HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 15 Sep 1992 02:45:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	Our users are being covered by the high powered, home-
based stations.  We are hoping that the institution of an output
of our repeater audio on 145.55 will allow the local users to know
that our repeater is in use and that their operation would cause
interference.  In that way, the AMSAT users can operate knowing they
will not be unknowingly interfering with the repeater.
73,
Steve
NO8M.OH
-- 
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:1600 alt.folklore.urban:23075 misc.legal:16983
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is this legislation for real?
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Sep5.044504.20441@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>
> 
> I have been told that the following 2 things are before the Senate, but
> cannot locate them in Congressional Record and similar sources.  Can
> anyone elucidate?
> 
> (1) A bill to abolish private consulting, "Senate 1706", mentioned by
> a correspondent to Robert Pease in a recent issue of _Electronic Design_.
> (There _is_ a Senate 1706, but it has to do with import duties on some
> industrial chemicals.)
> 
> (2) A bill to ban receivers that can tune in cellular phones.
> (Right now, eavesdropping is illegal but the equipment itself isn't.)
> 

I don't know the answer, but I'm cross-posting to mic.legal, where someone 
else might (sorry, had to take sci.electronics off, as my newsreader doesn't 
support newsgroups lines greater than 80 characters).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: ehare@arrl.org (Ed Hare - KA1CV)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:29:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: arrl.508
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:

>In article <7240@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>|> Well, ARRL bashers: Still think Dave Sumner runs the League?
 
>|> This is a perfect example of how the ultimate decisions are made by elected
>|> Directors, and how the membership can (and does) make itself heard.

>If you think this is a 'perfect' example, then you probably believe Cromwell,
>the Wars of the Roses and the American Revolution are standard examples of
>the British government at work....

I really don't understand the analogy. It seems to me that those things
you cited are examples of how the actions of the British government could 
indeed be affected by those who wanted to make themselves heard. This seems
to be exactly the point Maynard was making. I am pleased that he pointed out 
that the actions of the League (the original decision by the Board of 
Directors) can indeed be influenced by strong action by concerned hams (time 
will tell in what way). 

I hope all of the events that are unfolding encourage others to make their 
feelings known, about this and any other issue. The ARRL is a strong force
in the shaping of Amateur Radio. The process and structure of the League
will allow you to influence the action of the do-ers in the League, mostly
by becoming a do-er yourself. It would not be realistic to expect that
a single casual comment would change the mind of the Board and Committee that
spent a lot of energy looking for a solution to a difficult issue. To 
be effective changing the outcome of any sequence of events almost always
requires some hard work. In general, those who care deeply about an issue are 
the ones willing to do what it takes to effect change. Those who do not feel 
strongly will not be willing to put much of themselves into the process. I 
much prefer that the issues be decided by the former.

Rather than cast stones, let us applaud the people (on all sides of this
issue) who were willing to decide that we need to take a second, closer look 
at what the issues are. If I could get that attitude out of all of our 
government elected officials it would not be difficult to cast my vote in 
Novemember :-). It seems to me that many of those involved in this issue may 
have been a bit hasty in their actions and inactions. I am just glad that more
opinions about what needs to be done are getting the opportunity to be
expressed -- an opportunity that all concerned should take full advantage of!

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed


-----
Ed Hare, KA1CV                  ehare@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League
225 Main St.
Newington, CT  06111            There is no limit to what you can 
(203) 666-1541 - voice          accomplish if you don't care who
ARRL Laboratory Supervisor      gets the credit. - Harry S Truman
RFI, xmtr and rcvr testing  
-----
From: aar001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Profesional Courtesy VS. Necessity
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:07:59 GMT

	Another Question,

		I am preparing to start my 100ft range dorm radio station.
	Now that the techinical\Broadcast issues are in order, I have a second
	important question:
	
		Do I need to contact the music distributers and companys before
	I play their music?

