Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Maybe it is nonsense. It is certainly not worth any more effort on my part. I hope you and Bonnie and the Winlink folks can one day see eye-to-eye. I think all three groups are cliques and all are trying to have it their way. Adios. At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: >Chuck, > >Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur >bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing >and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be >interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have >to wait until we find out. > >Chuck Mayfield wrote: > > Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone > > has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. > > I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something > > that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand > > the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were > > not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and > > probably don't understand the English language any better than you > > and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have > > some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? > > > > Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking > > Pearl Harbor. Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie". Many other > > sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the > > pot" is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations > > for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? > > > > 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
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: >Chuck, > >Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur >bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing >and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be >interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have >to wait until we find out. Rick, You have stooped to a very low personally insulting level here. I am not doing anything. I have no guilt whatsoever, except that I let you spread your own brand of nonsense on too thickly before I protested. You know very well that your questions are slanted against ALE and WINLINK. Bonny didn't kick me off of any lists. Are you doing this because she kicked you off hers? You don't even know me. You don't know what I do. You don't know what I don't do. How dare you drop that tripe on me? Apparently you can dish it out but you cannot take it when someone directly challenges your actions.
RE: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Rick didn't need to obtain a mandate from anyone, Chuck. The FCC accepts proposals from all citizens. You are entitled to believe that "nothing is necessarily wrong", but that's hardly a compelling argument for Rick to back down. Encouraging the FCC to clear up the ambiguity and inconsistency in its regulations is a very good idea, and I'm glad that Rick has taken this action. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck Mayfield Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink 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
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Chuck, Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have to wait until we find out. Chuck Mayfield wrote: > Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone > has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. > I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something > that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand > the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were > not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and > probably don't understand the English language any better than you > and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have > some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? > > Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking > Pearl Harbor. Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie". Many other > sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the > pot" is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations > for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? > > 73, Chuck AA5J >
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? Yamamoto said "I fear we have waken a sleeping giant" after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said "Let a sleeping dog lie". Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that "Don't stir the pot" is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: >All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not >welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take >action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd >arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good >situation. > >When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there >is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL >and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what >else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule >interpreters? > >How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree >with that other than a person with an extreme agenda? > >As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the >answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. >If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others? > >It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are >involved in that! > >Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they >happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need >to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an >interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition >for a change. > >As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health >for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients >that "no one really knows." It is not possible to just "know" the >interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must >contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt. > >Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner? > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > >Chuck Mayfield 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
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 01:54 PM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: >You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to >radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power >than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? >Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you >can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it >listened. > >You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old >adage in ham radio, "If you can hear'em, you can work'em". However, this is >only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are >copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW! Oh, Skip. Thank you for your very welcome feedback. I forgot you always have a perfectly uniform reflecting medium between you and everyone else. That is why you get perfect reciprocity all the time. Well it doesn't always work that way for me. Can we get back to technical discussions now and leave the rules enforcement for others?
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it listened. You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old adage in ham radio, "If you can hear'em, you can work'em". However, this is only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW! It is against all reasonable odds that if a PropNet station consistently transmits on top of every station on the frequency, that it cannot hear at least one of them. > Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you > could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a > 53 or so report? Just because you can hear them, does not mean that > they can hear you. They KW when you are transmitting 25W. > BTW, if they come back with a 53 report, they could detect me, couldn't they! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good situation. When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule interpreters? How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree with that other than a person with an extreme agenda? As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others? It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are involved in that! Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition for a change. As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients that "no one really knows." It is not possible to just "know" the interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt. Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner? 73, Rick, KV9U Chuck Mayfield 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 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: >PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively, >interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that >the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing >activity, or lying about being at the "control point". Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a 53 or so report? Just because you can hear them, does not mean that they can hear you. They KW when you are transmitting 25W. Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
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] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
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
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
If I can copy a PropNet signal, the principle of reciprocity implies that the operator of that station can "almost always" copy me, if I am running the same power, or more, and equivalent antenna as the PropNet station. So, if the PropNet operator is going to claim he is at the control point of the PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively, interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing activity, or lying about being at the "control point". The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, "Your call sign, your responsibility." Skip KH6TY > PropNet is using a beaconing approach but supposedly tell their members > that they must be full control operators. If you read the rules, it is > not clear whether this is legal or not. If you look at the rules vis a > vis automatic operation, then they clearly are illegal, but it could be > possible for the FCC to interpret the rule (big stretch, I know) that > with a control operator present, this might be OK
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
I must have missed something but what are IED's? The only acronym that I have heard are "improvised explosive device" and clearly that would be an odd reference in this case. Even though there are those who strongly oppose clarity on what really is appropriate and inappropriate behavior with these modes, here in the U.S. at least, it is necessary to get some interpretation by the FCC. PropNet is using a beaconing approach but supposedly tell their members that they must be full control operators. If you read the rules, it is not clear whether this is legal or not. If you look at the rules vis a vis automatic operation, then they clearly are illegal, but it could be possible for the FCC to interpret the rule (big stretch, I know) that with a control operator present, this might be OK 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. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing > the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites .. > > ") 1 illegal 1-way transmissions; > >> 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic >> control of a digital station." >> > > > as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has > forwarded to the FCC for comment. > > > So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? > Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID. >What about Packet on 30M, APRS. I am fairly certain these station > do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates > based on their UI-View settings. > > > Andy K3UK > > > On Jan 13, 2008 8:22 AM, kh6ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Look at it this way - NO transmissions without listening first, either ALE >> soundings, beacons, or mailboxes of any kind, are permissible on the >> *shared* HF amateur bands, except in designated beacon areas or the >> automatic subbands ( where it is presumed by the FCC to occur, since >> unattended stations do not, and cannot, listen first for any other activity >> within range of the unattended station). >> >> It does not matter how short a time the unattended interference signal is on >> either. If it disrupts a QSO, it is *too long*. >> >> Skip KH6TY >> >> >> >> >> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked >> >> >> DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Hi Andy, That's just nonsense. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 09:03 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote: >Yes, I received a private email from the individual that is preparing >the IED's. With reference to ALE soundings, he cites .. > >") 1 illegal 1-way transmissions; > > 2) illegal automatic beaconing below 28.200 MHz, and; 3) illegal automatic > > control of a digital station." > > >as issues he asked the ARRL about and he reports the ARRL has >forwarded to the FCC for comment. > > >So, what about Propnet ? Would this not also apply to their beacons? >Once per hour these station send out their coordinates and station ID. >What about Packet on 30M, APRS. I am fairly certain these station >do not have a control op all the time as they becaon their coordinates >based on their UI-View settings. > > >Andy K3UK
