HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lkay@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (leonard kay)
Subject: Re: QSL's VIA F6FNU
Keywords: QSL F6FNU GREENSTUFF
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:49:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.142438.21457@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 
wstrahl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (wayne.a.strahl) writes:
> 
> FR5DX has been frustrating.  Nothing seems to 'work' getting prompt
> direct return QSL's but eventually everyone I know seems to get them
> back thru the bureau.  Mega-patience is required.
> 
> Serious REAL[tm] DX'ers always have to rationalize this QSL'ing cost
> in perspective versus what is invested in their hardware and time.
> May your envelopes be stuffed with choice goodies..
> 
> Wayne Strahl - W9II      wstrahl@cbnewsg.att.com


I personally haven't worked FR5DX yet, but being Real[tm] DXers
I assume everyone is addressing Reunion *via France* so it gets
there as domestic mail.... Do the cards still come back thru the buro?

Len


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dr. Leonard Kay, KB2R               | "But we are not dealing with the
 Electrical and Computer Engineering |  normal world. We are chasing DX."
 Northeastern University, Boston     |    -- W9KNI, 'The Complete DXer'
 NU ARC: W1KBN 145.31(-)             |
 Packet: KB2R@K1EA                   | #include <disclaimer.h> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:44:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.134339.24605@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> johng@ecs.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.151136.22983@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>.... For instance, a business band radio *must* have only
>>non-user programable channels to get Type Accepted in that service and the
>>number of channels may not exceed the maximum number of channels allowed
>>to one licensee.... 
>
>One exception to this in 90.203 allows user frequency programming from the front
>of the radios designed for use in aircraft.  Part 90 radios can also be
>designed so the frequencies are typed in but a jumper or switch in the radio
>must be used to enable the front pannel programming mode.  While the programming
>mode is enabled transmit must be disabled. 

Land mobile rules are different from aircraft rules I believe. I'm no
expert on aircraft radio rules, but I think the FAA has it's hand in
there as well as the FCC and the ITU.

>I am not familiar with a rule that says the number of channels in the radio must
>not exceed the number allowed to one licensee.  Imagine the logistical problems
>this would pose for a manufacturer.  Our largest channel capacity radios are
>capable of 255 modes.  I doubt there any customers (except maybe a few federal
>ones) that are authorized for this many frequencies. 

Yes, but the limitation isn't on any *given* licensee. Rather it's on
the class of licensee for the particular service. So a 16 channel radio
is legal for use by a licensee who only has one frequency assigned. Though
I think that's where the non-user programablility comes in.

Gary KE4ZV
From: tstader@aol.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Commercial radios on ham bands
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:20:49 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

> Ham-Policy Digest    Sat, 12 Dec 92      Volume 92 : Issue  298
>
> Today's Topics:
>               Commercial radios on ham bands (4 msgs)

Not sure what happened Gary... but your post never made it into the "digest"
version.... but must have showed up in the mailing-list format.

Could you please resend your reply to my query.

Thanks

73 for now.... c u on the shortwaves
Terry - KA8SCP/1, America Online Ham Radio Club Host
Internet: tstader@aol.com (files <28K)  _or_  
          tstader@attmail.com (files >28K)
KA8SCP@WA1PHY.#EMA.MA.USA.NOAM  _or_ 
ka8scp@ka8scp.ampr.org [44.56.4.82]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: New licensing system?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:00:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.223056.17715@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>In article <wf_=4ti00WB985SXEQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Keith Poole <kp2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>With reference to retesting -- I think it is cruel to take away from men
>>in their 70s and 80s the hobby that they enjoy.  As a CW/AMTOR only amateur,
>>I often run into retired men in their 70s and 80s on both modes (re AMTOR,
>>they have switched over from Baudot).  So you are going to force men of this
>>age to retake examinations?  What a wonderful brave new world.
>
>This is a valid point that the technical arguments don't address.  We often
>get so caught up in technical arguments that it's easy to forget that this is
>a multifaceted HOBBY and that each faction does enjoy itself.  With every
>reduction in testing standards, we do run the risk of turning the hobby
>into a utility.  While it is true that the latter is more useful, is really
>more fun?

While many amateurs *view* their participation in the Amateur Radio Service
as a hobby, that word will be nowhere found in Part 97. Instead you'll
find that the ARS is a service designed for voluntary self training, 
advancement of the radio arts, public service in emergencies, and 
to foster international goodwill. The Service exists only because it
is in the *public* interest for it to do so. 

While certain old men may get pleasure from participating in the Amateur 
Radio Service, like some others get pleasure by volunteering their time 
and money to other pursuits like volunteer fire departments, or EMS services, 
or Meals on Wheels, that is not the reason for the ARS to exist or the basis 
for it's regulations. Nor should it be.

The ARS itself, and it's regulations, exist only for the purpose of 
furthering the public interest as outlined in the basis and purpose 
statement at the head of Part 97. If that gives some people pleasure 
as a *side effect*, so much the better, but that isn't it's primary 
purpose. Amateur radio was not established to be a "hobby" even though 
many have attempted to turn it into "just a hobby" for their own purposes. 
If the ARS becomes widely viewed as "just a hobby", then it will no longer 
be serving it's purposes and it's valuable spectrum can be reassigned to 
commercial services without further adieu.

Gary KE4ZV
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Commercial Radios on Ham Bands
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:04:20 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

>>One exception to this in 90.203 allows user frequency prog from the front
>>of the radios designed for use in aircraft.  Part 90 radios can also be
>>designed so the frequencies are typed in but a jumper or switch in the radio
>>must be used to enable the front panel prog mode. While the programming
>>mode is enabled transmit must be disabled.
> 
>Land mobile rules are different from aircraft rules I believe. I'm no
>expert on aircraft radio rules, but I think the FAA has it's hand in
>there as well as the FCC and the ITU.
>

you change frequencies all the time when you are flying.  just look at any 
aircraft navigation chart and you'll see the spectrum management job the FAA's
got on their hands.   electronic controls for the radios have memory for 
storing at least 1 and usually several frequencies - good enough for a leg or 
even an entire route for some flights.  And of course, besides the comm radios
you get a couple of VHF navs, a couple of ADFs, and a transponder or two.

(oh, yes, usually the DME is tied to the VHF Nav, but there are some places 
where you have to have the DME hold it's frequency while you check another nav
station....so maybe a couple of DMEs gets added to the frequency management 
tasks along with ILS during landing.)


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: mikef@pacifier.rain.com (Mike Freeman)
Subject: Re: New licensing system? (Cut down the CW bands!!)
Organization: Pacifier BBS
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:17:08 GMT

In article <Bz1ts8.LAI@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rtaylor@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Roger Taylor) writes:
>
>	"Superior" technology or modes shouldn't have to be protected
>	if they are better, RIGHT?  Protect the Novice CW bands maybe.
>	Every thing else should be fair game.  Let's use all the 
>	specturm available for communication, not reserve much of it
>	for static or white noise much of the time.


Well now!  This assumes that what goes on in the voice bands (as
opposed to what goes on in the CW bands) is communications.
Given my listening of late, I am not so certain that this is a
defensible proposition {grin}!!

-- 
Mike Freeman <K7UIJ>    |       Internet: mikef@pacifier.rain.com
301 N.E. 107th Street   |         or freeman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Vancouver, WA 98685 USA |       GEnie: M.FREEMAN11
Telephone (206)574-8221 |       I doubt, therefore I might be!
From: eric@j30264293.reslife.cornell.edu (Eric L. Beyer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: email, USENET, and other TCP/IP goodies..
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:19:24 GMT
Organization: The Solaris Development Group
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Nntp-Posting-User: elb1@cornell.edu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newssoftware: GRn-beta 1.16g (10.12.92) by Michael B. Smith & Mike Schwartz
Mime-Version: 1.0


-- 

  1) Is it illegal for somebody to reply to SMTP email that is sent through
   a HAM-INTERNET gateway if that person does not have a license?

  2) What about USENET, where most people who post articles do NOT have
licenses?

--
  Eric L. Beyer
  Proud owner of his rusty A500
  Paper pusher of Solaris Devlopment Group
  (elb1@cornell.edu)
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Commercial Radios on Ham Bands
Date: 14 Dec 1992 15:30:26 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

You still can't tune a VHF aviation or marine radio out of band, even though
you can change the frequency.  You're not supposed to be able to tune a
marine or aviation HF radio outside of band either, this change was rather
recent, though there's lots of older stuff out there that let you. This also
doesn't begin to indicate the number of Ham rigs out there being used in these
bands.

-Ron
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: FCC change of address change of policy?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:31:09 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> FCC: "You don't need to send in a change of address for Amateur.  It's not
> required."

