Jim, At 03:28 PM 1/13/2008, jgorman01 wrote: >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.
Can you say "selective rationalization"? Each time the FCC makes a general rule into a specific rule we lose something. Nothing is ever gained to change a rule from general with some leeway to specific hard and fast one with no leeway. Is that what we want? All hams in lock-step and/or everyone afraid to experiment for fear that our own group will cause them to be shut down because they do things differently? Who routes out the contesters that spread out over the whole band and interfere with someone each time they key their mike in response to a "QRZ?". No one, because contests are radiosport. Who routes out the DX chasers who without fail, create a "pile-up" and interfere with others each time they broadcast their call hoping that the DX station will tell them "59"? (Surely, they can tell that the frequency is already in use, and surely they know that they are interfering with others who are attempting to contact the DX station) No one. Because DXing is radiosport. Who routes out those fools that QSO in the sub bands to which "automatic stations" are restricted, knowing that sooner or later they will be able to report that their QSO was interfered with? Is that also radiosport? I don't understand how asking questions like "Can they do that?", or "They can't do that, can they?" helps us self police the amateur radio service. Homeland Security apparently wants ARS to be able to provide third-party traffic for them under certain scenarios. "Can we do that?" Hell, yes we can. All we have to do to be perfectly legal is to provide control operators at each radio who monitor each message to ensure that it's content is not un-suitable before forwarding it. This list with all its traffic goes on monitored status sometimes. Why should PMBO operator that is accepting 3rd party traffic from the Internet not do the same type of monitoring? According to the rules, that has to be done. It is certainly not illegal to receive messages via land-line to be forwarded. It is certainly not illegal to forward third party messages via radio between amateur stations, provided the amateurs involved have no pecuniary interest. It is certainly not illegal to deliver messages via land-line to third parties. So, why is this group beating on PACTOR? It provides a public service. It should be the operators that are caught using their radios illegally that are beat up. Policing is not asking the busy engineers at FCC questions but catching perpetrators in the act of illegally operating their radio station. Why do people here complain to FCC about Ale and Winlink stations interfering with them, though and not the DX chasers, who every time they key their rig and open their mouth interfere with someone's communication. Why not the contesters who spread through the whole band in quest of points, for one can not have a QSO without interference when a contest is on. Why are those practices not being questioned? NB: I use neither ALE nor WINLINK nor PACKET although if I had more money/cash/moolah, perhaps I would. >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? If I need to know what I can and can not do, I look to part 97. I certainly don't look to this list or reflector or whatever you call it. If this reflector has 3000 members and they are all ham operators then the folks here represent less than 0.5% of the hams in the USA. No, I am not worried at all. And I am not worried that others are doing things that may be outside the rules a bit. I have never operated in the so-called automatic bands because I know better than to do the equivalent to standing in front of an oncoming train. I try to maximize my enjoyment of the hobby, and I thought that it might be fun to try out this new digital radio, so I joined this group to try to find out more about digital radio. And CB licensees had the same requirement to agree to abide by the rules of part 15. However, there it quickly became unenforceable, because it only cost a few hundred dollars to become a CBer, upwards of 10 million licenses were granted within about the first three years. FCC could not keep up with issuing licenses, much less enforcement. The FCC punished CBers and Hams alike for their own (FCC's) mistake when they took away 10 meter amplifiers for all. Of course Hams could modify their amp, but who bothered? >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. Can you say "selective rationalization"? >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. I certainly can not speak for them. Were it up to me, The US would operate the same way that most of the free world operates. "Keep your signals within the allotted bands and work the coordination & details out among yourselves." >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. They should read part 97 because they are responsible for following the rules and ignorance is no excuse. The FCC is usually fairly forgiving with minor disgressions, but answering a letter from them is a PITA to be avoided. >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. The only reason that I would even care about that is if I wanted to operate those modes. In that case, I would read the appropriate sections of part 97 and do my best to operate within the rules. IMO, "Automatic control" is a generic term. For example, if I press the left paddle, my keyer sends a continuous stream of dots, automatically. If I click on a blip on the panadapter, my SDR1000 tunes to the frequency of the signal there automatically. If I type certain characters on the keyboard, they will be converted to the appropriate signals and sent out automatically based on the mode selected. So, the point is, "What is your meaning of 'automatic control'"? Does the FCC think it means the same thing? I can operated my station in manual control, either locally or remotely. Long ago, when I was fooling around with RTTY, I had no TU, but I had a Commodore PET. I programmed my own TU and interfaced it to a Model 15 teletype machine that I used for a printer. I could tune in a signal and copy the RTTY, I could type on the little keyboard and send baudot coded signals. it was of course AFSK, but it could have as well been on-off keying and it would have worked. I programmed my own SELCAL so that it would autorespond to a call from my ham friend down the street, telling him that I was away from the radio then ID in both baudot and cw and go back into monitor mode. If he wanted, he could send me a message and I would read it when I came back to the radio. I was the control operator, but I never asked the FCC if what I was doing was legal. >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? Read the rule for yourself. Or bother the FCC with it <g> > 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? I haven't even read about Propnet, almost certainly have never been interfered with by either type of station. IMO, Sounding is no more a beacon than calling CQ, throwing out your callsign in a pile-up, sending qrz and your call during a contest. Sending your station ID every ten minutes when you are listening in a ragchew roundtable. Sounding provides information to other stations that you are on the frequency and meets the requirement for station ID. >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? No, because you said 'unattended'. Each amateur radio station has to have a control operator. With a control operator, the ARS is not unattended. If there is no control operator, then IMO it would be illegal operation of the ARS. If the ARS is operated legally, then such operation would be functionally no different that a phone patch. >Jim >WA0LYK > >--- In ><mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>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 > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: >1/12/2008 2:04 PM
