Wow I am honestly surprised by this attiude. This is the 2nd email that I have seen saying don't ask the FCC anything
I the rules are vauge at best - why else would so many people disagree about what can and can not be done 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 - A judgement for or against is the only way to settle the question once and for all. If I personally don't like the ruleing then I would just have to live with it - or file for an appeal. There is no reason that I can see to break the law (maybe) and let it sort itself out latter. I am really surprised by this - Truely surprised A judgement needs to be made - some people may not like it - but if that is the rules - we can make reasoned arguments as to why the rules need to be changed. Not just break the rules and then sort it out later LeRoy, KD8BXP http://www.HamOhio.com Sent on the Now Network� from my Sprint® BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: W4ART Arthur Feller <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:13:59 To: <[email protected]> Cc: Ben Jackson<[email protected]>; Bob Bruninga<[email protected]>; <[email protected]> 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 hear something you won't like. Better to proceed in good faith and sort out the matter only if needed. I hope this helps. 73, art..... W4ART/4 Miami FL On 7-Jul-2009, at 11:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 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 that are interested > can all join in - > Define a system and descuss the possablities of doing call sign > routing, sending the pages up to a satellite ect ect > > But before "we" put a lot of time and effort and money into this > I think we need a ruleing > > I know for a fact that our local repeater is cabable of doing 2 tone > paging - and was in use back when I was very young and not a ham - > the elders of the local club say it was able to send alerts for > weather, pages for people to get on the radio, ect. It was all done > with tones at the time - "our" pagers are far more advanced and can > display the text of whatever > > No one in the club can tell me why they stopped using pagers - a > couple of the guys thought it was because cell phones became small > and able to be carried in your hand. > > But at around the same time they stopped paging, kantronics also > stopped modify pagers for 2 meters, and I think they stopped making > the tncs that were able to do POCSAG - so my thinking was that a > rule had changed making pagers illegal in the ham bands. Or at very > least questionable. From the kantronics point of view the may not > have been selling many of them and just didn't want to put the time > and resources into making them anymore. But something happended - > As I said our local repeater is cabable of doing two tone - it was > built like that from the beginning > > > We need to setup something and get as many people as we can write up > a well written paper and get a ruleing. That is bottom line on it - > I am on the fence as far as if it is legal or not - on one hand an > agrument can be made for telemetery - which is aloud - on the other > hand pagers can be used to send one way personal pages which is > where I am unclear > I think as we see here agurements can be made on both sides. Which > is why we need a ruleing. When rules are written this vauge some one > needs to decide and stand by the decision > > LeRoy, KD8BXP > http://www.HamOhio.com > > ------Original Message------ > From: Ben Jackson > To: Bob Bruninga > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: [amsat- > bb] Re:dream) > Sent: Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM > > -----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 inappropriately, I >> think everyone can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't >> see the FCC cares one nit about some of these debates when any one >> can see that hams are taking initiative to better their use of the >> radio art. > > Considering that they've recently ruled on whether contesters should > give blanket "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad to rule on > something interesting and relevant. :) > >>>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who have nothing better >>>> to do than nit-pick ways to prevent other hams from developing >>>> useful applications of technology. A pager is simply the >>>> text-to-user device integrated into the normal local 2-way >>>> amateur radio communications system. >>> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't be used beyond >>> QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary" emergency communications. Could I >>> get away with setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to stand >>> on when my local OO comes knocking? Not so much. >> >> Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution... > > Then the solution has presented itself. Get a ruling from the FCC > regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only devices such as > pagers. Then we can finally put this issue to rest and if anyone comes > knocking regarding the legality of these transmissions, we can have > something concrete to cite. > > Again, I'd love to set up something like this, but I'd be hard pressed > to spend a chunk of money on a system that could be taken down if > someone files a complaint to the FCC. > > Let's take any further discussion about this offline. > > - -- > Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA > bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKU2ejAAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvhxwH/29Y5oXeLMTfZXholTV4gSdF > IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX > EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB > zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa > RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A > eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0= > =AgEy > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > Sent on the Now Network™ from my Sprint® BlackBerry > >_______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the > author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite > program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb I'm on the road again for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Please, help! Donate and follow the story on my TNT web site!! http://pages.teamintraining.org/nca/ambbr09/afeller CAUTION: Web site may have a photo of me in Spandex..... ;-)
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
