-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is from a web-site that is replaying Usenet, including
net.ham-radio, from 30 years ago (currently early 1986). The site is:

http://www.olduse.net

If you prefer to use your own newsreader, the site also supports an NNTP
connection at:

nntp.olduse.net:119


From net.ham-radio Sat Feb 13 12:12:52 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!d ecwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!mo
From: (Mike O'Dell)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.ham-radio.packet
Subject: FCC awards pink ticket for BBS
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 14:32:20 EST
Article-I.D.: seismo.1346
Posted: Sun Feb 9 14:32:20 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 07:20:08 EST
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 22
Keywords: BBS Pink
Xref: watmath net.ham-radio:3818 net.ham-radio.packet:222

I have just been informed that all the packet BBS's are now off the air.
A ham in Florida was just awarded a pink ticket for operating a packet
BBS. I don't have many (any!) details, but the cause cited appears
to be the bit about "no 3rd party traffic while under automatic control."
(See the latest ARRL newletter for details.... )

While I am not a fan of interconnecting BBS's (we know how well Usenet
works - I hope ham packet is more useful!), this materially restricts
why anyone would want to use packet in the first place - computer to
computer communications (yes, a TNC is a computer...).

Rumor has it that the august ARRL considers packet to vitally important
to the survival of ham radio. I suggest they mount an effort at least
as vocal as the last "no code" fiasco if they don't want to see it go
down in flames. The next thing you know, they'll be applying the ruling
to digipeaters.


"I learned the code, so now what can I connect to??"

-Mike O'Dell
KB4RGM


From net.ham-radio Sat Feb 13 12:13:00 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Unisoft-Cosmos; site kepler.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!well!micr opro!kepler!mojo
From: (Morris Jones)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.ham-radio.packet
Subject: FCC awards pink ticket for BBS
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 17:14:29 EST
Article-I.D.: kepler.501
Posted: Tue Feb 11 17:14:29 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Feb-86 19:05:49 EST
References:
Reply-To: (Morris Jones)
Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA
Lines: 29
Xref: linus net.ham-radio:3222 net.ham-radio.packet:230
Summary: The FCC has a point. Suggestions?

There's a very important point to the FCC ruling that we have to
remember. Amateur Radio CANNOT become a common carrier! Besides
providing unfair competition with the commercial carriers, it's
contrary to the spirit of *Amateur* Radio as experimentalists and
hobbyists.

Now how do we tread the fine line and operate our packet BBSes? If
there really is no control over third party traffic on Amateur Radio,
then we start to cross that line. I think at the very least we'll
have to emphasize clearly the nature of the third party traffic that
will be permissable (non-business, trivial, experimental -- following
the guideline that "Amateur Radio traffic must be trivial to the
degree that recourse to the established commercial carriers is not
justified").

I also think we're going to have to provide more control over the
BBSes -- more control operators and control points. It may mean
a set of rules for designating BBS users as control operators, and
providing protected access.

It won't be easy, but we can find a way to live with it.

Personally I think the spectrum should be chopped up and sold to
the highest bidder ....

- --
Mojo
.... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development
{lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!mojo


From net.ham-radio Sun Feb 21 10:11:33 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ky2d-2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!ho uxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!mtunh!mtuni!mtune!ky2 d-2!ad7i
From: (Paul Newland)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: packet in 3rd pty traffic
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 08:36:24 EST
Article-I.D.: ky2d-2.135
Posted: Fri Feb 21 08:36:24 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 08:28:43 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: KY2D-2 Packet Radio Gateway, Little Silver, NJ
Lines: 133
Xref: dummy dummy:1
X-OldUsenet-Modified: added Xref


The following message from Tom Clark, W3IWI, was found on
NJIT's Digital Radio Net. I have posted it here for
your information, ad7i


M 16123 Tom Clark (W3IWI,2976) 2/21/86 1:02 AM L:124
KEYS:/FCC 85-105/K1OJH COMMENTS/NEWS FROM ARRL/BBS STATUS & RECOMMENDATIONS/
TO: (Group 95)

The following message may be of interest to those of you who are concerned
about FCC 85-105, what you can do, what the ARRL is doing, etc.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
9953 PY 5749 K1BC K1OJH 860220 more on FCC rules
At K1OJH : 197 From K1OJH Rcvd 860219/0200, Sent 860219/1931
~Date: Feb. 18, 1986
To: NEPRA SYSOPs
~From: Dick Eastman
Subj: New FCC Regs

Just a note to let you know what I've been up to. In addition to
the various bits and pieces of messages that I have been
forwarding to you, I have also been talking with Perry Williams
at the ARRL. Perry is the person at the League who deals
primarily with the FCC. He did tell me a few things that have
been going on recently.

First of all, the FCC monitoring station in Maine that has been
getting all the publicity recently has not yet issued any
citations. They have called (at least) two SYSOPs that they
suspected might be running unattended H.F. stations. In one case,
they found no licensed Amateur on the premises during time of
operation. That person has not yet received a citation. If he
does get one, it will be for unattended operation below 30 MHz.
This issue is unrelated to the recent regulations issued.
Unattended operation below 30 MHz always has been and will
continue to be a violation of FCC regulations.

As to the new regulations, this is considered to be an "Open
Issue", with several items not yet clearly defined by the FCC.
The FCC's Chief of the Special Services Division (who is the Boss
of the head of the Private Radio Branch which administers Amateur
Radio) visited the ARRL in Newington last Thursday. He was given
a demonstration of packet radio, including traffic handling via
W1AW-4 running W0RLI software and W1AW-5 unattended digipeater.
The Chief was favorably impressed by what he saw and discussed it
at some length in a meeting afterwards. He stated that the FCC
should be encouraging development of Amateur Radio digital
networks.

ARRL President Price and several other reps, including Perry
Williams will meet with the head of the FCC's Private Radio
Bureau in Washington at the end of this month. At this meeting,
the ARRL will suggest new definitions of Amateur communications in
a "store and forward" mode versus Third Party Traffic. Both FCC
Chiefs have verbally recognized there is a difference and have
expressed willingness to consider them seperately. The League is
very optimistic on this issue. The regulatory authorities in several
European countries already differentiate handling messages on
behalf of hams versus non-Amateurs. Hopefully similar logic can
be worked into the FCC's regulations.

A second item on the agenda at this meeting will be a discussion
of who holds responsibility for "traditional" Third Party
Traffic. It is the League's position that the analogy is that of
a postcard in the Postal System. It's free and open, anyone in
the path may read it, but in most cases will not. The actual
responsibility lies with the person who originated the message,
not with eag("mailman" along the route. The FCC may or may not
agree with this analogy, the League has a bit less optimism on
this.

There is a side issue here that I did not discuss with Perry:
namely the rules about plain and unencrypted communications. I
really have reservations about the recent developments in
sending binary files back and forth. I'm not sure I know all
the ramifications of this, but I sure am uneasy about someone
loading a binary file onto a PBBS to be pulled later by
someone else. In a direct QSO, there would be less of a
question. I would sure hate to "muddy the waters" when
discussing BBS freedoms with the FCC.

Depending upon the outcome of the ARRL/FCC meeting, the ARRL will
file for Reconsideration of the recent rulemaking. Perry Williams
also recommends other interested individuals and groups should
also file for reconsideration. Calm, well-thought out comments in
volume will help. (Unless I hear otherwise from NEPRA's officers,
I will also file such a motion in the name of NEPRA.)

What do we do today? Perry very quickly pointed out that no one
at the League will recommend that you do or do not continue
operating your VHF BBS in unattended mode. He said that in his
recent discussions with FCC officials, it is clear to him that
the FCC has not finally decided how to handle ham radio "store
and forward" QSOs. The recent written rulemaking was very
definitive in some ways, yet does not reflect what the various
FCC officials are saying in face-to-face conversations.
xD
Perry Williams would not give an "official" League
recommendation, but did point out that W1AW-4 and W1AW-5 are
remaining in operation in unattended mode. In fact, this
unattended VHF BBS was demonstrated to a senior FCC official last~r
Thursday. Perry stated he would be "very surprised" if anyone
receives a citation for unattended operation of a BBS above 30
MHz.

What does NEPRA recommend to New England SYSOPs? The conservative
viewpoint is to operate only when the SYSOP is seated in front of
the screen with his finger on the switch. A more liberal method
is "damned the regulations, full speed ahead". I believe the
reality is some where in between. The FCC is very interested in
unattended operation on H.F., but has paid no attention to VHF
operations. Obviously, each of you must decide for yourselves.
Probably maintaining a low profile is best. I, for one, am very
willing to have an unattended VHF BBS in operation under my call.
If I had an H.F. gateway, I'd power the H.F. rig off whenever
there wasn't a licensed amateur in the house.

For the futu I (we) should file a Request for Reconsideration
with the FCC. Input is hereby solicited. Please pass on your
concerns to the traffic handlers using your BBS. The National
Traffic System should be heavily involved in this.

To quote that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra: the game
ain't over 'till it's over.

- Dick, K1OJH
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You may be interested to know that TAPR is filing a strongly worded set
of comments with the FCC that are being written at this very minute. Those
who are coordinating this activity are NK6K, WA7GXD, WB9FLW, WB6YMH & W3IWI.

73 de Tom, W3IWI

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iEYEARECAAYFAlbSP0MACgkQ6Pj0az779o6RtwCgzj3OX8DS24 wOKweGczGOrq4M
CEsAnjpfkOTEXrbdqwTEgSnFs6C5X8qO
=6VRY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----