QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/policy/930498.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 19KB

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 04:30:11 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V93 #498
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue, 30 Nov 93       Volume 93 : Issue  498

Today's Topics:
                              14313 KHz
                       No Code etc... (2 msgs)
                THE argument for CW requirements (was:
                 Use of HT for Marine & GMRS (2 msgs)
                    Why this newsgroup is like CB

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

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: 29 Nov 1993 21:28:44 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpubmaa.esr.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: 14313 KHz
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Wills) writes:
|>   Well, I doubt that it takes up more than 1-2 KHz of the entire band,
|>   and I can stand that.  A handful of jerks doesn't condemn ham radio
|>   out of hand.

Granted that for the time being this seems to be restricted to this
frequency and is not spread across the bands. It's just that having been
involved in Amateur Radio for a number of years I still see this as a
degradation. Twenty years ago this would not have been tolerated even if
anyone chose to behave this way. Will it still be restricted to these few
frequencies five years from now?

|>
|>   It would have been more relaxing to tune down to the cw parts of
|>   the bands this weekend and listened to some of the international
|>   contest that was going on.  Lots of activity, and I didn't hear
|>   a single rude word, frequency fight or jammer all weekend.
|>

Actually, this is where I spend most of my time. I work CW more than SSB
for several reasons, including low power and limited antenna, but mainly
because I enjoy it and find it fun. At the same time I am not trying to
force it on anyone if they don't enjoy it.

|>   So while there may be no difference between 14313 and CB, there
|>   are differences elsewhere.
|>

Agreed. I am not trying to condemn the entire Amateur Service because
of a handful of jerks, but at the same time I see this as an alarming
trend.

|> >>Many of the people on this frequency have Extra class calls.
|>
|>   Do people use callsigns there? - it's been months since I tuned
|>   that high in the band and I never heard a callsign given there.
|>
|>   And how can you be sure that they are not lowlier license class
|>   holders, or even unlicensed people, using Extra class callsigns?
|>   You can use anyone's callsign if you are lawless.
|>

Some were giving callsigns but who knows?

|>   If there are 10 people on 14313, there are over 600,000 hams
|>   who are NOT there at the same time.  All this stuff that others
|>   spout about proving that cw is not a filter is based on shaky
|>   statistics.  You may as well say that the driving test is not
|>   useful since the worst drivers on the road have passed the test.
|>   And remember that 33% of all surgeons graduated in the lowest
|>   third of their classes...
|>

Sure CW is a filter, but so is the written exam even though I understand that
it is somewhat easier these days. The question is what kind of filter? I
think the evidence is just as shaky that lack of a CW requirement lets in
poor operators.

|>   Some Extra class hams are jerks, of course.   It doesn't mean
|>   that they all are.  If you listen in the first 25 KHz of the
|>   cw bands you will hear lots of Extras who are not jerks.  If
|>   you listen in other places you will hear plenty of people who
|>   are not jerks, of all license classes.
|>
|>   If the stuff on 14313 bothers you, just tune somewhere else.
|>   If this stuff were spread all over all of our bands, then I'd
|>   agree that we had a major problem.  It's an annoyance, but if
|>   there is a National Jerk Frequency it's fine with me, at least
|>   they stay in one place.
|>

Let's just hope they continue to stay in one place.

Garry
KE0SH

--
Garry Howard                          Hewlett-Packard Company
Technical Consultant                  29 Burlington Mall Road
Professional Services Organization    Burlington, MA 01803 USA
[e-mail]

[I do not speak for HP officially or otherwise.]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 17:28:54 EST
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

Is it polite to force the other users to download all that old text before they
can see your reply?

BTW, Delphi has TWO newsreaders -- one called NN, and a new one.  I gave up on
NN (which allows replies to be added to a message) because its VT100-based
commands didn't work worth a darn over the (commercial) packet network.  The
new one, which Delphi apparently did in-house, works a lot like Delphi's own
forums do -- you can type PREV to see the message being replied to.  Once again,
I shouldn't have to spew out somebody else's text because other newsreaders are
poorly designed.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 1993 13:15:05 CST
From: ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!maccvm.corp.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

WAIT A MINUTE!! I for one do NOT want to become the minority when you
start counting the 27 MHz (+/-) CB boys as hams. I would rather remain
part of a much smaller select group who have demonstrated their skills
in electronics theory, rule compliance, and communications ability, and
even that dreaded enemy of the common man MORSE CODE!
   Besides, you'll have to not count them, since the FCC stopped issuing
CB licenses years ago and they have no idea how many folks currently
occupy that chunk of the spectrum. It would be interesting to see how
many folks admitted to using the 40 legal channels as compared to the
remainder, if you could justify taking a survey without jeopardy.
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Path: schbbs!mothost!binford!pitstop.mcd.mot.com!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brun
From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: No Code etc...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 14:27:23 GMT
Lines: 31

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Yes, at least until we change our treaty arrangements either by taking
> an exception as the Japanese did, or at the next competent WARC.

You know, I've always wondered why people against a code requirement
always like to point to the Japanese with their "no code" HF license.

When you actually look at the Japanese no-code HF license, it is
basically the same as CB radio in the US. Limited power, limited
distance on HF (something like 5 or 10 watts and a 250 mile distance
limitation). CB radio may be a little more restrictive, but its basically
the same thing.

So, the next time someone attempts to use the Japanese HF
argument, claiming that the Japanese have millions of amateur operators
because of it, just remember:

1. Our "no code" HF license came long before the Japanese's did , and

2. If we counted all of the current CB users as "amateurs", we'd have
   a hell of a lot more "amateurs" than Japan does.



MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 93 16:39:11 EST
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.intercon.com!psinntp![e-mail]
Subject: THE argument for CW requirements (was:
To: [e-mail]

In rec.radio.amateur.policy, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>mode. (No surprise, eh?) But what I want to address here is slightly
>different. Dan says nothing exceeds the human ear's ability to recognize
>patterns buried in noise. Leaving aside mechanical DSP and other encodings
>such as PSK which track better because they *aren't* on/off keyed and
>allow coherent detection, there is another *human* system that has better
>pattern extraction capability than the human auditory system. That's the
>human visual system. Physiologists tell us that the human visual system

Good point.  I should have mentioned that in the AMSAT article I
mentioned earlier, the author used a visual spectral display to
find a weak Morse signal that he couldn't even detect by ear.
------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z                   | [e-mail]
American Radio Relay League       |
225 Main St., Newington CT 06111  |

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 12:31:38 -0700
From: ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!node_13059.aieg.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: Use of HT for Marine & GMRS
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Steve Holland) wrote:

> I think that in the regs for each service, other than the amateur
> service, it is required that the equipment used be type certified
> for use in that service.  I wonder is some of the radios we use
> are type certified in multiple services and just packaged and
> labelled differently.  I had asked a local radio company about use
> of my 440 HT for GMRS use and he told me it would be illegal and
> he wanted to sell me a $600 radio that was GMRS type certified.

Not only is that done, most of the commercial radios have counterparts in
ham rigs!  The major difference is usually the ham rig having many more
functions.

Even so, I am unaware of any comercial radio being type accepted for more
than one service such as GMRS and Marine, even if the only difference is
the front panel!

--
Mike Waters  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

BOBS BEST BENT WIRE SK

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 1993 13:24:47 CST
From: ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!maccvm.corp.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: Use of HT for Marine & GMRS
To: [e-mail]

Steve -  Given the cost of type acceptance and the obvious marketing
advantages that would result if radios were type-accepted, you can bet
the farm that if your amateur radio was FCC type-accepted it would be
so labeled. In fact, that's a requirement of type acceptance procedure.
Every US manufacturer that I know does get TA for as many services as
possible on every model, so they can write off the development and TA
across as many unit sales as possible. The simple fact is that hams won't
pay commercial prices for commercial quality equipment; it has been
proven many times with many manufacturers and products. We always say
"I could build that myself for one fourth the price," but you know how
few hams actually build anything themselves any more.
   I do applaud your dealer for at least trying to maintain some level
of technical standards on the bands. Dealers themselves do not pay the
penalties when someone uses an illegal radio commercially, the user pays
and the dealer escapes by pleading that he didn't know the guy did not
have a license, or didn't tell him how the radios would be used. There
is precious little integrity left in the radio sales business, so you
should thank your dealer for protecting you from being cited by the FCC!
------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: [e-mail] (Steve Holland)
Subject: Re: Use of HT for Marine & GMRS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 16:34:13 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I have seen various discussions about using the out of band frequencies
> on a Amateur band tranceiver for Marine, GMRS or other services.
> If a person is an Amateur, and also holds liscenses for other services
> can he/she use their amateur radio on those services.  Is there a
> definitive authority or requlation cite which can be found to make
> such a determination ?

I think that in the regs for each service, other than the amateur
service, it is required that the equipment used be type certified
for use in that service.  I wonder is some of the radios we use
are type certified in multiple services and just packaged and
labelled differently.  I had asked a local radio company about use
of my 440 HT for GMRS use and he told me it would be illegal and
he wanted to sell me a $600 radio that was GMRS type certified.

Steve Holland, KD4TTC

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:41:41 GMT
From: news.mentorg.com!hpcan240.mentorg.com!wv.mentorg.com![e-mail]
Subject: Why this newsgroup is like CB
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, William=E.=[e-mail] writes:
|> >I always wanted to yell "THEATER" in a crowed fire house...
|>
|> you can when there is a fire.  maybe you can talk the local projectionist to
|> get some nitrate based film to show...(if there's any still around).
|>
|> bill

And yet more proof that most of the folks who post
here probably did not make it through 4th grade.

I kinda thought "ability to read simple english"
was a license requirement.  Now I know it is not.

   ...  Hank


--

My opinions, not Mentor's.

Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics
Internet     : [e-mail]
Amateur Radio: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 20:14:32 GMT
From: qualcomm.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!gatekeeper.es.dupont.com!esds01.es.dupont.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<2dddto$[e-mail]>LLINST
Reply-To : [e-mail]
Subject : Re: Why isn't Amateur Radio like CB?

In article <2dddto$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Garry Howard) writes:
>I heard about some of the goings on on 14.313 but never listened until
>this weekend. Just monitor this frequency for a while and you will
>discover there is absolutely no difference between CB and ham radio.
>The behaviour on this frequency is probably worse than most CBers. I have
>been a ham for thirty years with some long lapses of inactivity. I am
>just now getting back on the air after almost ten years away from HF.
>This kind of activity is a sad commentary on the current state of the
>hobby. And there is one thing for sure, there are no no-code Techs involved
>in this. Many of the people on this frequency have Extra class calls.
>

I'm not going to defend the activity on .313 at all.  The ops there
are a bunch of assholes who were assholes before they ever got
their license's.  I don't get how they can be WORSE than most
CBers, equal to, yes....but neither group has any business with
any kind of radio gear  (maybe a common sense test needs to be added
by the FCC?)   8-}

Also, monitor the frequency for a period (weeks) of time.  I have
on and off over the last couple of years and you'll find like I did
that there are about 20 hams who are doing this junk.  But IMHO,
the whole Amateur Radio Community shouldn't be condemned because
of this minority.

And last, the main reason for my reply.....you saying there are no
"NO-CODER" TECHS involved in this activity. This is a STRAWMAN, as
no coders aren't allowed on this band in the first place are they?
I don't know if you brought up this point as support for opening up the
HF band to one and all or not, but thats what I have read-between
-the-lines in your message.  And by the way, how do you know who
is doing the Cat Calling, Noise Making, Jamming etc. when they
don't give their callsigns?

Just because I have heard a "NO-CODE" Tech on 26.800 doesn't
mean that all of them are law-breakers.....just him....


73, Tom WI3P  [e-mail]  or [e-mail]

"Shutup and sit down you moron!"...Ben Stern

*** MY EMPLOYER DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME NOR I FOR THEM  ****

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 17:23:26 EST
From: news.centerline.com!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>s.d
Subject : Re: No Code etc...

Why should an examinee have to know how to draw a schematic, from memory, of
a particular circuit?  He may never actually USE such a circuit, and even if
he does he won't have to know how to draw the diagram in order to use it well
(or even to repair it using the designers' documentation).

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 93 06:56:34 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!metro!news.ci.com.au!eram![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <rcrw90-291193091103@node_13059.aieg.mot.com>
Subject : Re: This is a hobby not a

In article <rcrw90-291193091103@node_13059.aieg.mot.com>,
    [e-mail] (Mike Waters) writes:

| None of which does anything that FIDONET for example didn't do several
| years earlier!  Almost all FIDO nodes seem to be running 9600+ baud (most
| 14.4), the nodelist is worldwide etc.  All through dialup telephone.

Which in turn pales in comparison with USENET's megabit NNTP feeds...

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)    VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC     PGP 2.3
[e-mail]           ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave    available

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V93 #498
******************************
******************************