up on, see if they're in use and ASK
PERMISSION to use the frequencies?  Not only would the bulletins be always
starting 20-25 minutes late, but it leaves open the possibility of the
stations on channel not consenting to move.  What do you do then, QSY up
or down and cause potential bulletin listeners to have to hunt around,
also wasting time?  What happens if he clears, say, 40 meters for use,
goes to 20 to get permission, and another QSO starts up on 40 in the
meantime?

I think the ARRL does a good (and sometimes thankless) job with their
schedule of bulletins and code practice and are trying to do what's best
all around.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu

>Gary KE4ZV
From: alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:48:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:

I wrote:  (re W1AW broadcasts)

>--There is no regulation that requires listening before transmitting.
>--
>--AL N1AL

>Nice gimmick arguing against something that wasn't said.  If W1AW comes up
>in the middle of a transmission, do you think they are following
>97.101(b) and (d)?

97.101(b)
     Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in 
     selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective
     use of the amateur service frequencies.  No frequency will be
     assigned for the exclusive use of any station.

"No exclusive frequencies" means W1AW cannot expect freedom from
interference.  (If you've ever listened to their broadcasts, you know
this is true!)

97.101(d)
     No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
     with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Any interference caused cannot be willful (or certainly malicious)
if the transmitting operator does not know there is someone on frequency.

As a practical matter, it is just not possible for W1AW to listen on
each frequency before transmitting and change to a clear freq.  They 
transmit on the 3.5, 7, 10, 14, 18, 21, 24 (? not sure about this one),
28, 50, and 144 MHz bands, as I recall.  It would take 10 operators,
one listening on each frequency, to "listen before transmitting" and
even then, results would be unsatisfactory.  (Because listeners would
never find W1AW on the same frequency.)

This especially would not work for the RTTY/packet/AMTOR transmissions,
since many listeners have fixed-tuned receivers set to receive 
automatically.

Interference is part of amateur radio.  On the HF bands, the interfering
station often does not even hear the station he is QRM'ing because of
propagation conditions.  Often the bands are so crowded, that there 
simply IS no "clear" spot.  If you want to transmit, you just have to 
try to find a frequency that hopefully will cause the least interference.

The W1AW frequencies and transmitting schedule have been widely publicized
for many years.  They perform a far greater service to amateur radio
than the many mundane ragchews that each take up just as much space on
the bands.  If I ever do get QRM'd by a W1AW transmission, I will just
consider it part of the amateur radio experience and either move, or
wait until the broadcast is over.

AL N1AL
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Bulletin 68  ARLB068
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:19:31 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Jul30.050008.4913@ni.umd.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
>I belong to AMSAT now.  These folks do interesting things, are not
>afraid of trying new stuff and actually represent my views and
>opinions pretty well.  Imagine that.  They even had a pretty rational
>position on this whole No-Code issue as well.

AMSAT is, in the words of one local ham, little more than a big repeater club.
It represents only those hams interested in satellite communications. Sure, it
does that well, but it does not (and, in fairness, does not try to) represent
ALL hams. Only the ARRL does.

>Ask yourself how well spent your ARRL membership dollars are?  How about
>your AMSAT membership dollars?

My AMSAT membership dollars go to promoting the amateur satellite program, and
do so fairly well (though I suspect you'd get a different answer about that
these days from W3GEY). My ARRL membership dollars are likewise very well
spent, but on a different plane: they represent me in Washington, among many
other things.

Louis, when was the last time you talked to your division director about what
you thought the League was doing wrong?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
 you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: stevew@netcom.com (Steven Wilson)
Subject: Re: Deed restriction bans all ham antennas
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 15:26:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Summary: Legal reasoning (Oxymoron?)