	I already have the addresses and letters written for my top 20 favorite
	companys, but I don't want to send them if it isn't necessary.  I want
	to do everything by the book, so that nothing can ever be held against
	me by my college, Drake University, if they ever try to dissuade me 
	from my radio interests!
							Thanks in advance
							Andy Russell
							AAR001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU

	-=-=-=-=-=-=-TRYING TO STAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:03:44 -0600

Well.... I've enjoyed reading the various comments on this issue.  I appreciate
all of the responses and suggestions.  Most of the responses have been very
helpful.


It looks like things turned out well this time.  I know that everyone is not so
lucky when it comes to things like this.


Erik
N0SVX

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table - N0SVX - Minnetonka, MN (1:282/31)
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 14 Sep 1992 03:17:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


 
145.29R SAREX Interference
 
     The SAREX uplink frequency of 144.70 MHz that has been used in
the United States is 10 Khz away from the input of the 145.29 Mhz
repeater pair.  There is a great deal of interest in this operation
in our area.  There has been many stations attempting (and
attempting and attempting and attempting) connects to the shuttle
and bringing up our repeater.  No doubt, the 145.31 machine that is
in our area is also being affected.
 
      Personally, I preferred the interference to the PacketCluster
on 144.95.  Any chance they could go back there?
 
      The ARRL bulletin indicated they would use the 144.7 frequency
over Europe.  Maybe if anyone on the road sees them they can knock
on their window and mention it.
 
73,
 Steve
  NO8M @ NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA
 
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 02:44:27 GMT

In article <715846159.F00001@tdkt.kksys.com> Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson) writes:

details of ham being stopped and told he was breaking the law (city law)
by having radio equipment in his car... deleted

>I'd give out my friend's name/callsign, and the city/county involved, but my
>friend doesn't want to deal with further hassels at this time. 
>  But if he says yes, I may be tempted to throw out
>the city and county this happened in.  (And it isn't my city/county...)

Without additional info, how can we eliminate these unfair and probably
incorrect activity by some police officers?

At this time, there is no single state law that imposes any such
restrictions on any ham.  The ARRL would be most interested in being
made aware of any local, county or city laws which might be on the
books that make it illegal for a ham to have radio equipment in his/her
car.  PLEASE get us more details...at least the specific city, county
involved and the ordinance/law/statute number.  

As someone else has suggested in another reply, your friend may
have been the victim of a smartass cop flexing his muscle with no
actual law(s) to back him up.

>One last question...  My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?

Most likely, but we need more specific info to be sure.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

If automatic email replies to me bounce, then use a manual address
as shown in my sig
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 13:31:32 GMT

In article <715923491.F00001@tdkt.kksys.com> Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson) writes:
>In Minnesota (where this happened) it is legal to carry a scanner in your car as
>long as you carry an amateur radio license.  He did carry this, and showed it to
>the peace officer.  

It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically
allows hams to have equipment in their vehicles.  This too can be
a plus for your friend since the state law can possibly be viewed
as overriding any individual city or county ordinance/law that might
not have a ham exemption.

The Minnesota statute/law that is applicable is Minn. Stat. 299C.37 (1988).
The law specifically prohibits having radio receiving equipment (ie. scanners,
etc.) in motor vehicles.  There is, however, a specific exemption
for a person who "hold(s) an amateur radio license issued by the FCC..."
The ham exemption does not apply to a ham if the ham has been convicted
of a crime of violence as defined by section 624.712, subdivision 5,
within the last 10 years.

Please keep us posted as to the final outcome of your friends encounter
AND if there is any specific city/county ordinance which the local police
may be trying to enforce over that of the state statute.  Also, as
someone else suggested, do keep any local ARES/RACES, ham clubs
and the local ARRL folks appraised of the situation.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

Note: If direct email to me bounces, resend being sure to use one of the
addresses in my sig.
From: rtaylor@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Roger Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: delete keys
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:59:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

It appears that quite a few people don't know that they can delete 
some/most/all lines in a post that they are responding to.  Check
with your sys folks if you don't know how and spare us the time and
bandwidth to read 3 pages of previously read stuff to get to your
one or two lines of comment, PLEASE.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: sam@wa4phy.ampr.org (Sam Drinkard)
Subject: Re: HF STA Reps Candidate Info
Reply-To: sam@wa4phy.nscf.org (Sam Drinkard)
Organization: Diversified Computer Services, Augusta, GA 
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:56:17 GMT

Ditto....
-- 
	Sam Drinkard		internet: sam@wa4phy.NSCF.Org
	WA4PHY			amprnet:  wa4phy@wa4phy.ampr.org

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: carlson@linac.fnal.gov (Kermit Carlson)
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Organization: Fermiland, Batavia, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:21:52 GMT

In article <193ip4INN2lv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>
>	Our users are being covered by the high powered, home-
>based stations.  We are hoping that the institution of an output
>of our repeater audio on 145.55 will allow the local users to know
>that our repeater is in use and that their operation would cause
>interference.  In that way, the AMSAT users can operate knowing they
>will not be unknowingly interfering with the repeater.
>73,
>Steve
>NO8M.OH
>-- 

Steve,

   If your repeater now has *TWO* outputs on 2meters it is engaged
in operation prohibited by the FCC rules; not to mention your 
intention to cause intereference with the SAREX operation is also
prohibited. 

                                               Kermit  W9XA
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:42:45 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <715846159.F00001@tdkt.kksys.com> Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson) writes:
>
>This evening, a friend of mine was stopped in his car for carrying a ham radio
>and a scanner.  This friend was doing NOTHING illegal, and didn't only have his
>amateur radio license, but also his civil defense license (for MARS) with him.
>The police officier said that he wasn't supposed to be carrying that stuff.  My
>friend tried to claim that this was incorrect, but after the officier started
>looking like he would take the equiptment, my friend stated something to the
>effect of "I didn't know that was true."  I believe the officier made some sort
>of comment stating that it was against the city ordinance.  Arrrgh. Right.
>
[deleted]
>
>One last question...  My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?

Maybe, maybe not. There are local and state laws concerning mobile use
of radio equipment. Some, like scanner possession, are, IMHO, unConstitutional, 
but would require your friend to go to Federal court to get them overturned. 
That's a long and expensive process. Others are clearly legal, such as the
prohibition against using headphones while driving or having an ATV receiver 
visible from the driver's position. In many cases, local laws classify
mobile possession of scanners and two way radio equipment as the equivalent
of possession of burglar tools since they might allow you to avoid police 
patrols. Possession of burglar tools is a very vague area of law. A tire
iron could be considered a burglar tool, and every car has one. This type
of law is used by police to hassle anyone they consider undesirable.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY))
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:09:40 GMT

Puhleeeze people... Is it necessary to quote 75 or so lines from an
article just to put two of your own (plus an 8 line .sig) at the
bottom? I don't care about bandwidth, it's just loopey and annoying.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: Chuck Adams <chuck_adams@qmail.ssc.gov>
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:24:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.195719.21221@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com
(edwin.m.schaefer) writes:

(Prior material deleted to appease Mr. Gefaell)

>But don't call from your _own_ telephone, _don't_ let them know who you are,
>and be aware that if they react negatively to your interference they may
>direct their reaction against your friend even if they don't know you.

Bet he didn't know *they* even monitor usenet traffic.  Now they know *who he
is*.

nudge-nudge
wink-wink
;-)   ;-)


                      Chuck Adams,  WB5WRR   (The Chuckster)
                 Not an official document of DOE, SSCL, URA or EG&G
               Try Internet brand Tequila -  "A worm in every bottle"
             Internet:  chuck_adams@qmail.ssc.gov  (aka 143.202.130.11)


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Anyone else submitted 92-136 comments?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:44:32 GMT

I've put together some fairly comprehensive (about 5 pages of) comments,
but usually gregarious, outspoken (almost to an annoying degree, I'm
sure) me finds himself suprisingly hesitant to share his opinions to a
public forum to have them shot down.  (Perhaps because comments to the
FCC are much higher stakes than flaming on Usenet).

So, I'll make a deal with the net.  If someone else posts their
comments, I promise I will post mine (and even submit them! :-).

Any takers?

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: SAREX 145.29R Interference
Date: 16 Sep 1992 01:35:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


     I posted a message about interference that began during the
assistance one ham (K8SCI) was rendering another ham (N8VLX) who
was disabled on a highway.  A tow truck call was being made.
At the time the frequency belonged to those two gentlemen.  Not
AMSAT.  Not NASA.  Not the people who were working the shuttle.
     However, because the gent who was causing the interference
did not care to monitor the frequency or the output frequency for
the (low power) mobile in trouble, a serious case of interference
resulted.
     I agree.  At that time we owned the frequency.
73,
Steve, NO8M
--
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:56:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

>Well, let me put it this way, Rodney King is paranoid, and the cops are
>innocent. Uh Huh. 73
 
and the reporters didn't show the whole tape on TV and concentrated on the 
sensational =-= not that the cops are anymore guilty or innocent for reporters
biasing the story that way.  but that bias sure raised expectations of the 
outcome of the trial.  obviously there's evidence that 10 seconds of video 
tape didn't include that convinced the jury.

the correct answer:  get the cops interested in amateur radio and licensed.  
that way they are either involved or would know someone who is and then 
amateur radio isn't some wacko activity any more.

amateur radio is not a crime.  (should i print bumper stickers?)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris @pulsar)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Summary: shuttle retransmissions restricted by new rule
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:54:30 GMT

In <pschleck.714803051@cwis> pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>     97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
>     (e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from
>any type of radio station other than an amateur station, except
>propagation and weather forecast information originating from United
>States Government stations, and communications originating on United
>States Government frequencies between a space shuttle and its associated
>Earth stations.  ...  

>Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
>conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
>normal amateur radio communications.

I didn't see this mentioned by anyone, but the proposed 97.113(e) has a NEW
restriction on retransmitting shuttle communications, that is,
"...retransmissions may not be conducted on a regular basis".   Does this
mean that stations such as WA3NAN (Goddard Space Flight Center ARC) which
retransmit the shuttle comm for every flight would be in violation of the
new rule?  

This is yet another rule that is open to interpretation.  How do we interpret
"regular"?  

I don't see any point to this added restriction, especially in a
proposal to RELAX restrictions.
--GaryM
-- 
Gary Morris KK6YB             Internet: garym@telesoft.com
TeleSoft                      Packet:   KK6YB@W2XO or KK6YB@KC6NZN
San Diego, CA USA             Phone:    +1 619-457-2700 x128
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 22:48:38 -0600

 GC> Maybe, maybe not. There are local and state laws concerning mobile use
 GC> of radio equipment. Some, like scanner possession, are, 
 GC> IMHO, unConstitutional, 

In Minnesota (where this happened) it is legal to carry a scanner in your car as
long as you carry an amateur radio license.  He did carry this, and showed it to
the peace officer.  

Garry, I appreciate your response.  I hope to hear from you again.

Erik 
N0SVX

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:19:47 GMT

Erik@tdkt.kksys.com (Erik Jacobson) writes about harrassment from
police.

I received shoddy treatment once from the campus rent-a-cops at a college
I attended. I was on my way home and stopped to lean against a post
for a second so I could dial the autopatch. I was accosted by a
pair of campus "police" and asked to identify myself. I gave them
the minimum and refused to give them my phone number or show them
my driver's license (I wasn't driving). I then told them that I
was a licensed Amateur Radio Operator and pointedly told them
that if I was under arrest I wanted to know the charge. If not,
then I was going to be on my way. They folded and I went home.
I then called a meeting of the campus Amateur Radio club (all 5 of
us), and we wrote a letter to the "Public Safety" department with
the strongest possible language, but never heard anything back from
them. But they never pestered us again either.

-- 
Nick Sayer <mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us> | "My friends used to say I was such a nerd
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA       |  But I refused to touch that strange bean curd!
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W             |  Ah ee oh! Killer tofu! ee-ah-ee!
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'   |  Ah ee oh! Killer tofu!"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy