One of the comments made by Bill Cross, at the FCC Forum in reference to 
Winlink 2000 was that:

"Most of the controversy here seems to swirl around how certain 
licensees use it. Some use it for a radio e-mail system. Others use it 
for getting weather maps while they are on sailboats in places the brave 
dare not go. Others use it for their personal business activities, such 
as buying and selling stocks. These uses are really a Section 97.113, a 
'prohibited communications' question, not a technology question."

While I was a bit disappointed that they completely side stepped the 
main concern that I have seen expressed about Winlink 2000, namely, the 
interference issue where the operators either do not listen before 
transmitting or the automatic station is designed to transmit on a busy 
frequency, they did stress that there is no such thing in amateur radio 
as unattended operation and the control operators were always held 
accountable for their actions.

He also stressed the importance of self policing of the amateur bands.

Because of Mark, N5RFX's petition that was accepted to modify Part 97 
last year,  image is permitted on RTTY/Data frequencies providing the 
bandwidth is 500 Hz or less (because they have redefined image to be 
considered as "Data" in such cases). This means that a weather map is 
now legal to transmit on HF RTTY/Data frequencies using narrower modes 
such as FAE400, Pactor, Pactor 2, etc. It would not be legal to transmit 
a weather map from the U.S. on Pactor 3 when in the RTTY/Data portions. 
But few of us can possibly know what is being sent since it is not 
something that can be decoded with existing sound card modes, nor even 
easily decoded with the expensive modem.

But was he really saying that getting weather maps and general e-mail 
use was included with buying and selling stocks and these uses are a 
prohibited communications? Or was he saying that the first two uses were 
OK and only the stock activity was not legal?

Note: Even with my follow up, I have not heard back from the FCC since 
my initial inquiry before Christmas 2007.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Reply via email to