Hmmpf... to sit hear and be insulted... calling me an attorney...
sheesh. ;-P (no disrespect to the law professionals on the list). I'm
not one of them (other than knowing my responsibilities and rights), and
I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But, I am in a
different chain here at Dayton.
Seriously, "Remote Base" I'm pretty sure does not exist in Part 97. But,
that's a common term for Remotely Controlled Station (actually, a
shortened term for Remotely Controlled Base Station... REMOTEly
Controlled BASE Station). The Remotely Controlled Station is very
prominent in Part 97.
It's the same as the laws specifying "automobile" but everyone saying
they are not allowed to use "automobile" allowances with a "car". One is
a civil (or common) term while the other is more legaleeze.
In every sense of the word, a 2M remote base (remotely controlled
station) is perfectly legal given the Auxiliary Station (commonly called
a "control link" - again, different term for the same thing) to control
it with. All of mine always have had this unless they were under local
control, and that dates back to the early 80s for me.
Even though we are now "allowed" to use 2M for AUX stations, I
personally would not - too many issues attached (interference, too few
clear frequencies, too many 'ears', Etc.).
Joe M.
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Spoken just like a real attorney, hi. Very well spoken.
>
> Remote base is used in comm, but not sure in FCC rules. Not in Part 97,
> but maybe in 95 or 90 where "remoted" bases are used widely. So it
> might have a FCC definition somewhere.
>
> However, any attorney will tell you certain words do have meaning in
> law. This is why one most often wants an attorney to write contracts.
> One could put in words that mean to us the same thing, but in law could
> mean different things. Most words in law have a law defining what they
> mean. Not all.
>
> An we are told we can defend ourselves in a court. Surrrre.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>
>
>
> Ron Wright, N9EE
>
> 727-376-6575
>
> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
>
> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
>
> No tone, all are welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Paul Plack wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> "Semantics" implies the distinctions are trivial. If an obsolete term
> is in common usage, it's a valid topic here, whether aromatic or not.
> When hams communicate with the FCC or try to interpret the regs with
> undefined or incorrect vocabulary, misunderstandings arise.
>
> ("Remote base" comes to mind.)
>
> 73,
> Paul, AE4KR
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From: *_MCH_ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To: *_Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com_
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Sent: *Friday, May 16, 2008 8:24 PM
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something.
>
> A trustee is a person *entrusted* with something.
> (That's the legal definition of a trustee)
>
> That something could be a repeater or a coordination or a license, or
> any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'm trustee of
> all three - the license, the repeater, and the coordination.
>
> So, a single person could be both a licensee and a trustee. Certainly
> that person is the trustee for their personal license.
>
> It doesn't have to be an FCC definition - it's a legal definition and
> one which the FCC must honor unless they want to define it differently
> in their rules. In the absense of any FCC definition, they are bound by
> the legal definition.
>
> This is like arguing that a licensee isn't an entity since the FCC has
> no definition of an entity.
>
> Now, let's please end the discussion on semantics. The decaying horse is
> really beginning to smell.
>
> Joe M.
>
> > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Paul Plack wrote:
> >
> > Ron, not in any legal sense. You're the licensee. If, by "trustee,"
> > you mean the guy into whose care the club "entrusts" the repeater,
> > that's OK, but not an FCC definition.
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008
> 4:44 PM
