HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: williams@hobbes.qualcomm.com (Paul Williamson)
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:08:16 GMT

karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>     I am not convinced of the need for a specific  prohibi-
>tion  on  broadcasting since, again, I believe that a simple
>prohibition against  providing  amateur  communications  for
>hire  would  serve  to  limit any abuses.

Have you ever been involved with non-commercial (or "public") radio
broadcasting?  I have.  Non-commercial broadcasters are a very
enthusiastic lot.  The non-comm station I was associated with started
as a bootleg AM station, then went carrier-current on campus.  Their
timing was good; about that time the FCC was granting 10-watt FM
licenses with minimal paperwork.  After several upgrades, that station
is now a 50,000W FM station in a major metro market (KTRU, the Rice
University radio station, in Houston).

The rules for non-commercial FM stations are only a little bit more
liberal than the rules you propose for the amateur service.  They
are allowed to collect money, but are strictly limited in the kinds
of services they can supply in return.  Many of these stations
operate with no monies from outside donors at all (KTRU operated
this way for several years that I know of).

There are quite a few would-be broadcasters out there who, for one
reason or another, can't get an on-air license.  Here in San Diego,
for example, we have two major universities whose radio stations are
cable-only (partly because the non-comm band is cluttered up with
giant Mexican commercial stations).  If it were legal to set up a
broadcast station on amateur frequencies, some of these would-be
broadcasters would do it in an instant, even if no money would ever
be forthcoming.  It wouldn't be as cool as a broadcast station in the
principle broadcast bands, but amateur receivers aren't hard to come
by anymore.  Of all the imagined hazards that the FCC rules are
designed to avoid, I think broadcasting is the only one that's likely
to significantly injure the amateur service.

Relaxing the prohibition on broadcasting would be even riskier in
combination with a relaxation of the rule prohibiting music.  I imagine
that the no-music rule arises mainly from a desire to prevent de facto
broadcasting in the amateur bands.  If both music and broadcasting
became legal, 2m might become the top-40 band.

If you grant that the FCC has a charter to restrict certain types of
operation to certain frequencies, then you should accept that it must
promulgate rules that define the nature of the various identified
radio services.  There's plenty of spectrum already allocated to
broadcasting to the public.  That's distinct from the amateur radio
service for good reasons, and should remain so.

73  -Paul Williamson, KB5MU
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: license cycle time
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:38:43 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

yet another time hack for license turnarounds:

passed extra exam August 15th, date of license issue is September 22nd and 
received here on September 28th.  about 6-1/2 weeks (wasn't there a movie with
this title recently? 8-)  ).

73, bill wb9ivr
From: geertj@ica.philips.nl (Geert Jan de Groot)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: DTMF on 2 meters handhelds
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:00:59 GMT
Organization: Philips Consumer Electronics, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

rbono@necis.UUCP (Rich) writes:

> Patrick, I hope this helps you.  I have a question for you concerning the 
>1750 tone burst.  Is this required just before the first contact on the
>repeater to activate the repeater after a period of non-use?  Or is it
>required periodically so that the repeater will not "time out".  Does the
>repeater carrier drop between transmissions (during pauses in a conversation)?
>Some repeaters here in the USA have short "tails".  That is, the repeater
>carrier will drop with 1 to 4 seconds after the input signal stops.  If
>this occurs, do your repeaters require another 1750 tone burst?

I have not seen Patricks answer yet, but I know the 1750 Hz burst is required
before the first contact after a period of non-use; you don't need it for
every over. If the repeater is idle, another 1750 Hz is required. 
Remember that we Europeans usually have to press a button to generate
1750 Hz, that gives you some idea how often it is required.

There are many systems to operate a repeater: some drop carrier between
overs, some don't. Some repeaters are carrier operated and don't need
1750 Hz at all. If you try, try a carrier first. (with modulation, some 
repeaters don't open on a carrier without modulation). If that doesn't
work, try 1750 Hz. If you Americans come over here for vacation, a
separate 1750 Hz generator is usually sufficient. Use a crystal-controlled
source, as the tone must be precise within a few Hz.

Some newer repeaters use CTCSS to increase range. Without tone, they're deaf;
with tone, they become more sensitive. Remember, there are no closed repeaters,
so usually it also works without CTCSS.

Is this sufficient? Please email, as I expect not to be able to read news
frequently for a few weeks.

73, Geert Jan PE1HZG
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: How to Transfer a Call Sign
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:38:33 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

>passed away 4 years ago. Shortly after that, I called the FCC in San Francisco
>and they told me there isn't anyway I can do this. I have an Advanced Class
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Ed would be shocked - you got the answer straight from the horse's mouth 
and you don't believe them...8-).

