What about begining the ID with "The following is a QST"?
On 4/22/08, Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce, > > The problem here is IDing with out use of the repeater. > > One can make "broadcast" for certain items such as weather info and some > general interest announcements. > > The time thing is broadcasting and I bet deemed illegal technically by FCC > rules. > > However, giving info along with the ID is legal. Again it is the issue of > IDing without usage that is the problem. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > > > >From: Bruce Bagwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2008/04/08 Tue PM 01:05:30 CDT > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Amateur repeater ID's > > > > >Every repeater in my area ID's on the hour. Sounds to me like it is either > the freq. (rate) of the ID, (Say every 15 Min.) or the reference to the > website (More likely) that the FCC is having problems with. But MAINLY this > station seems to be interfering with another station on A nearby freq. (Freq. > Coordination, not required but HIGHLY recommended!) BTW, many Repeaters in > my area, with the ID say "The Time is...." or "Good Afternoon/Morning, the > time is....", Does the FCC consider Broadcasting? I guess not. BruceKE5TPN > From: Paul M Schmitter > >That last paragraph is badly worded. Wheen I read it > >the first time, I understood it to mean that the > >reference to his website was the broadcasting being > >written about, but after reading it again, it leaves > >some doubt as to whether the IDer is also considered > >broadcasting. > >--- "Tony L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The most recent case posted on the FCC's Amateur > >> Radio enforcement > >> actions web site is this one: > >> > >> > >http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/files/BEDNA07_05_25_1078.pdf > >> > >> --- In [email protected], "George<BR>> Henry" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Can anyone point me to the specific enforcement > >> case or warning > >> letter where > >> > the FCC first said that regular, periodic repeater > >> ID's > >> irrespective of > >> > repeater usage were broadcasting and had to stop? > >> The FCC's online > >> archives > >> > don't seem to go back far enough (seems to me it > >> was in the 80's), > >> and all > >> > the references that DID turn up dealt with > >> specific interference > >> cases, not > >> > the broadcasting issue. > >> > > >> > A news item in a QST or CQ column would be > >> sufficient... > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > > >> > George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413 > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >__________________________________________________________ > >You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster > Total Access, No Cost. > >http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com > > > > > > > Ron Wright, N9EE > 727-376-6575 > MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS > Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL > No tone, all are welcome. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
