开云体育

I just phoned the RSGB to find out about getting an NoV for this.

The nice lady said: "Oh, I don't know anything about this. Let me find the
notice from the Gazette and see what it's all about and I'll call you back".

She did that and told me that I need to put what I want to do in writing to
them, and it'll be forwarded onto either the Repeater Management Group, or
the DCC, depending on what the plans are for.

I then had words with a friendly DCC member.

The score is as follows:

The Telecoms Act doesn't have a problem linking the two networks (Amateur
and PSTN) together.
The Wireless Telegraphy Act doesn't allow it.

Therefore, the latter overrides the former.
(This is a somewhat simplified explanation of the one it's just taken me ten
minutes to understand!)

The problem is that if general linking is allowed under the BR68, it means
that there are effectively no controls. If someone does something that's a
bit dodgy, the only way to stop them doing it is to revoke the license.
However, if permission is granted under an NoV, and someone does the above
mentioned "dodgy" thing (dodgy is a technical term which is currently
undefined!) then in order to stop them, it's a simple matter of issuing
another NoV which withdraws the permission given in the first one.

At the moment, I don't know if these NoV's are going to be issued on demand,
ie a simple case of rubber stamping them, or whether they'll have to go
through a long drawn out procedure. I may have more details on this later
on this evening.

Keith
--
Keith Maton, G6NHU
feek@...
ICQ: 1776683

- Careful with that Axe

Hi Mike,

You managed to raise my few hairs to a full upright postion.... You are a
selfish and unthankful let's say person. Instead of complaining you could do
yourself a big favour: Switch to UI-View 32. For instance as a birthday
present. Or stop whimpering. I think Roger is doing all he can for us,
including running an almost 24/7 helpdesk for us.

Greetings,

Ferry - PA0EEU

g4fvg schreef:

From: dave.g0dja@... (David J. Ackrill)

Are there any WIDE only digipeaters in the UK, or even TRACE/RELAY

only?

The answer is YES. There are many digipeaters in use that do not
support TRACE. Our local digi (G1SEH - Alias WIDLEY) only supports
RELAY and WIDE. It is a stand alone TNC and has no provision for
TRACEn-n or WIDEn-n. I can often see another 3 or 4 similar stand
alone digi's from my location that only support WIDE. In addition some
of these WIDEs do not perform alias substitution so traffic that
should be returned say Northward in fact is sent in all directions
because WIDE is now in the return path rather than the call of the
digi that it actually came from. My own station (which was a WIDE
until we put G1SEH on air) does have TRACEn-n and WIDEn-n enabled to
try and fill in a bit because of the amount of traffic that I hear
that is using TRACE. WIDEn-n I consider to be a complete waste of time
as I have never yet seen any successful reply via the reverse path.

73 Laurie (G6ISY)

In article <004501bf5e38$898d94c0$0600a8c0@alanw>, Alan Wallace
<alan.wallace@...> writes

From: "Alan Wallace" <alan.wallace@...>

A brief comment from the other side of the world on this matter.

While I agree you seem to have had a highly restrictive regulation "dumped
upon" your operation, what are you going to actually DO about it?

This email list seems to have suddenly turned into a round table gripe about
the rule makers, circulating what appears to be unsubstantiated accusations
over where the rule originated (either your Licensing Authority or your
Amateur Radio Society).

Etc...

I must apologise for being responsible for turning this list into a
griping forum, and I appreciate that this subject is probably not of
interest to subscribers outside the UK, who in any case are not aware of
the relationship between the RA and the RSGB, or the history of the
regulation of packet in this country.

It also may well not be of interest to some subscribers within the UK.
It is, however, of great interest to me. Internet connectivity is an
important aspect of APRS, and, when the RA recently announced their
initiative, I was certainly hoping for a less restrictive attitude
towards connecting to the internet.

Perhaps I could plead, in mitigation, that writing something like
UI-View is very much enthusiasm driven, and it certainly knocks my
enthusiasm when I see what I regard as yet more unnecessary regulation
being introduced in a hobby that is in slow decline. However, having had
a good moan, I can already feel my enthusiasm coming back! ;-)

I raised the subject in this list, because I'm not sure where else it
can be discussed. Packet is pretty useless for this sort of thing, as is
the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup. There is an aprsuk list, but that also
has subscribers from outside the UK.

