Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:00:29 PST
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <info-hams@ucsd.edu>
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: <Info-Hams@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Info-Hams-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
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.94Feb18143836@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu> 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 <N4HY.94Feb9140932@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>, <1994Feb11.140442.11801@tellab5.tellabs.com>, <CLAC34.Dq@cscsun.rmc.edu>
Subject : Re: Hamblaster update
In article <CLAC34.Dq@cscsun.rmc.edu> 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
******************************
******************************