Currently calls are not reused.  Your dad's call was retired when he passed 
on.  There was for a time a way for clubs to acquire such calls for club 
stations and such and for a while extras could ask for a specific call, but 
all that's gone now and calls are dealt from the top of the deck (K3VOA not 
withstanding).

73 bill wb9ivr
From: rogerm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Roger Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: DTMF on 2 meters handhelds
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:09:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Here in Colorado many of our repeaters have PL or CTCSS as it is sometimes 
called to overcome problems with intermod inteference from pagers and other
commercial sources. When used 100 Hz is the most popular in the area here.

				Roger Mitchell
				N0MCR
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe)
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Organization: GTE/MSED - Needham Heights, MA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:59:14 GMT

Does anyone have the full text of  PR Docket 92-136 on line somewhere?
I'd like to get a copy.....

--
Dave Pascoe KM3T
Internet: pascoe@rocky.gte.com
GTE/MSED - Needham Heights, MA
(617) 455-5704
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jcraig@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: ...no traffic and we're QRU...
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:43:41 GMT



Last night on our local 75 m phone net, I checked in and jokingly remarked 
that those who checked in saying "We're QRU" should get medication for that
condition. 

Well instead of some queries as to where the aflicted might procure
an anti-QRU pill, a few ungentlemanly comments were directed my way.

I diplomatically refered to our regs wherein it is stated that Q signals
are "for use on radiotelegraph." Before long, I was a bystander in a small
war.

Of course, a few Q sigs are a part of the phone jargon such as QRZ during
a phone contest or the QSL card.  These Q sigs convey a meaning in 
fewer sylables than the plain English equivalent. On the other hand, QSY
instead of "going up/down", offers no such advantage.

Using QRT for "clear" or QSL for "roger" is akin to using phonetics on CW... 
a waste of bandwidth. On CW, QRT and QSL are universally understood
but on phone they're meaningless unless you're speaking English. 

I'm not sure why a few ops use QRU on the net.  It's just as quick to say
"no traffic". Perhaps it's tradition dating back to when we had a few 
regular CW check-ins. Rarely do we get CW check-ins now.   

Is there a generally accepted policy on the use of Q signals on phone?

- Joe

__... ...__  _.. .  ..._ ___ .____ _. ._
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ...no traffic and we're QRU...
Date: 6 Oct 1992 18:04:14 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> Using QRT for "clear" or QSL for "roger" is akin to using phonetics on CW... 

Worse than that.  QRT doesn't mean clear.  That's what SK is for.  QRT
means "Stop Transmitting," not "I'm Stopping Transmitting."

-Ron 
I'm being troubled by atmospherics.
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:45:53 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

>>By the way, the comment deadline on 92-136 was October 1st.
>>So if you haven't filed original comments already, they may not
>>read them (I think they have sometimes read late comments anyway but 
>>not with any regularity).

You can still file comments as long as you phrase them as nominal
replies to others that have already been filed. And nothing says you
have to disagree with a comment to reply to it; you are free to say
"Amen!"  as well as "Bullshit!", though either type of response would
be more effective if you elaborate beyond these two words...

Phil
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX Interference Solution?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 17:29:03 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Sep27.190829.6306@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> steveb@inst-sun1.tmc.edu (Steve Bednarczyk) writes:
[reformatted to fit in 80 columns]
>YES!!!  And no FM either!!! There just doesn't seem to be any spirit of
>cooperation left in amateur radio any longer. We now have what appears to be a
>remote base on 144.200 Mhz in the Los Angeles area now.  FM simplex on 144.100
>CW part of the band. We used to have a reasonable amount of self-control and
>respect for 'negotiated' sub-bands.  No longer! The attitude, at least inthe
>urbanized areas seems to be "Part 97 says I can operate here so I'm gonna!" 
 
Don't hang that on on the urbanized areas. There's none of that kind of thing
here in the Houston area, for example.
This kind of thing is probably localized to the LA area; it's long had a
reputation for uncooperativeness and disregard for band plans and
coordination, and I find the fact that there's a large contingent of folks who
idolize the ex-WB6 who got his license yanked, and then keeps operating
without one, is indicative...
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
From: tommy@arghouse.UUCP (Tom Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Question on FM Trans.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 13:15:22 PDT
Distribution: us
Organization: The Listening Post

aar001@acad.drake.edu writes:

> 		If I us an empty frequency and don't interfere with any
> 	commercial stations, do I really need a liscence (sp?)?  If so,
> 	what kind of costs am I looking at?

Andy,
  According to the FCC (and I can't quote regs 'cause I don't know them), 
you must be licensed to broadcast on any frequency except 11m (CB), and 
certain areas of the 49MHz band (alt.CB).  To transmit on a commercial band 
with anything other than a wireless microphone (and they, too, are moving), 
qualifies as a pirate station, regardless of the range of the signal.

  You might be better off to use a wireless intercom as the transmitter, 
seeing as you intend on limiting yourself to one building.  Your listeners 
would be required to have a suitable receiver, or a matching intercom.

------------------
The Listening Post, San Diego, CA, USA  +1 619 563 1084
Opinions expressed are those of tommy@arghouse.uucp.
From: bill@platypus.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX Interference Solution?
Keywords: complete waste of bandwidth
Date: 26 Sep 92 12:58:46 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA



Maybe we should just get the FCC to put things back the way they used to be.

No repeaters below 146.000!!

bill    KB3YV

-- 
     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 17:21:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: Take a guess... (:-)

I quite agree with Phil. 

Actually, Phil, if you don't mind [me plagiarizing
your text] - I'll sign it and send to FCC too.

Regards,
Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jmcoving@unccsun.uncc.edu (John Covington WN4BBJ)
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:01:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.205914.7286@europa.asd.contel.com> pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe) writes:
>Does anyone have the full text of  PR Docket 92-136 on line somewhere?
>I'd like to get a copy.....


I think I have a copy around here that someone posted.  I'll post it
in a couple of days if someone else doesn't.

By the way, the comment deadline on 92-136 was October 1st.
So if you haven't filed original comments already, they may not
read them (I think they have sometimes read late comments anyway but 
not with any regularity).  I filed my own comments in this matter
on the 29th and had to send them Priority mail to be sure they
arrived by the deadline.

The NPRM on Novice License testing has a comment deadline of October
9th.  So if you plan to file comments on that, you need to finish
them soon and get them in the mail!


-- 
John Covington WN4BBJ     Internet: jmcoving@mosaic.uncc.edu
P.O. Box 217122           MCI Mail: JCOVINGTON 342-6957
Charlotte, NC 28221-7122  Packet Radio Mail: WN4BBJ @ N7IJI.#CLT1.NC.USA.NA
(704) 537-7653            "Kenneth, what's the frequency?" "I dunno, ask Dan"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX Interference Solution?
Keywords: complete waste of bandwidth
Date: 28 Sep 1992 15:22:19 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <11197@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@platypus.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>Maybe we should just get the FCC to put things back the way they used to be.
>No repeaters below 146.000!!

Good luck. What do you propose to do with the thousand or so repeaters
nationwide in that range? Tell them to shut down and lose their (not
inconsiderable) investment? Try to cram them into a band already overcrowded
in the first place - the very reason that the 144.5-145.5 band was allocated
to repeaters in the first place? Or is there another solution in your pocket?
-- 
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.
    Vote for a REAL change on 3 November: Throw out the check-bouncing,
  tax-and-spend Democrat Congress! (obviously, not an opinion of UTHSCH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: brewer@anarky.enet.dec.com (John Brewer)
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date:  2 OCT 92 15:42:50    


In article <1992Oct02.172125.126804@watson.ibm.com>, uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal) writes...
>I quite agree with Phil. 

	I disagree. What a country!

      -------------------------------------------------------
      | John Brewer | Internet: brewer@anarky.enet.dec.com  |
      |   wb5oau    | Packet  | wb5oau@wb2ars               |
      -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: My comments on Docket 92-136
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:23:31 GMT

In article <williams.718146496@hobbes> williams@hobbes.qualcomm.com
(Paul Williamson) expresses doubts about removing the broadcasting
prohibition:

>Have you ever been involved with non-commercial (or "public") radio
>broadcasting?  I have.  Non-commercial broadcasters are a very
>enthusiastic lot.

Yes, I have, and yes, you're quite right. And I dare say they'd be
*far* more interesting to listen to than most existing ham QSOs. :-)

Seriously, I favor removing the broadcasting prohibition for the same
reasons I favor removing most of the other prohibitions in 97.113: to
permit hams to build new and novel forms of communication without
constantly worrying about their legality. Questions have already been
raised about whether usenet-style discussions and flames on packet,
for example, violate the no-broadcasting rule, and whether the content
of a packet bulletin is "of direct interest to radio amateurs only" to
be an allowable one-way transmission. The broadcasting prohibitions
are also susceptible to politically motivated abuse, as happened with
the now-famous "900 number" message during the Gulf War. (Even if
the business rule had not been in effect, the stations involved could
have been cited for participating in broadcasting since the message
was not directed to anyone in particular.)

> The non-comm station I was associated with started
>as a bootleg AM station, then went carrier-current on campus.  Their
>timing was good; about that time the FCC was granting 10-watt FM
>licenses with minimal paperwork.  After several upgrades, that station
>is now a 50,000W FM station in a major metro market (KTRU, the Rice
>University radio station, in Houston).

I don't think amateur radio has much to fear from activites like this.
First of all, very few members of the general public have receivers
capable of receiving amateur frequencies, and second, 2 KW is not very
much power by broadcast standards. Any self-respecting non-comm
operator will still want a spot in the regular broadcasting bands, or
he's going to have a pretty small audience.

Phil
From: rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Internet Gateway newsgroup cfd?
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 21:55:12 GMT
Organization: Lucky Duck Productions

rob@phoenix.erc.clarkson.edu writes in article <1992Sep28.141911.4070@news.clarkson.edu>:
> 
> > Why not forget this whole packet/INTERNET gateway garbage and just start 
> > connecting our litle pockets of IP activity directly to the INTERNET??
> 
> How do you stop a ham user from accepting an offer on misc.forsale?
> 

You don't, because there is no problem in that instance (i.e. it's
no different than swap nets, which according to an FCC advisory, are
explicitly legal.)
 
Rolfe Tessem               Lucky Duck Productions
rolfe@w3vh.UUCP            96 Morton Street, NYC, NY 10014
rolfe@ldp.com              212-463-0029
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Packet-Radio Digest V92 #196
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:05:18 GMT

In article <1appquINNc5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, brown@odin.ins.cwru.edu (Dan Brown) writes:
|> So, a question...
|> 
|> Is there any KA9Q package that would allow for bringing up a connection,
|> probably a SL/IP line, if and only if there were traffic for that connection?
|> As in, if I had a computer on an ethernet, or a packet net, and wanted to
|> send traffic via LL, but didn't want to keep the LL open all the time, is
|> it possible to set up KA9Q or its varieties to dial on demand?

Yes. This has been in my version of the code (at least) for some time.
It has gone through some changes, and I'm about to generalize them so
it's possible it will change again. Currently you specify a "script"
file with commands to dial a link when there's traffic, and another
script with commads to drop the link after a configurable idle period.

I use it from home to talk with a Telebit netblazer at work, and it
all functions quite well.

Please don't ask about documentation, as I said this stuff is experimental
and in a state of flux. If you want to play with it, read the source.

The aforementioned "generalization" will allow the demand-dialer feature
to work with interfaces other than SLIP, e.g., AX.25 connections, which
right now are opened on demand and never closed. When I get all this
done, THEN I'll document it.

Phil

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: jdl@lena.cc.columbia.edu (John Louie)
Subject: info request for "poor man's packet"
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:34:55 GMT

hi,

I've just read an article about a kit, that would cost about 30 dollars to  
make, which gives you packet on the mac.  (_73 amateur radio today_ oct  
'92)

in that same issue I see a small p/review (for PacComm's Baymod-9 $65) 
and an ad for Tigertronics's BayPac model BP-1 ($50).  Does anybody have  
any experience with these products?  Apperently, via software and by use  
of the computers serial line chip, the cost of getting on the air with  
packet is greatly reduced.  I was wondering if you lose any features?  as  
compared to say the full blown TNC's that cost over 100 dollars?

also, any pointers to other kits that can be made for under 50 bucks 
or any opinions from anyone that has made or tried any of the above
greatly appreciated.

john  N2RJE
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
From: ted@tedb.demon.co.uk (Edward Batts)
From: axa12@po.CWRU.Edu (Ashok Aiyar)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Clarification of my question abou - NOS 911229 2.0m SMTP mail handling
Date: 5 Oct 1992 19:30:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: axa12@po.CWRU.Edu (Ashok Aiyar)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I had previously asked whether it is possible for NOS to bounce
mail that arrives for a "non-existent" user on my system.

Specifically, is there anyway that I can have NOS check the 
/alias file and/or the /ftpusers file when mail arrives at my
system via SMTP.  If the addressee if not in one of those files, can
NOS automatically bounce the mail back to the sender (again via SMTP).

Is there any version of NOS that will do this.  I have tried WG7J NOS
1.04 and PA0GRI NOS 911229 2.0m, and cannot find anything in the manual
that will permit this.

Does anyone have any ideas/ways for me to get around this, without
having to send the mail back manually?

Ashok
-- 
                          Ashok Aiyar
   		       axa12@po.cwru.edu
                Visit the IBM-PC Sig on Freenet
From: P1782@VMCMS.CSUOHIO.EDU (Robert A. Bennett)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: FT-470 on packet
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:35:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsd.9210051335.AA24424
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

In response to:

JOHN AGNEW

John,
   I took the lazy way out and purchased the MFJ cable connectors to connect my
 ft470 to a KAM and a MFJ-1274. This I use for testing purposes from time to ti
me. Works fine for my purposes.
   I believe QST and one of the other radio mags here published the instruction
s and schematic for the connector. Maybe someone else here may have the dates a
t their immediate disposal.


Bob Bennett................p1782@vmcms.csuohio.edu
kf8ph@wa8bxn.oh.na.
44.70.4.113 (kf8ph @ clevsw.ampr.org.)