In article <1992Jul24.220632.27698@telesoft.com>, garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris @pulsar) writes:
> Wouldn't similar reasoning work for CC&R's that attempt to restrict antenna
> height since they prevent you from installing an antenna as provided for by
> Federal law?  What we need is a sharp lawyer on our side :-)
> --GaryM
> -- 
> Gary Morris KK6YB             Internet: garym@telesoft.com

Roughly this arguement was used in Howard V. Burlingame when Mr. Howard
tried to recover court costs from his previous court outing.  In summary
the court found that their weren't any granted rights to put up antennas
within the communications act or FCC regs consequently no rights had 
been violated.  (It isn't a right to put up an antenna when you get
your ham license) From my understanding of it the law allows
recovery of court costs when rights have been violated.  No rights violated,
no money.  Now all of this should probably move over to .policy!

Steve KA6S 

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: david@wilson.jobsoft.com (David R. Wilson)
Subject: ARRL Plan - More
Summary: I think it needs a lot of work!!!
Organization: Dave Wilson's Ham Radio Shack (WB4LHO), Smyrna, TN
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:03:03 GMT



If you have not read the note, it is worth getting a copy from the
Cleveland Hamnet BBS at 216-942-6382 The file name is digital.min.
It has some interesting points,
and some valid points, but as written I think that it will affect
the Amateur service very severely.  It will effectively limit the
rate that digital modes will be allowed to run,  make an operator
mandatory, it will also take away ALL digital priveleges for
Novice and Technician class operators.  Which as far as I am concerned
does away with much of the justification for the no code tech.
I think that Phil Karn had the most realistic view on how these
conclusions came about, and it is true that the commission wants
us to come up with the text of the new rules to allow operation
that is not presently legal, except by an STA.  The suggestions
from the Board of Directors I think are VERY half baked.  I know
that there is some friction from trying to please everyone,
but taking the traffic over to Ma Bell is not a viable alternative
when Ma Bell is out to lunch.
I was one of the control ops in the Hurricane Hugo relief effort,
and much of the traffic was passed through unattended links.
If this goes away, so will what I consider to be justification
for a large part of the Amateur service.

One point,  the last time that I sent an official comment to the FCC
(with 14 copies)  they decided to kill the issue at hand and not
make any decision (it was on AM Stereo at the time).  Later they
deregulated their Commercial Licenses (thereby getting rid of
many people in the Broadcast industry).  I think it wise for
the ARRL to reconsider their stance, before the FCC gets
LOTS of comments about this issue, and does something that no one
wants.

I think it would be a good idea for those that are actively involved
in the HF forwarding STA to be included on any discussion of their
destiny.  I did not pay any attention to the survey that was in
QST until I caught wind of the results of the incomplete / erroneous
conclusions of those that are on the ARRL Committe on Amateur Radio
Digital Communications.

I hope the suggestions of the committee are severely modified.  I 
think the Amateur service will be severely crippled by these
suggestions.  If these are followed I think there will not be 
much justification for the service, because we will not be able to
serve in the interest, convenience or necessity of the public,
because we will be decades behind in technology.


Dave
-- 
David R. Wilson, WB4LHO
Smyrna, Tennessee USA
INET: david@wilson.jobsoft.com
UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!wilson!david
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Digital Committee Info Please
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:48:38 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

In article <1992Jul27.130414.1@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> estey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com writes:
>Interesting how this info [digital committee membership] isn't available.
> I have requested it twice from
>ARRL!.

The memberships of both the Digital Committee and the Future Systems
Committee (among several other ARRL committees) are published on page
53 of the 1992-1993 ARRL Repeater Directory, so they're hardly secret.

In case you're too lazy to look it up yourself (or too cheap to buy a
copy), here's the list. I don't want to make it *too* easy for you, so
I'll give callsigns only. You can use the server to get names and
addresses:

Digital Committee: W5TOO (chair), WA8DRZ, AD7I, K0DJ, W5SMM, W6IWO,
N5TC (board liason), K1CE

FS Committee: W4RI (chair), W4PWF, WA8DZP, WA7GXD, KA9Q, W4RH (board
liason)

Note that the membership of the (new) Digital Committee is
substantially different than before the reorganization. Last year it
consisted of W4RI (Chair), W4RH (board liason), WB4JFI, WA7GXD, KA9Q,
VE7APU, W2VY, AD7I, K3NA. So four previous members of the Digital
Committee moved to the Future Systems Committee (W4RI, KA9Q, W4RH and
WA7GXD), and the only person in common between the old and new
Digital committees is Paul Newland, AD7I.

Sorry if I see a little steamed, but I do get annoyed when people claim
that readily available information is somehow being withheld from them.

Phil
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:39:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

mont@netcom.com (Mont Pierce) writes:

>As far as the truckers go, I can see them relating personal work experiences 
>and such on the radio.  This would just be general chatter.  But relating a
>problem and seeking a solution from fellow employees sure sounds to me like
>business.

IMHO this is borderline.  If it is something more routine, such as actually
planning or expecting to ask for directions over the radio, then it would
certainly be a business use.  I'm not saying that asking in one unexpected
case is NOT, but if that is all it is not worth worrying about.  I would
suggest watching for a pattern in this.


>Oh well, thanks for letting me twist your ear on this.  Any suggestions on
>possible comments or reminders that I might relate on the air to those who
>seeeeem to be conducting business on the ham bands will be appreciated.

That begs the next question about how is the best way to inform them about
the rules.  I believe that jumping in on the frequency would be seen as
more hostile and is likely to get a hostile reaction.  What I would suggest
instead is to get involved and participate, and later slowly bring up the
issue of various rules.  Do just enough to try to get them to "lower the
profile" of such communications.  Come across as being on their side instead
of against them.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: Digital Committee Info Please
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 11:51:38 GMT


Can anyone advise what commercial affiliations each digital
committee member has?  Who works for what amateur company?
Thanks, 73, Steve, NO8M

-- 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Errors in the ARRL Digital Committee's Report
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:25:01 GMT

karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

>If you really meant "one packet per transmission, I disagree. The
>AX.25 protocol uses LAPB in its connected mode, and LAPB is a
>go-back-N protocol. If you send several frames at once and the first
>one is corrupted in transit, the receiver discards all subsequent
>frames even if they were received correctly.

GACK!  I'd forgotten that LAPB was back-n.  Unless you have some selectivity,
multiple frames per packet equates to large packets, which you can't
have on a noisy channel.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Errors in the ARRL Digital Committee's Report
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:03:10 GMT

Thanks to Paul Flaherty for an excellent response to the Digital Committee
report. I only take issue with one of his comments:

>Common HF packet practice is to transmit one packet per frame; four or more
>should be transmitted in order to reduce channel turnaround overhead.

If you really meant "one packet per transmission, I disagree. The
AX.25 protocol uses LAPB in its connected mode, and LAPB is a
go-back-N protocol. If you send several frames at once and the first
one is corrupted in transit, the receiver discards all subsequent
frames even if they were received correctly.

I did an analysis some time ago that showed the best performance on a
half duplex radio channel always occurrs with MAXFRAME=1, i.e., one
frame per transmission. As the channel quality varies, you do need to
vary the size of that frame, but you should never send more than one
frame at a time.

I could add a few other things to Paul's list of practices that could
be improved. I've devised a very simple "collision avoidance" scheme
that I think would be especially suitable for HF with skip zones.  You
monitor all traffic on the channel. If you hear a packet addressed to
someone else, you inhibit your transmitter long enough for the
addressed station to respond even if the channel appears to go quiet.
If you hear a packet addressed to you, you are free to respond
immediately.

The effect of this is to let pairs of stations exchange a sequence of
packets without interference from other stations on the channel, even
when skip introduces hidden terminals. Eventually that pair of stations
finishes its sequence and another pair takes over. To keep one pair
from dominating the channel indefinitely, the transmitting stations 
occasionally pause even when they have more traffic to send (this can be
done with a random number driven algorithm). This gives another pair
of stations a chance to use the channel.

So instead of contending anew for each packet, you contend much less
often, with much less opportunity for collision.

This idea is not really new -- it originally occurred to me when I
thought about how HF voice operators already do things. If you hear a
station on 10 meters turn a QSO over to another station and then the
channel goes quiet, do you just jump on and transmit? Of course not.
You assume that the other station is inside your skip zone, and
you'd interfere with him even though you can't hear him.

Phil