From: MAILER-DAEMON@nmserver.ksc.nasa.GOV (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:38:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsd.9212120242.AA02034
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu


   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <MCCASKEYA@ALINEVALLEY.ksc.nasa.gov>... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from plkmail.ksc.nasa.gov by nmserver.ksc.nasa.gov with SMTP
	(16.6/16.2) id AA09944; Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:40:30 -0500
Return-Path: <info-hams@ucsd.edu>
Received: by plkmail (4.0/SMI-4.0)
	id AA25863; Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:41:26 EST
From: info-hams@ucsd.edu
Message-Id: <9212120241.AA25863@plkmail>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:38:00 EDT
To: MCCASKEYA%ALINEVALLEY@3mail.ksc.nasa.gov
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V92 #1303
X-Attach: h:\GATEWAY\IN\HISTORY\28116.att
Comment: The attached MS-DOS/Macintosh files have been appended
         to the end of this message.


The original message was sent as an attachment because it was too long.

See attached file: 28116.att

-----------------------   28116.ATT   -----------------------

    The following text attachment was appended to the
    message below.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From info-hams-relay@UCSD.EDU  Fri Dec 11 21:03:44 1992
Received: from ucsd.edu by plkmail.ksc.nasa.gov (4.0/SMI-4.0)
	id AA25288; Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:03:44 EST
Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA24810
	sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
	Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:38:18 -0800
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA24797
	sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
	Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:38:13 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -finfo-hams-relay info-hams-list
Message-Id: <9212120038.AA24797@ucsd.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:38:11 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <info-hams@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V92 #1303
To: Info-Hams:UCSD.EDU


Info-Hams Digest            Fri, 11 Dec 92       Volume 92 : Issue 1303

Today's Topics:
                              2 m range
                              2mtr range
                      ACC List for RC-850, etc.
                   Alinco 600 or remotable mobles..
                           Car Tape problem
                      CT BBS Phone Number Please
                 DX Etiquette (an oxymoron) (3 msgs)
                       Ky Scanner Law - Update
          looking for email based call sign servers (2 msgs)
               Mail order stores for Short Wave Radios?
                    Wanted: Kenwood TS-450s/at...
                           Weak signal VHF
     Why no CHeap TNC's? (Was: Help Jeff (was Overpriced TNC's))

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Info-Hams-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available 
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 92 00:07:16 GMT
From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu
Subject: 2 m range
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

>K4DII writes:
>Most of the time, two meter signals travel by "radio line-of-sight", which
>is slightly greater than optical line-of-sight.  In most cases, range is
>limited by this distance, rather than by the power used.  To predict the
>range of a VHF or UHF transmitter, you can take the antenna height in feet,
>multiply by two and take the square root.  The result is the distance in
>miles, to the radio horizon.  Do the same for the receiver at the other
The above is only an appoximation given in the ARRL manual.
It amount to about 1.41 times the height.
In actuality, the line-of-sight horizon in miles is about 1.22
times the square root of the height in feet.  This was used to
produce the table in my earlier post.  The ARRL Manual
states the distance of the radio horizon is about 1.34 times
the distance of the line-of-sight horizon.  (Can anyone account 
for the numerical value 1.34?)  Together these give the
radio horizon distance in feet to be about 1.64 times
the height in feet.  This gives values roughly in agreement with 
personal observation although the difference between it and using
the ARRL Manual approximation is probably not significant considering
the realities.   Here is a table of a few values using the 1.64
time the square root of the height formula:
   Height[feet]           Radio Horizon[miles]
       8                       4.6
      10                       5.2      Thus a mobile with antenna
      20                       7.5      at 8 ft might expect to
      25                       8.2      work a base with antenna
      30                       9.0      at 30 ft to about 4.6+9.0
      40                      10        or 13.6 mi.
      50                      12
      75                      14
     100                      16
     200                      23        I think this table is more
     300                      29        useful than my original
     500                      37        post.