I don't think it was ever REQUIRED by regulation (unlike the FAA which
requires pilots to notify them when they move).  But it's a good idea.
It's not going to hold any water a year from now when some spurious pink
slip they sent to your old address gets lost or returned marked forwarding
order expired and you also get hit up for failure to respond.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:38:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.211447.21615@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kirk.Smith@launchpad.unc.edu (Kirk Smith) writes:
>Isn't the non-user programmability of Land Mobile radios a fairly "new"
>rule?  The older Icom and Regency land mobile products were keyboard
>prorammable right out of the box (newer stuff requires diodes to be
>removed to enable field-programming), so arn't they grandfathered, or
>does the FCC expect all users with older radios to junk them and buy
>newer non-programmable radios?

Yes it is a fairly new rule. It was established to deal with the problem
of land mobile users re-programnming their radios to include a "less 
busy" channel outside their license authority. Sort of like "freebanding"
among CBers. The older radios are grandfathered.

>An email conversation with another net-ham pointed out to me that it is
>illegal to have a land-mobile radio programmed with both amateur and
>non amateur (ie: business band, public safety, etc) frequencies, even
>if the user is licensed for both, unless the radio owner made provisions
>in his land-mobile license to include the amateur frequencies.  This would
>make it rather difficult to comply with the law, as ham frequencies change
>frequently depending on the repeater the ham wanted to access (or simplex,
>or whatever).  Anyone want to provide input on this?

Modifying a land mobile radio to operate on frequencies outside the land
mobile service voids the Type Acceptance of the radio. Thus it would be
legal to use on the ham bands where Type Acceptance isn't required, but
would now be illegal to use on the orginal land mobile channels.

Gary KE4ZV

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: johng@ecs.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Organization: Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:43:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.151136.22983@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>.... For instance, a business band radio *must* have only
>non-user programable channels to get Type Accepted in that service and the
>number of channels may not exceed the maximum number of channels allowed
>to one licensee.... 

One exception to this in 90.203 allows user frequency programming from the front
of the radios designed for use in aircraft.  Part 90 radios can also be
designed so the frequencies are typed in but a jumper or switch in the radio
must be used to enable the front pannel programming mode.  While the programming
mode is enabled transmit must be disabled. 

I am not familiar with a rule that says the number of channels in the radio must
not exceed the number allowed to one licensee.  Imagine the logistical problems
this would pose for a manufacturer.  Our largest channel capacity radios are
capable of 255 modes.  I doubt there any customers (except maybe a few federal
ones) that are authorized for this many frequencies. 

-- 
John Gilbert                          johng@ecs.comm.mot.com  
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: New licensing system?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:14:05 GMT

In article <wf_=4ti00WB985SXEQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Keith Poole <kp2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>With reference to retesting -- I think it is cruel to take away from men
>in their 70s and 80s the hobby that they enjoy.  As a CW/AMTOR only amateur,
>I often run into retired men in their 70s and 80s on both modes (re AMTOR,
>they have switched over from Baudot).  So you are going to force men of this
>age to retake examinations?  What a wonderful brave new world.

If they can no longer demonstrate the *minimum* competence required to
be an amateur radio operator by retaking the exam, then either they
shouldn't be on the amateur bands, or the exams are irrelevent to the
usage of amateur radio spectrum. Would you allow a person who can no
longer demonstrate competence to operate a motor vehicle to continue
to hold a driver's license? Would you want an electrician who can no
longer pass the electrician exam wiring your house, or your child's
school? Failure to retain the knowledge required to *enter* the profession
makes them no longer qualified to safely *practice* the profession.
*Or* the knowledge required on the entrance exam was *irrelevant* to
begin with. Go either way, retest or admit the entrance exam is flawed.
I don't care either way. But the current situation is hypocritical.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: New licensing system?
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:30:56 GMT

In article <wf_=4ti00WB985SXEQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Keith Poole <kp2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>With reference to retesting -- I think it is cruel to take away from men
>in their 70s and 80s the hobby that they enjoy.  As a CW/AMTOR only amateur,
>I often run into retired men in their 70s and 80s on both modes (re AMTOR,
>they have switched over from Baudot).  So you are going to force men of this
>age to retake examinations?  What a wonderful brave new world.

This is a valid point that the technical arguments don't address.  We often
get so caught up in technical arguments that it's easy to forget that this is
a multifaceted HOBBY and that each faction does enjoy itself.  With every
reduction in testing standards, we do run the risk of turning the hobby
into a utility.  While it is true that the latter is more useful, is really
more fun?



