HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:41:12 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I don't know how Paul sees this, but my feeling is that if automatic
>packet is restricted to a small subband, it would not be *gentlemanly*
>to use CW in that segment. I don't think it's necessary to make it 
>illegal, however, because the packet stations would quickly regain
>the frequency from any CW operator except an intentional jammer.

This is precisely my position.  Legislate as little as possible, and rely
on user practices which have, in the past, proven to be effective.  While
it may be true that a "good amateur" practice doesn't carry quite the
same weight legally as having such practices written on stone tablets,
it does show to the FCC that we're willing to work this out amongst ourselves,
and give us the freedom to change things as the technology progresses.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:11:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.110637.24780@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>
>SB ALL @ ALLUS < NO8M $41606_NO8M
>ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
>R:920819/2338z @:NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA North Olmsted #:41606 Z:44070
> 
> 
>      Many in the ARRL, including Luck Hurder who supports banning HF
>autoforwarding, are claiming the need to contact ARRL leadership to express
>our desire and give input to the belief that this is being improperly done.

Hey! Luck Hurder does not support banning HF autoforwarding. HF autoforwarding
is not currently legal. Stop twisting words to continually politicize this
issue!

On a technical basis, unattended HF forwarding is attractive given the
long distance hops that are possible. However, given the limited available
bandspace and the hoary technology in use on HF, it is not practical to
expect unlimited unattended HF forwarding to work well. In fact, if 1000
stations all set up for unattended forwarding at once, we'd have a congestive
collapse in less than a day.

-- 
 * 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!"   *
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:47:58 GMT

Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:


>It is *also* true that you will find *no* rule by the FCC as to coordination of
>VHF Digital.  Repeaters are a special case and I would contend that their
>co-ordination is less than totally effective.

I'd suggest that you dig up a copy of part 97, and read through 97.205(b),
which defines the subbands for repeater operation. And, take note of the
fact that repeater operation and subbanding is defined for HF, as well as
for VHF and UHF.  As to the efficacy of coordination, problems are the
exception rather than the rule, and I say that living in a region where
every channel under 900 MHz is currently allocated.

>Enforcement by the FCC an additional burden to them.

That's an existing burden, the content restrictions.  Subbanding would make
that burden easier (though not as easy as getting rid of the content 
restrictions).

>Once I understood that your proposal was limited to WARC bands I had no major
>problem with it in general, however, I am not convinced that it serves the
>Amateur Community at large. As to current amateur practice.  It is currently
>the accepted amatuer practice on HF, with a couple of exceptions that the
>*amateur* determine if the frequency is in use before transmitting, and that
>no-amateur, group or station *own* a frequency.

You've neglected 10m FM, for starters, which is in fact HF.  The distinction
you're making with respect to HF versus VHF operation is based largely in
tradition; clearly new operations like UAA data links have no chance in
such an environment where "everything is already taken".

>A question.  Does your proposal limit use of a frequency to any other Amateur?
>E.g. if I happen to wander down to xx.xxx and fire off a CQ on say CW would
>that be a violation of the rules as you would propose?

If yo like to operate FM simplex on the input of a repeater, this is not
a violation of Parth 97 explicitly.  However, this clearly falls outside
the domain of Good Amateur Practice, as defined in 97.101.  This is the
model to use for HF UAA operations; the FCC should not (and cannot by
97.101(b) ) allocate a particular frequency to any station; this should
be left to the coordinating body.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Date: 21 Aug 1992 18:53:39 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
>In fact, if 1000
>stations all set up for unattended forwarding at once, we'd have a congestive
>collapse in less than a day.

And considering how well the existing packet network functions, would
anyone notice?

If the existing HF autoforwarding isn't to be continued, I'll shed one
tear and resume working on ways to make a real digital network for ham radio.

The existing HF network works so poorly that we already have people
doing the damndest things to patch and bandage the mess - like limiting
messages to 1024 bytes, or sawing out all the headers, or even worse.