--
dwilson@s850.mwc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 19:59:10 GMT
From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu
Subject: 2mtr range
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

I'm surprised that no one has jumped in to point out the 2 meters does NOT
HAVE to mean 2m FM. There ARE people who work SSB and CW on two, and get much
greater distances with the same power and no repeaters.  Now I'll agree that
2m SSB/CW handi-talkies hardly exist.  But if you're talking home-to-home
range, SSB (or CW) has it all over FM. Maybe 200 km with 100 W and a modest
beam up 10 meters high - maybe not this much antenna needed. The narrow-band
(SSB/CW) work on 2 is done with HORIZONTAL polarization.

73,  Bob  rc@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov  <<<-- but not an employee

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 19:59:09 GMT
From: news.tek.com!tekgen!countach.telcom.tek.com@uunet.uu.net
Subject: ACC List for RC-850, etc.
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

In article <9212100947.tn03012@aol.com> tstader@aol.COM writes:
>> In article <9212071424.tn47538@aol.com>, tstader@aol.COM wrote:
>>>Mike,
>
>> I have been looking for a repeater controller that has a built
>> in auto-patch that costs $250 or LESS.  The RC-85 would fit the 
>>bill if it were $250  (with a phone-patch).
>
> I don't know of anything with phone patch that is THAT cheap! That would be
> great... but don't count on it. Unless you roll your own.

I just purchased a used RC-1000 Repeater Controller which is made by
Micro Computer Concepts in Dayton, Ohio. There are ads in QST and 73
Magazine. The wired and tested unit price is $239.95 - if you want their
enclosure which is a box, rack panel, switch and power-on indicator, it's
about another $60-70. It has the "normal repeater functions" such as 
touchtone remote programming, touchtone muting, external PL decoder on/off,
timers, ID'er, control receiver input, autopatch, and a one-band remote base
(such as 29.6, 52.525, etc.) The autopatch also has reverse patch, Dial 9
with dialing, long-distance enable/lockout, */# or special user code up/down
commands, etc. etc

The manual is available separately for $9.95 and can be applied to a future
purchase of the controller. 

Micro Computer Concepts also makes a less expensive controller - the model
RC-100 which has repeater control, DTMF, etc. but no autopatch. It does,
however have a remote-base interface for one band, and gives BCD synthesizer
control with 13 of its' 15 outputs. The wired/tested price is $139.95 with
a manual. The manual is available separately for $4.95.

I have my RC-1000 installed on a 2-meter repeater here in Portland, Oregon,
and the remote base port is tied to a 100 Watt Motorola MICOR on 29.6 MHz.
I'm very pleased with the controller, and I also use the autopatch.

Note also that a partial kit is available for the RC-1000 - the blank circuit
board, the pre-programmed  Intel 8751 microcomputer, the EEPROM, and manual
for somewhere around $120. I called the company and was told that I could
also get the Touchtone decoder chip (a G8880PI) for an additional $10.
The rest of the parts in the list appeared to be pretty "standard" parts,
and all the sources such as Jameco, Digi-key, were shown for each part in
the parts list.

I also have an ACC RC-850 and a SM-100 "Shackmaster". I replaced the RC-850
on the 2-meter repeater with another used controller (an S-COM 5K), and now
with the RC-1000 so we can have autopatch and 10-meters.

I have no connection with Micro Computer Concepts - I'm passing along my
experiences since there have been several requests for info for less
expensive repeater controllers here on the net lately.

73,

Larry Johnson  K7LJ
City of Portland Electronics Svcs.

FAX: (503) 823-4185
WORK:(503) 823-4577
HOME:(503) 246-5645
Internet: larryj@countach.telcom.tek.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:14:05 GMT
From: usc!wupost!monsanto.com!bb1t.monsanto.com!sekell@network.UCSD.EDU
Subject: Alinco 600 or remotable mobles..
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

In article <33757@goofy.apple.COM>, collier@gallant.apple.com (Will Collier) writes:
> In article <1992Dec3.150522.26484@news.clarkson.edu> Rob Logan,
> rob@phoenix.erc.clarkson.edu writes:
>>
>>The Alinco 590 also lets one change the other freq remotly like the
>>th735, and it even cross-bands, but you have to enter the freqs
>>directly rather than using mem channels.. Even on the DTMF mike in the
>>car one must type three keys to go up a mem channel and there is no
>>direct mem channel entry.

The last part about having to use a three key sequence to go up or down memory
channels isn't absolutely true. The DR-590T (at least the early ones...) as
shipped have 'up' and 'down' buttons on the mike that 'tune' the memory channel
instead of incrementing it up or down. Very annoying. However, there is a 
CPU upgrade that fixes this, and a few other bugs. My 590 was upgraded by
Alinco for no charge. Without this mod, the controls would be an absolute
nightmare to operate. Especially mobile. Before learning of the mod from
Alinco, I was considering returning it and looking at another manufacturer.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Scott Keller	+1 314 537 6317	    The Agricultural Group of Monsanto Company 
  sekell@bb1t.monsanto.com  	KA0WCH		packet: ka0wch@k0pfx.mo.usa.na

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 15:31:12 GMT
From: olivea!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!uum1!kksys.com!tdkt!FredGate@ames.arpa
Subject: Car Tape problem
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

LW>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc

LW>Please excuse the somewhat mundane post to this august group, but I felt
LW>that the netters would give me some good advice on this subject.  My car
LW>stereo tape player eats the tape as soon as I put it in and it starts
LW>playing.  Any ideas would be appreciated; thanks!

LW>Larry, KE8GW

Many years ago I used to install and repair tape players.  Your problem
is a dirty capsten roller.  Take a cotton swab, the kind on the long
stick, dip in rubbing alcohol and clean the tape head, capstan roller
and tape guides.  You will need to turn the unit on to get the rollers
cleaned all the way around.  I used an empty cassette cartridge and
momentary pressed play to get the rollers turned.  You may need to do
this several times to complete the job.  After you have the unit
throughly cleaned invest in a good head cleaning tape and use it about
once a month.  Don't use the tape for the initial cleaning, it is
unlikely it will solve your problem, your unit is too dirty.

Claton Cadmus,  KA0GKC

Packet:         KA0GKC @ WB0GDB.MN.USA.NA
Fido Netmail:   Claton Cadmus  1:282./100
Internet Email: Claton.Cadmus@f100.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com

 * SLMR 2.1a * Rule #1 of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts

 * Origin: HAM>link< RBBS 612/HAM-0000 Saint Paul, MN (K0TG) (1:282/100)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 19:54:40 GMT
From: news.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!groverc@uunet.uu.net
Subject: CT BBS Phone Number Please
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

Can someone provide me with the tel number of the CT BBS?

Also I'd like to know if this is only for registered users.
I haven't been able to get my earlier version to work properly
so I haven't yet decided to register.           

thanks,

Grover  WT6P

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:08:03 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!apctrc!zslf08@network.UCSD.EDU
Subject: DX Etiquette (an oxymoron)
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

In article <BXTJVB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
[stuff deleted...]
> DX'ers are pests. They are noisy, rude and inconsiderate. (And that's not 
> even mentioning the cheats who use lists).

You simply don't hear the dxers who refrain from boorish behavior.  We are
most assuredly in the majority, and it's a mistake to generalize from the
rudeness of a few to insult all of us.  Our world has an ample supply of
bigotry already.  Please don't add more.

Steve WA5RPF

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 20:42:14 PST
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!mala.bc.ca!oneb!ham!emd@network.UCSD.EDU
Subject: DX Etiquette (an oxymoron)
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

lkay@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (leonard kay) writes:

> In article <BXTJVB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>, emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> > 
> > 
> > Why do you feel that rare DX stations have an "obligation" to work DX'ers 
> > 
> >  ...stuff about obligation to work DX   (deleted)......
> >
> > 
> > DX'ers are pests. They are noisy, rude and inconsiderate. (And that's not 
> > even mentioning the cheats who use lists).
> > 
> > Lets go back to having conversations instead of "You're 59 OM. QSL to 
> > XXXXX, Over" contacts.
> > 
> > 
> > Robert Smits  VE7EMD Ladysmith B.C. 
> > Ph (604) 245-2553 e-mail: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca 
> > PACKET VE7EMD@VE7KIT.#VANC.BC.CAN.NA                             
> > 
> >                                          
> I'm gonna try not to flame.
> 
> Who are you, Mr. Smits, just like who was  Darryl (the earlier post)?
> 
> I am a DXer and contester and proud of it. For me, snatching rare DX is 
> a test of my operating savvy - I don't run a kW, and I don't have stacked
> monobanders. I am NOT noisy, rude, or inconsiderate. Let's
> not play the old stereotype game again. For every rude DXer there are
> at least ten others who play by the rules, treat DX stations courteously ,
> and realize that no one is obliged to do anything.
> 
> This is a HOBBY, that's H-O-B-B-Y, and I have every right to chase DX
> and operate contests as long as I respect others rights too.
> 
> For crying out loud, there's enough to do in Amateur Radio without
> the need for this kind of stuff.
> 
> Sorry, net readers.
> 
> Len



I'm glad that you're not rude, that you play by the rules and treat DX 
Stations courtesly. A lot of your fellow DX'ers do not. I suggest that if 
you want the rest of us - who like to be able to carry on conversations 
without rude DX'ers busting in - to respect DX'ers more, that you see 
what you can do about the rude and obnoxious DX'ers I do hear.


I'd be glad to be able to reverse my generally low opinion of DX'ers 
behaviour, but consider it unlikely their operating habits will improve.


Robert Smits  VE7EMD Ladysmith B.C. 
Ph (604) 245-2553 e-mail: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca 
PACKET VE7EMD@VE7KIT.#VANC.BC.CAN.NA                             

                                         

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 16:33:56 GMT
From: amdcad!amdcl2!brian@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: DX Etiquette (an oxymoron)
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

(goh kawai - n6uok) writes:
> On the topic of etiquette among DX-ers and rare DX station ops, I have heard
> and observed the following:
> 
>   * Work the offending station, but note in your log that he should not be 
>     sent a QSL card.  If using a QSL manager, do not enter QSO in log.

Better yet, send him an "acknowledgement of obnoxious behavior" card
that says you heard him trying to break in on a friendly QSO but that
no contact was made.  ;-)

(Note the smiley!  This might be a counterproductive strategy!)

    Brian McMinn -- no email due to recent calamity
    brian@amd.com is a legit address and will eventually get to me (I hope)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 22:00:07 GMT
From: news.service.uci.edu!ttinews!avatar!sorgatz@network.UCSD.EDU
Subject: Ky Scanner Law - Update
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec8.130631.12903@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>
>FYI, the following was recently posted in alt.radio.scanner
>
>In article <1992Dec7.165111.11792@ms.uky.edu> hgpeach@ms.uky.edu (Harold Peach) writes:
>>Recently a local ham was stopped by the Kentucky State Police for an
>>unrelated offense.  During the stop, the trooper noticed the ham had
>>a scanner and informed the ham that is was illegal for him to have it
>>in his vehicle.  The ham told him of the recent change in the law,
>>which exempted hams.  The trooper indicated he was aware of the change,
>>but did not feel it allowed him to have a scanner in his car.  The
              ----
>>trooper gave him a verbal warning that if he caught him with it again
>>he would confiscate his radio and cite him.  Follow-up calls to two 
>>different State Police posts confirmed that the Kentucky State Police
>>still consider it illegal for hams to carry any receiver capable of
  -----------------
>>receiving police frequencies!
>>
>>Today I called the State Police legal affairs branch in Frankfort.
>>The say that the law (KRS 432.570 Section 1, subpart (4)(c)) DOES
>>exempt amateur radio operators carrying a valid license from the
>>law [i.e.  It IS legal for hams to carry scanners, transceivers with
>>general coverage receivers, etc. while mobile.]  They indicated that
>>one bulletin containing this information and changes to other laws
>>during the last general assembly session were sent to all posts, but
>>that it may take awhile for troopers to become familiar with the change.
>>They advised the person this happened to, to write the State Police
>>Commissioner and ask that he send out another bulletin on this topic,
>>which the ham is in the process of doing.
>>In the meantime, if you are a ham carrying mobile general coverage
>>VHF receivers in the state of Kentucky, you might remind any trooper
>>questioning you to check the bulletins he received after the last
>>legislative session.  The legal affairs office said that in the
>>event you were cited, the law is so "black and white" on this issue
>>that any court would rule in your favor.

 Is that before or after one goes a round with a stupid jerk with a 
badge-on that rips a radio out from under your dashboard? ;-)

 All of which is a symptom of the sad state of affairs that typifies
backwoods law enforcement in general. Bunch of uninformed bozos with
the right to harrass and confiscate...jeez! If the cops in Los Angeles
tried anything like that the Courts would burn them at the stake! I'm
glad I don't live in Kentucky, the temptation to provoke an incident
with every ignorant hick cop that didn't read his mail from HQ would 
be too much to resist.

( "Los Angeles, CA. The NIGHT-CLUBBING Capitol of America!" -R. King )

 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
TTI(sorgatz@soldev.tti.com)                       *   Think Eco, not EGO!   *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA  90405     +-------------------------+
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 20:17:45 GMT
From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu
Subject: looking for email based call sign servers
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

	Are they any email based call sign servers ??

Thanks in advance




 Jim Apple   (WB1DOG)            EBT Inc.
 jma@ebt.com                     One Richmond Square
 uunet!ebt-inc!jma               Providence, RI 02906
                                 401-421-9550

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 20:18:11 GMT
From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu
Subject: looking for email based call sign servers
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

	Are they any email based call sign servers ??

Thanks in advance




 Jim Apple   (WB1DOG)            EBT Inc.
 jma@ebt.com                     One Richmond Square
 uunet!ebt-inc!jma               Providence, RI 02906
                                 401-421-9550





 Jim Apple   (WB1DOG)            EBT Inc.
 jma@ebt.com                     One Richmond Square
 uunet!ebt-inc!jma               Providence, RI 02906
                                 401-421-9550

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:28:18 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen!destroyer!gatech!news.ans.net!nynexst.com!fovea!atul@network.UCSD.EDU
Subject: Mail order stores for Short Wave Radios?
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

I am looking for some mail order stores or discount stores that sell
high end short wave radios at a discount. In the low to middle price
range, SW radios are available at several mail order/discount stores
at a deep discount compared to the list price. For example, Sony 
ICF-2010 has a list price of $450. However, I found it advertized in
Sunday New York Times for $300. Are similar discounts available on
high end SW radios such as Drake R-8, Kenwood R-5000, Japan Radio
NRD-525, or Lowe HF-150? I called some of mail order stores that
carry advertisements in "1993 Passport to World Band Radios" (Grove, 
Electronic Equipment Bank, and Barry Electronics). On a $1000 list
price, their discounts are only about $50 to $100. Are there any
other stores where one can get the high end radios at a greater
discount? 

Please respond by email. If there is sufficient interest, I will post
a summary to the net. Thanks.

--Atul
=====================================================================
Atul K. Chhabra                        Phone: (914)644-2786
Member of Technical Staff                Fax: (914)644-2404
NYNEX Science & Technology          Internet: atul@nynexst.com
500 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
=====================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 11 DEC 92 20:38:37 GMT
From: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!skyfox!phillipsa@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Wanted: Kenwood TS-450s/at...
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

Wanted... for my christmas tree...  a Kenwood TS-450s/at.  If you can help
please write me at phillips@skisas.usask.ca or REPLY this message...
... or (306) 665-6949 in the evenings...

thanks

andre phillips - ZL3AW (from downunder on topside...)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:42:35 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!gws@network.UCSD.EDU
Subject: Weak signal VHF
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

In article <9212101250.AA04075@ucsd.edu> MROWEN%STLAWU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Michael Owen W9IP) writes:
>In response to the query about 2m SSB/CW...
>
>You can probably find the answers to many weak-signal questions
>in the ARRL VHF Manual.  It has a whole chapter on "the other"
>VHF (ie non-FM repeater).
>
>The most cost-effective way to get on 2m SSB/CW is probably
>a transverter.  It will also give marginally better performance.

I have heard this and see several magazines say the same thing but
I have never found this to be true.. Just finding a transverter is
often difficult, used units are rare, new units tend to be expensive.

I was trying to setup an oscar station and searched for several 
years at regional hamfest (including 2yrs at dayton) and found only 
a couple of units. The ones I have found were half built hamtronics 
units. I did however find many multimode 2meter and 432mhz rigs.

With the influx of new hams many being no-code. The assumption 
that everyone has an HF rig cant be made anymore.
-- 
Gary W. Sanders gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org, 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JYV (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM BBS 614-895-2553 (1200/2400/V.32/PEP) Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 15:24:44 GMT
From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!hpmwtd!mtmtl8!bsplaine@ames.arpa
Subject: Why no CHeap TNC's? (Was: Help Jeff (was Overpriced TNC's))
To: info-hams@ucsd.edu

I can echo that.... I am *CHEAP*, I guess, by that definition.  I rather would
like to be called frugal or even a good steward of my $$$.

I can partly agree with Jeff, the writer of who I remember to be the
initiator of this thread, and I believe I can speak with *some* degree of
knowledge.  Many companies charge what they believe the market will bear for 
their product.  This price must include the cost of development, amortized
over a reasonable number of product produced and sold.  It must also include
the cost of manufacture, overhead, advertizing, etc etc.  This has been beat
to death in some of the responses.  A company MUST charge for this or they
will soon be out of business.  The biggie is *what the market will bear*.

What the difference is, is the value that is added to this, over and above
the "fair market value" that I believe Jeff is squirming about.  In my business,I uncover many prices that were poorly negotiated by a previous buyer.  In some
cases we were paying more than twice the present cost.  Why?  The buyer didn't
know the value of the product he was purchasing.  Read that line again........

When I requoted the *same* series of parts with other suppliers of that type of
service and confronted the original supplier with a ballpark of their numbers,
their reply was- "impossible".  I contracted the parts with a new supplier who
provided me with the same high level of technology, quality, reliability, and
dependability.  The next year, the original supplier came back and admitted he
could beat the new supplier's quote and still make a profit.

This original supplier was charging what the market will bear.  Very common, 
especially with a state of the art product line that is sold to a specialized
industry.  Hams, boaters, pilots, etc can all be considered a *specialized*
industry and therefore companies that make products to support that insustry 
have comparatively little competition.

Pricing strategies are very complicated, and negotiation from a buyers point
of view must be as complicated and hard nosed as that of the manufacturer/
seller.  BUT..... don't we all fall into the trap of MAKING UP OUR MINDS ON
*ONE* SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER/MODEL, and get upset when the seller, who can
read us like a book, won't budge on price?  "This is what the catalog price
is. My boss won't let me charge a penny less... we must make a profit you
know".

I guess my bottom line is, if we are in a pricy hobby and are unwilling or
unable to produce an equivalent to the latest and greatest state of the art
wizbang gizmo, we should either try to negotiate a better price, settle for
a used one (they are considerably cheaper that way), not buy one at all, or
find a different manufacturer that makes a Ford instead of a Rolls.  Sure,
we all want the Rolls (or whatever your fill in the blank is) but we can't
all afford one and must settle for less.  Maybe that way, you get what you
want and give the manufacturer a signal that his price is too high.  It
might help to send the manufacturer of the Rolls a letter stating why you
bought the MF% instead of the AE* TNC.  But that would cost $0.29 plus
paper and time and gasoline and wear and tear on the vehicle, ad nausium-
and all of us amateurs are cheap skinflints like me, so...........

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V92 #1303
******************************
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc