Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:00:29 PST From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Info-Hams-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #181 To: Info-Hams Info-Hams Digest Sat, 19 Feb 94 Volume 94 : Issue 181 Today's Topics: Callsign allocations Chinese Amateurs Sent to Labor Camps ? Coax minimum-loss impeance DJ-580 UHF receive ragne Frequency Exchange INFO response: ARRL-EMAIL-ADR International callsigns and prefixes Medium range point-to-point digital links Probable demise of the online repeater directory project (2 msgs) Satellite Tracking Programs Scandinavian Repeaters Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 1994 23:20:29 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!astro.as.utexas.edu!oo7@ames.arpa Subject: Callsign allocations To: info-hams@ucsd.edu hamilton@BIX.com (hamilton on BIX) asks: >>But what can you do to lookup an international callsign? I'm not >>aware if there's even an ascii text file out there someplace that would >>allow me to do even the simplest lookup of the prefix to determine >>what country it's from. (This month's CQ contains such a list, but >>you can bet I'm not ready to key it in myself. :-) >>What machine-readable resources are available for looking up international >>calls? Don't people read words and books by eye any more? The ARRL log books and many other sources have all this information listed on a couple of pages - you know, printing on paper. When you hear an unfamiliar callsign, you look at the piece of paper. It's much like looking in a dictionary - a real book, that is, not an "on-line word source". Can you tell that I was born before computers became popular? Derek Wills (AA5BT, G3NMX) Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712. (512-471-1392) oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 94 17:03:34 GMT From: concert!inxs.concert.net!rock.concert.net!mikewood@rutgers.rutgers.edu Subject: Chinese Amateurs Sent to Labor Camps ? To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Information was posted on the Southeastern U.S.A. DX Packet Cluster system last nite that if true is a most disturbing occurrence. The posting stated that the Voice of America had reported that ** all ** radio amateurs in the The Peoples Republic of China (Radio Prefix BY ) had been placed in labor camps. Does anyone have verification and/or further details of this situation? Does the VOA post any news scripts to any Internet locations? Some amateurs noted that there had been a recent lack of activity from PRC amateurs but had attributed this to poor propagation. If the information proves to be true, I urge you to protest this action by calls or letters to the PRC Embassy in your country. The reported reason fr the action by the way was that all PRC amateurs "had been monitoring unauthorized frequencies". Mike Wood Internet: mikewood@rock.concert.net The Signal Group P.O. Box 1979 ***Avoid company disclaimers by owning the company *** Wake Forest, NC 27588 Phone: 919-556-8477 Fax: 919-556-0115 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 22:30:44 -0800 From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!mcws!FUsenetToss@ames.arpa Subject: Coax minimum-loss impeance To: info-hams@ucsd.edu I think the 92 Ohm coax was an attempt to make as high an impedance as reasonable, since most tube circuits work best at higher impedances. Anything much higher was very lossy and fragile and expensive, so they got as close as they could to 100 Ohms. Just a speculation.. 73 DE K6DDX ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 1994 16:25:49 GMT From: ucsnews!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!news.kei.com!eff!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!bigfoot.wustl.edu!cec3!jlw3@network.ucsd.edu Subject: DJ-580 UHF receive ragne To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Ruentien Lu (ruentien@maverick.Corp.Sun.COM) wrote: : hi, guys: : I recently purchase a ALINCO DJ-580, it is a great radio. The quality of audio is great. I have no complaint about this rig. : I got one question here, the menu stated the receive range for UHF is from 430 to 470 Mhz, but what I found is that I can make it from 400 to 520 Mhz. I didn't make any modification on this rig, I don't know this is misinformed on menu? or ..... : Any answer will be appreciated!! : PS. I don't have call-sign yet, just pass the test last week. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you know, I don't think I'd be able to put up with not being able to TX for two months after getting the radio. you must have some self-discipline! more than I have at least. Just hope that warrantee doesn't expire too soon. . . (Note: I'm not implying that there is anything with this radio) If only the FCC would hurry up!!! --jesse (57 days and counting--so I guess that's over 8 weeks) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 00:22:47 MST From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!wierius!isus!dtr!jamoran@ames.arpa Subject: Frequency Exchange To: info-hams@ucsd.edu is ther anyone out there that wants to trade frequency lists. I just finished work on a database of international broadcasters. i also have a database of Scanner frequencies (Aviation, Air Traffic Control, Transit systems, Police, Fire departments, State and Federal Government agencies) most of my entries are for AZ/CA/NM/UT/CO but I have some from other areas too. my snail mail address is p.o. box 25506 tempe az 85285 (USA) JOHN MORAN -- jamoran@dtr.stat.com (John moran) Data Terminal Ready BBS +1 602 993 4753 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 17:02:29 EST From: info-serv@arrl.org (ARRL HQ AUTOMATED ELECTRONIC MAIL SERVER) Subject: INFO response: ARRL-EMAIL-ADR To: yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu From: jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc Subject: ARRL HQ email list Summary: How to contact ARRL HQ (repost with fixed news feed) Date: 18 Jan 93 09:59:37 EST Organization: American Radio Relay League The following ARRL HQ staffers AND ONLY THESE STAFFERS can be contacted directly via the net at the addresses shown. I've also included a brief mention, where appropriate, of some of the specific duties of the staff member so that you'll know who to contact. Staff member, call, title address ------------------------------------------- --------------- Al Brogdon, K3KMO, QST Managing Editor abrogdon@arrl.org Brian Battles, WS1O, Features Editor bbattles@arrl.org (Strays, New Products, Feature articles) Jon Bloom, KE3Z, Senior Engineer (arrl.org jbloom@arrl.org postmaster, QEX editor) Bob Boucher, Purchasing Manager rboucher@arrl.org Pete Budnik, KB1HY, Educational Assistant pbudnik@arrl.org James Cain, K1TN, QST Senior Editor jcain@arrl.org Joe Carcia, NJ1Q, Outgoing QSL Bureau jcarcia@arrl.org Mary Carcia, N7IAL, Administrative mcarcia@arrl.org Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer (ARRL Foundation; scholarships; endowments, bequests and donations) Lisa Delude, Administrative Assistant to ldelude@arrl.org the Executive Vice President Bridget DiCosimo, Technical Department bdicosim@arrl.org Secretary (article reprints; orbit calendars; PCB templates etc.) Kathy Fay, Deputy Circulation Manager kfay@arrl.org Steve Ford, WB8IMY, Assistant Technical sford@arrl.org Editor (Operating Manual; packet and satellite books; QST satellite and "Lab Notes" columns) Mike Gruber, WA1SVF, Laboratory Engineer mgruber@arrl.org (product testing) Ed Hare, KA1CV, Laboratory Supervisor (RFI; ehare@arrl.org product testing) John Hennessee, KJ4KB, Regulatory jhenness@arrl.org Information Specialist (Regulatory questions, "Washington Mailbox" column, FCC Rule Book) Tom Hogerty, KC1J, DXCC Manager thogerty@arrl.org Luck Hurder, KY1T, Field Services Dept. lhurder@arrl.org Deputy Manager (Clubs; Field Organization; ARRL telephone BBS) Chuck Hutchinson, K8CH, Membership chutch@arrl.org Services Manager (Contests; awards; DXCC etc.) Bob Inderbitzen, NQ1R, Assistant to the rinderbi@arrl.org Manager, Educational Activities Bart Jahnke, KB9NM, Volunteer Examiner bjahnke@arrl.org Department Manager (Exams, VE coordination, etc.) Debra Jahnke, Circulation Manager djahnke@arrl.org Jim Kearman, KR1S, Assistant Technical jkearman@arrl.org Editor (books) Bill Kennamer, K5FUV, DXCC Specialist bkennamer@arrl.org Joel Kleinman, N1BKE, Associate Technical jkleinma@arrl.org Editor (in charge of editing technical books) Kirk Kleinschmidt, NT0Z, QST Assistant kkleinsc@arrl.org Managing Editor Lisa Kustosik, Administrative Assistant, lkustosi@arrl.org Regulatory Information Branch Greg Kwasowski, Building Manager gkwasows@arrl.org Zack Lau, KH6CP, Laboratory Engineer zlau@arrl.org (RF/microwave circuit design, QRP) Billy Lunt, KR1R, Contest Manager blunt@arrl.org Steve Mansfield, N1MZA, Public Relations smansfie@arrl.org Manager (news stories, etc.) Tony Mascaro, Comptroller amascaro@arrl.org Jay Mabey, NU0X, Repeater Directory Editor jmabey@arrl.org John Nelson, W1GNC, Planning and Financial jnelson@arrl.org Analysis Manager Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z, QST Senior Assistant dnewkirk@arrl.org Technical Editor (Hints & Kinks) Paul Pagel, N1FB, QST Associate Technical ppagel@arrl.org Editor (in charge of QST technical editing, Technical Correspondence) Rick Palm, K1CE, Field Services Manager rpalm@arrl.org (Field Organization matters) Deane Potter, Information