| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 08.04.00 07:38l 148 Lines 5619 Bytes #-9493 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_2000_79A
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 2000/79A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<DB0GV<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 000402/0454Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:60082 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA32136 ; Sun, 02 Apr 00 04:23:45 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00000161 ; Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:34:15 MET
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 00 15:18:17 MET
Message-Id: <pr_2000_79A>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 2000/79A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Packet-Radio Digest Sat, 1 Apr 2000 Volume 2000 : Issue 79
Today's Topics:
AGW+WinAPRS
Best speed without line-of-sight?
Oppurtunity Of A Lifetime!
Radio between 2 Computers Privately (2 msgs)
Type of radio?
Watson Senda
What is a good Packet Modem? (2 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Packet-Radio@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Packet-Radio-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".
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.
Loop-Detect: Packet-Radio:2000/79
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:04:10 -0800
From: PreCool <precoolNOprSPAM@email.com.invalid>
Subject: AGW+WinAPRS
AGW works in that I receive APRS packets in other programs such
as the AGW Monitor and WinPack. In WinAPRS I get nothing! I
opened the AGW port in the WinAPRS program, checked every
setting and nothing. Shouldn't incomming packets be displayed on
the map?
Who if anyone is using AGW and WinAPRS? How does it work for you?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:52:50 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Best speed without line-of-sight?
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
news:8bpq8t01j2k@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> You can hide behind the Packet Braaaps and get away with just about
> anything. (For a while) But not on a voice repeater that (surprise!)
> operates under the same regs that Packet stations do, as far as legal and
> illegal content is concerned.
No Charles, that is not correct. Read Part 97 again. Your homework
assignment is to tell us which sections of Part 97 make certain things
LEGAL on packet that are ILLEGAL on a voice repeater.
I take a good deal of care about my interpretation of what is legal and what
is not legal. Most of what you posted is simply wrong, so I clipped it out
of this reply. If you think something is not legal, it is up to you to explain
WHY by quoting the appropriate portions of Part 97 that makes it illegal.
Note that Part 97 does NOT describe what is allowed, it only describes
what is prohibited. In the case of the Juno "ads", I would be most interested
to know which section of Part 97 prohibits me from mentioning them (and
even quoting their text in toto) over the air.
The question that started this thread was about using a ham radio link,
where both ends were owned and operated by the same ham, to link
into the internet. It is, of course, legal to do this.
It's a lot like cars and guns.
It is legal for me to own a car. It is not legal (for example) for me to
drive it over the speed limit, or on private property without permission.
It is legal for me to own a gun. It is not legal (for example) for me to
use it to hold up a gas station or commit murder.
It is legal for me to connect to the internet using my ham stations.
It is not legal for me to transmit content that violates Part 97 over
that link. Your interpretation of what content may be transmitted
over such a link differs from my interpretation. The FCC has changed
it's interpretation from time to time, in particular with respect to the
digital modes.
In any case, waving the Land Lind Lid flag is pretty silly: We are
talking about the exact opposite of what Land Line Lids do.
When you research Part 97, keep in mind the fact that there is no broadcasting
involved, and no 3rd party communications. That should help you figure out
what is allowed and what is not allowed.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:02:11 GMT
From: ksjmxp@coolstuff.com
Subject: Oppurtunity Of A Lifetime!
I’ve been sitting here for hours playing a great new slot machine on the
Internet. Every time I tell myself “Just one more spin,ö I hit another winner.
I don’t know how, but they’re giving away over $2 million every month
GUARANTEED and it's FREE. Best of all, for every friend you sign up, you win
what they win! You have to try it.
http://www.jackpot.com/win.asp?ref=101-1523
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:45:46 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Radio between 2 Computers Privately
"Jon" <jacox@home.com> wrote in message
news:l2fE4.86912$8k3.736465@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> Actually, that would be VERY illegal. The reason? All ham radio cannot be
> encoded with codes or ciphers.
>
> Sorry....
You mean like Morse code, ASCII code (RTTY), Baudot code (RTTY),
and all the rest? Darn ... guess I've been in violation of the rules for 46
To be continued in digest: pr_2000_79B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