Anyway, I promise that this is my absolutely final comment!

--
Roger Barker, G4IDE roger@...
Boston
Lincolnshire, UK

Hi from the 16 to 17 teen of us in south Sweden (Scaniaarea) that looking for the 20 in OZ land.
Where are you all, we are on 144.800 on this side of the Oresund......
Can we make something together ?

73'de Ron, SM7WDL already (R)

It seems that every time a new mode or band is proposed it becomes the
subject, according to the RSGB, of a NoV.

When Digital SSB becomes available, will that require a NoV?

At this rate, how long before RSGB effectively control the issue of licences?

I, for one, would not relish the idea of the RSGB having executive control
over the Amateur licence. The old arguement about 'changing from within'
doesn't hold water either. My experience tells me that the main part of the
RSGB doesn't change and acts to its own agenda.

The pity is that there are still some very dedicated and enthusiastic people
on its voluntary committees. Their problem, at times, is their implied
association with the decissions and plans of the Council. A body that, in
my opinion, is very closed and secretive about its motives and ambitions.

Having 'allowed' APRS systems to develop, perhaps because there was no
precident for making it the subject of a NoV, the present opinion from RSGB
suggests that they wish to control the development of Internet Gateways.
Including, of course, all the BBS access via telephone (which exist now),
APRS protocol gateways (which were beginning to be set up) and repeater
gateways (which were proposed). 'We' are already picking holes in the words
used by in the notice, as released for the RSGB News, by wondering how far
'connected to' relates to non-active connections where the interconnection
is 'passive' rather than 'active'. It seems that clarification will be left
to RSGB if 'we' allow ourselves to be herded down the NoV route.

I suggest that those who are of the opinion that this is going to far
towards the RSGB being the licencing authority do any or all of the following:-

1) Apply direct to the RA for written permission for a 'Gateway' permit and
don't accept them trying to say that you *must* go via the RSGB. My reading
of the actual notice, not the RSGB opinion, says that it's the Secretary of
State who should authorise, not the RSGB. This will also 'flush out' the
authority obtained, or not as the case may be, of the RSGB from the RA.

2) Write to Practical Wireless, expressing your concern. In my experience
the editor of that magazine allows all sides of the arguement to be aired,
whether he agrees or not, which is as it should be. I also think that,
given his editorial a few months ago, he may share our concerns.

3) Write to other organisations that have an interest in Amateur Radio.
Don't expect them all to see the issue in the same way as you do. Some may
think that this development is a 'good thing', they are entitled to their
opinion, of course. However, if you explain that it appears that any new
idea or development is effectively being controlled by the RSGB via their
NoV proceedure and point out that any new development in their area could
just as easily fall foul of the same thing, then some may stop to wonder
what the 'end game' is. As I say, some may think it's a 'good thing', but
many more may not......

4) Don't give up. If the RA knock you back to the RSGB and wont accept any
other form of request for written authority, then lobby your MP, and any
other official that will listen. The DTi, and all other government bodies,
have formal complaints proceedures. As long as you remain polite, but firm,
and you can prove that you have not been dealt with properly, then they must
investigate your complaint. Again, if they don't, appeal.

It sounds a long winded way, and is not really what amateur radio should be
about, but think of it this way, nearly 100 years ago the first Amateurs
might well have been squashed by the Post Office monopoly. If it had not
been for lobbying by those early experimenters, and their success in getting
Parliament on their side, then 'we' would have no Amateur Radio at all now.
Don't think that the Postmaster General at the time welcomed the idea,
reading the history he was bullied into action, having to report to
Parliament about possitive steps taken to allow licences, when his instinct
might have been to wrap it in red tape and control it to death.

The RSGB may well argue that a NoV is a possitive step towards allowing us
to do something that the RA 'didn't want to allow'. Again, my experience is
that many times it is bodies within RSGB that block things by the way that
they put the arguements to the RA. I get the impression that the RA want to
get rid of the responsibility for licencing and the RSGB seem to want to
take it on, but the result might well be Amateurs blocking other Amateurs
just because those Amateurs in 'Authority' want to, or don't like what other
Amateurs want to do!

