FCC Denies RM-11392

Please note carefully his last sentence: "In an emergency, we MUST have reasonable speed data systems that are ONLINE and TESTED. Otherwise, we will not be able to support relief efforts after another Katrina-type disaster."

In other words, we need to have pre-built permanent infrastructure using AMATEUR FREQUENCIES so it can be online and tested when necessary.

Somehow, someway AMATEUR SPECTRUM just works better than NTIA assigned spectrum or FCC assigned commercial spectrum for pre-built permanent infrastructure.

If you haven't figured it out yet, this is the viewpoint of a amateur radio service EMCOMM WHACKER.

tim ab0wr

 

You just got sucked in by the well-known rhetoric of KQ6XA.

Please go read the petition and don't depend on Bonnie's rhetoric for your information on this.

Mark was not trying to *ban* anything but merely to return some sensibility to the rules and regulations US amateurs operate under.

tim ab0wr

 

Oh, brother! And emails sent over Sailmail wouldn't have served the same purpose? If he *stopped transmitting" then the position locator would have been worthless in any case. In 24 to 48 hours you can drift so far that a search around the last location would be worthless. If he could still transmit then using the HF maritime frequencies to call for help would have been a much better way to go.

tim ab0wr

 

Let me introduce myself

I am Mark Miller N5RFX. I officially represent no one. I am almost exclusively a digital mode operator. Where I was "comming from" is that I think on HF there needs to be a return to narrow bandwidth area for digital signals. I do not wish to curtail US Ham Digi-modes privileges, only re-establish the bandwidth limits that have been historically been present in our U.S. RTTY/Data subbands. The FCC and the majority of commenters did not agree and I accept the FCC ruling.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

Thankyou for clarifying the issue so promptly.

Thankyou very much for clarifying that! I have just read the relevant FCC document viz the proposed changes to Section 97.3(c)(2), 97.221.
I will have to revise my understanding of what already existant 300 bauds data signalling rates versus your proposed changes could possibly mean in regard to the ['[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]C. Bandwidth limitations'] but I am very grateful for you helping me understand so quickly, that no political or other interference was involved!
[/FONT]
73,
Graeme GM4BRB.

 

Tim,

I figured out Larry was a whacker a long time ago. My point is that our MCU (Mobile Communication Unit) uses Satellite Internet to get messages out. We do have winlink but it is rarely used as the internet is much faster and more reliable. The only time I have seen them actually use winlink is for testing to make sure it works. I don't think they have passed one actual real message over winlink. Most are sent over the internet link. It is more secure, faster, and more reliable than winlink. Plus the county pays for the service. With all these grants given to other ham radio emcomm agencies I don't see why they are relying on ham radio as much as they are. They should be looking at better alternatives instead of strictly relying on ham radio to carry the burden of emcomm.

 

Larry, I can see you don't religiously read the ARRL Letter. Or, if you do, your brain cells responsible for memory retention are in worse shape than mine.

It was either last year, or it could have been 2006, when the ARRL Board issued a statement proclaiming one of its futuristic goals: Broadband IP content on the HF bands. (A Rinaldo-istic, damp dream?)

If I weren't so lazy, I'd go research the ARRL Letter archives and find the issue.

 

Larry, once again, is displaying his mastership of the art of obfuscation. Mixing emergency operation regulations with those that govern day to day operations. Nice try, Larry.

The issue, Larry, is using the amateur service to avoid paying a common carrier (SailMail) for sending and receiving Internet email traffic while at sea or in the desert. It makes no difference where one is physically located. SailMail is available worldwide if you pay for it.

Again, I'm too lazy to cite you the Part 97 section, but, believe me, you are not permitted to use amateur radio to bypass available commercial common carrier services.

73.

PS Since you have a rag-top, I trust you have done the RF field exposure limit calculations for you and any passengers. Wouldn't want you to raise cranial temperatures significantly.

 

What, 7.235 provides some valuable service? I could call you a netlid. You could WAS on the internet and stop using spectrum for that. Or since you are accusing me, a ham interested in communication modes and tried a different legal mode, I know one hhh net leader that was arrested for molesting a pre-teen...Is it ok for me to make the same association? I doubt it. You don't know my motivations. Grow up and take your name calling somewhere else.

