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

[ARRL-ODV:7346] 2002-06-15 Update: African Spam Fraud IP Addresses
by dick＠pobox.com 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

15 JUN, 2002 - 2120 CDT Here are some additional "Nigerian & South African" SPAM Fraud IP addresses to add to your filters. 205.158.62 207.77.181 216.187.101 You won't find these numbers in the SPAM-FRAUD junk emails we have received in the last two days. They were extracted from these emails by doing a "WHOIS" domain name search at a major domain name service registrar's web site. These are the hidden (truncated) IP addresses of the originating ISPs' (gotmail.com and fastmail.com) email servers. Blocking these IP addresses will kill all email coming from these two spammers' domains - that referenced back to P.O. Box addresses in places like Carefree, AZ. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7345] Re: Antenna Rights
by Frank Fallon 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

Chris, In all my experiences when presenting a request for an "amateur" support structure we have always stressed that we are unpaid volunteers and generally ride a white horse and all the rest. When a ham puts a commercial system on his tower he really changes the political dynamic of his situation. These cases/hearings/struggles are always political. I would not be comfortable dealing with your problem in Rancho Palos Verdes. Many towns here are often afraid to give us too much or even anything as it will set a precedent, they feel, for any future dealings they have with the commercial cell tower folks. I do think that any ham who adds a commercial transmitter to his tower clouds the issue and he is certainly no longer riding a white horse as far as the neighbors and the town are concerned, but I guess it is for the courts to determine whether he is wearing a mask in these instances. Frank...N2FF.... W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/14/2002 3:23:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, n2ff(a)optonline.net writes: My position is, once you put one commercial transmitter on your ham tower it becomes a commercial tower forever. That is exactly the opposite of an argument I have been making in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, as Art well knows. But it is subject to debate, I will concede. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7344] Re: Antenna Rights
by Art Goddard 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

Chris - I'm afraid you took de bait! 73, dARTh ----- Original Message ----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com <mailto:W3KD@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:02 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7341] Re: Antenna Rights That is exactly the opposite of an argument I have been making in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, as Art well knows. But it is subject to debate, I will concede. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7343] Re: Antenna Rights
by Art Goddard 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

Chris, your'e correct of course. I just got duped on that one! 73, Art "Puns are the enemy of wit" Louis XIV ----- Original Message ----- From: W3KD(a)aol.com <mailto:W3KD@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7340] Re: Antenna Rights In a message dated 6/14/2002 2:45:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, w6xd(a)attbi.com <mailto:w6xd@attbi.com> writes: If a ham has a city-issued permit for an Amateur Radio antenna and then wants to duplex a commercial transmitter on to that same permitted antenna, the city should have no basis to object - right? It's Diplex, Art. I get caught on that too. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7342] Saturday afternoon after Board Meeting
by Tuck Miller NZ6T ARRL SWD Vice Director 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

The past couple of years I have read that on Saturday afternoon after the Board meeting, we have gotten together with members of staff for a great picnic. Is that going to be the case this year? Sounds like fun, and can get with many folks on a casual basis? 73 all, and have a great weekend. Tuck NZ6T -- ************************************************ Remember, Helping Others....Always Worthwhile!! Southwestern Division Vice Director American Radio Relay League (ARRL) The national association for AMATEUR RADIO Are you a member yet? If not, visit http://www.arrl.org/join.html 2002 SWD Convention, Aug 16-18 For Registration forms, click on http://sd2002.hamcon.net/mainpage.html?registration.html Tuck's Personal Web Page: http://www.qsl.net/nz6t Follow Tuck around the Division via APRS: http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?NZ6T-9

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7341] Re: Antenna Rights
by W3KD＠aol.com 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

In a message dated 6/14/2002 3:23:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, n2ff(a)optonline.net writes: My position is, once you put one commercial transmitter on your ham tower it becomes a commercial tower forever. That is exactly the opposite of an argument I have been making in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, as Art well knows. But it is subject to debate, I will concede. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7340] Re: Antenna Rights
by W3KD＠aol.com 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

In a message dated 6/14/2002 2:45:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, w6xd(a)attbi.com writes: If a ham has a city-issued permit for an Amateur Radio antenna and then wants to duplex a commercial transmitter on to that same permitted antenna, the city should have no basis to object - right? It's Diplex, Art. I get caught on that too. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7339] Re: Antenna Rights
by dick＠pobox.com 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

14 JUN, 2002 - 1535 CDT There's always a few - including hams in some cases - who will skirt the edges of legality, good taste, and fairness in order to make a buck or gain some other advantage. I would hope the hams in Rancho Palos Verdes are actively assisting the city fathers in getting rid of this commercial eye-sore. Perhaps in this way, they will be able to pursue their amateur radio activities without too much resistance from the local community. We had a ham in this town who had a similar idea. When he asked me what I thought about it, I told him I would organize the amateur radio community against him and supply technical support to the city if he were to install commercial radio services of any type in a residential district. He later sold his house and left the area. 73 - Dick, W9GIG Former Plan Commission Chairman St. Charles, IL

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7338] Re: Antenna Rights
by Frank Fallon 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

You really cannot mix the two. We have a guy here on LI who tried that in two places on the East End of LI and he is loosing in both places. In the first one the town, Southold, on the North Fork was the most ham friendly place on the entire island and permitted a number of towers to 60 and 75 feet. Then this guys showed up and the trouble began. Luckily the local ham club was able to distances themselves from the guy. Apparently he is also now having trouble in Riverhead when he decided to add a paging site to his ham tower. He and a few of his buddies have approached me for help. In fact one of them started lobbying me after the Atlantic Division banquet in Rochester. My position is, once you put one commercial transmitter on your ham tower it becomes a commercial tower forever. But these greedy guys can be a problem. Frank....N2FF....

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7337] Antenna Rights
by Art Goddard 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

If a ham has a city-issued permit for an Amateur Radio antenna and then wants to duplex a commercial transmitter on to that same permitted antenna, the city should have no basis to object - right? Taken to the extreme, though, you get an installation such as that shown in the attached photo. According to The Daily Breeze Newspaper, this installation is the work of James A Kay, KA6BGS. It's the focus of a lawsuit involving Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. The house is not inhabited. The City has postponed some public works projects to pay legal fees. Most of the hams in RPV are trying to keep a low profile these days... and thinking about damage control. 73, Art

1 0