HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:54:15 GMT

In article <l5dmhpj.pdh@netcom.com>, pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
|> IMHO this is borderline.  If it is something more routine, such as actually
|> planning or expecting to ask for directions over the radio, then it would
|> certainly be a business use.  [...]

I think this is an excellent illustration of why the FCC's proposal
to redo 97.113 doesn't go far enough.

Whatever remains in 97.113 ought to be clear, concise and as tolerant
as possible. It ought to ban only those communications that are a
clear and major threat to the service, not those that "might" be.  And
most importantly, it ought to stop (or at least greatly diminish)
these interminable discussions about whether a particular use of ham
radio is permitted or not.

That's why I don't like the "regular basis" part of the proposal.
Who's to define "regular"? Seems as vague as what we have now, maybe
even more so.

I plan to file comments that call for a very simple rule: the only
thing you can't do is to *sell ham radio communications*. Period.
Anything else goes.  This rule captures the *amateur* nature of the
service, it is very simple and easy to understand, and it should limit
any abuse to very low levels. After all, what ham wants to provide a
large-scale common carrier service to a money-making company for free?

At Dayton, the FCC's Bill Cross, who drafted the NPRM in this docket,
told me personally that they were aware of and very much liked my
simple rule, but they drafted the NPRM the way it was because of what
the League had requested.  That told me that if the ham community were
to file comments supporting greater relaxation of 97.113 than the FCC
is now proposing, they would very likely go along. Just as they did in
the no-code docket when they expanded the privileges to include 6 and
2 meters.

So crank up those text editors!

Phil
From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Ham Radio "banned" at Iowa State?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:31:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

bob@olwejo.UUCP (Bob Kupiec) writes:

>High-current appliances are also banned at LaSalle. ;-)

Unfortunately most dorms were just not designed to have the electrical
capacity that is needed to support a vast amount of current in the
electrical service.  Look at all the new stuff we have today that
puts a drain on electrical systems that were not designed to have
things like other appliances you do not regularly see in dorms.

Then there is the question of the electrical bill.  In an apartment
you pay for your own.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: levy@levy.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to ...
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:48:30 GMT

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.  I was unable,
> for reaons I forget, to get help directly from a local Amoco station and
> ended up calling the Illinois State Police and asking them to get her an
> Amoco tow truck.  One guy did then tell me I had made an illegal autopatch
> to a service station, luckily he did not kill the patch.  I told him I
> considered it legal and I still do.

I get the impression that some people have a tendency to forget some of the
intricicies of the things they have to learn in order to get any type of
license.  I'm in the process of studying to take the FCC license test, and
I *just* finished reading the section of "Now You're Talking" that pertains
to business/emergency use.  The situation described above is specifically
mentioned in that book as a legal business use, due to the possible life
threatening bit.  Maybe that guy who complained about your call to the
Amoco station needs to do some remedial reading. 

================================================================================
[ Mark E. Levy, Fermilab          |                                            ]
[ BitNet:   LEVY@FNAL             | Unix is to computing                       ]
[ Internet: LEVY@FNALD.FNAL.GOV   |       as an Etch-a-Sketch is to art.       ]
[ HEPnet/SPAN: FNALD::LEVY (VMS!) |                                            ]
================================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jmiller@afit.af.mil (Jeffrey C Miller)
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:36:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.004054.26045@qualcomm.com> karn@chicago.qualcomm.com writes:
>In article <pschleck.711736530@odin>, pschleck@odin.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>|> In the case of the 1-900 Desert Storm message, the packet sysops were
>|> pink-ticketed, but after replying to the pink ticket, no one got fined.
>
>They didn't *need* to fine anybody -- the war ended quickly, so the
>pink tickets (the publicity, actually) had already served their
>purpose.
>
>Of course, no one ever got cited for carrying traffic related to the
>regular business affairs of the US military...
>
>Phil

Now let's be careful here ;-).  The "regular business affairs" of the US
military consist, for the most part, of putting ordnance on target and
training to do the same.  H&W traffic for a GI doesn't count. 

Of course, MARS was set up to handle most of this anyway.  If MARS is 
working properly, then you shouldn't see too many GI H&W messages,
anyway (whether MARS is working correctly is left as an exercise to the 
reader).

On the other hand, if a couple of my buddies and I get on a ham repeater
and start talking about our military jobs, does that constitute "traffic
related to the regular business affairs of the military"?  I think not,
but some humor-impaired OF out there could make a case, under current
rules, that it does...so that's why I think 97.113 needs an update.

73,


-- 
Jeffrey C. Miller,  NH6ZW/N8,  AFA8JM         |  The Air Force is
AFIT School of Engineering     ^^^^^^         |  paying me to be a
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH     soon to be       |  student, not write this
jmiller@afit.af.mil            AFA1?? again   |  or any other opinion!
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:10:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.212122.2846016@locus.com> dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:
>  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.

Well, you are correct, but all it would take is about a dozen hams who
didn't like to ARRL to 'camp out on' the bulletin frequencies just
before transmissions are scheduled, and we'd have chaos.  I kinda like
the idea of moving that stuff out of the ham bands myself, but maybe
another solution would be to malloc() a few frequencies in the HF
bands for time-domain co-ordination.  Call the co-ordinator, ask for
an hour on 14.313 (ha!) thursday evening for the Lunar Observers Net,
and know that no-one else would be co-ordinated for that
time/frequency.

Willie Smith
wpns@pictel.com
From: hbe@red-eft.uucp (Harris Boldt Edelman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:44:57 GMT
Organization: Perfect Beach No Need To Know


In <1992Jul27.212122.2846016@locus.com> dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes:

>  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.

The legal precedent for W1AW's bulletin operating practices is in the history
of the FCC's knowingly and willfully allowing them as a special case.


-Harris KB6OWB  <red-eft!hbe@valley.west.sun.com>

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Reply-To: teroach!dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Organization: Motorola Analog Integrated Circuits Division
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.005415.273@qualcomm.com> karn@chicago.qualcomm.com writes:
>I plan to file comments that call for a very simple rule: the only
>thing you can't do is to *sell ham radio communications*. Period.

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.

-Dave
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 28 Jul 1992 06:14:20 -0700
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1992Jul28.114457.25303@red-eft.uucp> hbe@red-eft.uucp (Harris Boldt Edelman) writes:
>The legal precedent for W1AW's bulletin operating practices is in the history
>of the FCC's knowingly and willfully allowing them as a special case.

All hams are equal, but some are more equal than others.

-- 
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible."    --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu       ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Los Angeles Antenna Restrictions
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:17:56 -0700
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

I was just watching a repeat of the LA City Council on the Cable TV a
few minutes ago, and a bill to change the restrictions on amateur radio
antenna structures was up for consideration.  This was the first I heard
anything about such a measure.

The audiance was packed, presumably with hams.  Apparently the new law
would increase the current hight restriction from 42' to 72'.  However,
a large fee (~$200) is required to apply for a permit to build the
tower, and all of your immediate neighbours are notified.  If any of
them object, you can pay another fee of ~$900, and have a hearing (which
you may loose).  One council-member wanted to reduce the fees by 1/2 for
any ham who could prove that he was involved in emergency communications
for 2 years in some recognized emergency commmunications group.  Another
council member didn't like hams at all, and was totally opposed to the
measure, based upon fear of interference.

There was some testimony from a representative of the LAPD, who said
that the LAPD required towers in excess of 100' to obtain reasonable
performance from their communications systems, and that any lower height
was not sufficient.  This testimony was well received by almost all
council-members except for the one individual described above.  I didn't
hear the whole discussion, but one council-member said something to
indicate that they had received testimony indicating that removing the
antennas (higher) from the population would greatly reduce
interference.  In addition, there was much talk of how amateur radio
operators were considered indispensable by many city and county agencies
for emergency communications, in cases like large earthquakes and other
natural disasters.

The measure was tabled for 1 week.

-- 
"Arguing about predestination is virtually irresistible."    --RC Sproul
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu       ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: mont@netcom.com (Mont Pierce)
Subject: Truckers using 2m for business...
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 04:46:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Lately I've been monitoring some of the 2m repeaters during the day and
it seems that a lot of truckers are moving over from CB to the 2m band.
Now I have absolutely no problem at all with this except I think it may
be more difficult in their position to not conduct business on amateur
radio. 

Case in point:  Today I heard 4 truckers which are also fellow employees
of the same company conversing on 2m.  One trucker was suppose to pick up
a crate and he couldn't find it.  He was relating this info to the other
truckers which were giving him suggestions trying to help him find it.  To
me this sounds an awful lot like business.  But how do you know where to
draw the line?  Should I have interjected a gentle reminder and asked "you
guys aren't conducting business on the amateur band are you?".

Ham radio is great when your stuck in the vehicle for long periods of time
its really nice chatting with other hams.  But I think truckers should be
careful to not carry on business there.  Maybe they should have QSYed to
a business band for this kind of QSO...

I'm pretty new to ham radio, only being licensed for about 2 months.  Can
anyone clarify what is considered business use?  The question pools hit very
lightly on this issue, but not at all in this area.  Would it be permissable
for me to seek input and suggestions for a project I am doing at work?  Any
input I get will only help me make more money working on that project....

As far as the truckers go, I can see them relating personal work experiences 
and such on the radio.  This would just be general chatter.  But relating a
problem and seeking a solution from fellow employees sure sounds to me like
business.

Oh well, thanks for letting me twist your ear on this.  Any suggestions on
possible comments or reminders that I might relate on the air to those who
seeeeem to be conducting business on the ham bands will be appreciated.

73,
-- 
Mont Pierce

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ham Call: KM6WT             Internet:  mont@netcom.netcom.com           |
|    bands: 80/40/20/2        IBM vnet:  nrpierce@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com     |
|    modes: cw,ssb,fm                                                     |
|      qth: Fremont, CA       Religion:  Jehovah's Witnesses    9/72      |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bob@olwejo.UUCP (Bob Kupiec)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Ham Radio "banned" at Iowa State?
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:48:16 GMT
Organization: Olwejo - Private UNIX System

In <pschleck.711650813@odin>, pschleck@odin.unomaha.edu writes:
>Recently on rec.radio.shortwave a student from Iowa state posted a
>message containing a signature file that caught my eye.  In addition
>to the usual protest about IA State censoring their news feed, it also
>had a reference to ham radio being "banned" in student housing.  I sent
>some E-mail to the individual asking for the specifics (i.e. is it a ban
>on just high-current appliances and external antennas, or does it ban
>everything right down to the micro-HT in your backpack?) [...]

I can't speak for the ISU situation, but I can comment on my own.  At
LaSalle the Student Handbook states:

"
_Security and Safety Requirements_

[...]

5. PROHIBITED!

Because of legal statutes, and for health and safety reasons, etc.,
the following are not allowed in the residence halls:

[...]
X connections to outside aerials or antennas
X radio transmitters"

It also states:

"...the following areas ... could lead to a loss of housing privileges
or suspension from the University on a first offense.

[...]

4. Breeches of security/safety measures which could put at risk
   members of the University community..."

pschleck@odin.unomaha.edu also writes:
>on just high-current appliances and external antennas, or does it ban

High-current appliances are also banned at LaSalle. ;-)

There are not very many hams at LaSalle.  Actually, I know of only one,
myself.  I don't know of any other students who may be hams, but some
of the faculty are.

So, by the rules, bringing my HT (a "radio transmitter") into my room is a
violation of policy and grounds for suspension.  Also, by the rules, the
many students that use a cordless phone (a "radio transmitter") are also in
violation.  My estimate of the number of cordless phones are in the 100 to
200 range.  As you can see, the rules are *NOT* being enforced *AT ALL* in
this case.  I'll feel OK using the HT from my room this year.

Can anyone more familiar with this kind of situation comment further?

-- 
Bob Kupiec - Olwejo System Admin. - N3MML   !: uunet!cs.widener.edu!olwejo!bob
UUCP: olwejo!bob@cs.widener.edu             Internet: kupiec@hp800.lasalle.edu
School: LaSalle University, 20th St. & Olney Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19141-0150
   -=-=-=-   Self-Quote: "I'm DOS-free: never had it, never will."   -=-=-=-
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:50:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.004054.26045@qualcomm.com-- karn@chicago.qualcomm.com writes:
...
--
--Of course, no one ever got cited for carrying traffic related to the
--regular business affairs of the US military...
--
--Phil
Whine, whine....

I didn't realize the US military was a business. Or do you have a specific
example?
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Truckers using 2m for business...
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul27.173010.1@cc.uvcc.edu> coleve@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
>
>   The anti-commercialism rule is killing this hobby.  I can't blame the kids
>for not joining up, since you can't do anything truely important on ham radio
>for fear of getting slapped with a fine.  Get rid of it!  If I'm not making
>money, it's not commercial, at least not for me.

That works for me. I hear a lot of what is now called commercial content
on the air. Long arguments erupt over what is legal and what is not. The
simple rule you state, if you're not paid to make the transmission, it's 
not commercial, works for me. Does that mean that Red Cross *volunteers* 
can use ham radio to carry out Red Cross business? Sure. Do I care? No. I 
think that's an appropriate use. Does it mean UPS can use *paid* ham 
operators to dispatch packages? Obviously not, dispatching is part of their
job. Does it mean you can order a pizza via the autopatch? Sure, the pizza
*costs* you money. The fact that it saves you a quarter for a pay phone,
or 30 cents a minute cellphone charges is the phone company's bad luck. 
They're big enough to take care of themselves. If some heckler breaks in
and orders several extra pizzas while you're on the patch, that's your
bad luck. You knew you were using a public resource. (I've had hams do
this to me at drive through windows. It's evil. :-))

Gary KE4ZV
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Truckers, Pizza, Policy
Date: 30 Jul 1992 15:25:50 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

jerry@ncc.uky.edu (Jerry Nokes Jr.) writes:
>                      "  In the spirit of Amateur Radio"
>
>  Splitting hairs is not the "spirit".  Helping people, insuring safety,
>  educating, securing friendships:  that is the spirit.

Would that it were so.  Certainly that is one INTENTION of amateur
radio.  But it's lost in the noise of people splitting hairs, looking
for faults in others, and complaining.

Are we so oppressed by our own rules and rulers that we have to become
tyrants ourselves?
	- Brian
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: OH Abandons ARRL Information
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:39:43 EDT

pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
>hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) writes:
>>   If the ARRL committee ever decides to re-open the issue, how will
>>Ohio packet users ever receive the word? :-) :-)
>How will Ohio packet users every convince the ARRL to quit pulling these
>stunts?

With calm, reasoned arguments?

Nahhhh.  Much better to just hold their breath until their radios turn blue.
From: alanb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:23:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:

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

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

There is no regulation that requires listening before transmitting.

AL N1AL
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.packet