As for personal email, how is winlink that different from VHF packet, APRS and Slowscan? I apologize for being curious, but since you have so much money, and I am so cheap, you can pay my sailmail account. I will contact you before I try any other modes so I will be sure not to become another type of lid. If it is not a mode you accept, the users are lids. Myopic

I learned of winlink (not "just" an email service)a couple years ago and tried it over a period of a couple weeks (limited by winlink to 30 minutes in a 24 hour period). I did not know about the issues with it. Besides I have little use for amateur digital. I bought a kam plus in the early '90's and probably put less than 40 hours on it. But I found it interesting but limited. I like the position reporting feature and I chatted with a ham crossing the ocean via ham radio. I think it was called a "QSO"...

Back on topic, ham radio has a component of experimenting and developing new modes and ideas. It seems a rule designed to eliminate a mode that may well evolve to some other improved mode is non-productive. The bands are getting less use with the advent of the net. HF digital seems inevitable.

 

The "66 days adrift" ham tried to raise someone on the bands, though he seemed inexperienced with ham radio. If his family was able to watch his daily progress, they could have alerted the coast guard when they noticed the transmissions stopped and a notice to mariners may have helped. I don't know, maybe not.

 

Ok since you seem to know who was arrested then tell me who it was because that would be the first I have heard about it. Besides being arrested for something and being convicted are two different things. Plenty of innocent people get arrested. Besides getting WAS on the air on one net is more of a challenge than getting WAS the ARRL way. Apparently you got kicked out of the HHH net to be making claims like you are.

Well apparently you don't know the difference so I will tell you. Winlink allows an amateur to send email to anyone and any email address. There is no control on what is passed over the winlink network so anything could be going over it.

Packet, APRS, and Slowscan are between two amateur radio operators. No one outside the networks are allowed to actually use the amateur radio frequencies. Most Packet BBS's only allow you to send to another ham operator and messages are checked by most BBS sysops before they are propagated around. APRS is Amateur ops only. No one without an amateur radio license is allowed to get on the APRS radio network. Slowscan again is only amateur radio ops.

Now do you see the big difference or do I have to draw a picture for you to understand?

Again you have no clue what winlink is. Winlink is just an email service and nothing more.

This petition did not drop experimentation nor did it stifle it. A lot of you that are complaining about this petition probably haven't even read the thing. All this petition did was try to get some order back in the digital/CW portions of the band. The hf bands are very active. Maybe you should get on them sometime and check it out. I hear all kinds of stuff on the air and we are still at a low in the current cycle.

 

And the MARS mission has embraced Winlink. Winlink creators acknowledge that MARS is better suited to Winlink because there are features and methods they can use on MARS channels they can't on AR.

 

You missed the point. A daily email via Sailmail would have accomplished exactly the same thing. And you wouldn't be bypassing a commercially available alternative on a regular basis by using amateur radio.

tim ab0wr

 

Read 97.205(e) in its entirety, to better understand the true intent:

97.205(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on
the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of
the station. Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user
stations is permissible.

This paragraph provides the repeater owner or control operator permission to differentiate between different types of users. If it truly meant to totally exclude selected stations (from any repeater use) it should have said so more clearly.

As written, it implies that segregating or differentiating the availability of all repeater functions (like use of an autopatch) is permissible.

You, and all the whiner trolls that wish to exclude certain individuals from repeater use, rely on the misconstruance of those words. And, upon their abuse (IMO) by the "Enforcer," Mr. Hollingsworth.

Frankly, it reads more like the owners or control operators have the right to pull the plug remotely, use subaudible tones, restrict autopatch or other input functions to a select few.

I"m not a fan of malicious interference, jamming, etc. I just want to see the enforcement handled fairly and objectively; including a reference given to the specific section(s) of Part 97 claimed to have been violated with each and every warning letter issued to licensees. To date, this hasn't been happening.

Even a traffic cop has to write the section of the state code you are accused of on your traffic ticket. Surely, if Mr. Hollingsworth can cite the United States Code section at the bottom of each of his letters to threaten the accused not to lie in their reply, he can include what sections of Part 97 or the Communications Act of 1934 they were originally accused of violating.


73.

 

Really? Then why have many MARS members said that only Pactor I is used on MARS so that members won't be forced to buy a $1300 (or more, thanks to the weak dollar) foreign, sole-source modem?

Tell us what some of those "unusuable on the ham bands" features are. Or, if you can't perhaps Mr. Waterman can if he's tuned in.......

The bottom line: The money to procure an expensive modem is a bigger issue than bandwidth, I'm afraid. And, if one uses an inexpensive, narrow (I repeat, narrow) bandwidth, garden-variety Pactor I modem, that issue goes away.