You may well have guessed by now that I am no longer a member of the RSGB
and have become more suspicious of their motives as each new NoV proposal is
issued.

De Dave (G0DJA)

From: Carl <carl_mail@...>

If there are any WIDE only digipeaters about, I wonder what the odds are
that a path of, say, TRACE5-5,WIDE2-2 will get through the required number
of TRACEn-n digipeaters and then happen upon a couple of WIDE digipeaters
that don't also support TRACEn-n?

They dont have to. Cos once they are thru 5 traces, the TRACE* is spent isnt
it?

I agree that the 1st 'WIDE' would have to be at the end of the string of
TRACEn-n digipeaters, but the point is that if most people set WIDEn-n as
well as TRACEn-n, it will do exactly the same as TRACE7-7 and the path will
be seen at the other end.

The odds against a WIDE only digipeater (that would not respond to a 6th or
7th TRACE didgi instead of the 1st WIDE in the string) is very remote. So,
the question is, why use WIDE at all?

Cheers de Dave (G0DJA)

From: dave.g0dja@... (David J. Ackrill)

I'd be interested in the circuit for that system, to use with a KAM+ and my
$20 GPS.

I believe that most of the latest Kantronics TNCs support GPS input. I saw
a 9612 for sale the other day, but it was a version of the firmware that
didn't support GPS input. The replacement EPROM would have cost another
$39.00 on top......

How come the sign became a $ sign? Was it 'finger trouble' here?

This will prove it, is there a in this line and the 1st line?

Sorry for the bandwidth, just seeing if it's me or Onelist :-)

Cheers de Dave (G0DJA)

From: Andy.McMullin@...

Following on from what Roger said -- I have to agree that the "powers that
be" are about to stop us moving forward again and that I too am annoyed!! I
have been using the IP server connection of UI-View to monitor the world
because there seem so few of us using APRS down in the far south west. Now
I'll have to turn it off.

I intend to apply to the RA for 'written permission', and not to accept any
instruction to apply to the RSGB for a NoV.

Perhaps others could do the same?

I will do this at the same time as applying for permission to operate an
unattended packet station on 144.800MHz.

Let's see if the RSGB assumptions about their NoVs hold water, eh?

De Dave (G0DJA)

From: Roger Barker <roger@...>

For those who haven't seen it, the following is a quote from the RSGB
News:-

Oh great!

OK, if that's the way the land lies, I am severing my last connections with
the RSGB as of when I send an email later tonight.

Experimentation? What experimentation?

de Dave (G0DJA)

A brief comment from the other side of the world on this matter.

While I agree you seem to have had a highly restrictive regulation "dumped
upon" your operation, what are you going to actually DO about it?

This email list seems to have suddenly turned into a round table gripe about
the rule makers, circulating what appears to be unsubstantiated accusations
over where the rule originated (either your Licensing Authority or your
Amateur Radio Society).

If the RSGB is involved in the setting or administering of this rule, surely
you should immediately lobby your representatives on that body - they are
there to represent Amateur Radio Operators. They need to hear from those of
the hobby who are affected by this rule change. They need to hear reasoned,
logical argument - not just loud, undefined protests. Loud objections from
non-members, and/or threats to resign immediately are rarely an effective
way to bring about change.

Tell your Society Executive what is wrong with the new process, suggest an
alternative that could allow an appropriate level of restriction on whatever
was perceived as a treat from interconnection between Amateur Radio and the
Internet.

Unfortunately, a significant number of Amateur Radio Administrations do
establish restrictive regulations in this area (mostly due to fear of the
unexpected), but there is precedent for having little or no specific
regulation on connection between the Internet and Amateur Radio (this is the
current situation in New Zealand, where a "self policing" philosophy is in
place).

I realise that many will think this is not my business, however Amateur
Radio is a truly international hobby, plus the further development of
UI-View will reflect the UK licensing scene, so I do have a vested interest
in you obtaining the best deal on this matter. The International Amateur
Radio Union (IARU) in its role as an international forum, is a somewhat
bureaucratic body, however it can provide good alternative examples of how
to regulate this interconnection. The UK representation on IARU is the
RSGB.

73 to all

Alan Wallace ZL1AMW Email: alan.wallace@...
14 Acacia Cres Packet: ZL1AMW@ZL1UX.#20.NZL.OC
Hamilton Fax: +64 7 8438734
New Zealand. Phone +64 7 8438738
---------------------------------------------------------------
Talk Around the World - Amateur Radio -

T_[o] ----- --[]
/oOOo=-oo-oo-oo-oo

Are there any WIDE only digipeaters in the UK, or even TRACE/RELAY only?

I only ask because I have the feeling that most people, for most of the
time, enable both their TRACEn-n and WIDEn-n digipeater option and I'm
wondering if all the unproto path settings combining TRACE and WIDE
settings, where people try to avoid going 'over the 8', is actually making
any difference to the paths that the digipeated possition beacons will take?

If, as I suspect, most digipeating stations have set both WIDEn-n and
TRACEn-n as active at the same time, then the path will presumably be the
same as if just TRACE7-7 or just WIDE7-7 had been used. Appart from the
fact that WIDEn-n digipeaters wont substitute their callsigns, making it
difficult to know what route a beacon took to get to you.

If there are any WIDE only digipeaters about, I wonder what the odds are
that a path of, say, TRACE5-5,WIDE2-2 will get through the required number
of TRACEn-n digipeaters and then happen upon a couple of WIDE digipeaters
that don't also support TRACEn-n?

If the answer is, again as I suspect, very slight, then why use WIDEn-n at
all at present I wonder?

In the future, I guess, there may be WIDE only digipeaters, but I cant think
of any at present. Unless, of course, you know differently..... :-)

Cheers de Dave (G0DJA)

From: Roger Barker <roger@...>

I built the two transistor switch as detailed in the DOS APRS GPS.TXT
file. However, it didn't work with some TNCs in KISS mode (not a problem
for DOS APRS, because it doesn't support KISS), so I had to make a
modification. It uses two transistors, three diodes and four resistors,
so it's easy enough to build, the only problem is building it in a
sufficiently neat and robust format for mobile use.

I believe some TNCs have a port for attaching a GPS, but I haven't got
one, so any info as to what TNCs have this facility, and technical
details from the manufacturers notes as to how you switch between the
two inputs would be very useful.

I'd be interested in the circuit for that system, to use with a KAM+ and my
$20 GPS.

I believe that most of the latest Kantronics TNCs support GPS input. I saw
a 9612 for sale the other day, but it was a version of the firmware that
didn't support GPS input. The replacement EPROM would have cost another
$39.00 on top......

Have yet to finish the NMEA/MAX232 mod and the Tiny Tracker, so guess I
should do those first. :-)

Still it would be interesting to make up a different system for the other
$20 GPS as I'm sending my other NMEA chip to someone else.

Cheers de Dave (G0DJA)

In article <1c.3e6530.25afbdb7@...>, G7GUO@... writes

What is all the fuss about? All you have got to do is apply for the relavent
NOV! It is not the RSGB that have made this rule, it is the government. I
thought I was paranoid! Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing the whole history of packet / the RSGB / the RA over
the past 15 years or so!

The government hasn't made any rule. The RA (a quango) has made a rule.
The RA's rules with regard to amateur radio are very much based on
advice from the RSGB.

--
Roger Barker, G4IDE roger@...
Boston
Lincolnshire, UK

In article <2000011322011970143@...>, Bob Sayers
<bob.sayers@...> writes

From: Bob Sayers <bob.sayers@...>

Sounds like a fairly predictable prelude to bringing in some form of
controlled access, so may not be as bad as it sounds. Unregulated
nodes was one thing, unregulated internet gates might be worse :))

I agree with Carl. I think we should give all the parties a few weeks
and see what happens - can't imagine the RSGB going totally against
the original statement about Internet connectivity which the RA made.

The point is that the RSGB are pushing internet connectivity down
exactly the same path as they pushed mailboxes - you can only do it if
you've got a NoV.

If you look around the rest of the world, you'll find many countries
where the regulatory authorities took a different approach, and you'd
have great difficulty convincing anyone that we have benefited from the
NoV system. Or, to put it another way, if other countries manage quite
well without NoV's, it must imply that we are a load of idiots if we
need NoV's and the heavy hand of the RSGB to control what we do...

With internet connectivity, the situation is going to be even worse. For
instance, how can anyone get a NoV for an IGATE, when the regulations
don't even define what an IGATE is? To get a NoV for an IGATE requires:-

(a) Explaining to those "in high places" in the RSGB what APRS is.
(b) Explaining to those "in high places" in the RSGB what an IGATE is.
(c) Convincing them that IGATEs are desirable.
(d) Getting a definition of an IGATE put into the regulations.
(e) Applying for a NoV to run one!

Then someone comes along with a new form of internet connectivity, and
the whole thing has to be repeated...

What new forms? Here's an example - If I run AGWPE, and someone else
connects, via the internet, to my AGWPE and uses my TNCs and radios as
if they are on his own PC, then it's a very interesting use of internet
connectivity, but it certainly isn't an IGATE!

The alternative approach would have been a regulation something like
this "If a radio amateur connect his amateur radio system to a non-
amateur radio network, then he is responsible for ensuring that any
traffic passing from the non-amateur network to the amateur network (a)
originates from a licensed radio amateur, and (b) does not infringe the
UK amateur radio regulations in terms of message content".

There is little risk in doing that, because, if things are seen to be
going wrong, it allows action against individual amateurs, and they can
always tighten up the regulations at a later stage, should it be deemed
necessary. The problem is that it doesn't allow the RSGB to control the
situation, so they would oppose it.

--
Roger Barker, G4IDE roger@...
Boston
Lincolnshire, UK

In article <000101bf5e06$ed0f97a0$72957ed4@amd450>, Karl G6ODT
<g6odt@...> writes

From: "Karl G6ODT" <g6odt@...>

Assuming my 4 PC network is still allowed to monitor the
UI-View received data is there a way using BPQ to allow
a remote PC to access the real world.
I have IGate setup for the Network and can run Ui-View
on any of the PCs and connect using the 'Connect to APRS
Server' to the Packet PC. I can also send messages between
any of the connected PC using Port I but if I'm out of the
shack and see someone while monitoring on another PC who
I'd like to send a message to at present I have to return to the
shack.

All you have to do is put suitable entries in IGATE.INI, and all your
traffic from the other PCs will be gated to RF via the server PC. E.g. I
use G8MZX or G4IDE with various SSIDs on the PCs on my network, so the
packet PC has entries in IGATE.INI of -

[INET_TO_RF]
G8MZX*=TRUE
G4IDE*=TRUE

Also, messages for stations that the server PC has heard on RF will
always be gated if you check "Gate local messages" in "APRS Serve
Setup".

Note - only APRS compatible frames will be gated. UI-View format
messages, pings, etc, will not be gated.

--
Roger Barker, G4IDE roger@...
Boston
Lincolnshire, UK

As far as you wanted to connect to your modem I seem to
remember there being a simple way to open the com port
in QBASIC then if it is hayes compatible you could send
somthing like
ATZ
ATDT <telephone number>
then I think wait for a bit log send the
appropriate login and message text and hang-up.

Worth a go...

Yes! Thanks for the mental jump start. I'll play with that for a while
and see what happens.

Btw...would it be "trivial" to have UI-Path create a text-file of the
posit that tripped the DX alarm? I could see a use for grabbing a
grid-square from the posit and send that as part of the page (then I
know if I need to rush home to work the DX or not <grin>).

It shouldn't accumulate, just the last posit report to trip the alarm.

This is going to be extremely useful and popular. Thanks for the work!

Ev, W2EV

--
PropNET: A digital wireless
data network designed to
plot band openings in near
real-time. Intreagued?

Hi Karl and the list,

Have you thought about / tried Roger's BPQPIPE program? I use it here to access the BBS 2m port from a remote PC in a more comfortable part of the house from where the BBS PC is located............

regards,

Ian GM0JQE
Sysop GB7AYR

Keep us posted Dave.

I know when BT offer free phone calls (spring time) for set sub. a month. I
want to run an IGATE

Andy.