QSL Bureaus Illegal in the US ?

[ke4pjw]

According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)

[KF0RT]

Every "package" I've ever sent or received from the QSL bureau went through the USPS mail system. I'm not seeing the "choice" here.

73, Rob

[N5LRZ]

If you mean that anti Winlink nut case you have to remember that he does not have both oars in the water.

The web has been married to ham radio for a long time. #I do believe that the FCC has been aware of Winlink. #It would seem logical that IF IF IF the FCC thought it illegal they would have cracked down on it a long time ago. #

Seasons Greetings

R Arceneaux
N5LRZ

[kg4dci]

Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ Dec. 13 2005,19:47)]If you mean that anti Winlink nut case you have to remember that he does not have both oars in the water.

The web has been married to ham radio for a long time. #I do believe that the FCC has been aware of Winlink. #It would seem logical that IF IF IF the FCC thought it illegal they would have cracked down on it a long time ago. #

Seasons Greetings

R Arceneaux
N5LRZ
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Nothing to see here, move along... move along http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[k7unz]

I don't know how you get/got yours from the buro, but mine always came via USPS, which I paid for in advance. #I'm sure they are shipped either by USPS or a commercial carrier from ARRL to the various buros. #

Jim/k7unz

[KA3RFE]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
Amateur QSL buros do not have any relationship with Part 97. They are taking no business away from the post office.

Amateur radio may not be legally used to get around commercial communication services. But sending mail has nothing to do with communications services. Plus, it's MAIL IN and MAIL OUT.

73

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (k7unz @ Dec. 13 2005,14:02)]I don't know how you get/got yours from the buro, but mine always came via USPS, which I paid for in advance. I'm sure they are shipped either by USPS or a commercial carrier from ARRL to the various buros.
From Wikipedia
Quote[/b] ]There are other exceptions to the PES that include an exception for private messenger service, free carriage of letters, letters incidental to cargo, and letters that at some point during their pick-up or delivery had previously entered into the USPS mailstream unless the letters are consolidated.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (KA3RFE @ Dec. 13 2005,14:16)]They are taking no business away from the post office.
Then why are they used?

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,20:25)]Quote[/b] (KA3RFE @ Dec. 13 2005,14:16)]They are taking no business away from the post office.
Then why are they used?
To send QSL cards by mail. Oh, that's USPS.

Seems to me enough people have already said that maybe it would sink in. (Ah, but then again, probably not.)

Bureaus are consolidating places - they do not get around postage. You did have to send postage to them, didn't you?

Ed

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
It is illegal to pass COMMERCIAL email via ham radio. But with WinLink -- who knows what is being passed? Since it has become a substitute for COMMERCIAL services, then is is being used to pass illegal email?

Only the Shadow knows.

I can pass email via CW. A non-commercial message from a ham. Or a non commecial message from a third party. Non-commercial. I can do it by voice, too. I have the liberty of addressing a NTS message to a "hamcall@joeisp.com" That isn't illegal.

What is illegal is using WinLink (if indeed this occurs) to pass COMMERCIAL email. Such as "I'm at sea, so send me my NYSE readings for this morning."

If WinLink could be GUARANTEED not to carry commercial content, one of the two black marks against it would be erased. The other, of course, is the proprietary equipment and software, making it unavailable for routine monitoring.

Want precedent for that? Ever heard of 60 meters? US Hams must use USB only, no AM, no LSB, no CW, not even a carrier for tuning. Why? So it can be *monitored* - yeah, so it can be understood. WinLink fails that test.

I for one, would give up the anti-Winlink stance if it did not operate unattended robots, if it did not carry commercial email (and that was guaranteed) and if it was not proprietary.

Ed

[WA9SVD]

But don't QSL cards fall under the "Extremely Urgent" exemption of the PES? (Private Express Statutes?)

[kg4dci]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 13 2005,20:33)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
It is illegal to pass COMMERCIAL email via ham radio. #But with WinLink -- who knows what is being passed? #Since it has become a substitute for COMMERCIAL services, then is is being used to pass illegal email? #

Only the Shadow knows.

I can pass email via CW. #A non-commercial message from a ham. #Or a non commecial message from a third party. #Non-commercial. #I can do it by voice, too. #I have the liberty of addressing a NTS message to a "hamcall@joeisp.com" #That isn't illegal. #

What is illegal is using WinLink (if indeed this occurs) to pass COMMERCIAL email. #Such as "I'm at sea, so send me my NYSE readings for this morning." #

If WinLink could be GUARANTEED not to carry commercial content, one of the two black marks against it would be erased. #The other, of course, is the proprietary equipment and software, making it unavailable for routine monitoring.

Want precedent for that? #Ever heard of 60 meters? #US Hams must use USB only, no AM, no LSB, no CW, not even a carrier for tuning. #Why? #So it can be *monitored* - yeah, so it can be understood. #WinLink fails that test.

I for one, would give up the anti-Winlink stance if it did not operate unattended robots, if it did not carry commercial email (and that was guaranteed) and if it was not proprietary.

Ed
http://www.scs-ptc.com/download/PACTOR-III-Protocol.pdf

The protocol is well defined... better than some internet applications I've had to reverse engineer....

The hard part IMHO would be to simulate the last paragraph on page 5... with a sound card... but it probably could be done...

Somebody just needs to get off their butt and write a sound card driver... if somebody wanted to monitor Pactor II and III traffic, they've given you all the information you need to build a sound card driver.

[N5PVL]

Another lame-o attempt to wriggle WinLink off of the hook, shot down before it got started.

The law is the law, and only WinLink is competing with commercial services ( they even say so themselves ) to act as an email service provider.

Not the QSL buro. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

And by the way; It is the FCC's logic that you are objecting to, not mine. - I just reported the facts.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 13 2005,14:31)]Seems to me enough people have already said that maybe it would sink in. (Ah, but then again, probably not.)

Bureaus are consolidating places - they do not get around postage. You did have to send postage to them, didn't you?
From the WiKi
Quote[/b] ]There are other exceptions to the PES that include an exception for private messenger service, free carriage of letters, letters incidental to cargo, and letters that at some point during their pick-up or delivery had previously entered into the USPS mailstream unless the letters are consolidated.

It appears there is no exception to the PES for letters that are consolidated.

So, no, it's not sinking in. Explain it to me.

And yes, for the record, I am simply being a malcontent.

I see nothing wrong with QSL Bureaus or sending email over amateur radio.

[KA3RFE]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,20:25)]Quote[/b] (KA3RFE @ Dec. 13 2005,14:16)]They are taking no business away from the post office.
Then why are they used?
Why are they used? It's much simpler to addrss one big package of QSLs than address and stamp umpteen dozens of cards. And QSL buros know which DX buro handles QSL the cards for their area. The buro user keeps the buro with enough SASE and stamps and large envelopes.

If you'd rather mail directly, you have to look u the DX location, address the card put stamps on the and take them to the post office but if you do a lot of DX, thats going to take your time up.

That's why. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 13 2005,15:32)]Another lame-o attempt to wriggle WinLink off of the hook, shot down before it got started.

The law is the law, and only WinLink is competing with commercial services ( they even say so themselves ) to act as an email service provider.

Not the QSL buro. ???

And by the way; It is the FCC's logic that you are objecting to, not mine. - I just reported the facts.
If the winlink group can't send email over amateur radio, neither can I.

So when did the FCC put the Winlink group on notice and where can I get a copy of the notification? I see nothing on either of their websites about it.

Yep, the law is the law. The consolidation of letters to save on postage violates the Private Express Statutes.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Dec. 13 2005,14:36)]But don't QSL cards fall under the "Extremely Urgent" exemption of the PES? (Private Express Statutes?)
Mine don't come back to me marked "EXTREMELY URGENT" on the envelope.

They come in the envelope I sent to the bureau, but with the return address stamped on it.

Good try however. I'm sure it's legal, just want someone to explain it to me.

[n5tjd]

The thing is... it seems you could have found a better example. I can't find the USPS in part 97 anywhere. If a QSL Buro is illegal, so what? Send the QSL direct. I have yet to use a Buro.

I don't even care so much about traffic passed on winlink. What ticks me off is unattented automatic robots transmitting onto an occupied frequency and trashing any other form of communication that happened to be taking place.

THAT is my beef. Not Winlink in particular, but any type of unattended operations.

[N5PVL]

KD5WZB says:
Quote[/b] ]
What ticks me off is unattented automatic robots transmitting onto an occupied frequency and trashing any other form of communication that happened to be taking place.

THAT is my beef. Not Winlink in particular, but any type of unattended operations.

Actually, you ARE talking about WinLink in particular, as this is the only group who behaves the way you are talking about.

The Packet network operates within the narrow autoforwarding sub-bands set aside for that purpose. Because of this, they have been operating there for over twenty years without crashing anybody's QSO. - You don't hear much about the HF Packet net, specifically because they do not cause problems for other hams.

- You sure hear a lot about WinLink though! Only the WinLinkers demand the right to show up anywhere on the band and crash any ongoing communication that may be in progress.

Only the ARRL is corrupt enough to support WinLink in that desire.

Automated operation is not the problem... Automated operation all over the ham bands by irresponsible LidOp WinLinkers is.

As a Packet SYSOP, I wanted to clarify this matter, as Packet operators are responsible, considerate hams and do not deserve to be painted with the same brush as WinLinkers.

[K3XR]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
If you take the time to read the email link, to the postal requlation, in the original post there are any number of exceptions such as free delivery, companies using an internal mail system etc. #Out going QSL's go via mail, the cards you receive from the bureau are sent to you via the mail. In addition to which you have Fedex and UPS who have next day delivery service for documents that bypass the postal system. QSL cards could go the same route and not use the postal system. It is also possible that a QSL card does not fit the definition of a letter as stated in the postal regulation.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
If thats the case, then the ENTIRE INTERNET violates the government monopoly on mail, because I haven't sent my mom a written letter in about 3 years since she got email.

That means I'm depriving the postal service of something I used to use them for every other week. I'm also depriving the phone company of the long distance charges I used to incur to call my parents and other relatives I communicate with via email http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on Winlink. You know the experts at Microsoft will come up with a more viable satelite soloution within a year or 2, in which people will have access to the entire internet instead of just email, and without the 50 resends nessacary to get "Hi Mom" in an email sent across HF to the USS Mini-Titanic.

And here I thought boats were used to go out on, get stupid on, and get drunk on. No wait, thats just what I see going on in the rivers/lakes around here. Have yet to see anyone with this undying need to get thier email http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ae1x]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Dec. 14 2005,11:14)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
If thats the case, then the ENTIRE INTERNET violates the government monopoly on mail, because I haven't sent my mom a written letter in about 3 years since she got email.

That means I'm depriving the postal service of something I used to use them for every other week. I'm also depriving the phone company of the long distance charges I used to incur to call my parents and other relatives I communicate with via email http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on Winlink. You know the experts at Microsoft will come up with a more viable satelite soloution within a year or 2, in which people will have access to the entire internet instead of just email, and without the 50 resends nessacary to get "Hi Mom" in an email sent across HF to the USS Mini-Titanic.

And here I thought boats were used to go out on, get stupid on, and get drunk on. No wait, thats just what I see going on in the rivers/lakes around here. Have yet to see anyone with this undying need to get thier email http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The USPS has been pushing for a tax on e-mail because they feel deprived of their just income. I believe Congress has so far been on our side on this issue.

Ken

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]The USPS has been pushing for a tax on e-mail because they feel deprived of their just income.
They'll get around to it eventually. They can't stand the competition.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Dec. 14 2005,09:17)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Dec. 14 2005,11:14)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,19:29)]According to N5PVL it is illegal for me to pass email via ham radio. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=108824)

By using that same logic, do QSL Bureaus violate the governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)
If thats the case, then the ENTIRE INTERNET violates the government monopoly on mail, because I haven't sent my mom a written letter in about 3 years since she got email.

That means I'm depriving the postal service of something I used to use them for every other week. #I'm also depriving the phone company of the long distance charges I used to incur to call my parents and other relatives I communicate with via email http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on Winlink. #You know the experts at Microsoft will come up with a more viable satelite soloution within a year or 2, in which people will have access to the entire internet instead of just email, and without the 50 resends nessacary to get "Hi Mom" in an email sent across HF to the USS Mini-Titanic.

And here I thought boats were used to go out on, get stupid on, and get drunk on. #No wait, thats just what I see going on in the rivers/lakes around here. #Have yet to see anyone with this undying need to get thier email http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The USPS has been pushing for a tax on e-mail because they feel deprived of their just income. I believe Congress has so far been on our side on this issue.

Ken
I wouldn't be overly shocked, considering that:

1) I now pay 90% of my bills on a website via direct debit
2) My wife did about 80% of her christmas shopping via the internet and UPS (though I think 3 of the packages came USPS)

And, in theory my local municipality (the City of Stockton) does already tax me on email, well indirectly as my phone service and other utilities are taxed already. However, since I just switched to ClearWire, my DSL will no longer be on my phone bill, so it will be interesting to see if they have to add that levy in. They probably will since my cell phone gets hit with that small levy also.

So, in theory my email is getting taxed-but it isn't a per email charge or anything like that.

I think if I'm lucky, I may be down to using 3 stamps a month pretty quick. I'd be down to zero, but I don't like the way my car payment would be taken out without me having to do anything-I prefer to go on a website and be required to submit and approve payments, not just suddenly have them come out on an arbitrary date when some snafu could cause severe problems.

I do agree though-I wouldn't be overly shocked to see a small percentage federal tax being levied on all internet access in a few years though. Seeing that a good portion of the population has it, and most wouldn't honestly complain about the extra $2 or so, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. (Some would complain, but their only choice would be disconnecting themselves, and that won't happen!)

[k7unz]

I don't see why the feds would be upset about email/internet use....after all, it was VP Al Gore who thought it up and brought it into being. #

I heard him say it, so I know it's true!

Jeeze, like a genuine Vice Prez would lie to me....???



Jim/k7unz http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,22:11)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Dec. 13 2005,14:36)]But don't QSL cards fall under the "Extremely Urgent" exemption of the PES? (Private Express Statutes?)
Mine don't come back to me marked "EXTREMELY URGENT" on the envelope.

They come in the envelope I sent to the bureau, but with the return address stamped on it.

Good try however. I'm sure it's legal, just want someone to explain it to me.
And with postage. That you supplied.

Ed

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 14 2005,12:24)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Dec. 13 2005,22:11)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Dec. 13 2005,14:36)]But don't QSL cards fall under the "Extremely Urgent" exemption of the PES? (Private Express Statutes?)
Mine don't come back to me marked "EXTREMELY URGENT" on the envelope.

They come in the envelope I sent to the bureau, but with the return address stamped on it.

Good try however. I'm sure it's legal, just want someone to explain it to me.
And with postage. That you supplied.

Ed
And the address I put on it too.