ARRL Comments on FCC Omnibus R&O

Congrats Keith, as always, you dodged the issue.  You got close to being back on track in your last (sigh) paragraph.  I'll try and help.

If we are supposed to be self-policing, how can anyone, at anytime, on any HF or MF band, confirm that any power limitations are being adhered to?

Simple, short, and sweet answer ... we can't.

And Larry, the only interpretation that will count regarding the legality of any mode will be that of the FCC.  You may find it strange that I wish for the Winlink network to be able to continue to use pactor III where needed, but only for the value of the network as a tool for emergency communications.  I don't give a damn about the cheapskates who sail the seven seas and tour in their land yachts and cheat legitimate commercial service providers using amateur radio.  And save your breath, that's my opinion, it's been my opinion, and it isn't going to change.

And finally Keith, I'm here to discuss amateur radio, to which a driver's license and traffic tickets have no relevance.  I hate stupid analogies that have no relevant connection to the subject at hand.

Have a wonderful day.

 

Congrats Keith, as always, you dodged the issue.  You got close to being back on track in your last (sigh) paragraph.  I'll try and help.

If we are supposed to be self-policing, how can anyone, at anytime, on any HF or MF band, confirm that any power limitations are being adhered to?

Simple, short, and sweet answer ... we can't.

[/QUOTE]
Correct.  And, the simple, short reply is that, no matter how much regulatory overkill you put on the books, even under the current FCC rules, you never will.  

For, even under the current FCC rules, nobody can "at anytime, on any HF or MF band, confirm" that the 200-watt power limitation for Novices is being adhered to.  Nor can anyone "at any time, on any HF or MF band" confirm that the 200-watt power limitation is being adhered to on 30 Meters.  Likewise, nobody can confirm that less than 50 watts is being used in the 219 to 220 MHz segment of the 1.25 Meter band, or that less than 50 watts is being used on the 33 cm band within 241 Km of the White Sands Missile Range.

MANY other countries around the world with large Ham populations (like Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy and Great Britain) have made such power limitations an integral part of both their licensing and regulatory structures for the Amateur Service for decades.  In fact, for most of them, such power limitations (rather than additional frequency and mode privileges) form one of the basic differences between their various classes of licenses.  And their sky has yet to fall.

You're making mountains out of molehills.  It's only here in the USA, where people who are obsessed with maintaining the entrenched snobbery that's built into the current licensing structure, does such paranoia even get a passing thought.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

And finally Keith, I'm here to discuss amateur radio, to which a driver's license and traffic tickets have no relevance.  I hate stupid analogies that have no relevant connection to the subject at hand.

[/QUOTE]
Oh, but I beg to differ.

The issue you have raised deals directly with personal integrity.

And the analogies I offered clearly illustrate the willingness (or the lack thereof) of individuals to maintain the integrity of an established system of rules and regulations, be it in adhering to the established FCC "rules of the road" while operating an Amateur Radio Station or adhering to state or local "rules of the road" while operating a motor vehicle.

Integrity is integrity regardless of the venue.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

Correct.  And, the simple, short reply is that, no matter how much regulatory overkill you put on the books, even under the current FCC rules, you never will.  

For, even under the current FCC rules, nobody can "at anytime, on any HF or MF band, confirm" that the 200-watt power limitation for Novices is being adhered to.  Nor can anyone "at any time, on any HF or MF band" confirm that the 200-watt power limitation is being adhered to on 30 Meters.  Likewise, nobody can confirm that less than 50 watts is being used in the 219 to 220 MHz segment of the 1.25 Meter band, or that less than 50 watts is being used on the 33 cm band within 241 Km of the White Sands Missile Range.

MANY other countries around the world with large Ham populations (like Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy and Great Britain) have made such power limitations an integral part of both their licensing and regulatory structures for the Amateur Service for decades.  In fact, for most of them, such power limitations (rather than additional frequency and mode privileges) form one of the basic differences between their various classes of licenses.  And their sky has yet to fall.

You're making mountains out of molehills.  It's only here in the USA, where people who are obsessed with maintaining the entrenched snobbery that's built into the current licensing structure, does such paranoia even get a passing thought.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF[/QUOTE]
Why limit it to novices and restricted areas? How is anyone to know how much power anyone is running? I could be running 5KW, and how would anyone know?

We are a self policing service, and people do things on the honor system, since it is impossible to make these determinations without being right in the neighborhood when the transmission is occuring.

Yes, power limits have seemed to work for novices, techs, generals, and extras for many many decades. There is no reason to think that they couldn't work today. There will be people of all class licenses who will not abide by power limits, or many other rules. We call them rule-breakers or scofflaws, and they have existed since the beginning of time.

Joe

 

FCC today released an erratum message to publish changes to the previous R&O released October 10...


---------------

--------------------------------------
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2379  Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554    
In the Matter of Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules  Governing the Amateur Radio Services  
* Amendment of Section 97.111 of the Amateur Radio Service Rules to  Limit Transmissions of Information Bulletins
* Conforming Amendments to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules to  Implement the World Radio Conference 1997 Final Acts
* Amendment of Part 97 to Provide Color-coded License Documents  
* Amendment of Part 97 to Allow Instant Temporary Licensing
* Amendment of the Amateur Service Rules to Limit One–Way Voice  Broadcasting on Frequencies Allocated to the Amateur Service
* Amendment of Sections 97.111 and 97.113 of the Commission’s Rules to  Curb Certain Abuses in the Amateur Radio Service Amendment of Section  97.3(a)(26) to Establish Two Classifications of Information Bulletins  
* Amendment of Section 97.305( c) to Authorize Image Emissions in  Additional High Frequency Segments  
WT Docket No. 04-140 RM-10313, RM-10352, RM-10353, RM-10354, RM-10355, RM-10412, RM-10413, RM-10492, RM-10521, RM-10582, RM-10620, RM-10621  

ERRATUM Released: November 27, 2006 By the Chief, Mobility  Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:  

1. On October 10, 2006, the Commission released a Report and Order  (FCC  06-149) in the above-captioned proceeding. [1] This Erratum  corrects the Report and Order by revising Section 97.3( c)(2), as set forth in the Appendix thereto, to clarify the rule in accord  with the pertinent discussion in the text of the Report and Order. [2]  Specifically, this Erratum corrects the initial rule amendment in the  Appendix of the Report and Order to read as follows: 1. Section 97.3 is amended by revising paragraph ( c)(2) to read as  follows:  

“§ 97.3 Definitions. * * * ( c) *** (2) Data. Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications emissions  having (i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first  symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the third symbol; (ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having  an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on an amateur  service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted.
* * * * *

2. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section  0.331 of the Commission’s Rules.” [3]    

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   Roger Noel Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau  

[Footnotes]
[1] Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules Governing the  Amateur Radio Services, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 04-140, 21 FCC  Rcd 11643 (2006) (Report  and  Order).  

[2] See Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 11653 ¶19 (stating, “we will  revise our rules to clarify that the 500 Hz limitation applies only to  the emission types we are adding to the definition of data when  transmitted on amateur service frequencies below 30 MHz. By amending the rule in this manner, the 500 bandwidth limitation will not apply  to other data emission types or amateur service bands in which a higher  symbol rate or bandwidth currently is permitted”).  

[3] See 47 C.F.R. § 0.331.


[Brackets added by me for emphasis.]

 

Jonathan, you may well be correct in that the provisions of the ADA may not specifically apply to Incentive Licensing in the Amateur Service.  However, there's another federal law that very well might.

It's called the "Rehabilitation Act", and among other things, it specifically prohibits Federal Executive Agencies (of which the Federal Communications Commission is but one of many) from excluding persons with disabilities from obtaining the full benefits of federal programs as a result of their disability.

Specifically, Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act (which relates to nondiscrimination Under Federal Grants and Programs) reads as follows:

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of Congress, and such regulations may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees."

Unfortunately, the provisions of the ADA have been steadily chipped away by Supreme Court rulings in recent years that have increasingly forced persons with disabilities to first prove they fall under the provisions of the ADA rather than focusing on the actual discrimination that they have received.  

However, it seems to me that, using the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, a good lawyer could easily make a very strong case that the FCC's increasingly irrelevant and baseless Incentive Licensing system requirements in general (and the arcane Morse test in particular) unfairly and systemically, "Subjects disabled persons to discrimination under…excludes their full participation in…and denies them the full benefits of" equal access to all that the Amateur Radio Service in the United States now offers.  

And, speaking of lawyers…a while back you claimed to be one.  At that time, I respectfully asked that you share your curriculum vitae as an attorney with us so as to back up your claim.

We're still waiting.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

Good luck waiting on that. I've checked several directories and received no hits.

 

Just another right wing fear monger.

 

Larry,

Thanks for the update.

I'm interested in your opinion on how SSB operators might react if the FCC passed a rule forcing companies such as Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, Rohde & Schwarz, etc. to fully publish their computer codes for their SSB DSP enhancement programs? At the present time these SSB DSP codes are considered proprietary and do not appear to be fully disclosed. This suggests that SSB could be considered illegal by a few assuming some believe the opinions posted in these forums. I disagree with such views and even own several HF rigs with DSP capabilities myself that I use on a regular basis.

I trust the FCC's and ARRL's experts are moving us in the right direction.

Ed AE4TM
http://ecjones.org/

 

I don't follow. Under what rule or scenario might the FCC have any jurisdiction over a radio manufacturer's use of DSP or other signal processing device?

AFAIK, the FCC is only interested in what is being transmitted. If it's in some sort of proprietary code, then that would fall under their jurisdiction. If a proprietary code is being used to control a signal processor that is being used to generate SSB, then it would not fall under their umbrella, as long as the signal met the FCC definition of SSB.

Joe

 

Joe, it's called distraction from the topic at hand by using a seemingly related but totaly bogus argument.
In the minds of people like ed anyone can come up with a new mode and keep the details of how it can be decoded secret because somehow it is the same as changing the frequentie responce of an ssb transiever in order to make it easier to demodulate by anyone.
He might even agrue that some packet tncs use nondeclosed firmware and somehow that would be the same as a nondisclosed protocoll.

 

Thats what I thought, but it makes no sense. It seems illogical, thats why I was seeking a clarification.

Joe

 

The fact is that the FCC intended to keep Pactor 3 (J2D) LEGAL on all HF bands except 60 and 80 meters. No amotnt of SPAR whining can change the score, ARRL-1, SPAR-0.

 

Let me give you a direct example that does directly apply. Suppose that I create a modem that uses 3 tones, and apply a protocol that "stripes" data across these tones in such a manner that only by correctly decoding all tones and applying a look-up table can the meaning of the data "frame" be understood. Assume that I further refine that to add a fourth tone, and then employ an error detection and correction agorithm so that I can "create" the correct meaning even if an entire tone is lost. I establish this as the "LR1 Protocol", prove it, and sell a modem that contains the protocol. Is it legal on the ham bands ?

YES. Proof: G-TOR (which I invented) requires a look-up table. There has never been a question of its legality.

There is ZERO prohibition in ANY law, rule, or regulation against the use of ANY proprietary protocol on amateur frequencies. There is a prohibition against cryptography and/or steganography, but there is absolutely no prohibition against any type of protocol.

Prior to the initial deployment of P-III, the FCC was ASKED if the P-III modem was legal for use on the amateur bands. They responded that it was. Prior to the development and deployment of the Winlink system, the FCC was asked about the interpretation of the rules for handling both amateur-to-amateur and third-party traffic. They set out the FCC interpretation. Since the initial deployment, the FCC has been involved continuously with interpretation of any issues and/or resolution of any complaints. After some made the EXACT same claims that you present, the FCC verified the legality. Since that time, they have basically tossed all of the "it ain't legal" letters, faxes, and e-mails into the "round file".

COMMENT

Those who continually bombard the FCC with their "I don't like it, so it ought to be banned" nonsense letters, faxes, and e-mails constitute a danger to the continued existence of the amateur radio service. The FCC does not have the manpower to respond to childish rantings. The continuous "drip - drip - drip" from a small minority of "religious zealots" who insist that their way is the ONLY way hurts the image of EVERY amateur radio operator, the image of the amateur radio service, and -- ultimately -- our chances of expanding and/or maintaining our frequency allocations.

 

And we're STILL waiting.


Jonathan must be busy hanging out on 27.185 looking for lot lizards.

Remember, with WHE, it's just CB! And apparently no law credentials either!