HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dale@sequent.com (Dale Mosby)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: CC&Rs and radio antennas
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:15:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Oct16.121550.24940
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

I have recently put up 50 feet of Rohn 25 tower and a Cushcraft tri-bander
(A3S) with the 40 meter dipole addition to the driven element.  The good
news is that this really adds a new dimension to amateur radio when
compared to the previous antenna -- the Cushcraft R7 with base 17 feet
off the ground.

You can guess the bad news -- some of the neighbors are not happy about
this.  At the board meeting last night I found that a two page letter
had been given to the president of the homeowners association complaining
about the antenna.  The letter states that there are at least 6 homeowners
that are upset with this.  The two issues seem to be concerns with
interference (RFI) and devaluation of property values as well as the
looks of the antenna and tower.

I can deal with RFI issues, having the ARRL information as well as many
other RFI resources.  The homeowners board understands that the RFI
issue is not a concern of theirs and does not affect the decision on
whether the antenna is allowed.

The question is really one of deciding if the 50 feet of Rhon 25 and beam
is "just another antenna".  The CC&Rs state that "no building, fence, wall
or other structure shall be erected or maintained..., nor shall any exterior
addition to or change or alteration be made..., without board approval".

The area does allow outside antennas for television and the CC&Rs do not
make any statements specifically talking about antennas.  So my first
question is how do I best support my position that this is not a structure,
just another antenna and must be treated the same as all other antennas
now in use?

The second question is what evidence can I use to demonstrate that this does
not lower the property values?  The letter states that this person has
"spoken to a Realtor about devaluation of homes and they say that such a
structure will pull down values of those homes surrounding the property
and cause the homes to sell more slowly".

How do I go about finding a Realtor that will state that this has no
significant effect on the values of surrounding homes?  Does anyone
know of any court cases where this was an issue and it was decided
that the antenna did not lower property values?

Thanks for any help.  73, Dale.

-- 
  dale@sequent.com         OR      uunet!sequent!dale
  Dale Mosby   503-578-9842  N7PEX  // Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
  15450 SW Koll Parkway             // Beaverton, Or.  97006-6063
From: Paul.Nguyen@kennel.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Nguyen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Q-signals, history
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:10:52 GMT
Organization: Fido's Kennel, Cupertino CA

Well I guess it was wire line, but I'm not sure. Or it could have been some kind of ship communication  method. 

73 de Paul KD6OCZ

        
--  
Paul Nguyen
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!Paul.Nguyen
INTERNET: Paul.Nguyen@kennel.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Paul Nguyen only."
From: randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Info on 2m glass/disguise antenna wanted
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:25:41 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

ant-vent@precipice.chi.il.us (Paul Graham) writes:

>Now if you want a real antenna, there is a company in McHenry, IL
>**** U.S.A. **** that makes an antenna that will knock your socks
>off.  No it is not a disguised antenna. Counting the matching
>network it is 57 inches tall.  In operation it will make a 5/8
>wave antenna look like a dummy load.  This is due to its low
>radiation angle, and the lack of lossy loading coils in the
>matching network.  In short this is a real antenna!!!  The price
>on this antenna is only $39.95 + $5.00 S&H.

Let me ask a really basic question.  What good is a "low
radiation angle" on 2m?  Most of us who use 2m mobile are just
trying to hit repeaters.

73 DE KK6MY


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall
From: hugo@vnet.ibm.com (OA4HV)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:14:10 EST
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Test

rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: How to Transfer a Call Sign
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 16:48:19 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.


> rogerm@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Roger Myers) writes:
> 
> 
> >Hello Fello Hams,
> 
> >     Does anyone know of any way I can tranfer my dad's call sign to me? He
> >passed away 4 years ago. Shortly after that, I called the FCC in San Francis
> >and they told me there isn't anyway I can do this. I have an Advanced Class
> >license and so did he. Any info on this would be very much appreciated.
> 
> >Thanks in advance,
> 
 If you find anything that works, let me know! I have tried 
everything I can think of, including long distance calls to the 
head of the FCC amateur radio department (or whatever they call 
him) and have been told that I can write all the letters I want, 
but that they simply won't even consider such requests. All in all 
I have gotten nothing but total lack of interest on the part of 
anyone at FCC. In my case, the call my Dad held was issued in 1932 
to him and he is the only one to ever hold that call, and he was 
active (except during WWII) from 1932 until last year. Even 
enlisting the aid of your political representives has failed to 
make any difference. Let's face it, the FCC just don't give a damn 
about hams.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:1724 rec.radio.amateur.misc:16646 rec.radio.amateur.packet:2653
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: ARRL RPTR Directory Stinks : -( (?)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:13:29 GMT

In article <Bw17KL.1qM@mail.boi.hp.com> jhays@boi.hp.com (John_D. Hays) writes:
>In article <Bw0xK6.2CI@iat.holonet.net> bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri) writes:

>On another note, we need to adopt a "highest and best use" philosophy
>on co-ordination --- i.e. a public service club with large membership should
>get precedance for a repeater pair, before 2 people who want a private
>repeater to yak 10 minutes a day on the way to work whent hey could easily
>operate simplex, or use a shared repeater.
>
>John KD7UW

AAAAAAKKKKK...  Wrong answer.  Thank you for playing.

