[amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:Re:dream)

kd8bxp@aol.com 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 - 

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


Sent on the Now Network™ from my Sprint® BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
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.

73, art.....
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
> http://www.HamOhio.com
> ------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
> 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/
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX
> EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB
> zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa
> RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A
> eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0=
> =AgEy
> Sent on the Now Network™ from my Sprint® BlackBerry
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. 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!!


CAUTION:  Web site may have a photo of me in Spandex.....  ;-)

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list