..@aol.com; Ben Jackson
> Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and
> Pagers (WAS Re: Re:dream)
>
> > Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this
> > I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for a reason
>
> THIS IS INSANITY
>
radio amateur or something like that
LeRoy, KD8BXP
http://www.HamOhio.com
--Original Message--
From: Rich Dailey (Gmail)
Sender: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org
To: Bob Bruninga
Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers
Sent: Jul 8, 2009 9:12 PM
At
At 07:53 PM 7/8/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>THIS IS INSANITY
I'm with Bob on this. The paging device itself is no more illegal than the
AIDC downconverters I
used on my ao-40 dishes. It's the application, not the device. The FCC leaves
certain interpretations broad
enough to give us experimenta
At 09:53 AM 7/9/2009, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>THe worst part of amateur radio is all the nit-pickers and ankle
>biters that hold back progress. Sometimes they win and the guy in
>the lead just gives up. SOmetimes these guys with an idea get far
>enough ahead of the nit-pickers and ankle biters, t
> Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this
> I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for a reason
THIS IS INSANITY
The FCC is nothing but a bunch of bureaucrats trying to sell off spectrum to
the highest bidder! There are no real engineers left there, and no one there
with OUR interest in mind.
A number of groups have played with mixing POCSAG and ham radio, but I've never
heard of any actually making it work. Rather than worrying too much about
whether it was legal or not, they assumed that since it was amateurs doing
amateur things with it, i.e. playing with and learning about radio
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:55 -0400, Bob Bruninga wrote:
> Sorry, one can also claim that every transmission is one-way because
> only under full duplex conditions is a system truely two-way. There
> are all kinds of applications in amateur radio where one side of the
> link uses different hardwar
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:06 +, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
> No we don't.
> The FCC are obviously happy to allow us to do what we do now.
>
> If you stir up trouble and get things banned, there are going to be an awful
> lot of pissed amameurs after your arse.
"easier to ask forgiveness th
At 04:05 AM 7/8/2009, kd8...@aol.com wrote:
>So let's say I know your personal capcode - I send to you making a
>call up now "KF8II de KD8BXP pls call on 40meter 7.100 at 2200z"
>
>I think that would be 100% legal. So it is all about content and not
>about the techonolgy of it being a oneway dev
At 02:28 AM 7/8/2009, kd8...@aol.com wrote:
>I don't have the time or money to go into a legal battle with FCC -
>and I don't want to loose my license if this is in their minds
>illegal. I am just not willing to do that -
Well, the worst case scenario I see is that because you acted in good
f
At 02:06 AM 7/8/2009, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
>No we don't.
>The FCC are obviously happy to allow us to do what we do now.
I agree. I believe it's counterproductive going off and making noise
to the relevant Government authority (FCC, Ofcom, ACMA, Industry
Canada, etc). The rules are the
At 11:55 PM 7/7/2009, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>In my mind a pager is just another way of making the call. THe
>intent is NOT ONE WAY, it is to provide a call-up or a message as
>part of a CLEARLY TWO-WAY amateur network.
For me, the use of modified pagers has a LOT of advantages. There
are time
t on the Now Network from my Sprint® BlackBerry
>
>
> From: W4ART Arthur Feller
> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:13:59 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers
> (WAS Re: Re:dream)
>
> "Whenever you get in bed with the Federal
-
From: "John B. Stephensen"
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:36:52
To: ; ; ; 'Bob Bruninga
'
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re:Re:dream)
In 97.111 the following one-way transmissions are authorized:
(2) Brief transmissions nec
;'Bob Bruninga '"
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 18:05 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re:Re:dream)
> Good afternoon to all -
> On the subject of amatuer paging
>
> While in an email letter to Nigel (sorry I don't remember his
Don't forget the 6 meter Model control frequencies...
Roger
WA1KAT
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ; "'Bob Bruninga '"
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:05 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re:Re:dream)
> Good afternoon
-Original Message-
From: "Dave"
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:28:27
To: ; 'Bob Bruninga '
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: Re:
dream)
Doesn't anyone know someone at the FCC to get a prelim opinion or 'sense of
the co
dinners.-- Johnny Carson
+
-Original Message-
From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On
Behalf Of Bob Bruninga
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:55 AM
To: Ben Jackson
Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Uni
d for 75+ years...lets leave it that way.
Roger
WA1KAT
- Original Message -
From:
To: "W4ART Arthur Feller"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:28 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers
(WASRe:Re:dream)
> Wow I am honestly surprised by this attiude. This
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Jackson"
To: "Bob Bruninga"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream)
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
&
ninga;
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream)
"Whenever you get in bed with the Federal government, you often get
more than just a good night's sleep." Ronald Regan.
Translation: Don't ask for a ruling unless prepared to hea
"Whenever you get in bed with the Federal government, you often get
more than just a good night's sleep." Ronald Regan.
Translation: Don't ask for a ruling unless prepared to hear something
you won't like.
Better to proceed in good faith and sort out the matter only if needed.
I hope this
No we don't.
The FCC are obviously happy to allow us to do what we do now.
If you stir up trouble and get things banned, there are going to be an awful
lot of pissed amameurs after your arse.
kd8...@aol.com wrote:
> Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for
>
But traditionally we've always transmitted to receive only devices.
In the early days, you had a general coverage receiverand a seperate crystal
controlled transmitter with, in the days
of battery supplies, nothing connecting the two.
They are definately both one way only devices.
And where in
Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for a
reason
What we need is to setup a confrance call or something so we can get a well
written letter together and get it off to someone who can make a ruleing at the
FCC
Skype, echolink, dstar or something where those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Bruninga wrote:
*snip*
We'll agree to disagree regarding your take of the rules as almost
everyone else did on APRSSIG. ;)
> There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one
> way) to the general public or using amateur radio
>> Using paging devices on Amateur Radio is perfectly
>> legal like any other radio. It all boils down to
>> use. If you use it for setting up a one-way
>> systemm for a pizza delivery service, it is
>> clearly illegal. If you use it as part of your
>> overall local communications network o
Ben,
I was the one the kind of threw the pagers out there "idea" I know I am not the
only one and not the frist. I myself had questions as to the legality of it -
as I understood part 97 it sends mixed signals as to weather or not it is legal
-
My basic problem was in useing it as a personal
28 matches
Mail list logo
