HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pschleck@odin.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:35:30 GMT

m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White) writes:

>Paul W Schleck KD3FU writes:
>> Asking the FCC is dangerous business, and is best left to the experts.

>You seem to be saying "If you don't ask, they can't say no".  I see you 
>point, but I have to disagree with you.  What if they really did object to 
>music on hold, and expressed their objection in the form of one of those 
>$20,000 fines they're throwing around these days.  I would rather do 
>what's right and obey the rules (as I'm sure you would, too) than take 
>chances by flirting around the edges of poorly understood regulations.  If 
>music on hold is against the rules, then it's against the rules whether I 
>ask about it or not.  "Let sleeging dogs lie" is a dangerous philosophy; 
>they can wake up and bite you.

(It looks like I've been a bit of a hypocrite in encouraging this thread
to flourish in the *.misc group, so....)

Historically (and even today), the FCC has only bothered cracking down
on willful, repeated violations.  These are generally violations that
have been researched by the Amateur Auxilliary and the violator knows
full well what he is doing is illegal and has had ample warning that
someone is "out to get him.  If you look at the FCC fine schedule, most
of those whoppers include a lot of "add-ons" like repeated incidents,
willful violations, refusal to allow station inspection, refusal to
cooperate with authorities, deliberate operation in another service and
without a license (usually in the case of pirate radio) etc., etc.

The FCC is pragmatic, and only goes after violations that are "worth its
while."  The FCC also wants to save work for itself, and opening up a
lot of legal questions and court cases by going after small fry is not
good policy.

In the case of the 1-900 Desert Storm message, the packet sysops were
pink-ticketed, but after replying to the pink ticket, no one got fined.
There was one incident where the sysop was precluded from operating his
BBS, but this was due to an pink-ticket that didn't explicitly state all
the violations (and I would be very surprised if it hasn't been worked
out by now).

As Jay Maynard stated the last time this came up, try to operate within
the best working interpretation of the rules (ask the *League* if you
must ask someone, as they generally know more about the rules than many
in the FCC), and if you get pink-ticketed, cooperate with the
authorities and promise "never to do it again."  I would be very
surprised if anyone has been fined for unknowingly operating in the grey
area of a rules interpretation and didn't cease and desist when warned.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu

 
>************************
>* These are my opinions only.*
>************************
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: Deed restriction bans all ham antennas
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:42:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

bill@uofs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

>First, what law, Federal or otherwise, gives anyone the right 
>to have an antenna in their backyard??  Before you say PRB-1, 
>let me remind you that PRB-1 is not a law, only an administrative 
>clarification.    It also has not held up in court as well as
>some of our USENET armchair lawyers would have you believe.

It's *MY* backyard.

Actually this all comes down to the overall issue of what rights the
other people in your community and neighborhood have to control what
YOU do on YOUR property.  If it adversely affects them in certain
ways, then they very well could have such authority.  The sticky parts
are in determining when this is so.

I certainly would not like having a neighbor have a 100 foot tall rusty
tower, with several crossmembers broken, and sinking or absent base,
just 20 feet from my property.  Some reasonable standards must exist.

However whem people object to these things just because they do not like
the looks (one common objection) then I think they are going too far.

Also, if RFI is a fear, then they need to address it themselves, through
the FCC since that is the appropriate authority (and Congress, to give
them the budget to do the job) or by making sure that they do not operate
electronics in a way that receives ham radio signals on ham radio frequencies
(which too many things do, which is not the hams' fault).


>As to your second comment above, what we really need is less 
>lawyers (period), but that is a discussion for another news group.

alt.kill.all.the.lawyers.and.politicians.bang.bang.bang.dead.and.buried
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From: stevew@netcom.com (Steven Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Digital Committee Info Please
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:24:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul27.130414.1@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com>, estey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com writes:
> A even better starting point would be to get the list of who is on the Digital
> Committee including:
> a.  Mailing address
> b.  Phone numbers or/and network access

Well, A & B were published in QST a couple months ago. 

Steve KA6S
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jim@coplex.com (Jim Sewell)
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.005415.273@qualcomm.com> karn@chicago.qualcomm.com writes:
>
>I plan to file comments that call for a very simple rule: the only
>thing you can't do is to *sell ham radio communications*. Period.
>Anything else goes.  This rule captures the *amateur* nature of the
>service, it is very simple and easy to understand, and it should limit
>any abuse to very low levels. After all, what ham wants to provide a
>large-scale common carrier service to a money-making company for free?
>
>Phil
>
>
But Phil, what is to prevent a company such as Federal Express, for example,
from requiring all drivers to be ham operators and then using the 2M HT's for
tracking the drivers and giving directions and so on?  Can you imagine how
much traffic only one such company would create and how many hams couldn't
use the repeaters because of the business stuff?  And, worse of all, this
would be legal under your rule since none of the people would be paid to use
ham radio to pass a message, it would be part of their job to do so.  The 
boss could claim that "We are not paying them to talk on the radio, we are
paying them to deliver packages."

IMHO there must be stronger verbage in the new rule to prevent this kind of
abuse.  In my personal and probably unpopular opinion there should be no change
to the current rule.  If you want a bucket of chicken to meet you at home you
should call from the office or the car phone, not ham radio.  Of course I have
no problem with emergency traffic such as A A A and not much of a problem to
write the rule to allow one to call a business and ask an address, but then
again, do that before you leave.

		73 de KD4CKQ
		Jim
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Paul Flaherty Proposal
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:24:16 GMT


 
 
Paul Flaherty's  Proposal
 
>>Summary:
 
>>Given the arguments made in the report by the ARRL Committee on Amateur
Radio
>>Digital Communications, an estimation of the needs of the autoforwarding BBS
>>community, and an understanding of the technical state of the art, the
>>concept of unattended HF automatic forwarding should be reconsidered.  The
>>following are suggestions in this regard.
 
 
>>1. A 10 kHz allocation, channelized initially at 500 kHz.
 
>>2. Allocations on the 12, 17, and 30m bands.
 
>>3. 100w output power to a 10dbi or greater directive antenna.
 
>>4. Unattended HF autoforwarding by Extra Class Licensees only.
 
>>5. A coordinated operation has precedence over an uncoordinated operation.
 
Comments:
 
Lets take a look at this proposal, for which I commend you.  First of all it
is apparent that this is a PACKET only proposal.
 
For you see, packet and other Digital Modes do not co-exist on the same
frequency. If you would like a demonstration give me a call and your packet
frequency I will fire up an APLINK system or a RTTY QSO. Item two is already
in place other than the restrictions that you require.  Item three is fine.
 
Item four is the worst part of the entire proposal.  Why is an EXTRA class any
better, more capable, or anything.  The FCC has just dropped their SPACE
restrictions from an extra class.  Not a single operator that went into SPACE
was an EXTRA all were given exemptions.  What does the ability to copy CW have
to do with Digital. I am an extra, but so what.
 
Item five is the most wonderful of all and is the part that always gets me.
Lets see.  The AMTOR folks don't get along with the RTTY folks.  The packet
folks don't like the PACTOR HF autoforwarders and on and on.  The frequencys
would of course be restricted from normal use? Could I try CLOVER there?
 
I reject. HF Channelization. HF exclusiveness.  HF Modalization.  The problem
is and remains that its impossible to do AUTOMATIC HF FORWARDING without those
elements in a proposal.  Now you can begin to see just how difficult this job
was/is for this Digital Committee.
Jay W. Townsend, WS7I
jayt.comtch.spk.wa.us
Fido: 346/3.0
WS7I @ WS7I.#SPOKN.WA.USA.NA
 


 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
From: Curt.Phillips@f7009.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Curt Phillips)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: FM-240 Data Needed
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:56:00

I need the "pin-outs" for the microphone jack of a KDK
FM-240 two meter rig.  I want to hook it up to my TNC and
somehow, despite my highly organized, patented super filing
system, I've misplaced the manual.
-
Any help would be appreciated.
73, Curt KD4YU (ex-WB4LHI)---
 * Origin: Com Port 1 - DFW Amateur Radio BBS (214) 226-1181 (1:124/7009)


 * Origin: Com Port 1 - DFW Amateur Radio BBS (214) 226-1181 (1:124/7009)
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: OH Abandons ARRL Information
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:20:34 GMT


 SW> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

 SW>      This is not a war!  It is a process.  We are offering input to
 SW> that process.  It is kind of defeating to keep getting told that
 SW> all they are hearing from is a bunch of Sysops.  Don't be surprised

That is probably a pretty good idea and I am sure will get a lot of attention
and it will permit you a lot of time to come up with your OWN proposals and get
them circulated.  Because if there is a RM submitted then there can be a lot of
"other" proposals examined and put into the process at the same time.

A good example was the no-code proposal when several different organizations
submitted several RM's and then the FCC came out with what would be the final
form of the rule change.  It is indeed un-fortunate that only the ARRL ususally
sends in RM's or comments on these matters.



 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: rstory@simhp720.mentorg.com (Ron Story)
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Originator: rstory@simhp720
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:57:00 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <1992Jul27.050303.18814@wilson.jobsoft.com>, david@wilson.jobsoft.com (David R. Wilson) writes:
|> 
|> If you have not read the note, it is worth getting a copy from the
|> Cleveland Hamnet BBS at 216-942-6382 The file name is digital.min.
|> (stuff deleted...)

	Is this file available via anonymous ftp from some site?  If it
is not available, could some kind soul please post it, copy it to an archive
site, or E-mail me a copy.

Thank,
Ron

-- 
Ron Story N7TLC (rstory@mentorg.com)| These are my opinions so: |
Mentor Graphics Corp. (503)685-7000 | #include <std_disclaim.h> |
 "...Yes,  I believe that's sarcasm,  the lowest form of wit."  |
From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S Johansson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:40:52 GMT
Organization: gators 'r us
X-Version: Rodney's UUCP modules 02/11/90 V1.18

In article <1992Jul28.165700.28397@news.mentorg.com> rstory@simhp720.mentorg.com
(Ron Story) writes:
(Sender was: rstory@simhp720)

> In article <1992Jul27.050303.18814@wilson.jobsoft.com>, david@wilson.jobsoft.com (David R. Wilson) writes:
> |> 
> |> If you have not read the note, it is worth getting a copy from the
> |> Cleveland Hamnet BBS at 216-942-6382 The file name is digital.min.
> |> (stuff deleted...)
> 
> 	Is this file available via anonymous ftp from some site?  If it
> is not available, could some kind soul please post it, copy it to an archive
> site, or E-mail me a copy.
> 

I would like a copy as well.  email prefered since I don't have FTP privs
(code speed isn't high enough :-)

--- eric
--
HOME: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  HAM  ka1eec
WORK: 617.630.4687 (w)   johansson@athena.polaroid.com
source of the public's fear of the unknown since 1956
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: estey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
Subject: Re: Digital Committee Info Please
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.115138.26901@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
> 
> Can anyone advise what commercial affiliations each digital
> committee member has?  Who works for what amateur company?
> Thanks, 73, Steve, NO8M

A even better starting point would be to get the list of who is on the Digital
Committee including:
a.  Mailing address
b.  Phone numbers or/and network access
c.  Credentials - amateur radio related
                - professional involvement
d.  Date appointed and term of appointment and who appointed them

Interesting how this info isn't available.  I have requested it twice from
ARRL!.

73
Carl
______________________________________________________________________________
Carl Estey                  |  Home Mail Address: 276 Walnut Lane
Amateur Callsign:    WA0CQG |                     Apple Valley, MN 55124
                            |  Business Address:  Honeywell Inc.
Phone: Work (612) 542-5136  |  Flight Systems & Test Operations M/S MN15-2370
       FAX  (612) 542-6003  |  1625 Zarthan Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
       Home (612) 432-0699  |  Packet: WA0CQG @ WA0CQG.#SOMSP.MN.USA.NA   
The nonsense here is of my own making - no one else would want credit!
From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:01:51 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>>Well, to be fair, the nature of scheduled, multi-channel bulletins is such
>>that you just have to fire up the transmissions (which *ARE* announced
>>in advance, please no flame wars about frequency "ownership.)
>>
>>What would you have the W1AW operator do, get on the 5 (or 7) channels
>>that the bulletins are starting up on, see if they're in use and ASK
>>PERMISSION to use the frequencies?
>
>It's not practical for the ARRL to obey the regulations, is that what
>you're saying?

What regulation(s) do you feel aren't being obeyed?

>Amazing how many hams who insist on strict interpretations of the rules
>suddenly find a need for dispensations, isn't it?

Equally amazing is the conversion of hams who normally take a liberal
approach to rules interpretations to "strict constuctionism" where
W1AW is involved.

By the way, Brian, when was the last time the control op of your repeater
listened on its output frequency before transmitting there?

>Feh.

Feh, indeed.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               |
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:40:54 GMT

In article <pschleck.711736530@odin>, pschleck@odin.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
|> In the case of the 1-900 Desert Storm message, the packet sysops were
|> pink-ticketed, but after replying to the pink ticket, no one got fined.

They didn't *need* to fine anybody -- the war ended quickly, so the
pink tickets (the publicity, actually) had already served their
purpose.

Of course, no one ever got cited for carrying traffic related to the
regular business affairs of the US military...

Phil
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 27 Jul 1992 04:57:19 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>Well, to be fair, the nature of scheduled, multi-channel bulletins is such
>that you just have to fire up the transmissions (which *ARE* announced
>in advance, please no flame wars about frequency "ownership.)
>
>What would you have the W1AW operator do, get on the 5 (or 7) channels
>that the bulletins are starting up on, see if they're in use and ASK
>PERMISSION to use the frequencies?

It's not practical for the ARRL to obey the regulations, is that what
you're saying?

If the ARRL simply *MUST* stick to a fixed time and frequency schedule
to disseminate their bulletins, then they ought to get a license for a
shortwave broadcast station just outside the ham bands, where they can
legally "own" a frequency, and just fire up on it without monitoring
or worrying about interfering with existing users of the channel.

Amazing how many hams who insist on strict interpretations of the rules
suddenly find a need for dispensations, isn't it?

Feh.
	- Brian
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: OH Abandons ARRL Information
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:32:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) writes:

>   If the ARRL committee ever decides to re-open the issue, how will
>Ohio packet users ever receive the word? :-) :-)

How will Ohio packet users every convince the ARRL to quit pulling these
stunts?

I'm sure that something that unusual will get around.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| 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: david@wilson.jobsoft.com (David R. Wilson)
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Organization: Dave Wilson's Ham Radio Shack (WB4LHO), Smyrna, TN
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:13:48 GMT

Oops, well, I need to correct something...
Novices and Technicians were not listed as being able to operate an
unattended digital station.  

With the provision that prohibits an unattended station from initiating
a contact or broadcasting any undirected signal, the proposal kills
the forwarding that is done on HF, without a good alternative other
than commercial services.   When a hurricane destroys the commercial
services, you are 'up the creek without a paddle'.  This seems to
me to be a poor idea.  Also, if I called the system at home via
modem, or 2 meter packet and initiated a contact on the system
remotely, it looks as if this would be a violation of the
reccommendation.

The limit to bandwidth to keep the interference potential is another
thing that I believe that will work against us, I would like to see
a change that would allow for a wider signal, limiting things to 
300 baud is very slow.  I agree that something in the way of error 
correcting (FEC) would be a good idea, particularly where the noise
is a major problem along with other interference.
I think that it would be to our advantage to have higher speed links
available, even at the expense of some of our precious spectrum.  
Especially when automatic traffic forwarding is being used.  Packet
is still much faster than any 10 CW operators that I know, and 
doesn't make mistakes.  I have no problem with keyboard to keyboard
activity at 300 baud, but otherwise, I think a bit of 
rethinking is in order on these proposals.  

I hope that this has not been forwarded to the FCC yet, because
I think the potential for doing more harm than good is a real
possibility.

We need to rewrite the rules, but not shoot ourselves in the
process.




-- 
David R. Wilson, WB4LHO
Smyrna, Tennessee USA
INET: david@wilson.jobsoft.com
UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!wilson!david
From: jkearman@arrl.org (Jim Kearman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Humor?
Date: 20 Jul 92 12:58:38 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

Summary: :-} for the humor impaired
 
clmorgan@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu writes:
>I don't know how VE sessions are handled in many other areas *** BUT *** at
>the ones I've worked or observed, tape recorders and the like would NEVER make
>it into the exam room.
> 
>Oh golly, now the VEs are doing strip and body cavity searches.
> 
>What next, tatooing your callsign on your forearm?
>
 Next step is: "TEST NAKED"
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:51:51 GMT

In a message of <25 Jul 92>, Phil Karn wrote to All:

 PK> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

 PK> unnecessary. So the Digital Committee is NOT proposing to "take  PK>
away"anything. It is proposing rules that would expand the existing  PK> let
the average amateur do something that he cannot now do. If you 
An enlightning discussion to say the least.  As I attended a local VHF Regional
Packet meeting yesterday afternoon I have finally discovered what a lot of the
problem in this discussion is all about.  A ham I won't mention his call for
obvious reasons is running a fully automatic station.  Amazingly enough, he
isn't an STA member.  And in fact most of the folks on "his frequency" aren't
either.  

He was all upset and we discussed the plan.  And as I told him well at least
with a semi-automatic concept you would be guilty of rules violations only 50%
of the time.  As they were only the original members of the STA and it has
never been increased isn't it amazing how things have grown.

 PK> But if people really want to run operational automatic HF packet
 PK> networks, I agree that the rules ought to allow it.

Well guess what I don't.  These stations have far too much potential to create
problems without as you indicate a very good reason to be doing what they are
doing.  Semi-automatic oughta work pretty well, and at least it would be
available to ALL users not just a selected by somebody few.

73, Jay Ws7i
 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)