HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - More
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:10:47 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

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.
>It has some interesting points,
>and some valid points, but as written I think that it will affect
>the Amateur service very severely.  It will effectively limit the
>rate that digital modes will be allowed to run,  make an operator
>mandatory, it will also take away ALL digital priveleges for
>Novice and Technician class operators.  Which as far as I am concerned
>does away with much of the justification for the no code tech.

I agree.  Part of the justification for the no-code tech was
to get more technical and computer people into the hobby.
Now they want to obviate that?  How silly!  What possible
justification would there be in limiting digital privileges
to those who can pass a morse code test?
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.packet
Subject: Re: Counterproposal to the ARRL Digital Committee Recommendation
Date: 30 Jul 1992 15:19:53 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

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

There is no significant correlation between license class and operating
ability.*

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

	- Brian

*I was once told that there IS a significant correlation between license
class and income.  Fraud (i.e., purchased licenses) can't be the major
reason; I wonder what is?
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: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:40:25 GMT

And yet more.  To fill in and correct more inacurate information in the
original post.  I was very active in hurricane Gilbert, and was active
but not net control of any net in Hugo.  I did end up with quite
a bit of traffic in Gilbert, and just a few messages for Hugo.
Just thought I would fix more of my 'incomplete inaccurate and
misleading' post.   Would someone please explain why a warm body
in frount of a radio is so important, granted a person could check to
see if the frequency is busy, but that is part of packets ability to
share a frequency.  I am aware that it does mean some collisions, and
it is not a good idea to hop on a frequency that is in use, but I think
that one could use DCD to see if a frequency is in use, without requiring
a warm body.  This seems to me to be the equivalent of 'lets man all
the repeator sites, so they will not interfere with anyone'.  I am afraid
I will have a problem with that (I have more than one site).  
I think it would be a good idea for the ARRL, if it has already passed this
on to the FCC to amend it's plan.  The stations that were involved in the
STA should be able to provide input on what the suggestions are to the 
FCC.  

Dave

-- 
David R. Wilson, WB4LHO
Smyrna, Tennessee USA
INET: david@wilson.jobsoft.com
UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!wilson!david
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:21:22 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

Gary Coffman writes:

   I'd say they pay *no* attention to existing QSOs, they just fire up
   and blare away without regard for prior channel occupancy. Sometimes
   the skip is such that they *can't* tell that the frequency is in use,
   and that's excusable, but most of the time they just don't listen at
   all. That's contrary to good amateur practice.

Paul W Schleck then replies:

   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.)

I reply:

  Just because a roundtable network or bulletin transmission is previously
  scheduled, one does not have a legal precedent to indiscriminately begin
  operation in a manner which interferes with existing amateur communications.
  In fact, one never has the legal precedent to interfere with on-going
  amateur communications. The only exceptions to this are in the event of an
  emergency where life, limb or property is in immediate risk, or some cases
  of repeater operation.
-- 
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ 		| Views expressed here are	*
 * (213) 337-5136 		| mine and do not necessarily	*
 * dana@locus.com  DoD #466 	| reflect those of my employer	*
 * "Dammit Bones, spare me the lecture and give me the shot!"   *
From: n1gak@netcom.com (Scott Statton)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: What is an emergency? (Was: Is it "business" if I to ...)
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:43:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

There has been a lot of discussion on what is and what is not appropriate
traffic for Autopatch, and whether calling a tow-truck is illegal business
communication.  I think that Hams could learn a little something from 
pilots.  Just like in radio, in aviation in an emergency "anything goes"
You may deviate from clearances, FAR's and instructions, in the name of an
emergency.  You could declare an emergency for something really trivial
(Like a passenger vomitting all over the cockpit.  Blecch).  The System
will bend over backwards to assist you because YOU'RE the best qualified person
to determine what an emergency is.  You'll certainly be asked to explain
WHEN YOU'RE SAFE ON THE GROUND.  And if you blew it, you could be liable for
disciplinary action.

Now, let's say you're on northbound I280 here in the bay area, and it's five 
lanes of parking lot, and you're broken down on the not-nearly-wide-enough
shoulder.  If I were to place an autopatch call to AAA, and some OTHER ham
pulled the patch down, because HE thought I was doing something wrong, I'd
consider that willfull and malicious interference.  In this situation, >I<
am the most qualified person to determine the severity of the situation.  My
tush is on the side of the road (you can bet I'd take my HT out of the car, 
and make the call considerably distant from my car -- I've seen too many
people whizzing past traffic on the shoulder on that road.) Some fat/happy
Part-97-thumping moralist is sitting in his living room, just WAITING for
someone to "break the rules!"  I think the time to call me on the carpet,
is NOT while I'm in the middle of the call, or worse yet, to pull down the
patch, but the next day, when I'm sitting in MY living room.  

In closing, let's thank gh0d that people in the PRB of the FCC have clearer
heads than certain posters I've seen here.


    Scott
From: zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com)
Subject: Re: Ramblings of an OF.
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy 
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 21:15:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.194016.25548@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> mdc@vixen.uucp (24104-marden) writes:
>
>As many will tell you it is a very rare occasion for me to "take
>pen in hand" and post something to the net. 
>..........

...........Some 35 lines of ramblings deleted.

>GOD HELP US ALL.
Oh come on! Its only a hobby.
> 
>I assume this will generate some flame, but so be it. The only
>thing I ask is send it via e-mail since the net is cluttered
>up enough now.
>
Like, you're worried about cluttering up the net?  WHY crosspost a political
post to 3 newsgroups?  Your posting belongs in rec.radio.amateur.policy, IMHO.


Obligatory OF ramblings of my own:

Can we have Yet Another Newsgroup?  I know, I hate it too, but I really
think this bunch needs:

 rec.radio.amateur.tech

How 'bout it?  

WA7LDV

-- 
Fan mail may be sent to:
zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: root@mjbtn.jobsoft.com (Mark J. Bailey [ADMIN])
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Organization: JobSoft Design & Devel Co, Murfreesboro, TN
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:28:32 GMT

Hi,

I too am *very* concerned about this.  Something I haven't seen mentioned
here which may or may not (no flames now - i am late to work and wanted to
throw this in - good or bad) help is to contact Senators Gore and Sasser
as they are the Senate sponsors of the Ham Radio Spectrum Protection Act (and
I know not all of you like it - but at least someone in D.C. thinks we are
a national asset) and comment on waht is happening to the digital modes and
explore possibilities of mode preservation as well as band preservation.  
I heard once that the FCC simply acted upon (or so they claim) the will of
Congress.  Now, this is likely not to go anywhere fast, BUT it sure as hell
towers above the ranks of the Digital Committee.

As I said, NO FLAMES!  :-)  I am thinking of my boss and what "real time"
flames I am going to get for being late!  :-)  Chew on it and let's see what
you think?  

73's,

Mark

-- 
Mark J. Bailey, N4XHX                              _______/====X11====\_______
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 |         JobSoft         |
VOICE:  +1 615 893 0098                            | Design & Development Co.|
UUCP:   ...!uunet!mjbtn!mjb, ...!raider!mjbtn!mjb  |  Murfreesboro, TN  USA  |
DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.JOBSOFT.COM      CIS: 76314,160  ---------------------------
<KA9Q-UNIX-USERS Mailing List-Subscribe: ka9q-unix-requests@mjbtn.jobsoft.com>
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:02:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

As someone who regularly operates in the digital section of the bands
(mostly AMTOR, occasionally RTTY, almost never packet).  I am
extremely disheartened by the ARRL digital committees decisions.

First:  The ARRL themselves have been one of the prime offenders of
contrary to good amateur practice in the 14.07 to 14.15 MHz digital
zone.  It was only a few years ago that they decided to pay attention
to the band plan that they themselves proposed and move the automated
CW transmissions off the AMTOR calling frequency.  They're broadcast
transmissions still rarely pay much attention to existing
communications on the frequency.

Second:  Noticably absent in their statement is the concept that while
AMTOR and some of the fancier schemes are fine for point to point or
broadcast links, one station consumes the entire channel.  At least
with packet you have some pretense of channel sharing.  In automatic
operation packet stations already are designed to listen to the
channel first.  When in frequencies with other packet stations
(attended or otherwise) there is less of a problem of interference
than with a RTTY/AMTOR station.

Third:  AMTOR/RTTY HF access from USER->BBS is not a very good
communications system design, bordering on the silly.  It's already
been learned on the VHF frequencies when channel sharing through
packet protocols that you probably want to seperate local BBS
traffic form long haul BBS-BBS forwarding.  To tie up a frequency
over a large international area on HF for relatively slow USER->BBS
traffic is just plane rediculous.  Not only does good design dictate
that you use BBS closer to you that can be reached with lower power
and perhaps on V/UHF where more frequencies exist and the effective
distances are smaller yielding more users in the country on the same
frequencies, this operation interferes with existing AMTOR/RTTY user
to user or multicast traffic as well as displacing frequncies that
could be used for automatic BBS-BBS links for WHICH THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE
FREQUENCY/MODE THAT CAN BE USED.

Frankly, in my mind the ARRL recommendation is WORSE than the status
quo.  I think that the committee should rethink their PR, for I
believe that they are going to get a substantial amount of negative
comment when it gets to the public comment stage.

-Ron
From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: OH Abandons ARRL Information
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:37:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul28.184001.29717@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>
>     To this end the Ohio Sysops have agreed by a strong majority
>to end the support of propagating ARRL information and bulletins. 
>As of this date, we are beginning this action.
> 
   If the ARRL committee ever decides to re-open the issue, how will
Ohio packet users ever receive the word? :-) :-)

73,
Harry Bloomberg WA3TBL
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: coleve@cc.uvcc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to ...
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:12:58 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Distribution: usa
Organization: Utah Valley Community College

In article <1992Jul28.125727.21550@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton) writes:
> There has been discussion on this topic regarding whether a disabled auto
> constitutes and emergency.  If I remember Part 97, the rulse defines an
> emergency as any threat to life or property.  I once used the autopatch
> to try to contact an Amoco station for a lady whose car was disabled on
> the shoulder of an interstate at rush hour.  Seeing the idiots that drive
> on the shoulder, etc. at rush hour, I know she was in danger.
>    [...rest of story deleted...]
> [...]   It is NEVER safe to be on the shoulder of a busy road,
> especially an expressway.  It is definitely an immediate threat to life
> or property.

You bet it's a danger!  I attended the funeral of a ham who stopped to
aid a disabled vehicle on a relativly calm Utah freeway, and was struck 
by a passing car.  (My eyes still mist over when I think of the text:
"KE7RB, this is KE7XP.  73, Bob.")  Bob had just finished teaching a lesson
in which he pointed out that the Good Samaritan must have known that he was
putting himself into the path of danger -- stopping on a deserted road in an
area known for thievery.  He said we should be prepared to do that sort of
thing for our fellow men.  (Bob Hall was a Green Beret, and knew a bit about
danger.)  He left that meeting to drive to a meeting of the local Mercury 
Amateur Radio Association chapter, but he never arrived.

Yes, call the tow truck.  Bob did many times.  Once, when a tow truck driver
went out but could not find a snowbound travler, Bob went back out with the
truck to provide communication to the ham who called -- from a hilltop above
his friend's car -- for help.  (I provided moral support from my warm bed
with an HT -- this was about 3:00 AM.)  Bob always monitored that repeater,
since it was the only one with coverage into that specific canyon, just in
case someone might need help.  That's the true spirit of amateur radio.
   Tell 'em KE7RB sent you.
-- 
-- Vern Cole -- Systems Manager -- Utah Valley Community College -- KF7XM
From: wright@morekypr.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Comment to Grady Wards Thoughts
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:35:35 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

>Date: 11 Jul 92 15:45:58 GMT
>From: public!grady@decwrl.dec.com
>To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu
>
>Subject : Re: CODElESS TECHNICIAN PRIVILEGES
>
>The correct universal term for insects that are
>too stupid to learn the code should be:
>
>CODLESS  (rhymes with "godless")
>
>to reflect their lack of gonadal material!!
>
>
>People who refuse to learn the Code are the same
>ones who questioned fighting in 'nam and probably
>belive in their dark shriveled hearts that baptism
>can be accomplished other than by TOTAL IMMERSION.
>
>CODLESS = godless
>
>They should have the Code learned on their bodies
>like the Penal Colony guy Kafka said.

Grady  you must be one of the most one sided STUPID people I have ever read
a post from....

The Correct Term for a Codeless Ham should be just that.  Codeless....
These  people are not insects, they are fellow Humans.  Their sex gender is
none of your business, unless your are Gay.

I am a Codeless Tech.  I'm 35 if is any of your business and I can't help
it if Former President Nixon pulled the U.S. out of Nam before I could get
there.  I wanted to go....but I was defered by the Army and Navy
 and as for your religious slur , THIS CODELESS TECH IS A CHRISTIAN AND BELIEVES
IN TOTAL IMMERSION.  But it takes more than that to get into heaven in which
you will be dealt with when your time comes.....

Until then Mr. Ward, I urge all other Christians in Amateur radio to Pray for
you and hope that you have an ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT in the future.  And I also
urge you to seek out Professional Help to help you get over what ever it was
in your child hood that made you so angry at yourself.

Tim Wright  KD4OVM
WRIGHT@morekypr.BITNET
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Bulletin 68  ARLB068
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:17:18 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> Election of directors is a binary thing - either the dude gets
> re-elected or he doesn't.  There's no space on the ballot to say to him
> "get in your time machine and go back six months and change your vote
> on XXX or I'll vote against you."

Such is as with the election of directors of any corporation or
for that matter in any representative democracy.  When you vote
for director (you did vote in the election, didn't you) you must
carefully choose who you select.  The operation of the league,
any corporation, or a country, is such that the constituents can't
be polled for every action (nor do most want to be).  The principle
is that you vest the power in someone you trust to use his judgement.
Representatives aren't supposed to be selected purely as an "agent"
of the consituency, they are supposed to be selected by the
constituency because they can be relied on to make the right
decisions.  Go read some of the references surrounding the consitution
of this country (perhaps if some of our elected representatives in
congress worked this way rather than chasing influence/dollars we'd
be better off).


> So, the only way to influence a League director's position is to fail to
> re-elect him after the damage is done?  No, if the directors aren't
> listening between elections, the system's already bankrupt.  At some
> point it becomes impossible to work within a system, and the system
> has to be replaced.

So, run for director.  There has already been a displacement of the
"old farts" in the last section/division I lived in (NNJ) and it
looks like there is a group going to do so in the Roanoke division
as well this time around.  Jeez, I've seen the ARRL come from pretty
damn awful (late seventies), to someone progressive.  I've seen
individual departments come around two.  I spent a lot of time arguing
with the VEC office (they evidentally didn't even read their own
books).  Now, under Bart things are much more organized.  I can get
everything done with a phone call, and they've done much to encourage
us to get the exams back to them as quick as possible (giving us
accounts for all of the popular overnight express companies).

-Ron
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Experience in invalidating CC&Rs?
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:07:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: qualcomm.1992Jul25.220753.25695
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc

Hi. I'm looking for anyone with actual experience in successfully
invalidating antenna restrictions in CC&Rs, preferably in California.

Here's my situation. I'm currently buying a house in the University City
area of San Diego. Many communities in San Diego (especially the newer
ones) have antenna restrictions, and my choice of UC was influenced by
the local ham population (there are a *lot* of ham antennas in various
parts of UC).

I made my contract contingent on there being no CC&Rs that would keep me
from putting up amateur radio antennas. This was accepted by the
sellers, and I have since received a copy of the CC&Rs. Lo and behold,
there's a requirement that "no radio post, radio pole or flag pole shall
be erected, constructed or placed upon any of said lots, or on any lot,
except with the prior written consent of the Architectural Jury".

When the CC&Rs were recorded in 1968, the "Architectural Jury" consisted
of the developer's president and secretary. As far as anyone knows, it
no longer exists. There is also no homeowners' association. Furthermore,
a walk around the neighborhood reveals *many* TV antennas, most on 20 or
30-foot guyed rooftop masts (I quit counting at 22). And there are also
a few amateur installations, including one that consists of a large HF
beam, an Oscar array, dipoles, verticals, etc. The ham is the original
owner, and he says he has had his antennas up the whole 20 years he has
lived there without any trouble.

I have not yet found all the maps in the County Recorder's office to
verify with certainty that all of these houses are in the same
subdivision as mine and subject to the same CC&Rs. But right now I'm
pretty sure that they are, since they were all built at the same time by
the same builder.

So, the question is whether the antenna provisions of these CC&Rs have
legally been abandoned, or if they could still be used against me if a
neighbor were to complain.

The section on CC&Rs in the ARRL's "FCC Rule Book" says that the best
defense to an alleged CC&R violation is to show that the same rule has
not been enforced against others in the neighborhood. However, it
tempers this with one court case that held that existing TV antennas in
violation of a no-antennas covenant did not entirely invalidate it
because the ham's beam in question was "significantly different" from TV
antennas.

I have been trying to locate a ARRL Volunteer Counsel who can help me
with this problem, so far without success. The one VC on the list for
San Diego County has since moved to northern California. I'm still
trying, but in case I have to go to a regular (non-ham) attorney who
might not be as familiar with these issues I'd like to do as much
research ahead of time as possible. So if you've been in a similar
situation, I'd very much like to know about it. Thanks!

Phil Karn, KA9Q
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

> >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.
> 
> I think that there would soon be very little room for amateurs on the band
> if this were the ruling adopted.
> 
> Imagine:  Wanted, Pizza delivery driver, must have own car and amateur radio
> licence.
> 
> Makes me shudder.
> 

Why? In the scenario you mention, the person hired would be taking money for
providing communications via amateur radio - i.e., "selling" ham radio
communications - and this would clearly be illegal under the proposed rule.
So what's the trouble with that?


Bob Myers  KC0EW   Hewlett-Packard Co.      |Opinions expressed here are not
                   User Interface Tech. Div.|those of my employer or any other
myers@fc.hp.com    Fort Collins, Colorado   |sentient life-form on this planet.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy