HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:13:35 GMT

In article <paulf.714160077@w6yx> paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:
>
>>In article <paulf.713809410@w6yx- paulf@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>>-97.3 Definitions
...
>>-(34) An amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of
>>-	other stations.
>
>>Packet is a store-and-forward (or receive-and-transmit-later) technology,
>>not a receive-and-retransmit-immediately-whatever-i-heard technology.
>>{for example, even a packet digipeater will not retransmit a badly formatted
>>packet}
>
>Um, where does the definition make *any* distinction between store-and-forward
>and immediate-transmit?  It doesn't -- note that to a certain extent,
>all repeaters are store and forward, though some moreso than others.  Also,

maybe it would be better said that all repeaters have some *delay* between
receiving and transmitting any portion of a signal.

The Part 97 definition *doesn't* distinguish as I did, I agree.  I wrote it
as I did to make (IMHO) the "common sense" definition clearer.  Note also that
'signals' is also undefined.  I would contend that if a station has received
a packet & doesn't retain the modulated waveform, then when the information
is transmitted again, the station is not acting as a repeater.

>it's still fairly common practice to use duplex repeaters for packet, so
>nothing in the technology is inherently that different.

A duplex repeater (where the transmitter is keyed while the station is still
receiving) is a repeater {doesn't matter if it's voice, ATV, ...}.  A TNC
set in 'digipeat mode' {ugh} is not a repeater.  A station that gets a packet,
then waits some unspecfied but possibly long amount of time is not a 
repeater.

Cheers,
 Willis n5szf
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: ARRL SNAFU
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:49:39 GMT

In a message of <14 Aug 92>, Gary Coffman wrote to All:

 GC> should *own* any frequency, at least not in a legal sense. With
 GC> packet, however, channel usage is strictly time shared. If  small 
 GC> subbands are restricted to packet *only*, I don't see how there could 

OK, here you go Gary.  Restricted to *packet only* thats problem # 1.

 GC> be a problem. Packet stations automatically listen to the channel
 GC> before transmitting. Collisions can occur, but doubling is not 

Aha, well here we are in the middle of a RTTY Contest, not perhaps the best use
of a frequency.  The SARTG (Scandanavian Amateur Radio Teletype Group) contest
is firing away and there is a bunch of unattended folks on 14.096.3 firing
packet not very sucessfully,  Listen, not very often.

 GC> I don't know how Paul sees this, but my feeling is that if automatic
 GC> packet is restricted to a small subband, it would not be 
 GC> *gentlemanly*

Well at least you answered the question and with an answer I sure could go
along with. But here we are again with *packet only*.  How about all the other
digital modes?


 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
From: kthompso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Ken Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: No code Techs using J mode on Satellites?
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:02:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS

jeffj@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (jeffrey.n.jones) writes:

)I was talking to a No code Tech friend of mine about us working some
)satellites. We got into a discussion on different modes and he asked me
)about working J mode which is 2 meters uplink and 10 meters downlink.

Ones restrictions on band usage are on ones own transmisions only.
Any retransmitions are the responsibility of the control operator of the
repeating station.  A Tech- may use a 2meter to 10meter repeater.

-- 
Ken Thompson    N0ITL  
NCR Corp.  Peripheral Products Division   Disk Array Development
3718 N. Rock Road  Wichita KS 67226   (316)636-8783
Ken.Thompson@wichitaks.ncr.com 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney)
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:08:11 GMT

bob@kc2wz.bubble.org (Bob Billson) writes:

>tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney) says:

>[stuff deleted]

>>That may be true where you live, but out in Virginia, especially in the
>>DC suburbs, you have to join and abide by the rules of the local
>>homeowners' association.  In many developments, you are restricted
>>to what kind of fecnces you can put up, what bushes and plants you
>>put on YOUR property, and where you are allowed to put them, even to
>>the point of having to get the local homeowners' association's permission
>>to paint your house and pay a "processing fee," and this includes
>>putting up a basketball hoop for the kids.  The HOA even specifies
>>where you can buy and what part numbers are acceptable for a storm door.

>Ham hell indeed!  For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone (ham or 
>non-ham) would want to live in a community like this!  To have to get approval
>for paint your house, plant a plant, etc.?  I understand reasonable zoning
>laws keeping business, junkyards, etc. out of residential areas, but this
>is ridiculous!  Do they also limit the type of car which may be parked in your
>driveway as well? <half :-)>  As a ham, I would not even _consider_ buying a
>house in an area such as you describe.  I can picture the type of retirement
>community the yuppies will live in in years to come. <shudder>


What makes it even worse is that in many heavily developed areas of the 
country like California, Northern Virginia, Washington State around Seattle,
and others where there are jobs this is all you're going to find unless
you live way out in the boonies.  If you're a ham and you don't want antenna
restrictions, don't live in 'burbs!
From: jeffj@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (jeffrey.n.jones)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: No code Techs using J mode on Satellites?
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:51:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Aug14.175127.21300
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

I was talking to a No code Tech friend of mine about us working some
satellites. We got into a discussion on different modes and he asked me
about working J mode which is 2 meters uplink and 10 meters downlink.
For the life of me I couldn't remember if No code techs could work that
mode. It seems that would be the same as a No code tech working a repeater
that is cross banded from 2 meters to 10 meters. Which I think is not 
allowed. Could anyone help me out here? 73 and see you RS-12 someday!

Jeff

-- 
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         |      If we do not succeed,
 jeffj@seeker.mystic.com   |      then we run the risk of failure.
 Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929 |      Vice Pres. Dan Quayle
From: bob@kc2wz.bubble.org (Bob Billson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?
Summary: what does anyone want to live in a place like this?
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:26:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Color Computer 3: Tandy's 'game' machine

tlc20700@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas L. Carney) says:

[stuff deleted]

>That may be true where you live, but out in Virginia, especially in the
>DC suburbs, you have to join and abide by the rules of the local
>homeowners' association.  In many developments, you are restricted
>to what kind of fecnces you can put up, what bushes and plants you
>put on YOUR property, and where you are allowed to put them, even to
>the point of having to get the local homeowners' association's permission
>to paint your house and pay a "processing fee," and this includes
>putting up a basketball hoop for the kids.  The HOA even specifies
>where you can buy and what part numbers are acceptable for a storm door.

Ham hell indeed!  For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone (ham or 
non-ham) would want to live in a community like this!  To have to get approval
for paint your house, plant a plant, etc.?  I understand reasonable zoning
laws keeping business, junkyards, etc. out of residential areas, but this
is ridiculous!  Do they also limit the type of car which may be parked in your
driveway as well? <half :-)>  As a ham, I would not even _consider_ buying a
house in an area such as you describe.  I can picture the type of retirement
community the yuppies will live in in years to come. <shudder>
-- 
  Bob Billson, KC2WZ                          | internet: bob@kc2wz.bubble.org
                                              |           kc2wz@amsat.org
  $nail:  21 Bates Way,  Westfield, NJ 07090  | uucp:     ...!uunet!kc2wz!bob
                  C code.  C code run.  Run code run...<please!>
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: ARRL QST Survey Fable
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 23:26:08 GMT


 
Luck Hurder makes a critical error when declaring that the STA stations (and
he insinuates the whole packet network) were queried by a survey published in
QST.
 
This is a invention based on distortion.
 
This continuing insinuation that the ARRL network and the packet network are
somehow interconnected and that information flows between them is silly. 
There are very few if any similiarities in either the control or the reaction
to situations in either network.
 
The ARRL surveyed the dues paying members of the ARRL (and the anti-packet
RTTY community through that one Digital Committee member's RTTY magazine). 
 
They did not ask for input from the STA stations.  The ARRL represents only
a small percentage of the amateur population; they did not survey the general
population.  The survey did not ask for participation from the people active
on HF forwarding via attended stations.  The survey was not given to the
general packet population (most of whom in my area are not members of the
ARRL).
 
Saying that "anyone could have responded" is foolish.  You might as well post
a message on some obscure land-line network (this one will do) about six
meter band plans and then go and propose a bandplan on your input.  Should
not you instead go to the six meter community for a six meter plan?  Do we
not have members who hold appointments in the field to do this?
 
Should not the packet community be asked their input on a subject that will
so dramatically affect them?  And when you know that this affect will illicit
a negative response, could not the packet community be let in on this
eventuality?  
 
The ARRL surveyed the dues paying members of the ARRL (and the anti-packet
RTTY community through that one Digital Committee member's RTTY magazine). 
Then, the ARRL, knowing its actions would create a furor and be unpopular,
cemented the deal behind the backs of those it most affected.
 
73,
Steve, NO8M
 
Can anyone provide the calls of the 700 amateurs who intend to set up HF
autoforwarding stations that the ARRL believes will invade our bands should
unattended operation be allowed?  I need to call some more people on their
inventions based on distortion.
 
