June 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:7376] Re: Teleportation?
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

----- Original Message ----- From: Art Goddard <w6xd(a)attbi.com> > Service rules (97.603). The bottom line? Popular ARRL President Jim > Haynie, W5JBP is among the missing. The jammer, William Flippo, of Jupiter, Newsline got it wrong AGAIN. He was neither missing, or on Jupiter, but on the banks of the Mighty Mo River in South Sioux City NE. If teleportation doesn't pan out, Sioux City is a great place for riverportation and dual division conventions........ 73 Bruce

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7375] Re: Teleportation?
by Art Goddard 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

The following from Amateur Radio Newswhine: ARRL President Missing Last week, the W5JBP repeater experienced malicious interference while engaged in transmissions under the recently enacted Amateur Teleportation Service rules (97.603). The bottom line? Popular ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP is among the missing. The jammer, William Flippo, of Jupiter, Florida had only this statement, "Jeez, I'm sorry!" Federal officials aren't accepting that, however, and are searching for applicable sections of Federal law. Stay tuned for further details... 73, dARTh > > > > Happens to me all the time. When I get up at night and go to the > > bathroom and get entangled with the dog. > > > > Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7374] Re: Teleportation?
by Sandy Donahue 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

So whats the big deal? Gene Roddenberry did this in 1966, along with warp drive and other technological breakthrus. 73 Sandy --- W5JBP(a)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 06/19/2002 9:14:31 AM Central Daylight Time, > jmax(a)attglobal.net writes: > > > > > In this case, a beam of light allegedly disappeared in one place and > reappeared in another, a short distance away, via the mechanism of > quantum entanglement. > > > > > > > Happens to me all the time. When I get up at night and go to the > bathroom and get entangled with the dog. > > Jim Haynie > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7373] Re: Teleportation?
by W5JBP＠aol.com 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

In a message dated 06/19/2002 9:14:31 AM Central Daylight Time, jmax(a)attglobal.net writes: In this case, a beam of light allegedly disappeared in one place and reappeared in another, a short distance away, via the mechanism of quantum entanglement. Happens to me all the time. When I get up at night and go to the bathroom and get entangled with the dog. Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7372] Teleportation?
by jmax＠attglobal.net 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

The following from the CGC Communicator, June 19, 2002. Perhaps we should be considering a teleportation branch of ARRL. 73. Jim, W6CF LIGHT BEAM TELEPORTATION CLAIMED Dr. David Whitehouse, BBC News Online science editor, reports that scientists at Australian National University have succeeded in teleportation - the disembodiment of a thing in one location and its reconstruction in another. In this case, a beam of light allegedly disappeared in one place and reappeared in another, a short distance away, via the mechanism of quantum entanglement. Data imbedded in the beam were also recovered. If verified, this experiment would herald an entirely new means of communications not amenable to interception or regulatory intervention, and would certainly be regarded as one of the most remarkable findings of the century. We, of course, are skeptical and will await the results of independent tests. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2049000/2049048.stm

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7371] Re: Antenna Rights
by W3KD＠aol.com 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

In a message dated 6/18/2002 6:15:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: If the basis for permitting the tower is the reasonable accommodation of the Amateur’s communication needs under PRB-1; and the commercial interest prevents the amateur from operating because of interference with the commercial installation; what is the legal rationale for continued use of the tower for exclusively commercial purposes? One answer to this, Jay, though concededly not a perfect one, is the preemption policy for CMRS antennas, which was in the 1996 Telecom Act. It essentially holds that Personal Wireless Facilities (essentially CMRS, interconnected mobile wireless) has to be allowed to provide service and compete with other functionally equivalent services, as you of course know already. The subsequent presence of the CMRS on the tower, if it survives a terminated amateur use, would have to stand on its own preemption policy rationale, not PRB-1. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7370] Re: Antenna Rights
by W3KD＠aol.com 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

In a message dated 6/18/2002 5:26:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, Stephen.A.Mendelsohn(a)abc.com writes: You cant have it both ways. Your either commercial or you are not. Like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you are not. -73- Steve, W2ML Well, not to weigh in too heavily on this issue, I don't think it is as simple as that. If a ham, who happens to also be in the mobile radio business, has a series of repeater antennas, previously approved at his residence (and in the case I am talking about, those amateur repeater antennas have been in exclusive amateur operation for ten years), and still in regular use for amateur radio repeater operation, happens to diplex PMRS or CMRS signals on those same antennas without modification from the same location, without any antenna or transmission line modification, I don't believe the character of the Amateur antenna changes, nor do I believe that there is local jurisdiction to regulate the commercial radio signals. Finally, Greg's good point is that it obviates the need to install a separate PMRS or CMRS antenna, thus promoting economy. The municipalities SHOULD love it, though I will concede some don't (one in particular in Art's Division rather vehemently). Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7369] New York Tower Bill Passes in the Senate
by Frank Fallon 19 Jun '02