Services Manager dpotter@arrl.org Bob Schetgen, KU7G, Assistant Technical rschetge@arrl.org Editor (ARRL Handbook) Kevin Sheheen, Information Services ksheheen@arrl.org Barry Shelley, Chief Financial Officer bshelley@arrl.org Dean Straw, N6BV, Senior Assistant rdstraw@arrl.org Technical Editor Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, Executive Vice President dsumner@arrl.org (policy matters, HQ administration) Glenn Swanson, KB1GW, Assistant to the gswanson@arrl.org Manager, ARRL VEC Brad Thomas, KC1EX, Advertising Manager bthomas@arrl.org Michael Tracy, KC1SX, Technical Information mtracy@arrl.org Services Coordinator Lori (Maty) Weinberg, Assistant to the lweinber@arrl.org Publications Manager (QEX editorial assistant) Rosalie White, WA1STO, Educational rwhite@arrl.org Activities Department Manager (info on becoming a ham/training/SAREX) Perry Williams, W1UED, Washington Area 2242662@mcimail.com Coordinator (National Legislation and Regulatory Affairs) Mark Wilson, AA2Z, QST Editor mwilson@arrl.org Larry Wolfgang, WR1B, Senior Assistant lwolfgan@arrl.org Technical Editor (Beginner's books, license manuals) Tammy-Beth Zimmerman, KA1WWP, Membership tzimmer@arrl.org Services Administrative Assistant (DXCC, awards, QSL buro) In addition to these specific people, we've also set up the following accounts: Automated Information Service (information info@arrl.org files on Amateur Radio) Education Activities Department ead@arrl.org Technical Information Service (Technical tis@arrl.org questions) DXCC Desk dxcc@arrl.org Awards (WAS, etc.) awards@arrl.org Contests contests@arrl.org Outgoing QSL Bureau buro@arrl.org QEX Magazine qex@arrl.org W1AW 76067.3724@compuserve.com Other questions and messages to other specific HQ staff members should continue to be addressed to "2155052@mcimail.com" which will result in their receipt in the "front office" here at ARRL HQ. You should include your postal address (the slow kind) in case we need to send you nonelectronic material in answer to your request. Other useful addresses: Tom Frenaye, K1KI, Vice President 2349723@mcimail.com Frank Butler, W4RH, Southeastern Division 3113659@mcimail.com Director Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, QST (Packet horzepa@evax.gdc.com Perspective) columnist ------- Jon Bloom, KE3Z | jbloom@arrl.org American Radio Relay League | Justice is being allowed to do whatever 225 Main St. | I like. Injustice is whatever prevents Newington, CT 06111 | my doing so. -- Samuel Johnson -- Medical Image Processing Group | Conway Yee, N2JWQ 411 Blockley Hall | EMAIL : yee@mipg.upenn.edu 418 Service Drive | VOICE : 1 (215) 662-6780 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (USA) | FAX : 1 (215) 898-9145 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 94 22:41:28 GMT From: agate!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hamilton@ames.arpa Subject: International callsigns and prefixes To: info-hams@ucsd.edu If you'd like to look up a US ham's callsign to get his name and address, etc., that's easy: either telnet to callsign.cs.buffalo.edu or (much better!) go buy a copy of the Walnut Creek QRZ! CD-ROM for $30. But what can you do to lookup an international callsign? I'm not aware if there's even an ascii text file out there someplace that would allow me to do even the simplest lookup of the prefix to determine what country it's from. (This month's CQ contains such a list, but you can bet I'm not ready to key it in myself. :-) What machine-readable resources are available for looking up international calls? Regards, Doug Hamilton hamilton@bix.com Ph 508-358-5715 Hamilton Laboratories, 13 Old Farm Road, Wayland, MA 01778-3117 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:33:35 GMT From: swrinde!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp!glenne@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Medium range point-to-point digital links To: info-hams@ucsd.edu Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us) wrote: : I've looked at your design. It's certainly simple for the performance : it promises, but I doubt you could sell it for under $100 per end with : ham market size volumes. The DSY modem kit is not very different in : complexity, yet GRAPES can't sell it that cheap. I believe you probably : mean that a good scrounger could gather the parts that cheap. If you : can offer a kit for $100 per end, I'll take two right away. I have a I'm definitely not an amateur manufacturing type but I greatly appreciate the difficulty of producing (kitting is probably even worse) almost anything of this type for sale. Process and production issues are often a bigger task/cost than the original design itself. However, from a complexity and parts count point of view, if one compares to existing high volume hardware (we may already be out of the camp of amateur radio) I think that lowcost microwave transceivers could be built. As I've previously mentioned, another 10-20 dB of system performance over the 10 GHz stuff at about the same cost/complexity I showed is readily available should someone choose to go after it. As I've also repeatedly said, the 10 GHz link was a "teaser" and never even intended to be used for more than a demonstration. The fact that people have built and used them is incidental. That design is certainly not one I would choose to manufacture if I did choose to get into the business. I do believe that $100 h/w is a possibility given volume production though. Existing automotive radar detectors are similar in complexity. In fact some of them are probably considerably more complex. : one mile through-the-trees link I need to make right now. A pair of : Wavelan cards feeding Down East loop yagis won't make it, but 100 mw : HTs at 70 cm make it fine, as can a pair of GRAPES 56kb modens feeding : 70 cm transverters (but I can't do that because I need them for another : link). BTW, a BER better than 1 in 10^6 is no problem with the DSY design : with 1.0 microvolt of signal into the modem. I think you really need to be careful to compare apples and apples. 100 mw HTs aren't anything close to the video bandwidths which I was discussing. Also, with the narrower bandwidth and low data rate, multipath distortion and the resulting intersymbol interference (or phase distortion as it is sometimes called) isn't nearly so significant. I think that a BER of better than 1e-6 may be difficult in many or most non-LOS situations without error correction and/or channel equalization (whether through brute force means or with spread spectrum). Even at only GRAPES speeds this is an issue. I would point to the Ottowa group's experiences and VE3JF's CNC article as a reference. While the excess path loss degrades more slowly at lower frequencies than at microwave I maintain that as soon as one gets into high information transfer situations that multipath and path variation cause similar difficulties and make indirect paths uneconomical or impossible. When you have lots of margin to throw away (low data rates) it does indeed appear that low frequencies win. When you start pushing performance and high information transfer (lots of users over a wide area) they fail badly, even before the consideration of sufficient available spectrum is applied. I believe that this is the fundamental reason that terrestrial radio links have all been at microwave. It makes economic sense. : Well sure, pure line of sight definitely makes things better, witness : TVRO systems that make 22,500 miles on 50 watts or less. However, we : don't get that kind of performance out of our terrestrial TV links. : First of all, the bandwidth required for our TV links isn't 6 MHz, : it's 30 MHz, because we use FM video. Of course the FM enhancement : effect mitigates that somewhat. And second, we rarely have pure line I used traditional TV bandwidths in my example because they were more conservative/demanding. In using 6 MHz and 45 dB C/N instead of 35 MHz and 13 dB C/N (or your favorite number near that for a TVRO system) I was requiring about 25 dB *more* signal than a TVRO style system. If you allow the TVRO system you can increase the previous estimated distances by a factor of 16 or so. : of sight. Finally, the bulk of the path loss occurs in the first : mile, 119.27 db at 13 GHz. After that the incremental losses are : rather small, another 3 db for every doubling of distance. Wow! I stand corrected. Things must work differently where you are. The darn signals drop 6 dB when you double the distance out here in California. This happens every time you double it, the second mile or the second hundred (or pretty close to it up through 10 GHz) as long as you're LOS. : a 40 foot mast. So pure LOS is pretty much a mountaintop to mountaintop : affair for longer distances. Yes it is unless a lot more path engineering is done than amateurs are used to doing. However, if we are ever to get high information rate systems we are going to *have* to pay attention to details. Once we do this, those details will be made more economic as we use microwave/millimeter (if all of amateur radio hasn't been scooped by fiber by then) wavelengths. : > While it's true that you would need line-of-sight, I think most : >practical installations of a lower frequency system also incur : >15-40 dB incremental path loss once they leave LOS conditions and : >for higher information rate transmission effectively need LOS in order : >to stay economic. : Well lets look at a 219 MHz system with a 11 db antenna at 40 feet I'm discussing higher speed systems. Links of the type required to trunk a significant number of users with moderate to high bandwidth applications across the US. 1 MHz at 219 is not going to be able to support such without a tremendous amount of spacial reuse which probably means antennas so large as to be impractical. : That gives us a margin of 95.87 db. Looks like we can easily tolerate : 15-40 db of foliage and building loss in the path. For the same path, : it looks like foliage losses at 10 GHz are about 30 db more, for a : total of about 198 db at 10 GHz, or about 20 db below your system's : noise floor worst case. Yes, if you don't need much performance you can use lower frequencies, you can lose a lot of the *potential* performance and still function. For that matter you can run 60 wpm rtty on HF across great distances if that's your goal. My point is that once you try to get economical performance at high information rates you can't afford to throw away power into poorly engineered paths and that the economics greatly favor microwave over vhf for wireless systems. : >Also, at high information rates, the additional multipath and path : : >variability problems incurred by going to a non-LOS path make the UHF : : >solution even less attractive since error correction, channel equalization : >and additional system margin may be required to guarantee data flow. : Ok. Lets take a look at beyond horizon signals. If we assume forward Let's not. Once you've done that you have thrown away so much system capability that it is beyond amateur resources. I don't think most of us are ready to install multi-killiwatt troposcatter systems of the kind the military used at low vhf to island hop in the Pacific. And that's about what it takes if you are talking about medium speed information (though I suspect the military stuff was more or less audio bandwidths). If you did consider long haul, I suspect that microwave might do better than many expect. During the 10GHz over-land DX record tests we did a few years ago, both the strongest and the most reliable signals heard across the 415 mile path were at 10 GHz. They were the strongest when the ducting occurred and they were the most reliable in that the 1 watt into a *30 inch* diameter antenna was always copiable via troposcatter. This was true even though we had liaison on 40M SSB, 144 MHz (1/4 KW and long yagis each end) and 432 MHz. However,neither of those propagation mechanisms is one I would want to consider for high rate information transfer. : Now back to the real world. We have a 90 mile 70 cm path between Sweat : Mtn and Scaly Mtn that is not line of sight. It works with very few : retries. We're using 19 db antennas on each end, and our mean HAAT is : about 1300 feet, but with mountains taller than that in between. I won't : claim that's typical. We've got another link that's only 21 miles, : and line of sight, that doesn't work well. But one end is nestled : in downtown buildings and suffers severe multipath (and desense from : commercial equipment too). The tighter beamwidth of your system would : probably be a win here. Your second 21 mile link obviously *isn't* LOS! Local clutter is probably degrading things severely. Antennas help a lot (2 dB of system improvement per dB of antenna gain) but a poor path degrades things much faster than antennas can fix it. That "nestled end" that you call line-of-sight is clearly far from it. See my comment above about most practical links losing 15-40 dB as soon as they leave LOS. Your link is probably an example of this. : To summarize, if we could depend on having LOS paths, a 10 GHz system : would be ideal, but in the real world we probably can't afford the : number of hops that would require (except in special terrain cases : like the California coast with it's mountains overlooking the population : areas), and 219 MHz calculations seem to show it will suffice using : troposcatter over the much longer paths we are likely to need in our : rolling terrain. If we are willing to settle for low information rate to each user I agree. However, if we are considering medium speed or greater, as defined by the industry, culture and available systems, and if we are considering more than a single or a few users, 219 MHz capacity isn't going to come close to being enough to interest hams and potential hams in "investing". Even now it is difficult to convince people that ham radio is neat for information age services when a 14.4 kbps or 28.8 kbps modem is so cheap and provides so much performance *to the user* compared to anything AR has to offer. Glenn Elmore n6gn ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 94 14:27:55 From: swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!mipg.upenn.edu!yee@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Probable demise of the online repeater directory project To: info-hams@ucsd.edu As number of us on Internet have been compiling an online repeater database which is intended for distribution via such avenues such as Usenet. I am sure that many are aware of the usefulness of such a database. Instead of being restricted to the organization favored by others, the individual can sort the database by frequency (to take advantage of band openings) or by location (in the sense that a user can customize the data for a particular long distance trip). Further, such a database can be more easily kept up to date and could be used for all sorts of modern modes of communication. One prime example is the use of the database in the same manner that the callbook database is used. Another would be its use on World Wide Web. This is a project started by hams and for the benefit of hams. It is entirely for the benefit of the Amateur Service. The charter of the ARRL specifically states that it promotes "interest in Amateur Radio communication and experimentation" and stands "for the advancement of radio art." The online database is entirely with the spirit of these goals. Even though it is unfinished, unanticipated benefits already have been found. Before embarking upon this project, I checked with some people involved in the public distribution of electronic texts (etexts) and was told that mere FACTS are not copyrighted and that only the format was under copyright. The data format chosen for the online database is in a database format, not the format used by the ARRL repeater directory. A portion of the facts contained within the online directory, however, do have their origins in the various incarnations of the ARRL repeater directory. Recently, I recieved a polite letter from the ARRL lawyers threatening legal action if I continue on this project. Specifically, they state that the ARRL owns the FACTS present in the repeater directory and that the format of the database infringes upon the ARRL copyright. I have sent email to all the people at ARRL HQ who could possibly have something to say on the matter with several questions. 1) Is it the position of the ARRL that it owns the FACTS present within the ARRL repeater directory and that no use whatsoever can be made of these facts? 2) I about the ARRL views on how the format of the online repeater directory infringes upon the ARRL copyright. I note that there are only a small number of ways that it is possible to enter the facts into a database. Is it the contention of the ARRL that it owns them all? If not, how may the existing format be modified? One possible choice would be to sort the entries or the format of the entries in a different manner (i.e. by frequency or call). It is possible that the ARRL is concerned with only a part of the format but the letter sent is not clear on the matter. I am sure that the net aware that I am individual and in no way capable of matching the legal resources that the ARRL can place against me. The ARRL lawyers can litigate and achieve whatever aims that the ARRL wishes even if I am entirely correct. Nevertheless, I am interested in pursuing the completion of an online repeater directory because I believe that it is something that is in the best interests of the Amateur service. Since the ARRL is a membership organization "of, by and for the radio amateur," I am hoping that some compromise can be made without jeopardizing the utility of the online repeater directory. Until such time as this matter is clarified, there will be no further updates of the online repeater directory. In fact, version 0.03 may be the last public release. I simply can not afford to defend myself against legal action. As they say, "might makes right" and "no good deed goes unpunished." I am sorry to say that the way things appear at this time, the online repeater directory project will not exist without permission from the ARRL. I append below the list of people in ARRL HQ who are net accessible below. This list SHOULD not infringe upon the ARRL copyright as it was posted previously in this forum and is available for free from the ARRL info server. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 94 19:43:07 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ddsw1!indep1!clifto@ames.arpa Subject: Probable demise of the online repeater directory project To: info-hams@ucsd.edu In article yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes: >Recently, I recieved a polite letter from the ARRL lawyers threatening >legal action if I continue on this project. Specifically, they state >that the ARRL owns the FACTS present in the repeater directory and >that the format of the database infringes upon the ARRL copyright. So, even though they know better (or should), they seem to be making a thinly-veiled threat of intensive litigation apparently designed to bankrupt you into compliance. Yet another reason I vote with my dollars; I have never been, and will never be, an ARRL member. How about publishing the letter on the net? I, for one, would like to ask the FCC about private and restricted-use ownership of its de-facto database of officially coordinated repeaters. Maybe I'm being too harsh. After all, ARRL stands to lose a great deal if someone comes up with an alternative to their repeater directory; it's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that every ham will save the few bucks and replace the copies they keep in their backpacks and glove compartments with laptop computers and very long fiber optic cables connected to their Internet providers. This would financially sap the organization and leave them unable to protect their publishing income. I know personally I'd run right out and spend $15,000 on a laptop and miles of fiber to do THAT. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Cliff Sharp | | | WA9PDM | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:06:29 MST From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!stat!david@ames.arpa Subject: Satellite Tracking Programs To: info-hams@ucsd.edu I am interested in obtaining a good satellite tracking program for tracking some of the amateur birds. Recommendations on shareware / commercial packages would be appreciated. David wb7tpy --- Editor, HICNet Medical Newsletter Internet: david@stat.com FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 Bitnet : ATW1H@ASUACAD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:05:19 MST From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!stat!david@ames.arpa Subject: Scandinavian Repeaters To: info-hams@ucsd.edu I will be taking a trip to Scandanavia in the near future ... can anyone fill me in on the VHF/UHF repeater situation? David wb7tpy --- Editor, HICNet Medical Newsletter Internet: david@stat.com FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 Bitnet : ATW1H@ASUACAD ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 15:38:37 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!spider!raft.spider.co.uk!jmorris@ames.arpa To: info-hams@ucsd.edu References , <1994Feb11.140442.11801@tellab5.tellabs.com>, Subject : Re: Hamblaster update In article dtiller@cscsun.rmc.edu (Dave Tiller) writes: >John W. Albert (jwa@tellabs.com) wrote: >: The Hamblaster Update > >: Over the past several months I posted updates about a >: DSP "The Hamblaster" that Will Torgrim (N9PEA) and myself >: are developing. >: >: Several weeks ago I mentioned that the projected cost for >: the board would be about $350.00. It was just a >: "guessestmate". It looks like it will be more in the $275.00 >: range and could be as low as $250.00. This may still sound >: high compared to the Soundblaster or other sound cards, but >: you have to remember that it's made exclusivly for Ham Radio >: and it won't have the volume (sales) of other sound cards. > > >Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering why we're being continually >bombarded with a blatantly commercial posting? I'm glad they've taken >the initiative to make a new piece of hardware for hams, but I don't think >this is the proper forum for their continous ads disguised as status >reports. I find some of them interesting, and skip the ones that I don't. It's often hard to know what is going on in other parts of the world for such a specialised community as radio amateurs. So I don't object to this type of posting - at the level I have seen them recently, anyway. However, I take your point, and wonder if some gentle pointing at rec.radio.amateur.\ equipment might be in order? Or maybe even a new group, such as rec.radio.\ amateur.commercial? Just a thought. >-- >David Tiller | Network Administrator | Voice: (804) 752-7373 | >dtiller@rmc.edu | Randolph-Macon College| Fax: (804) 752-7231 | >n2kau@wa4ong.va.usa.na | P.O. Box 5005 | ICBM: 37d 42' 43.75" N | >+++Arch-Conservative+++ | Ashland, Va 23005 | 77d 31' 32.19" W | ^^^ Now the _real_ reason for posting, hi - do you change this if you shift far enough to make it wrong - say about a foot away? :-) J. -- John Morris != Spider Systems jmorris@spider.co.uk GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU ------------------------------ End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #181 ****************************** ******************************