I can get a larger message across the country faster, cheaper, and more
reliably by putting it in an envelope and mailing it.  I think we should
be ashamed of that.

Shooing the flies away from a dead horse won't make it get up and run.
HF packet is better than nothing, but only by a bit.  Nope, it's time to
start working on a real network, whatever that may wind up looking like.

I envision broadcast protocols, batching schemes, bulk relay, and who knows
what else as the next steps.  Instead of pathetically grasping for the
continuation of an experiment that has only shown a very modest success,
let's work on something that will make it obsolete.

I don't believe that HF will ever hold the answer, because we can't get
enough bandwidth there to make it worthwhile.  Let's see what we can do
elsewhere.
	- Brian
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 11:06:37 GMT


SB ALL @ ALLUS < NO8M $41606_NO8M
ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
R:920819/2338z @:NO8M.#NEOH.OH.USA.NA North Olmsted #:41606 Z:44070
 
 
      Many in the ARRL, including Luck Hurder who supports banning HF
autoforwarding, are claiming the need to contact ARRL leadership to express
our desire and give input to the belief that this is being improperly done.
 
      In my Division, this has been tried and has failed.  Has it failed in
your Division?
 
      Mike Pechura, WA8BXN, the author of MSYS, Dave Foran, WB8APD, an APLINK
sysop, Dave Kersten, N8AUH, Ohio Section Manager, Al Severson, AB8P, Great
Lakes Division Director and I, a sysop, met before the Director's meeting. 
At that time we discussed not only the need for automated HF forwarding but
the fact that there were not too many valid reasons for abandonment of the
advances that the STA has brought us.  We also discussed the impact of the
deletion of the STA's advances on the current packet network.  We also
discussed the furor that would ensue should the network be attacked in this
manner.
 
      At the end of the meeting, we were told that Al would fight the good
fight but that he expected tremendous opposition.  After the release of the
minutes to that meeting we learned that Al had sold us down the river.  He
voted to ban automated forwarding.
 
      I am not sure what constitutes valid input to the leaders and staff of
the ARRL.
 
      Look at the amateurs this is affecting and you will find example after
example of amateurs giving 100% or better to this hobby.  Those that are
offering input have impressive technical credentials in areas of education,
employment, operation and dedication to their amateur radio community.  These
are the amateurs that are wondering why the ARRL is doing away with this mode
of operation.  These are the amateurs that are giving the ARRL input.
 
      As we move into the final phase before going to the FCC, we now see
what might be called "inventions" being propagated.  The ARRL's STA
administrator Luck Hurder states that all STAed stations were contacted many
times.  STA station after STA station refute that.  Does that make Luck
Hurder a liar?  Al Severson claims 700 stations are on file at the ARRL who
would begin autoforwarding with, perhaps, thousands of stations actually
showing up.  Upon what is that based?  Give me a list of calls so that I can
verify that 1,000 stations want to run unattended HF.
 
      What is this ARRL coming to?
 
73,
Steve
NO8M @ NO8M.OH.USA.NA
 
 
/EX
--
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:49:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> I beg to differ with you.  97.3(34) very clearly defines a repeater as "An
> amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of other stations."


The operative word here is SIGNALS.   A Digipeater does not retransmit
anybody's signals.  It demodulates the signal, stores it into a
digital, form and retransmits it at a later time.  A digipeater
no more meats the 97.3 definition than a voice mailbox.

> The FCC rules say what they say, and only what they say.  No interpretation, 
> other than by the FCC, is valid.

Then your interpretation of 97.3 and my interpretation of 97.3 don't
have any validity, so we can stop discussing this :-).
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HF Packet and a question...
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:19:38 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

>In article <1992Aug8.143900.21419@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Yes Phil, that's what I said too. Keep the pipe full. Have concentrator
>>[...]

>Who said anything about "concentrator" nodes?  The end nodes
>[...]


Hey guys - please, please, PLEASE do NOT take this conversation
private (just in case you were thinking about it!).  This is
interesting stuff (unlike "Is is OK to use the autopatch for..."
or "Is it considered business if I...").

Dave
-- 
==========================================================================
Dave Bushong, KZ1O@K1UGM.MA         + 
Wang Laboratories, Inc.             + "Ma-ha"..... "Ah-haa"
Internet: dbushong@wang.com         +
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: mont@netcom.com (Mont Pierce)
Subject: Re: No code Techs using J mode on Satellites?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 19:27:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug14.175127.21300@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> 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.
>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!
>

It is perfectly legal, as long as you transmit on a freq you're allowed
to the repeater (or satellite) can rebroadcast your signal on any freq 
that it's class license is allowed.  You are not responsible for the
transmittions of the repeater, the repeater owner is.

Another way to look at it is like this:  Just because a repeater is 
listening on a frequency that you have priviledges on does not mean
that you now have to avoid using this frequency.

73,
-- 
Mont Pierce

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ham Call: KM6WT             Internet:  mont@netcom.com                  |
|    bands: 80/40/20/2        IBM vnet:  mont@vnet.ibm.com                |
|    modes: cw,ssb,fm                                                     |
|      qth: Fremont, CA       Religion:  Jehovah's Witnesses    9/72      |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:40:49 GMT

In article <426@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>No, in spite of the definition, FCC doesn't consider a store-and
>forward digital device a repeater as defined in 97.1. 

I beg to differ with you.  97.3(34) very clearly defines a repeater as "An
amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of other stations."

This is a very clear definition, which digipeaters fall into.  They ARE 
REPEATERS, and are subject to the same rules as other types are repeaters.

If the ARRL has another set of rules that it operates from, I'd like to see
the legal interpretations which support this.

The FCC rules say what they say, and only what they say.  No interpretation, 
other than by the FCC, is valid.

WD5IYT
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            |   "If at first you don't succeed...
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |        Use a bigger hammer!"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: cole@soldev.tti.com (Randy Cole)
Subject: Re: Neighbor Relations (was Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?)
Organization: Citicorp-TTI
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.173209.530@miki.pictel.com> wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith) writes:
>From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
>Subject: Neighbor Relations (was Re: CC&Rs - how binding are they?)
>Date: 18 Aug 92 17:32:09 GMT


>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}"?

>  (lotsa good stuff deleted here)

>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

Thanks, Willie, for a well-worded comment.  Acting
reasonably -- what a concept!  I have a modest tribander and
a set of satellite antennas on my roof.  Nothing unusual
about that, except my house is in a HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ZONE!  All it takes is the ability to get along with your
neighbors.

OK, so I have some antennas.  One of my neighbors likes to
work on cars in his back yard at midnight.  The other has a
back yard which consists mainly of dirt and dog poop.
Neither makes me real happy, but overall they're both pretty
decent neighbors.  I'm willing to take the bad with the
good.

Am I the only ham in the country who doesn't believe that an
80-foot tower with nine antennas is guaranteed to enhance
the appearance of the neighborhood?  Did I miss the art
class that compared a seven-element long-boom 20-meter
monobander with Michaelangelo's David?  Try putting yourself
in the other guy's shoes, folks.

The reason that we have zoning restrictions, CC&Rs, lawsuits
and all the rest is because too many people think only about
themselves.  Failing to have real tolerance in our society,
we try to legislate it.

So, if you live in a neighborhood with CC&Rs, design boards,
etc., please accept my condolences.  I offer no solutions.
But if you're fortunate to live in a neighborhood where
exterior displays of personal freedom are still allowed, I
think you'll find that a little human relations will get you
a lot.

Or, as my mom used to say, "You catch more flies with
honey than you do with vinegar".

73,

Randy Cole
KN6W
cole@soldev.tti.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf)
Subject: Re: ARRL Input/Is Hurder a Liar?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 03:24:57 GMT


 
>>ag807@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Wolf) writes:
>> 
>>      Many in the ARRL, including Luck Hurder who supports banning HF
>>autoforwarding, are claiming the need to contact ARRL leadership to express
>>our desire and give input to the belief that this is being improperly done.
 
>dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
>
>Hey! Luck Hurder does not support banning HF autoforwarding. HF
>autoforwarding is not currently legal. Stop twisting words to continually
>politicize this issue!
 
1.  The HF AUTOMATED STA packet network is moving mail.
 
2.  The ARRL had a choice of supporting the continuation of this process or
      banning it.
 
3.  The ARRL is going to petition the FCC to ban HF AUTOMATED forwarding.
 
Please advise the paragraph number and the word that is twisted.
 
There is no politicizing going on.  That will happen during the election of
      the new Directors.  Be assured that then again our packet networks will
      once again be ripe with information on the fact that the ARRL is NOT
      controlled by the membership but by the likes of Sumner, Hurder and the
      rest of the autocrats in Newington.
 
/ex
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:56:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: arrl.439
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>In article <426@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>>No, in spite of the definition, FCC doesn't consider a store-and
>>forward digital device a repeater as defined in 97.1. 
>
>I beg to differ with you.  97.3(34) very clearly defines a repeater as "An
>amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of other stations."
>
>This is a very clear definition, which digipeaters fall into.  They ARE 
>REPEATERS, and are subject to the same rules as other types are repeaters.
>
>If the ARRL has another set of rules that it operates from, I'd like to see
>the legal interpretations which support this.
>
>The FCC rules say what they say, and only what they say.  No interpretation, 
>other than by the FCC, is valid.

In other words, the don't mean what they say, they mean what the FCC
*says* they say.  Exactly my point!

Inasmuch as FCC allows store-and-forward digital operations below 29.5 MHz,
and insamuch as repeater operation is not allowed below 29.5 MHz, it is
clear that store-and-forward digital stations are not repeaters to the
FCC. (I could have picked an example other than the frequency limitations.)
I can't point you to a place where the FCC says, in so many words,
"digital store-and-forward stations aren't repeaters."  But from the rules
themselves and from a lot of the supporting documentation (see, for
example, the Report and Order and the Memorandum Opinion and Order in
PR Docket 85-105) it is clear that FCC never considered such devices
to be repeaters.

Also, the ARRL's FCC Rule Book states (p. 10-5) that "digipeaters are
not repeaters."  While this book is not an official FCC document, its
contents are prepared in consultation with FCC staff.

All the evidence available to me shows that *FCC* doesn't consider such
stations repeaters.  If you know of evidence to the contrary, please
let me know and I'll ask the regulatory people here to get the FCC to
clarify it.

Hope that helps.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   |  jbloom@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St.                      |
Newington, CT 06111               |
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: paulf@w6yx (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: HF Packet and a question...
X-Comment:  Fidonet needs better attribution quoting....woof!
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:10:04 GMT

Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:


>I would agree that a geosynch would be nice :-) But please Paul be careful when
>attributing me to quotes which I didn't make :-0 

Your attribution of "GC" was included along with the article.  So I was
quoting your attribution (which frankly I hadn't seen elsewhere).

Yes indeed, geosync would be nice. =:^)

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Anyway, nothing can beat Good Old American
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          | Know - How." -- Harry Canyon, _Heavy Metal_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:59:52 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 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}

Cheers,
 Willis n5szf
{Pointedly not taking a position on HF UAA}

 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Organization: Little to None
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:03:48 GMT

>> I beg to differ with you.  97.3(34) very clearly defines a repeater as "An
>> amateur station that automatically retransmits the signals of other stations."
>The operative word here is SIGNALS.   A Digipeater does not retransmit
>anybody's signals.  It demodulates the signal, stores it into a
>digital, form and retransmits it at a later time.  A digipeater
>no more meats the 97.3 definition than a voice mailbox.

Most RC-850 systems have a delay line in them (so leading edges of TTs
don't get thru to the output).  They demodulate the signal, store it,
and retransmit it at a later time.

So, what's the difference?
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.