19 Jun '02

I am still having trouble believing this at times, but we are a third of the way there and it is the most difficult of the thirds. But this is one great Field Day present! Here is the text of a message I had J.P. (our division webmaster) put up last night. Bernie and I will be sending essentially this same text as a bulletin to all New York State ARRL members in WNY, NNY, ENY and NLI. New York is in two divisions - Atlantic and Hudson. =================================================== GREAT NEWS!!!! S. 2893 passes in the Senate In a series of e-mails and teleconference calls over the last two days we have had some VERY good news. On Monday, June 17th the Senate Rules Committee met in the afternoon and S. 2893 was on the agenda. The bill was approved by the Rules Committee and sent to the Senate floor and assigned calendar number 1372. At a few minutes after seven PM that same evening Senator Vokler brought the bill to the floor for a vote. At this point some Democratic senators asked for time to debate the bill. The bill was then put on the active list for the next day, Tuesday. Many phone calls, e-mails and faxes were sent to our sponsors. The Senate went into session shortly after noon. Shortly after three PM the bill was brought up for a vote. There was some debate and discussion. During the process Senator Volker mentioned "Jimmy the Newsagent," our man in Albany. When the vote way taken it was 58 ayes and 2 nays. (Thats a pretty good majority.) We still have to get the bill voted in the Assembly and get the governor to sign it. Governor Pataki has already promised to do that. The good news here is that the Assembly will be in session into next week. So we have more time here. The Senate finishes up this Thursday. We will be working behind the scenes with the Assembly sponsors and will probably make another trip to Albany on Thursday the 20th of June. But it appears that the really hard part is over. While we certainly don't want to count any chickens or eggs at this point; we have always felt that it was going to be much more difficult get the bill approved in the Senate where they pay more attention to the concerns of local government. It really is amazing that we were able to get passage in the Senate first. A great deal of the credit goes to all of you who sent letters, faxes and made phone calls. The interest shown by hams all across New York in both the Atlantic and Hudson Division was very important. But equally important were the five lobbying visits we made this year and the three we made last year. We spoke to a lot of people and gently twisted many arms. We also developed a number of position papers that were sent to key committee and staff people. Very important were the pieces sent last year by Chris Imlay to the Governor and the two pieces this year answering statements made by the local government lobby. This was high quality stuff, which really helped our sponsors answer the opposition we had. So hang in there for a few more days. Unless you have a direct line to Silver there is really nothing to be done but keep your fingers crossed. Please do NOT fax or phone his office. It will be counter productive. At this point I want to thank everyone who played their important part in getting us to this place. It looks like we have collectively accomplished something for which we can be really very proud. Should we put the rest of the pieces together, and I think we will shortly, New York will be state number 17. This will mean that more than a third of the states in the US will have a PRB-1 law on the books. I do not think that I have to tell any of you that the rest of the country frequently looks to New York as a trendsetter. Passage of this bill is going to make it easier for other states to have similar bills enacted. That is something of which we really very proud. What remains to be done is to keep our fingers crossed and let our sponsors carry the ball the rest of the way. It's up to them now. Letters, faxes, and phone calls are no longer necessary and may actually hurt our efforts. They should have the message by now: this bill is important to New York State Amateur Radio operators. The folks in Albany are very busy at the moment and we do not want to distract them from doing the right thing for us. Please keep your fingers crossed and thanks for your help.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7367] Re: Antenna Rights
by sysop＠bfdin.com 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Steve, If the ham, who is a tower owner with equipment on that tower, signs an agreement with a commercial radio service agreeing that the commercial service is the primary user, then the ham deserves everything he/she gets. - Bill N3LLR AR>I must respectfully disagree Greg. AR>I have seen a number of hams (4) agree to use their towers to host AR>commercial AR>services. There IS a little problem called mixing. When the ham fires AR>up his rig and it interferes with the commercial account it usually results AR>in the ham being asked to shut down, making the tower a commercial entity. AR>I've seen hams asked to vacate 440 MHz because the 2nd harmonic energy AR>desensed the commercial 8-900 MHz equipment. AR>Most commercial firms that ask to use a hams tower will also have him sign AR>a contract calling for the firm's transmitter to be the primary user. AR>The result is that the ham becomes a prisoner to the commercial firm and AR>cannot kick them off his own tower until the contract expires. Its a AR>VERY dangerous road to go down. AR>Once hams give up their right to their own towers for the sake of renting AR>to commercial firms, they have given away the argument that we are the AR>good guys. And in time, town governments will catch on to this and there AR>goes any chance we have of winning a zoning variance. AR>You cant have it both ways. Your either commercial or you are not. AR>Like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you are not. AR>-73- Steve, W2ML AR>-----Original Message----- AR>From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@attbi.com] AR>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:06 PM AR>To: arrl-odv AR>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7365] Re: Antenna Rights AR>I agree with no commercial installations on a ham tower where such AR>commercial towers are not allowed. My point is if we could take down some AR>commercial towers and put those on a nearby ham tower, that would be a AR>win-win situation: the Community gets rid of a commercial tower but still AR>keeps the service. Since the ham tower is there anyway, what's the AR>difference if there is or is not a commercial service one it? Of course AR>we'd have to work out some continued prohibitions for facilities such as Art AR>showed. AR>73/Greg W7OZ AR>----- Original Message ----- AR>From: <dick(a)pobox.com> AR>To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> AR>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:59 AM AR>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7362] Re: Antenna Rights AR>> 18 JUN, 2002 - 1350 CDT AR>> AR>> Hello Greg... AR>> AR>> My concern about an amateur radio operator allowing/selling space AR>> on his amateur radio tower in an urban residential district that AR>> has restrictions on towers. AR>> AR>> Currently, here in St. Charles, IL no towers of any kind are allowed AR>> in any residential district. This was the end result of the early AR>> days of the cell phone tower installations and the same people wanting AR>> cell phone service did not want the towers in their view. Our zoning AR>> ordinance was amended so quickly and the local hams were so apathetic AR>> that "all towers" were prohibited... the baby went out with the AR>> bath water. AR>> AR>> Eventually some ham will want a tower and I will help him either AR>> knock down that part of our zoning code, or get it amended using the AR>> one paragraph legal citation I have had on hand for several years AR>> that will exempt Amateur Radio Service towers. But this would mean AR>> that ONLY amateur radio operations will be conducted using that tower. AR>> This is already the norm in several communities in the Chicago area. AR>> AR>> If your community is willing to allow the mixed use, fine. But I AR>> think most communities and certainly homeowners' associations are AR>> not going to allow this to happen. And we need to make sure there AR>> is no confusion on this issue.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7368] Antenna Rights
by John Bellows 18 Jun '02

18 Jun '02

Question: If the basis for permitting the tower is the reasonable accommodation of the Amateurs communication needs under PRB-1; and the commercial interest prevents the amateur from operating because of interference with the commercial installation; what is the legal rationale for continued use of the tower for exclusively commercial purposes? Yes folks, this is the proverbial slippery slope. Jay, KØQB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve, If the ham, who is a tower owner with equipment on that tower, signs an agreement with a commercial radio service agreeing that the commercial service is the primary user, then the ham deserves everything he/she gets. - Bill N3LLR AR>I must respectfully disagree Greg. AR>I have seen a number of hams (4) agree to use their towers to host AR>commercial services. There IS a little problem called mixing. When AR>the ham fires up his rig and it interferes with the commercial AR>account it usually results in the ham being asked to shut down, AR>making the tower a commercial entity. AR>I've seen hams asked to vacate 440 MHz because the 2nd harmonic AR>energy desensed the commercial 8-900 MHz equipment. AR>Most commercial firms that ask to use a hams tower will also have him AR>sign a contract calling for the firm's transmitter to be the primary AR>user. AR>The result is that the ham becomes a prisoner to the commercial firm AR>and cannot kick them off his own tower until the contract expires. AR>Its a VERY dangerous road to go down. AR>Once hams give up their right to their own towers for the sake of AR>renting to commercial firms, they have given away the argument that AR>we are the good guys. And in time, town governments will catch on to AR>this and there goes any chance we have of winning a zoning variance. AR>You cant have it both ways. Your either commercial or you are not. AR>Like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you are not. AR>-73- Steve, W2ML AR>-----Original Message----- AR>From: Greg Milnes [ mailto:w7oz@attbi.com <mailto:w7oz@attbi.com> ] AR>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:06 PM AR>To: arrl-odv AR>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7365] Re: Antenna Rights AR>I agree with no commercial installations on a ham tower where such AR>commercial towers are not allowed. My point is if we could take down AR>some commercial towers and put those on a nearby ham tower, that AR>would be a win-win situation: the Community gets rid of a commercial AR>tower but still keeps the service. Since the ham tower is there AR>anyway, what's the difference if there is or is not a commercial AR>service one it? Of course we'd have to work out some continued AR>prohibitions for facilities such as Art showed. 73/Greg W7OZ AR>----- Original Message ----- AR>From: <dick(a)pobox.com> AR>To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> AR>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:59 AM AR>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7362] Re: Antenna Rights AR>> 18 JUN, 2002 - 1350 CDT AR>> AR>> Hello Greg... AR>> AR>> My concern about an amateur radio operator allowing/selling space AR>> on his amateur radio tower in an urban residential district that AR>> has restrictions on towers. AR>> AR>> Currently, here in St. Charles, IL no towers of any kind are AR>> allowed in any residential district. This was the end result of AR>> the early days of the cell phone tower installations and the same AR>> people wanting cell phone service did not want the towers in their AR>> view. Our zoning ordinance was amended so quickly and the local AR>> hams were so apathetic that "all towers" were prohibited... the AR>> baby went out with the bath water. AR>> AR>> Eventually some ham will want a tower and I will help him either AR>> knock down that part of our zoning code, or get it amended using AR>> the one paragraph legal citation I have had on hand for several AR>> years that will exempt Amateur Radio Service towers. But this AR>> would mean that ONLY amateur radio operations will be conducted AR>> using that tower. This is already the norm in several communities AR>> in the Chicago area. AR>> AR>> If your community is willing to allow the mixed use, fine. But I AR>> think most communities and certainly homeowners' associations are AR>> not going to allow this to happen. And we need to make sure there AR>> is no confusion on this issue.

1 0