What about the "private" repeater group with several hundred members?
Is this really fair to those several hundred as opposed to the "club"
with several hundred members who run a "public" repeater?

I think not.

WD5IYT
-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "you can predict what happens until the
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |     signal leaves the antenna..."
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: How to Transfer a Call Sign
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:18:05 GMT

In article <yPugsB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. 
Kennedy) writes:
> BTW, how do you think commercial radio stations get all those "catchy" calls?

Powerful lobbyists with lots of money to spend? 

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
From: dlp@zule.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Pritchett - SunSoft Engineer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CW Recertification
Date: 15 Oct 1992 23:00:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zule
Keywords: General through Extra to be Retested

In article <4437@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
|> 
|> I understand that due to the need for more higher class calls
|> for the newest class of CW graduates, there is a secret plan to
|> propose to the FCC that all higher class licensees General through
|> Extra who have held their license for over five years will be
|> required to recertify by taking the appropriate CW test when they
|> renew. Those not passing would be assigned a Novice or Tech class
|> license and the appropriate call assigned...anyone else heard about this?
|> 
Yeah, right. The only place that the FCC is running out of calls, particularly
in California is in the Novice/Tech/General group. I believe the last
2x1 Extra calls have gone, but they have plenty of calls to give out to
Advanced and Extra, particularly when you consider the rate that these
licenses are granted versus the Tech range.

Maybe they are going to ask Advanced and Extra class licenses to give
up their 2x3 calls and take one of the shorter calls that they are
entitled to?

Dan Pritchett               | ARPA/Internet: dlp@zule.Eng.Sun.COM
SunSoft Desktop Prod. Tools | GEnie: D.PRITCHET3
                            | Packet: KM6PR@N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to think that I was cool.
Running around on fossil fuel.
Until I saw what I was doing.
Was driving down the road to ruin.
            James Taylor
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: DL Deregulation
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:21:48 GMT
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA

In article <ldmu3rINNj6i@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>,
    tjonz@caliban.Corp.Sun.COM writes:

| I just heard a frightening story on Newsline last evening that asserts the
| German government has proposed a major deregulation of amateur radio.

What's so frightening about it?  Or don't you think that Amateurs can look
after their own affairs?  We in Australia have been deregulated for years
(and about to get even more so, but that is another story).

Basically, our Band Plans are NOT part of the Regulations, but are organised
by the Wireless Institute of Australia (WIA), and are known as "Gentleman's
Agreements".  Of course, you get the occasional jerk insisting on his "right"
to transmit FM on 146.000 MHz (our old "channel A" from way back), but by
and large the system works.  If you use the "wrong" mode in a sub-band you
generally will not make many contacts...

O, and use of the male gender above does not imply any bias, although oddly
enough all the jerks I've observed have indeed been male...

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
           Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
From: mikef@pacifier.rain.com (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ...no traffic and we're QRU...
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:08:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: pacifier.1992Oct7.170849.1762
Organization: Pacifier BBS


In article <1992Oct6.174853.2088@qualcomm.com> karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.131341.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> jcraig@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>>Using QRT for "clear" or QSL for "roger" is akin to using phonetics on CW... 
>>a waste of bandwidth.
>
>Absolutely. But you have to realize that using obscure jargon instead
>of plain, understandable English makes you sound much more
>knowledgeable and important to any laymen who happen to be listening.
>It helps to keep the bands less heavily loaded by scaring away any
>such laymen impertinent enough to entertain thoughts of getting a ham
>license.  And it also helps obscure the fact that (usually) no real
>information is exchanged in an amateur QSO anyway.
>

What?  You mean the Emperor *really* has no clothes?

But it really does take an Extra Class ticket to talk about the WX (I
mean, the weather) for five hours straight, doesn't it? <G>

-- 
Mike Freeman <K7UIJ>    |       Internet: mikef@pacifier.rain.com
301 N.E. 107th Street   |         or freeman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Vancouver, WA 98685 USA |       GEnie: M.FREEMAN11
Telephone (206)574-8221 |       Loose bits sink chips!
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: obrien@aero.org (Mike O'Brien)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: How to Transfer a Call Sign
Date: 9 Oct 1992 06:32:02 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: anpiel.aero.org

In article <14600035@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom) writes:

>I think the reason for the FCC's stand on this is a big callsign scandal
>that happened 10 or 15 years ago.  Turned out some FCC officials were
>trading callsigns for money and personal favors.  Several people went to
>jail.  Ever since then, the FCC has been very gun-shy about any kind
>of non-regulation callsign assignment.

At the recent ARRL National Convention, the FCC rep said that they
recognize that hams want to be able to pick their callsigns, but that
they don't have the wherewithal to do it, seeing as they're running
a computer system that dates from the 1960's (never mind the laser
printer someone seems to have bought for them).  They intend as a
matter of policy to allow this in several years when the computer system
is upgraded sufficiently to let them administer such a program without
increasing their workload.  Till then, it'll take the Chairman of
a relevant House or Senate committee to get them to do it, as in the
case of the VOA business.

Mike O'Brien, KC6OJW
-- 
--
Mike O'Brien
obrien@aero.org
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: CW Recertification
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:57:39 GMT
Keywords: General through Extra to be Retested

lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:

>I understand that due to the need for more higher class calls
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The FCC doesn't re-issue callsigns, so reducing Extras to Novices
etc is pointless in that regard.

>for the newest class of CW graduates, there is a secret plan to
						  ^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no such thing as a "secret plan" when it comes to FCC 
rule making requests.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Subject: Re: ARRL DIGITAL COMMITTE REVISED REPORT 9/26/92
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:43:08 GMT

In article <16772@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
|> willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes:
|> >Quoted from the Report:
|> >"97.216 Unattended Digital Station
|> >(a) Any amateur station licensed to a holder of a General, Advanced or 
|> >Amateur Extra Class license may be an unattended digital station."
|> >What a load of hooey!  I'd like WA0CQG, Carl Estey, to present any
|> >resaonable rationale for this line.
|> 
|> Perhaps because the Novice HF bands are already narrow enough without
|> carving out a piece of them for packet?  Or would you be happy to have
|> Technicians allowed to operate unattended digital stations as long as
|> they did it on frequencies they weren't allowed to transmit on?
|>

Neither! Read what it says! THE DEFINITION COVERS ALL FREQUENCIES.  So
this limits UHF/VHF/Microwave etc.  I hope they didn't mean to add in
> 30Mhz.  But they did it what's been posted.

One really shouldn't limit by license class anyway.  If the HF subbands
cover Novice/Tech freq, then they've been carved up already.  The proposal
just says that since some people can do higher speed morse, they get to
operate there.  If the committee is looking to ways to limit operators,
they need to find better ways than someone's motor/hearing skills.
From: oopdavid@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.RODMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CW Recertification
Keywords: General through Extra to be Retested
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:39:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <4437@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes...
> 
>I understand that due to the need for more higher class calls
>for the newest class of CW graduates, there is a secret plan to
>propose to the FCC that all higher class licensees General through
>Extra who have held their license for over five years will be
>required to recertify by taking the appropriate CW test when they
>renew. Those not passing would be assigned a Novice or Tech class
>license and the appropriate call assigned...anyone else heard about this?
> 
>-- 
> 
>Brett Breitwieser / KC6UPU @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA / grid CM86XX
>lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us   (...netcom!cruzio!lancelot)
>425 Ninth Ave., Santa Cruz, CA. 95062-3915 / (408)475-9156 voice
>genie: A.BREITWIESE  / fido: 1:216/509 / SETI: the Ultimate DX
This sounds like nonsence to me.  FCC can't even keep track of IMPORTANT
items like jammers, illegal broadcasting on 40 meters and how to generate
a "choose your own call" license plan.  In my humble opinion, the last
thing on this earth FCC wants to do is retest anyone for anything (even
with volunteer examiners doing it).
Dave (KN2M)
Oh, by the way my code speed is today FASTER than it was when I took the 
EXTRA.
From: taber@ultnix.mro1.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ...no traffic and we're QRU...
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:58:26 GMT
Reply-To: taber@ultnix.mro1.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Organization: KC1TD@KB4N.NH.USA.NA.EARTH.SOLAR_SYSTEM.UNIVERSE.MIND_OF_GOD.01463


In article <1992Oct6.131341.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, jcraig@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
|>
|>I diplomatically refered to our regs wherein it is stated that Q signals
|>are "for use on radiotelegraph." Before long, I was a bystander in a small
|>war.

Could you cite the regulation?  I don't recall it, but have a faulty memory.


|>
|>Of course, a few Q sigs are a part of the phone jargon such as QRZ during
|>a phone contest or the QSL card.  These Q sigs convey a meaning in 
|>fewer sylables than the plain English equivalent. On the other hand, QSY
|>instead of "going up/down", offers no such advantage.
|>
|>Using QRT for "clear" or QSL for "roger" is akin to using phonetics on CW... 
|>a waste of bandwidth. On CW, QRT and QSL are universally understood
|>but on phone they're meaningless unless you're speaking English. 
|>
|>I'm not sure why a few ops use QRU on the net.  It's just as quick to say
|>"no traffic". Perhaps it's tradition dating back to when we had a few 
|>regular CW check-ins. Rarely do we get CW check-ins now.   
|>
|>Is there a generally accepted policy on the use of Q signals on phone?
|>
|>

I don't understand why it matters one way or the other.  If you don't like using Q signals on voice modes, don't do it.  If you don't understand them, ask the other operator what it means.  But there's no reason why people can't express themselves however they like.  Yes, it might be less "efficient" (what a scathing indictment of a traffic net, huh? ;-)) but who gives a rodent's hind-quarters?  Enjoy diversity.


--
                                             >>>==>PStJTT
                                     Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD

The secret of being an A-1 operator:
	Worry about what you do, not what the other guy does.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: nelson@seq.uncwil.edu (Jim Nelson)
Subject: Re: How to Transfer a Call Sign
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:12:51 GMT

jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

>In article <yPugsB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. 
>Kennedy) writes:
>> BTW, how do you think commercial radio stations get all those "catchy" calls?

>Powerful lobbyists with lots of money to spend? 

>-- 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107

 As far as I know, it has always been FCC policy to accomodate
 specific callsign requests in the commercial broadcast service
 (which is just about the only place it could possibly matter).
 It has not, except for that short aberrant time period around
 1978 or so, ever been their policy to accept requests for specific
 callsigns in the Amateur Radio Service.  When they moved, around
 1978 or so, to a 1960's computer, they "regularized" the assignment
 of STATION callsigns in the Amateur Radio Service.  It was well
 publicized that "it was coming", and even the specifics of what
 the series were to be for each class of license were well publicized.
 If you forget, go back and read some QSTs from that time period.


-- 
Jim Nelson UNC-Wilmington Mathematical Sciences Dept.
Wilmington NC 28403 919-395-3300 
nelson@seq.uncwil.edu
K4XE 146.82 K4XE@N4CCK
From: tjonz@caliban.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Jonz)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: DL Deregulation
Date: 14 Oct 1992 01:31:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tjonz@caliban.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: caliban.corp.sun.com


I just heard a frightening story on Newsline last evening that asserts the
German government has proposed a major deregulation of amateur radio.  It
seems that the DX, packet, SSTV, FM/RPT, etc. factions just can't seem to
come to terms over sharing spectrum, and that all of these groups have
lobbied for deregulation.  If the proposal is adopted as it stands now,
each individual DL ham will essentially be able to establish his or her own 
operating priviliges and band plan within the international amateur
allocations.  DARC has filed a request for reconsideration.

Is it April Fool's day, or can anyone provide any additional information about
this?  Perhaps someone in the know can post the text of the proposal....


Todd, KB6JXT
From: murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: CW Recertification
Keywords: General through Extra to be Retested... NOT!
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:58:06 GMT
Reply-To: murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Bw5sA0.Mo4@acsu.buffalo.edu> oopdavid@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (D.RODMAN) writes:
>In article <4437@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, lancelot@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes...
>>I understand that due to the need for more higher class calls
>>for the newest class of CW graduates, there is a secret plan to
>>propose to the FCC that all higher class licensees General through
>>Extra who have held their license for over five years will be
>>required to recertify by taking the appropriate CW test when they
>>renew. Those not passing would be assigned a Novice or Tech class
>>license and the appropriate call assigned...anyone else heard about this?

>This sounds like nonsence to me....

Certainly nonsense. Even if there was such an "evil secret plan(MuuA-HA-Ha-ha!)"
in the FCC, this would require significant changes to Part 97, and thus (as
I understand it) *must* go through the Proposed Rulemaking/public response
period.

..and then watch the FCC try to withstand the ire of thousands of hams who
haven't used CW since they got their licenses in the 50's and 60's.

KD4BTL, Tech (with HF if you MUST ask, and working on Extra, having passed
all the writtens some months ago)
-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions mine. Brainless, knee-jerk reactions are your problem.
John R. Murray murray@vs6.scri.fsu.edu  | Hello, I am a damaged .signature
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst| virus. Copy me into yours, and
Moderator comp.graphics.research        | join in the !rm -rf un *;A#$!&zQ *^P%o
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:1731 rec.radio.amateur.misc:16702 rec.radio.amateur.packet:2656