HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:10:51 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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

Indeed, one would hope so. If the hoary technology could work well, or
the number of stations was restricted to make it work at all, then there
would be no incentive for progress. If it ain't broke, no one will pay
to fix it. I want HF autoforwarding. And I want it to collapse congestively.
Because if it doesn't, we'll still be pushing Bell 103 tones through SSB
rigs ten years from now.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL QST Survey Fable
Date: 17 Aug 1992 00:10:12 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

>Luck Hurder makes a critical error when declaring that the STA stations (and
>he insinuates the whole packet network) were queried by a survey published in
>QST.

"Oh come on, Earthlings.  The plans [to destroy your planet to make way
for an interstellar bypass] have been on file in your local planning
office on Alpha Centauri for four years.

"What, you've never been to Alpha Centauri?  Why people don't take
notice of local events I'll never understand."
	Douglas Adams, "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:23:30 GMT

Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:

> Packet is not repeaters as they are currently defined. 

97.3 Definitions

[...]

(34) An amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of
	other stations.


Sounds like UAA digital operations would fit right in.


>There is no current burden on Packet or Digital as there aren't any subbands
>other than by gentlemen agreements other than the band which extends from
>14.000 to 14.150 for example.  There aren't any restrictions within large band
>segments.

I'm sorry, but what burden are you referring to?  Clearly not the content
restrictions, which I alluded to earlier.  In any event, *any* enforcement
burden would be trivial, as it would entail watching 30 kHz of HF, which is
easily recorded on simple tape machines.


>NO.  10M FM are REPEATERS.  Only REPEATERS have any differences and then only
>in what *I* consider VHF segments.  Above 29 Mhz.

1.  Check the definition above.  Repeater does not exclude digital.
2.  29 MHz is HF.  It fits all of the classical definitions of HF (f1/f2
	ionospheric propagation, d layer absorption, etc).


>You see here you are again.  HF Digital isn't much like a repeater.

Assertion.  Show how HF doesn't fit into the Part 97 defintion above.

> And certainly if you operate FM Simplex on a repeater input you are in
> violation of the rules.

Only 97.101.  Check it out.

>  Works fine on Repeaters.

Therefore there's every reason to expect that it would work well with UAA.

>Generally they are in the Vhf spectrum and you know where they are located.

If you don't think HF direction finding works, talk to the folks at
Grand Island or Livermore, or Kadena...

>The problem is in HF spectrum where there
>is a heck of a lot less room.  However, I think your idea of WARC bands would
>eliminate a lot of the problems.

This is *the* problem.  Clearly the non-WARC HF bands are pretty full.  So,
it is only fitting that new spectrum be used for new operations.   If this is
not the case, that ham radio as we know it is dead; the strength of existing
operations is such that no new modes or operations may be introduced.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:16:23 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <713863045.F00003@iea.FidoNet.Org> Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:
>In a message of <14 Aug 92>, Gary Coffman wrote to All:
>
> GC> should *own* any frequency, at least not in a legal sense. With
> GC> packet, however, channel usage is strictly time shared. If  small 
> GC> subbands are restricted to packet *only*, I don't see how there could 
>
>OK, here you go Gary.  Restricted to *packet only* thats problem # 1.
>
> GC> be a problem. Packet stations automatically listen to the channel
> GC> before transmitting. Collisions can occur, but doubling is not 
>
>Aha, well here we are in the middle of a RTTY Contest, not perhaps the best use
>of a frequency.  The SARTG (Scandanavian Amateur Radio Teletype Group) contest
>is firing away and there is a bunch of unattended folks on 14.096.3 firing
>packet not very sucessfully,  Listen, not very often.
>
> GC> I don't know how Paul sees this, but my feeling is that if automatic
> GC> packet is restricted to a small subband, it would not be 
> GC> *gentlemanly*
>
>Well at least you answered the question and with an answer I sure could go
>along with. But here we are again with *packet only*.  How about all the other
>digital modes?

All the other digital modes can range anywhere in the band they wish when
attended, even packet can range where it wishes when attended. What we're
talking about is a *small* area where unattended systems can forward
mail. Other modes of operation have their specific subbands. You wouldn't
be too popular firing up a CW operation on a phone net frequency during the
net, though it would be legal. They are different modes. Same with repeater
subbands, you could operate simplex there, but it isn't good amateur practice
to do so. Same with this proposed autoforwarding subband. Packet stations
can automatically time slice and share the channel because they *do* listen
for other packet signals before transmitting, other modes cannot. Therefore 
other modes should not do the equivalent of operating simplex on a repeater 
input by infringing this small autoforwarding area.

When Aplink can automatically listen before transmitting on the channel
and effectively time share with other users, then it should be able to
operate in the automatic segment too. But it can't, so it should stay
out. That also obviously applies to RTTY mailboxes. Only packet currently
has the *automatic* capability to share the channel with other packet users.
Therefore, only packet is suited to automatic operation.

Gary KE4ZV
From: MOSIER@iris.uncg.EDU (Steve Mosier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:43:33 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

> My motto is don't get mad, get even. I'll drive this so and so out
> of the area yet. I'm not the only long time resident who's had problems
> with this transplanted yankee.
>  
> Gary KE4ZV

Nice glimpse of the back of your neck, Gary.

steve-W3GRG
From: jhays@boi.hp.com (John D. Hays)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: No code Techs using J mode on Satellites?
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:00:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: mail.BszroH.n4o
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division (LAFS)

Ask yourself what frequency the technician's transmitter is
operating on, this is what his/her license is authorizing, then you
will have your answer.

John

[Note: We have two types of "Technician Class" licensees "Technician"
and "Technician Plus" --- I have never seen "No Code Technician" 
license, nor one referenced in the rules.]
-- 
John D. Hays                                                jhays@boi.hp.com
Hewlett Packard
Boise Printer Division
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: A Perspective
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:04:47 GMT

A Perspective

As I read many of the comments in the news group and others in nets around the
country I am struck with explaining one of the other points of view.

A few years ago there was a proposal for channelized, unattended digital
operations in parts of the amateur bands.  This proposal made it to the FCC. 
In case you haven't seen it I have copies.  This caused quite an uproar around
the country, not unlike that which we currently have going.

The difference was that no input was at all attempted from the major users of
the digital spectrum or the amateur community at large.  A very major effort
was launched to defeat this proposal, a lot like some of the current ideas in
this group.

Some considered us ARRL bashers and as far as I can tell still do so consider
us.  However, nothing could be further from the truth.  All we did was contact
our ARRL Section, Division and National leaders and put regular channels which
always have existed into operation.  We also had to file comments with the FCC
as this proposal (unlike the present) was already nearly law.

Arguments were put forth and the ARRL's proposal was withdrawn.  It had not a
single comment in support BTW.  

Now we have a different proposal which is in its very early stages and which
some/many don't agree with.  I have seen a fine proposal here about moving
un-attended operation to the WARC bands.  I would think this might be
acceptable.  I have seen no arguments which think that Semi-automatic operation
as proposed by the Digital Committee would be a bad idea.  The only thing I
have seen is that people don't think its gone far enough.

Well, I think that there still exist some serious problems with unattended
automatic operation that haven't been resolved.  First, is good amateur
practice in the HF spectrum (requires listening before transmitting).  An
example of this would be Dxpeditions and very large split operations.  Peter I
comes to mind.  Secondly, is that in order to work the frequencys must be
"channels".  Thirdly, is that somebody has to limit the use of these few
frequencys to a "few select" folks a thing that is foreign to my thoughts on
amateur radio.  Fourthly, is that ALL others must stay off of these
"channels".

Arguments are about repeaters on 10 Meters.  Well if you have ever listened
there isn't any co-ordination as many, many exist all on a few frequency's and
its fun as they drift in and out.  Not useful, but fun.

Someone suggested that we keep the STA forever.  Hardly very likely.  But as
recent posts in this newsgroup suggest.  Even the administrators don't know how
many are involved.  One says 134, another 138.  And try and get included.  Try
and get a list of the stations.  My contention is that if the current STA is an
example of how this operation would be handled then I would much prefer that
unattended operation be allowed in all freq's open to digital operation.


 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:23:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Cupertino, CA

From: tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney)

>>half :-)>  As a ham, I would not even _consider_ buying a
>>house in an area such as you describe.  I can picture the type of retirement
>>community the yuppies will live in in years to come. <shudder>

>What makes it even worse is that in many heavily developed areas of the 
>country like California, [...]

Some developments in California might be that way, quite voluntarily, but 
of suburban California is not.  I'd just as soon that those people who 
want to live that way have a place to do so; it gives them less motivation to
try to control my life.

Re: grandfathering of land usage patterns.  The courts have consistently
ruled that forcing changes upon landowners is quite legal so long as
the owner is not deprived of _all_ economic usage of the property.  While
some places may grandfather usage, most places are democratic, and 
the majority has little sympathy for the old timers.  CCRs are a
better way to go.

Dan Hepner
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Cellular Frequencies
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:26:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <3557@atlas.tegra.COM> vail@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug21.063607.17093@usl.edu> jab0684@usl.edu (Boudreaux Jean A) writes:
>
>   Well, my sister the attorney as well as a recent issue of Popular 
>   Communications assures me that it is currently legal to listen
>   to cellular phone frequencies.  She says that the Supreme Court
>   has consistetly upheld the right of people to listen to anything
>   that they can receive. 
>
>No, as I understand it there is a law that makes it illegal to listen
>to cellular and several other "services".  I don't know if it has
>ever been challenged in the Supreme Court or even applied to scanner
>listeners.   It is still a law and can be applied any time they want
>causing a lot of grief even if it is overturned by the S.C.
>
>      P. Comm. also mentions proposed legal changes 
>   which would limit the ability of police to tape cellular communications
>   .  This would give them the same status as landline phones
>   in terms of getting permission to 'tap' them and use them as evidence, but
>   only as far as police are concerned.
>
>If it is illegal for people to listen as it is for a normal wire-tap
>then the laws should reflect this.

Well, a fact would have it, the ECPA does just this, it makes listening to
these frequencies (Cellular service and a couple others) illegal. And, it
has been prosecuted. This happened in Virginia this year, and there have
been other cases. This is a current thread in comp.dcom.telecom.

I use a Cell Phone, I'm careful :)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <01GNPWK65QJM8Y4YH5@IRIS.uncg.edu> MOSIER@iris.uncg.EDU (Steve Mosier) writes:
>> My motto is don't get mad, get even. I'll drive this so and so out
>> of the area yet. I'm not the only long time resident who's had problems
>> with this transplanted yankee.
>>  
>> Gary KE4ZV
>
>Nice glimpse of the back of your neck, Gary.

It is nicely bronzed by the Southern Sun, and I do have a pickup truck 
and a gun rack. That's all beside the point. This person has been trouble
ever since he bought the property. He started off wanting to reshape
the neighborhood to his liking. He's been very willing to use the law
and the police in attempts to do so. He has rejected all overtures from 
the long time residents, including me. Being closest to the problem, I've 
been elected by default to rid the neighborhood of this problem. I could 
call him out in the street and shoot it out, but that's not considered 
good form anymore. So I've had to be slightly more subtle.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: This N' That
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:54:03 GMT

Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:

>Send them your comments now.  But for heaven's sake to rake them for responding
>to a survey is total crap.

I don't think anybody here has criticized the ARRL for responding to the
survey; certainly my own comments were directed at the numerous technical
and operational errors in the report, which have nothing to do with the
survey.  Instead, what is being criticized here is the survey itself,
which was obviously less than objective.  Jay, if you are typical of the
RTTY subcult, then it's pretty obvious the survey was slanted in terms of
its sample population.

>However, to suggest that *packet* is the only use of automatic HF operation is
>to slam the doors on experimentation and other modes which work. If all you can
>do is complain about being left out I would suggest that you get involved but
>certainly to think that the issues are simple is to not think.

You've confused the issue here yet again.  The issue is *not* packet versus
other transmission modes; the issue is Unattended Automatic Autoforwarding.
Nobody on the UAA side has proposed "shutting the door" on new technologies;
in fact, those new technologies will show up in UAA first.

Turn it around. Those that oppose UAA operation are clearly "shutting the
door" on new technology, and clearly are representing the entrenced interests
of the status quo.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HF Packet and a question...
Date: 15 Aug 92 13:56:41 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug12.210926.13390@qualcomm.com> karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.143900.21419@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Yes Phil, that's what I said too. Keep the pipe full. Have concentrator
>>nodes at each end with window sizes of 309 kilobytes. And then you have
>>a 1200 baud point to point transcontinental link with an effective baud 
>>rate of 600 baud, round trip time of 12 minutes and windowing time of 68 
>>minutes.  That's a bit longer than your 37 milliseconds, but so what,
>>it's still better than the average forwarding time on the current network.
>
>Who said anything about "concentrator" nodes?  The end nodes
>themselves should be responsible for all end-to-end flow control and
>acknowledgment mechanisms.  A packet network just relays packets. It
>stores them only when it must because an outbound link is busy.

Wait a minute, let's make sure we're talking at the same level of
abstraction here. We started out talking about ways to use long
delay time VHF links to replace HF autoforwarding of *Email*. 
Concentrator nodes, IE regional BBSs, would greatly aid in keeping
the transcontinental pipe full, and be more efficient because of
the ability to transmit large batches requiring lower overhead
and allowing more sophisticated compression techniques. Letting
each individual user station attempt to forward it's own Email
messages one at a time would be horribly inefficient in such a
limited and slow network.

[rest deleted because I agree with it]

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: coleve@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:52:20 GMT

 Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:
 
>The HF bands *ARE* different.  If you send a *business* message on
>VHF packet it can very likely be caught locally, fixed locally, and be handled
>locally. 
> 
If we can get the Phil Karn definition of commercial use adopted:
 "If _I_ don't make money on it, it's not commercial" there is no need
for this kind of armchair law enforcement.   This would make a lot of
problems go away, and would permit such things as distribution of netnews on
radio.

Now if we only had a point to multipoint digital protocol...
-- 
-- Vern Cole -- Systems Manager -- Utah Valley Community College --
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Date: 22 Aug 1992 12:27:10 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug22.032457.2514@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>1.  The HF AUTOMATED STA packet network is moving mail.

It's not the only one; in particular, the APLINK network is moving thousands
of messages without autoforwarding. What makes the packet network different in
that regard?
 
>2.  The ARRL had a choice of supporting the continuation of this process or
>      banning it.

The ARRL had a committee designated to come up with a recommendation. It asked
for input. It got damned little. Did you give it any input?
 
>3.  The ARRL is going to petition the FCC to ban HF AUTOMATED forwarding.

There's a difference between banning something (which implies that it's
currently legal) and not recommending that something be legalized. Read my
lips: HF autoforwarding IS NOT LEGAL. The ARRL has decided (tentatively; as of
this writing, the Executive Committee is going to meet shortly to make a final
decision) not to support its legalization.
 
>Please advise the paragraph number and the word that is twisted.

Your use of the word "ban" qualifies.
 
>There is no politicizing going on.  That will happen during the election of
>      the new Directors.  Be assured that then again our packet networks will
>      once again be ripe with information on the fact that the ARRL is NOT
>      controlled by the membership but by the likes of Sumner, Hurder and the
>      rest of the autocrats in Newington.

Tell me: which of the ones you mentioned voted on the recommendation, and how?

I know Tom Comstock, N5TC. He's no dummy (you don't get to be a professor of
Industrial Engineering at Texas A&M University, or have a textbook on
management published to wide acclaim, by being a dummy), and he's one of the
most honest folks I know. If the committee had gotten input showing how HF
packet autoforwarding was going to be something that could be unleashed for
the masses, he would have insiste that that be an option. The simple fact was
that they didn't. He also has the integrity to do what he thinks is right,
regardless of the fact he's up for election this year; I expect that his
opponent will use the HF recommendation against him. I plan to vote for him
anyway.

Don't like hat your director did on this issue? Replace him!
-- 
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.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy