[amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:Re:dream)
kd8bxp at aol.com
Tue Jul 7 09:28:12 PDT 2009
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 -
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
Sent on the Now Network from my SprintÂ® BlackBerry
From: W4ART Arthur Feller <afeller at ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:13:59
To: <kd8bxp at aol.com>
Cc: Ben Jackson<bbj at innismir.net>; Bob Bruninga<bruninga at usna.edu>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
"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.
W4ART/4 Miami FL
On 7-Jul-2009, at 11:42 AM, kd8bxp at aol.com 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
> ------Original Message------
> From: Ben Jackson
> To: Bob Bruninga
> Cc: kd8bxp at aol.com
> Cc: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> 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:
> 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
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Sent on the Now Networkâ¢ from my SprintÃÂ® BlackBerry
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> 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!!
CAUTION: Web site may have a photo of me in Spandex..... ;-)
More information about the AMSAT-BB