[digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Aw, pshaw. I am sorry that I hurt your delicate sensitivities, Bill. Get over it. All this political and administrative bs has absolutely nothing to do with digitalradio. It is one clique fighting with another clique. One group is asking for clarification about the other group's operation. How is that OK? If you think that I am not allowed to express my opinion, then you prove my point. However, I will not stand by without comment and get wet from your pissing contest. And I will not stand by while less than 0.5 percent of the US amateur radio operators mucks around and potentially screws it up for the other 99.5 percent. It was small groups of activists that got us in the incentive licensing fix, and it was small groups of activists that got us in the separation by bandwidth fix. It will be this small group of activists that makes the next change happen. I just hope the trend doesn't continue to worse and worse and worse. Chuck AA5J At 05:54 PM 1/13/2008, Bill McLaughlin wrote: Ok, I admit it, I mandated Rick to ask questions. Bull But seriously, why the concern about asking for clarification? And yes, it does seem personal. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J 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
