A couple of answers. One, is that as a service we are self-policing. I think if you read the original document establishing this, it didn't mean that each individual polices himself but rather that the service as a whole polices itself routing out operations that don't follow the rules. Part of this IS getting objective clarifications from the ultimate arbiter, the FCC.
Two, there is a very good example of what happens when a radio service relies upon individuals to police themselves. Citizen Band. As part of your license you agree to abide by the rules as written for the amateur service. I simply don't understand the attitude that asking if something is within the rules is a bad thing. It should be considered a good thing so that everyone knows EXACTLY what the rules mean. How can that be a bad thing? Are you worried that something you are doing may be outside the rules a bit? The rules and regulations have a defined process to have them modified. Why do people chafe at the time it takes to do this? It allows for planned and orderly changes that have all sides taken into account. Sure, some may "win" and some may "lose" but that is life. You mention "activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes". I would say anyone who looks for "loopholes" or advocates doing something that is pushing the envelope is an activist lawyer and lawyer-wannabe. RM-11392 is simply asking for the fcc to codify in kHz what has always been there. Why didn't the folks that introduced pactor 3 into the hf bands look at bandwidth the fcc intended when they wrote the current limits into the rules. I would say a "loophole" was taken advantage of. This is exactly what lawyers would do. We have reached the point where the only rules a lot of new hams know are those that are in the test and they are quickly forgotten. We also have a lot of folks that believe anything internet related connected to an auto station is ok. A couple of examples. Echolink/IRLP, are these stations automatic or under remote control. If automatic, does using phone violate a rule? If remote control, are licenses checked to make sure someone isn't operating outside their license limits or if foreign operators without a reciprocal permit are using the stations? You can't have it both ways. Beacons. Propnet and ALE soundings are used for propagation checking. They are not used to establish real time two way communications between two amateurs. How does the rule define a beacon? It pretty much looks to me like these are beacons. Now if you want to do some "creative" defining, who is acting like a lawyer? Third party to third party emails using two unattended amateur auto stations for an rf link. With the proper design, this could in essence turn into real time "instant messaging" service. Is this ok? If not, why not? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I certainly agree. Now, given the FCC's position, why do we > amateurs need all the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our > ranks sending queries to the FCC concerning practices by other > control operators? We are all responsible for our own operations. > Right? > > Chuck AA5J > > >At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: > >The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, "Your call sign, > >your responsibility." > > > >Skip KH6TY >
