From bcvhfa@mailman.qth.net  Fri Jul 25 12:48:41 2003
From: bcvhfa@mailman.qth.net (K8CM)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:48:41 -0400
Subject: [BCVHFA] F.Y.I.; RFID Systems
Message-ID: <5.2.0.8.2.20030725073714.00bccbd0@pop-server.cinci.rr.com>

I don't know if you have been following the RFID inventory tracking 
controversy or not; however, the below listed sites might be worth your 
reading.  The initial piece described retailers "tagging" individual items 
to aid in inventory control and minimize theft.  The tags were intended to 
remain with the product sold  ...  consequently, as you would walk down the 
street, in your new finery, you would be "trackable".

Could this negate the need for APRS?

Enjoy your reading.

73  <>  Carl

=======================================================================

Wal-Mart Cancels RFID Trial As Companies Get Realistic
About The Technology
Wal-Mart Stores canceled an experiment using radio-frequency
identification systems to track individual merchandise. Instead,
the retailer will concentrate on installing RFID systems to track
pallets of goods.
http://update.internetweek.com/cgi-bin4/DM/y/eMx10BpMCE0V30B35d0Ap


"RFID: Challenges and Changes"
Viewlocity explains how to do serialized inventory tracking today,
all the features touted in radiofrequency identification (RFID)
systems, but without the readers and tags. This case study shows
how one computer manufacturer has already taken the first step
towards better granularity of tracking information.
http://update.internetweek.com/cgi-bin4/DM/y/eMx10BpMCE0V30B4pm0Ay


"RFID Technology in Retail"
Intermec Technologies shows retailers the ways that retailers can
use radiofrequency identification (RFID) systems to reduce labor
costs, simplify business processes and improve inventory control.
http://update.internetweek.com/cgi-bin4/DM/y/eMx10BpMCE0V30B4pn0Az


From bcvhfa@mailman.qth.net  Tue Jul 29 12:57:28 2003
From: bcvhfa@mailman.qth.net (K8CM)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:57:28 -0400
Subject: [BCVHFA] Fwd: power company / ham problems
Message-ID: <5.2.0.8.2.20030729075612.00af7288@pop-server.cinci.rr.com>

>
>Fellow hams,
>
>I suggest you take a minute, if you haven't already, to review the latest 
>FCC enforcement letters on the ARRL web page.  There's a bucket load of 
>utility company letters similar to ours in December 2001.  The closest I 
>saw was a case just up the road in Columbus, Ohio.  The most recent 
>letters are being worded a bit differently but the same message is still 
>there.  The utility companies HAVE to fix THEIR problems when they are 
>causing interference to a licensed service.
>
>Congratulations to the FCC, Riley Hollingsworth, ARRL and Ed Hare and his 
>staff for hanging in there for the looooonnnngggg haul.
>
>WOW!  We, locally, may not have been the absolute first in line but I 
>think we added a lot of snow to the downhill snowball....and it is still 
>rolling.
>
>Current letters --->
><http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2003/0726.html>http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2003/0726.html
>
>You can reread "our" letter from December 2001 here ---> 
><http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2001/1229.html>http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2001/1229.html
>
>By the way........here's another matter that deserves our attention. 
>------> 
><http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2003/07/08/1/?nc=1>http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2003/07/08/1/?nc=1
>
>Please send your written comments to the FCC about this potential 
>monumental problem. Send your financial, moral and morale support to the 
>ARRL.  If you aren't already a member please also consider joining.  The 
>cost of a life membership is not cheap but it is a drop in the ocean 
>compared to a lifetime of benefits received from amateur radio.
>
>Please resend this note to any other ham friends to help spread the word 
>about this proposed utility company "service".
>
>
>73,
>Bob Reiff, WA8ULW
>Life Member ARRL since 1967
><mailto:wa8ulw@arrl.net>wa8ulw@arrl.net


