With all due respect, gents, section 97.1 is not what we in the legal biz call
substantive. It is an introductory preamble included there originally for
political purposes, and after enactment for purposes of interpreting the
regulations that are substantive, when questions about interpretation arise.
The substantive regulations go from 97.2 ro 97.527, though there aren’t nearly
526 of them. Those are the sections that tell us what we can and, about as
frequently, what we cannot do. The statement of purpose is legally speaking
neither a grant of specific operational authority nor itself a limitation.
As for international communications, the proscription of some forms of
political discourse was not uniquely a product of the Soviet Union. The U.S.
law is in 47 C.F.R. §97.117 “International communications:
Transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be limited to
communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service [namely, the
list in 97.1] and to remarks of a personal character.”
I have not researched whether there are any judicial opinions or FCC policy
statements that further explain that substantive rule.
All of that said, nothing that anyone has written in this thread which they
enjoy or dislike seems to me to be outside the scope of our legal authority.
**HOW** we do it technically and in some respects operationally (e.g.
deliberate interference) is of course subject to lots of rules. But the rest
is a matter of culture, tradition, preference, and simple operating courtesy.
On those things I do not opine. I do what I enjoy. Within the scope of the
substantive law, of course.
Ted, KN1CBR (and a lawyer)
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:44:16 -0700
From: "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" <k...@coldrockshotbrooms.com>
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RTTY
Message-ID:
<c69df99f-7a91-81f7-978e-e7469655c...@coldrockshotbrooms.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Okay, Kevin....
Here is the appropriate section:
<http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f320c16fc6e027120cc58558cc7a0926&mc=true&node=se47.5.97_11&rgn=div8>
I was told that basically there was no place for ragchewing in Amateur
Radio -- no place at all.
97.1(e) says there is a place for a good ragchew. Not sure where
contesting comes in, but I'll stipulate that it can be fit into 97.1
somewhere.
It does not say that every place is a good place for a ragchew, at any
time. It seems intuitively obvious that a DX pileup is neither the time
nor the place.
You then compare typing on a keyboard to using paddles, and going back
to the post just before mine, it was about using pre-programmed macros
for a contest exchange.
The operators aren't really talking. They're pressing two macro keys
and making an entry in the log.
NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WHAT YOU LIKE TO DO, SOMEONE WILL SAY "THIS ISN'T
AMATEUR RADIO."
I do respectfully disagree.
It may not be what I want to do, but I've seen the Full-Scan TV ops get
very excited about their favored mode. Moonbounce doesn't excite me,
but it excites moonbounce enthusiasts. Satellites? Did it once, happy
to know about it, not enough to really gear-up for it.
There is room for all of this in Amateur Radio.
... and I'm more than happy to do something else on big Contest
weekends, and to steer clear of the pileups.
I won't name the person I quoted, but his technical contributions are
significant. He'd still rather carry on a conversation than just send
macros.
In my opinion, it is a little bit sad that we have reduced communication
to a couple of macros.
I don't require you to share that opinion, Kevin, nor will I deny you
the pleasure of operating that way if it's what you love.
I won't ridicule it either.
73 -- Lynn
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