--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:42:11 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Amateur equipment does *not* require Type Acceptance *ever*. Manufactured 
>amateur equipment must be Type Certified to meet Part 15 limitations for
>*intentional* radiators. This is totally unrelated to the requirements of 
>Type Acceptance and is shared in common with certain ISM equipment, cordless 
>phones, and the like.

Uh, Gary, what about the requirement of type-acceptance for "regular
manufacturers" of linear amplifiers capable of operation between 1.8 and
144 Mhz?  Seems this was a topic of much heated discussion on
rec.radio.cb a while back.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu
From: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:44:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-a.west.sun.com

In article <1992Dec16.184153.2475@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Well let's see, I said that modifying a land mobile radio to work in
>the ham bands  would void it's Type Acceptance. Therefore it would
>now be legal to use in the ham bands where Type Acceptance is not
>required, but would be illegal to use in it's original service.
>
>I also said in response to another query that one of the older land
>mobile radios, grandfathered in before the user programability restrictions,
>that could tune the ham bands *unmodified* would be ok in both services.
>

Just curious but what if the person doing the modification were a duly
licensed commercial (General Radiotelephone) technician?  I would think
that they would be allowed to make small modifications. No?

-fred - General Radiotelephone Licensee
	(formerly First Class Radiotelephone) since 1975

-- 
[ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ                             Fred.Lloyd@West.Sun.COM ]
[ Sun Microsystems,           Southwest Area Solaris Transition Manager ]
[ Phoenix, AZ         - The future starts today! -       (602) 275-4242 ]
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: email, USENET, and other TCP/IP goodies..
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:35:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: gaia.1gau1oINNimc
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyking.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec11.171924.15793@mail.cornell.edu> eric@j30264293.reslife.cornell.edu (Eric L. Beyer) writes:

>  1) Is it illegal for somebody to reply to SMTP email that is sent through
>   a HAM-INTERNET gateway if that person does not have a license?

Of course not. How is a user supposed to know where the mail originated?
How can it be illegal for him to reply in the same medium in which he
received it?

>  2) What about USENET, where most people who post articles do NOT have
>licenses?

Also of course not. Posting to USENET, other than posting material
illegal for other reasons, is not illegal.

Neither of those questions asks whether it is illegal for the amateur
involved in taking the material from the net and transmitting it in the
amateur bands. Either from the FCC side of things, or from a copyright
violation viewpoint.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Ky Scanner Law - Update
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Dec7.165334.14626@ms.uky.edu> hgpeach@ms.uky.edu (Harold Peach) writes:
>
>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.
>

To avoid having to go to court, perhaps you or your club could
obtain a letter from the commissioner.  They could carry copies
of the letter in their cars to show to any police officer who
was unaware of the law.





-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay.Townsend@f8.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: New licensing system?
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:11:24 GMT


 GC> From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 GC> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

 GC> In article <1g58hbINNcan@network.ucsd.edu> 
 GC> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>I think the American CW-only bands should be open to all
>non-analog-voice modes, which would include packet, amtor, fax,
>slowscan, digital voice, etc.
 GC> their speed. :-)

 GC> Now on to what I *really* think. I think that government mandated mode 
 GC> limits on the various band segments are a mistake. Canada apparently
 GC> agrees since they stopped doing that. Voluntary band plans are sufficient
 GC> to allow modal separation if that becomes a problem. Voluntary band plans
 GC> are more flexible than government regulations and can be adjusted more
 GC> quickly to match usage patterns. If there appears to be a need for a 

A very good point and I think one that is quite correct.  What is and has been
at issue here is the exclusive portion of the band for foreign SSB. This is the
main reason we have seperation.  Take 20 meters for example.  14.150 to 14.350
for US SSB.  14.115 to 14.150 for foreign SSB.  14.095 - 14.115 for packet.
14.080 to 14.095 RTTY, Clover, PacTor. 14.065 to 14.080 Amtor and 14.025 to
14.065 slow CW and 14.000 to 14.025 for DXing.  The only regulation is no phone
below 14.150 and no Digital about 14.150.  CW can go anywhere.

Pretty much a voluntary band plan except the excluded area of 14.115 to 14.150
I would say.

We trade that foreign phone band for other things, behind closed doors.



 * Origin: Think Tank II * FX BBS * Spokane, WA (509) 244-6446 (1:346/8)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy