[amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: Re:dream)
bruninga at usna.edu
Thu Jul 9 05:34:08 PDT 2009
I want to appologize for the tone (using caps for emphasis which
comes across as shouting!) of my message about asking the FCC
for opinions. I had just come back off of a week off line while
taking care of my mom and was surprised to see the pager debate
So nothing was directed at anyone in particular, it was just a
rant to the walls.. Please do not be offended. Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org
> [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruninga
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:53 PM
> To: kd8bxp at aol.com; Ben Jackson
> Cc: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and
> Pagers (WAS Re: Re:dream)
> > Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this
> > I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for a reason
> THIS IS INSANITY!!!!
> The FCC is nothing but a bunch of bureaucrats trying to sell
> off spectrum to the highest bidder! There are no real
> engineers left there, and no one there with OUR interest in
> mind. It is ABSURD to go running to to the FCC to ask for a
> > What we need is to setup a conferance 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
> ABSOLUTELY NOT. That is lunacy. Instead of laying out such
> kind of completely open ended paperdrill and wasted effort,
> spend our time developing a system using pagers in our
> network. Geeze. We are licensed amateurs, we KNOW the
> rules, we KNOW what amateur radio can do, and WE KNOW what
> kind of benefits we can produce. We ALSO know what is not
> legal when we hear it. And using Pagers as part of the
> amateur radio text messaging system IS NOT ILLEGAL!
> > 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 ruling
> NO!!! HARDLY ANY TECHNOLOGY in amateur radio has ever been
> successfully developed that way. All that develops is a lot
> of HOT AIR and useless paper. Progress has RARELY IF EVER
> BEEN developed by committee.
> Progress in Amateur Radio is made by inspired individuals who
> see a need, and go off and develop something using their own
> money, time and effort. The best way to KILL any good idea
> is to form a committee that squashes any initiative and
> progress by overbearing hot air and "geeze wouldnt it be nice
> if we did this.... where "WE" is some other guy who can
> actually DO something.
> > 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
> Using PAGING devices to communicate on amateur radio has
> always been legal. If you want to make things illegal, then
> look at the application and how they are used. If they are
> used for the benefit of all the intents and benefits of legal
> amateur communications, then they are legal. If they are
> used for paging to violate the intents and meaning of amateur
> radio, then such an application is illegal. It is the
> APPLICATION AND USE that is legal or illegal, it is NOT THE
> > No one in the club can tell me why they
> > stopped using pagers -
> Probably because some nit-picking obstructionist spent all
> his time trying to find a way to convince others that it was
> illegal... And everyone else gave up in disgust.
> > But at around the same time they stopped paging,
> > kantronics also stopped modify pagers for 2
> > meters,
> > We need to setup something and get as many
> > people as we can write up a well written
> > paper and get a ruling.
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE NO.
> > I think as we see here agurements can be
> > made on both sides.
> Which you can get on any topic on any subjct whenever you
> have more than one person in a room!
> > Which is why we need a ruling.
> No, which is exactly why we get a license and read the rules
> and take good ideas for amateur radio and move out, and do
> not waste time laying paper at the feet of a bunch of
> bureaucrats who could care less. The motivation of most
> bureaucrats is simply how is the best way to get this paper
> off my desk, and the answer is to simply say NO rather than
> say YES, which could only expand to other issues...
> > When rules are written this vague, some one
> > needs to decide and stand by the decision
> HUh? They make it vague so that we can move forward without
> being nit-picked by aremchair hams turning over rocks trying
> to find ways to kill progress by playing bureaucrat.
> VAGUE IS GOOD! It means PROCEED!!!
> >------Original Message------
> >Subject: Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers
> > 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 something 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.
> THEY WILL RULE ON ANYTHING! And that is the LAST thing we
> want or need. There is just no reason to be running to
> bureaucrats with stupid questions, or you get stupid answers!
> >>> 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.
> WHAT IS THE "IT" here? The "IT" is "ONE WAY BROADCASTS". and
> that has nothing to do with the hardware. STOP READING "IT"
> AS PAGERS. They are separate entities.
> ONE WAY BROADCASTS beyond the scope of amateur radio are
> clearly illegal.
> Making the stretch to declare all pagers to be ONE WAY
> BROADCASTS is just as silly (in an amateur radio
> communications network) as declaring that ALL TRANSMITTERS
> are illegal because they are also ONE WAY!!!
> >>> 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.
> Oh, this is absurd. EVERY receiver is a receive-only
> device!!! and every TRANSMITTER is a transmit only device.
> It is NOT THE DEVICE that determines legality, it is the
> > 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.
> Yes, and what you will site is some bureaucratic off the wall
> decision made in the vacuum of engineering that exists at the
> FCC made in the best interest of the FCC which is to decalare
> most anything brought before it as illegal simply to clear
> their desk of these stupid "requests for opinions".
> > 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.
> Pagers are being sold for scrap metal. If someone cannot
> afford maybe $10 for a crystal to put in a practically free
> pager to get it on the air, then amateur radio is probably
> not a good hobby for him.
> > Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
> LETS STOP DISCUSSING IT AND SPEND OUR TIME DOING IT!
> Again, nothing technical in amateur radio gets done by
> nit-picking rules, and forming committees, and running off to
> the FCC, it is individuals that see an opportunity and have
> the ability to move out and accomplish it.
> THe worst part of amateur radio is all the nit-pickers and
> ankle biters that hold back progress. Sometimes they win and
> the guy in the lead just gives up. SOmetimes these guys with
> an idea get far enough ahead of the nit-pickers and ankle
> biters, that the great silent majority of amateurs begin to
> think outside of their boxes and start to slowly get on board.
> Of course the nit-pickers and ankle biters will always be
> there to the end, but hopefully they are in the minority and
> the majority will continue to move forward.
> Bob, WB4APR
> 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:
More information about the AMSAT-BB