-- 
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:1509 rec.radio.amateur.misc:14102
From: seanp@undr.org (Sean Petty)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Overturning Antenna Covenants?
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: Sean Petty <undr!seanp@gvls1.GVL.Unisys.COM>
Followup-To: poster
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania


        I realize this is a badly beaten subject, but my question seems
        fairly simple.  Has anyone, or does anyone know someone who has
        had a restrictive covenant overturned in the interests of
        Amateur Radio emergency service, RACES, MARS, etc?  There must
        be someone who has convinced a homeowners association to allow
        them one or two external antennas (no tower!) to pursue amateur
        communications.  Any help, suggestions, arguments in my
        interest, topics to bring up, etc. would be greatly appreciated
        as I am going to try to lodge a campaign for and antenna!

        Thanks...

        Sean    N3LQN

---
Sean Petty                           undr!seanp@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM
ICBMnet: 39'58'12"N 75'84'26"W       seanp@undr.org
From: gvb@TEFS1.acd.com (George Bowles)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:56:44 GMT

In article <paulf.713809410@w6yx> paulf@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:
>
>> Packet is not repeaters as they are currently defined. 
>
>97.3 Definitions
>
>[...]
>
>(34) An amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of
>	other stations.
>
>
>Sounds like UAA digital operations would fit right in.
>
>
Packet does not retransmit the signals of other stations.
Sorry, you are wrong. In the purest sense, Packet forwarding stations 
are not repeaters. In a broad sense they are. However, in the above
97.3 definition, the meaning here is in real time much like a 2m voice
repeater. What comes in, goes out in close to real time (some voice
repeaters have digital delays). Also, the packet digipeater is not
retransmitting "the signals" of another station. What its doing is 
recording the data in the other stations signal and putting that
data in a "signal" of its own and transmitting it. Careful inspections
of AX.25 readily show this. In fact, if you just think about it a little bit
you can understand that a packet digipeater strips stuff of the incomming 
data and adds stuff to the outgoing data. Before you jump on my case
(I don't know if you will or not), let me invite you to and if you 
do answer these questions when you respond:

If a packet stations receives 10 AX.25 packets on day, holds them for
a total of 10 seconds and send out the data again, is it  a repeater?

What if it holds it for 5 minutes?
                        1 day?
                        1 week?
			1 year?

The fact remains that "retransmitting a signal" is not what a digipeater
does. It retransmits the data in different form. Therefore, digipeaters
are not repeaters. Besides, how many repeaters do you know that can
do receive and transmit operations on the same frequency? One of the main
components of a repeater is OFFSET. Digipeaters have no offset. Repeaters do.


>>NO.  10M FM are REPEATERS.  Only REPEATERS have any differences and then only
>>in what *I* consider VHF segments.  Above 29 Mhz.
>
>1.  Check the definition above.  Repeater does not exclude digital.

No it does not exclude digital. However, in my technical opinion, most
digipeaters are not repeaters. Notice I said "most". If you want 
a digital repeater, you can take a voice repeater and dedicate it to 
digital. In that case, you have a digital repeater that falls under the
same definitions and regulations as a voice repeater.

>-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX 

George Bowles, N9LKG




Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:47:57 GMT

willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:

>In article <paulf.713809410@w6yx- paulf@w6yx.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>-97.3 Definitions
>-
>-[...]
>-
>-(34) An amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of
>-	other stations.

>Packet is a store-and-forward (or receive-and-transmit-later) technology,
>not a receive-and-retransmit-immediately-whatever-i-heard technology.
>{for example, even a packet digipeater will not retransmit a badly formatted
>packet}

Um, where does the definition make *any* distinction between store-and-forward
and immediate-transmit?  It doesn't -- note that to a certain extent,
all repeaters are store and forward, though some moreso than others.  Also,
it's still fairly common practice to use duplex repeaters for packet, so
nothing in the technology is inherently that different.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Discussion
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:56:40 GMT

Perhaps I am missing something here. I have said several times that I am not
totally opposed to Paul's plan.  However, if he continues to argue that Packet
and other digital modes are like repeaters I might change my mind.

First, the current method that most HF packet is transfered is not through a
digipeater (which as someone else related isn't like a repeater anyway) but
rather station A sends to B who later relays to C.  If it worked as well as a
Digi it would be much more effective.

Second, packet (for which 99% of this proposal of Paul's is aimed) required
wide data channel separation.  It is true that the signal isn't all that wide
but you might note the "normal" separation of 2 Khz channels in all of the
current HF spectrum being utilized for Packet.

Third, I think that the use of WARC bands is a good idea.  It eliminated most
of the international disputes and most of the displacement concerns.

Fourthly, I opposed totally the concept of seperation by license class. There
is no particular reason for it other than a rather half hearted measure to keep
the numbers down.  The way to keep the numbers down is to let someone run a
group of AutoMatic Stations.  I would suggest 200.  I would suggest the TAPR
group to administer it.  I would suggest a power level of Not more than 100
watts.  I would suggest all modes current, new, or proposed.  I would also make
the group dynamic (coming and going).  I would support many different uses of
the AutoMatic group and not limit it to traffic or junk mail or anything, but
rather, keep all options open.  E.g.  PacketCluster, Program Exchange,
Conferences, NewsGroups, traffic.

Last I would change the channelization and let this group go anywhere in the 3
WARC bands. They would not be restricted to any freq's.  I would also publicize
the authorized calls on a regular basis.  In addition I would support the
current semi-automatic proposal that the ARRL's Digital Committee has suggested
for all.

It would allow widespread operations and experimentation by a lot of amateurs
which is after all why we do this stuff.



 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: This N' That
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:22:40 GMT

First I read that the ARRL isn't connected to the packet world.  Come on.  Tell
me that the ARRL doesn't manage the STA and tell me that Luck Hurder jests when
he indicates that he is in contact with many of these folks on a daily basis.

Tell me that not a single one of 134 to 140 people who are members of the STA
read about the survey in QST and the RTTY Digital Journal.  BTW, I understand
that other publications declined to run the survey.

Tell me that all of you vigilant folks on the InterNet didn't read about the
survey and tell some of your sysops.  Tell me also that not a single one of the
STA participants heard from the ARRL that the STA was extended in January for
another year and that January 1993 would be the last day.  Tell me that all of
you experimenters have been sending in data.

To indicate that the RTTY Digital Journal is anti-packet is folly at best and
is a injustice at best.  To say that they are anti-ARRL (Luck Hurder's comments
earlier in this forum) is also a crock.  To say they are the oldest digital
magazine and have columns on packet, amtor, contesting, DXing, hardware and
software is a heck of a lot more accurate.

For this continual racking of a Digital Committee's actions when not very many
of you responded to there request for information is a total bunch of bunk.

Send them your comments now.  But for heaven's sake to rake them for responding
to a survey is total crap.  To rake them for putting forth the view of the ARRL
is more crap.  After all this is a committee of the ARRL.  I bet everyone on
the committee is even a member.  After they attempt to get the word out and
analize the results as best they can everyone complains.  I don't doubt the
complaints have value, but I have only seen one proposal.  It was even pretty
reasonable.  I would suggest that if you are so up in arms that I had better
read of your comments of the FCC during any Rule Making.  

I hear the clamour that the Packet Community and in particular the STA stations
haven't been involved in the process.  I only wonder why they didn't get
involved?  To contend that they "didn't know" that in Jaunuary 1992 the FCC
extended the 180 day temporary STA for the final time until January 1993 is to
say that each and everyone of them has their heads in the sand.

I wonder why there isn't already a proposal for rule making by the *STA*
participants before the FCC.  Oh, I guess these guys are only operators and
can't file a Rule Making.  Sheesh.  In the comments for RM 7248 before the FCC
there were several positive proposals.  One of which suggested that 100
stations be permanently permitted to operate un-attended HF Digital. It made a
number of good suggestions.  

However, to suggest that *packet* is the only use of automatic HF operation is
to slam the doors on experimentation and other modes which work. If all you can
do is complain about being left out I would suggest that you get involved but
certainly to think that the issues are simple is to not think.



 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Neighbor Relations (was Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:32:09 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation


Wow!  Have I been missing something in this discussion of 'neighbor
relations' or has no-one even considered the extreme solution of
"Spending the time to get to know your neighbors when you/they move in
(before problems come up) and discussing problems among yourselves
before calling in the {cops, lawyers, bulldozers}"?

When we bought our house we went around to all the neighbors to
introduce ourselves, then once we were set up we invited them all to
our First Party.  Hardly any of them knew any of the others, but I
suspect we're starting to build a neighborhood.  Now instead of
calling the police when the dog across the way starts barking we know
_why_ he's barking, that it won't last long, and _they_ know it's
bothering everyone else, so it's under control.  I made sure the fact
that we were hams 'came up in casual conversation' so no-one will be
surprised to see antennas, and if they think they are having RFI
problems they'll talk to us first.

People have been really impressed by our taking the time to meet the
neighbors, but is it _really_ all that unusual?  I knew from the
beginning that I didn't want to get into "This is mine and that's
yours and you better not bother me or I'll call the cops!"  This house
is a longterm investment for us, and I surely don't want to spend my
days in an armed camp!  Is it just me, or does fueding with your
neighbors sound like a longterm lose-lose proposition?

Willie Smith
wpns@pictel.com
n1jbj@amsat.org
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy