HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:37:11 GMT

In article <14600032@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com-- alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom) writes:
--In rec.radio.amateur.policy, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
--
....
----It's not practical for the ARRL to obey the regulations, is that what
----you're saying?
--
--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)?

Willis n5szf



Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: Re: ARRL Bulletin 68  ARLB068
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:00:08 GMT

In article <1517e1INNhvq@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:

>As it stands, I believe that the ARRL has failed in its duty to ham
>radio.  I don't believe it can change enough to repair that failure, so
>I'm voting against it by not supporting it.  I'd like to see it
>replaced with an organization that is more responsive, and I've
>supported a few of those fledgling attempts.  Unfortunately, they've
>all failed - the ARRL is too deeply entrenched.  But I can hope.

I agree with Brian.  The ARRL isn't the only game in town.  I used to
belong to the ARRL years ago, but it was clear they were too
interested in the status quo and not much into risk-taking or actual
LEADERSHIP.

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.

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

AMSAT-NA
850 Sligo Avenue, Suite 600
Silver Spring, MD 20910-4703
+1-301-589-6062
+1-301-608-3410 (FAX)

louie
WA3YMH
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Date: 29 Jul 1992 15:52:48 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

The FCC has recently shown less of an inclination to take the ARRL at
its word as representing all amateurs.  When the ARRL proposal on
automatic forwarding goes to the FCC and becomes a docket item, we will
have the opportunity (nay, the DUTY) to file formal comments on it.

Since I don't believe that the ARRL will change its proposal before
submitting it to the FCC, it will be the duty of those of us who instead
have a clue to file opposing comments in favor of a more liberal policy.

I'll betcha we CAN convince the FCC to be reasonable.  After all, we got
no-code through despite the ARRL.

BTW, if the ARRL is going to change its name, it ought to become the
SPOM - Society for the Preservation of Obsolete Modes.  It seems to have
little else on its agenda these days.
	- Brian
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: n1gak@netcom.com (Scott Statton)
Subject: Re: Comment to Grady Wards Thoughts
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:54:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9207302035.AA07378@ucsd.edu> wright@morekypr.BITNET writes:

	including some REALLY OLD stuff ....

>>Date: 11 Jul 92 15:45:58 GMT
>>From: public!grady@decwrl.dec.com
>>To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu
>>
>>Subject : Re: CODElESS TECHNICIAN PRIVILEGES
>>
>>The correct universal term for insects that are
>>too stupid to learn the code should be:
>>
>>CODLESS  (rhymes with "godless")
>>
>>to reflect their lack of gonadal material!!
>>
	and more of such drivel. (Hmmmm .. how many "v"s should that word 
	have?)
>>
>>CODLESS = godless
>>
	and now he demonstrates his wit and wisdom
>
>Grady  you must be one of the most one sided STUPID people I have ever read
>a post from....
>
>The Correct Term for a Codeless Ham should be just that.  Codeless....
>These  people are not insects, they are fellow Humans.  Their sex gender is
>none of your business, unless your are Gay.
>
>I am a Codeless Tech.  I'm 35 if is any of your business and I can't help
>it if Former President Nixon pulled the U.S. out of Nam before I could get
>there.  I wanted to go....but I was defered by the Army and Navy
> and as for your religious slur , THIS CODELESS TECH IS A CHRISTIAN AND BELIEVES
>IN TOTAL IMMERSION.  But it takes more than that to get into heaven in which
>you will be dealt with when your time comes.....
>
>Until then Mr. Ward, I urge all other Christians in Amateur radio to Pray for
>you and hope that you have an ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT in the future.  And I also
>urge you to seek out Professional Help to help you get over what ever it was
>in your child hood that made you so angry at yourself.
>
>Tim Wright  KD4OVM
>WRIGHT@morekypr.BITNET

Mr. Wright has obviously been humour-impaired since birth.  I could probably
flame-bait and say something about replacing "creative thinking" with "mindless
belif in what someone else says" ...oops...looks like I've already said it.

I assume that Mr. Ward's argument was a hyperbole, and a very humorous
one at that.  *sigh* ... 

73, All humans (even the Xtian ones)
	Scott


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jerry@ncc.uky.edu (Jerry Nokes Jr.)
Subject: Truckers, Pizza, Policy
Organization: University of Kentucky, Communications Services
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:58:07 GMT
Originator: jerry@ncc.uky.edu

     Ok, now people are getting confused.

     What are the requirements for a transmission on Amateur Radio to be 
considered "Business"?

   Does calling dominoes pizza qualify?:  yes if you are ordering a pizza.

   Does calling your buddy who works on machine xyz to ask him a question
about machine xyz?:  only if you are paying him for it.  it is not borderline
if you do not have a monetary exchange....ie BUSINESS.

     The FCC does not have the manpower necessary to constantly regulate the
Amateur bands, therefore the ARRL in its Field Office Bureau has the Official
Observer position, whose duties are to assist Amateurs with questions 
reguarding the regulations, and to notify stations that are observed   
disobeying the regulations.

   Lets not forget that Emergency situations nullify these regulations:

    Now what is an emergency?

  is being stopped on the side of a freeway an emergency?:  yes, if you
have no other means to notify someone to help you remove the vehicle I 
would call a tow truck company, right on the autopatch.  If it involve the
"loss of life and or personal property", IE:  someone could hit your
vehicle and cause an accident damaging property or life.  Use common
sense people.

   Now to the truckers.  If you had a big rig running around the streets,
this guy has been on the road for several hours, he is tired, he is just trying
to drop his load and get off the road, what would you do?
I would give him the information.  Is he paying you to tell him?  are you 
paying him to get there?   (in a sense you will get compensated by the fact that
once he gets off the road the roadway will be a little safer for you, like in
a heavy traffic area of downtown, where you can't see around those things.)

     When I took the written test to become an O.O. the one thing that stuck in
  my mind the most was this phrase:
                      "  In the spirit of Amateur Radio"

  Splitting hairs is not the "spirit".  Helping people, insuring safety,          educating, securing friendships:  that is the spirit.

    If anyone has further questions on these topics or others please
drop me a line at 
                      Jerry@NCC.UKY.EDU

or if on packet     WY8S@WY8S.#LEX.#CKY.KY.USA.NA
                      [44.70.12.21]

    73 and I hope this helps those of you searching for the right answers.

    Jerry wy8s    O.O. ARRL
                  V.E. ARRL
                  V.E. W5YI
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:18:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

estey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com writes:

>technical standards.  It would not be unrealistic to see the proposal include
>a maximum bandwidth for digital emissions below 29.7 Mhz.  If this limit was, 
>say 600 hz, this could eliminate ALL packet operation on HF - attended or not!

Not really.  It would just slow it down...  for a while.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: Re: OH Abandons ARRL Information
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12:11:48 GMT


     The ARRL Board can not reconsider the decision until January
of 1993.  They could call a special meeting but that would be
unusual.
     Ohio has no intention of doing more than making a statement.
The route will be placed back in service when that statement is
made.
     Ohio will learn of any change through ongoing discussions of
the issue with the Great Lakes Division Director or the Ohio Section
Manager.
     This is not a war!  It is a process.  We are offering input to
that process.  It is kind of defeating to keep getting told that
all they are hearing from is a bunch of Sysops.  Don't be surprised
if you Director tells you that there is quite a bit of response
from people in support of an issue and ... eh ... from a bunch of
Sysops (sung to the tune of "lowlife know-nothings who obviously
have no idea what 'real' amateurs want").

73,
Steve
NO8M.OH
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Counterproposal to the ARRL Digital Committee Recommendation
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:49:32 GMT

brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:

>Restricting auto-forwarding to Extra class licensees is silly.  We've
>just managed to eliminate CW elitism on VHF and now we're trying to
>reinstate it on HF.

Given the limited number of channels, the only allocation scheme that seems
fair is to limit it to Extras.  If you have a better idea, please say so.

>If Paul means this as a conciliatory sop to the entrenched die-hards, he
>should say so.

Not likely.

>*I was once told that there IS a significant correlation between license
>class and income.  Fraud (i.e., purchased licenses) can't be the major
>reason; I wonder what is?

If in fact this is true, it's another argument in favor of the restriction.
People involved in this operation by definition need to stay at the 
leading edge of the state of the art, which is uncheap.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:55:58 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

In article <1992Jul27.050303.18814@wilson.jobsoft.com> david@wilson.jobsoft.com (David R. Wilson) writes:
>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 [...]

Say what? You obviously didn't read what I said very carefully. 

The proposal has nothing to do with Novice and Technician class
digital privileges. It has nothing to do with automatic forwarding on
VHF and UHF, which is already and will continue to be permitted by the
rules. It says nothing about manually controlled digital operation on
HF. It deals strictly with the issue of AUTOMATIC DIGITAL OPERATION ON
HF, which is now and has always been *prohibited* by the rules,
*except* for a specific set of stations authorized by STA (which
includes W3IWI, for example). 

I cannot believe the amount of misinformation that has been
circulating on this issue. I think people would be well advised to
learn the facts before they engage their keyboards.

Phil
From: alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:30:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I too think the ARRL broadcasts provide a good service, but they shouldn't
>be conducting broadcasts on the amateur bands. I know they weaseled the
>FCC into giving them a waiver ...

It used to be perfectly legal to pay an amateur operator to operate a 
station.  (What was illegal was to pay an operator for the use 
of HIS station.)

About 1973 or 1974 (forget the exact date) the FCC changed the rules to
make it illegal to pay operators.  Since this made W1AW illegal, the
FCC had to issue a special temporary waiver.  Then a year or two later,
they changed the rules again to make it OK to pay operators of bulletin/
code practice stations (like W1AW) that met certain conditions. 

Your tax dollars at work.

AL N1AL
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: awoodhull@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Status of BayCom?
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:41:46 GMT

Subject: Status of BayCom?

I just started experimenting with packet and BayCom again after a lapse 
of many months.  I obtained BayCom version 1.50a a while ago and it seems
to have a lot of improvements over versions 1.2 and 1.4 which I had used
in the past.  I've also upgraded my system substantially, and can now 
run BayCom on a 486 with 4M of memory; I also have Windows 3.1 and OS/2
version 2.0.  

I have several questions for anyone on the net who might know:

1. Is version 1.50a the latest version available?
2. Is printed documentation available in English for dollars from
   somewhere in the US?
3. Are there any ways to make BayCom take advantage of extra memory
   so I might have room to run larger applications from the OS Shell?
4. Has anyone experimented with BayCom under Windows or OS/2?
5. On one occasion my system crashed with graphic characters in the 
   prompt and unresponsive even to ctrl-alt-del upon exiting from a
   long BayCom session. I think it happened during execution of the 
   OFF command; all the SCC files were saved properly before the crash. 
   Does anyone have experience with this kind of thing or ideas about
   what happened?
6. Is there any mailing list or archive site where I can find other 
   info about BayCom?

73 de Al Woodhull   N1AW
awoodhull@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: andyw@aspen32.cray.com (Andy Warner)
Subject: WA4DSY modem question(s)..
Originator: andyw@aspen32
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:08:24 CDT


I posted this once before, but I think inews "lost" the original,
my apologies if this appears twice.

I've heard rumours about a set of replacement roms for the GRAPES
56K modem, which allow it to use class C power amps, albeit at
the expense of bandwidth. Can anyone confirm or deny this ?
How much additional bandwidth does it take ? What practical
effect does this have on performance ?

While I'm waiting for my information pack to arrive from GRAPES,
can anyone tell me if the modems come shipped with crystal(s) ?
If so what is the standard IF freq ?

Thanks,
-- 
andyw.	N0REN/G1XRL

andyw@aspen.cray.com	Andy Warner, Cray Research, Inc.	(612) 683-5835
From: bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent)
Subject: Re: TNC'less Packet on Mac?
Keywords: macintosh
Organization: Texas A&M Univ., Inc.
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:11:19 GMT

Aaron Wohl <aw0g+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|  Softkiss can use poor mans packet modems
|from the IBMPC world.  

Now, where can one find info about these poor man's packet modems?
I remember seeing something in 73 or Radio-Electronics a year or
so ago, but I don't know which.  Any pointers would be nice...

thanks,
-Brent
From: ve4drk@muug.mb.CA (Dan Keizer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: duplex packet repeaters
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:33:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: mona.9207252232.AA07557
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

Just another note on the duplex packet repeater operations.  I was in
Calgary a few months back (just moved to Winnipeg) and there was an
awful time trying to do something with the "backbone" on 145.01, so
a local ham put up a duplex bit-regenerative packet repeater on one
of the tall downtown bulidings and when people moved over, you could
actually get some data moved around.  It was phenomenol ... the data
throuput must have at least quadrupled ... lots of low power stations
being clobbered by higher powered stations ... lots of hidden nodes
... now that ve6pax is up, no problem.
just my 2 bits.
Dan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Keizer, VE4DRK      
ve4drk@muug.mb.ca       VE4DRK@VE4KV (AX.25) Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada
From: flipping@pilot.njin.net (Bob Flipping)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Packet & OS/2
Date: 29 Jul 1992 12:00:42 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

For years I have been wondering how I was going to get my PK232MBX, my
Totalham logging program, my Kenwood TS-940, my mouse, and my modem all
working at the same time.  The solution came in the form of responses to a
post that I put out asking:

     How do you overcome the IRQ3 and IRQ4 conflict problem when using
com1,2, 3, and 4?


     The solution came from a sysop in Canada.

For those of you who want a similar setup you must:

1.  Use a bus mouse - this poses no conflict.
2.  With you first serial card (COM1 and COM2), hook up the two devices that
you normally would use with the exception of the mouse (it is taken care of
on the dedicated bus).  COM1 and COM2 are usually configurable for IRQ4 and
IRQ3 respectively.  The problem arises when you purchase your next
inexpensive serial card that will configure COM3 and COM4, but again uses
IRQ4 and IRQ3 respectively.  Here comes the tricky part.
3.  KEEP THE PAPERWORK that comes with the card.  You will have to hardwire
IRQ3 line to the IRQ5 pin on the card, and hardwire the IRQ4 line to the IRQ2
pin on the card.  Once you have done this you can hookup your PK232 and your
radio to COM3 and COM4 with no conflicts.  Note the the jumper settings for
IRQ3 or 4 are now IRQ5 or 2.

This solution worked for me.  I am using an 80386DX with 8megs of ram running
at 25mhz.  All applications; ProComm Plus 2.0 (accessing com1), Lan-Link
(accessing Com2), my Kenwood Control program (accessing Com3).  I plan to use
another com program dedicated to packet on Com4 - this way I can use RTTY,
AMTOR, CW or any of the other digital modes through COM1 connected to the
940, and stay connected to the DX packet cluster on COM4.

If you are unfamiliar with any of the above procedures, check with a
technician before you do them.  I will not be responsible if this dosn't work
for you.  (SORRY - HAVE TO PUT A DISCLAIMER).

Good luck for those of you that try this, and if anyone has any other
solutions please send them to me.  I have other lists that I post to, and I'm
sure others would like the knowledge.

73 Bob

flipping@pilot.njin.net			PACKET KZ2T@WB2DRD.#SNJ.NJ.USA.NA
PRODIGY - PHTT51A			FRC DX NET VHF 145.530 KZ2T@K3WW
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: richardfr@comm.mot.comm (Richard France)
Subject: Packet channel analasis???
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:57:58 GMT

 Hello,
   I am looking for any and all MS-DOS based software that will analyze a
 normal ax25 packet frequency. I am intereseted in keeping track of the
 stations that use the frequency and an analasis of the stations usage
 per period of time, be it hours, days or whatever. Please let me know
 if there is anything I can FTP, download or send away for.
   Thanx!!!
 Richard France
 N9JFD@W9ZMR.IL.USA.NOAM
 n9jfd@n9jfd.ampr.org
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: claude@bauv106.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de (Claude Frantz (RZ))
Subject: G3RUH modem
Keywords: G3RUH modem 9600 packet
Organization: Universitaet der Bundeswehr Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:48:50 GMT

Hello !

Where can I find the description of this modem and of the
used modulation method ? Where is the original article ?

Thanks
Claude, DJ0OT
From: RON@NSULA.EDU (Ron Wright - NSU Computer Center)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: A couple of EASY TCP/IP Questions
Date: 24 Jul 1992 09:33:51 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

I have a couple of probably pretty easy TCP/IP questions for the net.
I deal with TCP/IP on a mainframe VAX daily so I do know what it is,
how it works, which file do what, etc.  Amateur Packet TCP/IP is
non-existent in this area so there's no one to ask about software, etc.
SO, on to the questions:

I know there are several versions of NOS available.   I've looked through
several at UCSD.EDU.  Can someone give me a run down on differences and
preferences?

Can someone tell me who to request an IP address from in my area.
I'm located in Central Louisiana.

Tnx for any help

Ron - KA5LUG

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Wright - KA5LUG                Internet:  RON@ALPHA.NSULA.EDU
User Support Specialist           	      RON%NSU.DNET@EAST.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Northwestern State University          SPAN:  7669::RON
Natchitoches, LA  71497
(318) 357-5594                       Packet:  KA5LUG@N5HOF.LA.USA.NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV)
Subject: Re: "Cooling" Mod for the PK232
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 21:19:07 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Department of Electrical Engineering

In article <1109@shrike.com> kriss@austin.lockheed.com (R M Kriss) writes:
>
>                    "Cooling" Mod for the PK232 MBX
> ...
>approximately 3 years.  A review of the schematic revealed that there was no
>series dropping resistor in series with the LM317T input.

The LM317T needs no series input resistor in this application.  What it does
probably need is a better heatsink.  Adding a series resistor makes the unit
suseptible to erratic operation during brownout conditions.

>dissipation power of the LM317T by approximately 30%.  Consequenty, the entire
>unit runs exceptionally cooler with no degradation in performance.

This is an illusion.  The power that was being dissipated in the LM317T's heat-
sink in now being dissipated in the resistors and the LM317T's heatsink.  The
key point here is that the power dissipation is EXACTLY THE SAME as it was
before you made your modification.  It is now just spread out a bit.

Don't do this modification.  It serves no real purpose.  The LM317T was never
in any peril.  This chip contains circuitry that will shut it down if it
is overheated.  It can run in this shutdown condition indefinitely without 
damage.  All the above modification will succeed in doing is decrease the input
voltage range over which the TNC can reliably operate.  If you really want to
improve the lifetime of the regulator, work out a way to mount it to the
chassis, or give it a better heatsink.


Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
chuck@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: au440@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Kieran Donahue)
Subject: multimode packet controller, which one?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:53:03 GMT


    I have been told many things about packet controllers.  The 
bottom line is, which should i buy?  Is is it worth the money to 
buy a dsp unit like the one made by AEA?  Which one is the best
and why?

KC6DSE

Kieran
-- 
Kieran D. au440
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet