N9OGL comments on K1MAN at QRZ
todda...@yahoo.com
currently working on a petition to send to the FCC regarding K1MAN.
This petition is real not for K1MAN nor is it against him. I mainly
wish to bring some of my concerns and questions to the commission. I am
currently as I stated working on it but here is what I've got so far.
I. Broadcasting and Information Bulletins
1. N9OGL believes that the FCC should clarify the rules regarding
Information Bulletins and Broadcasting.
2. N9OGL questions the FCC decision regarding K1MAN "broadcast" was
this decision "content-neutral" and how does the decision conform
to Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 and the First
Amendment?
II. Pecuniary Interest
1. 97.113(a)(2) prohibits ANY amateur station from making money direct
or indirect from the amateur service. N9OGL questions while K1MAN made
money directly the ARRL and its W1AW is making money indirectly how is
one allowed to do it and another isn't?
2. What is the FCC definition of non-commercial radio? Because it seems
that the definition has an arbitrary assortment of definitions from one
service to the next.
Todd N9OGL
Jim
Well, just wait until folks find I joined here. I can hear the whining
now LOL.
Seriously, there appears to be a few problems to me. One you have
mentioned. Another is the fact that some folks have built repeaters
that are absolutely "closed" except to the repeater owner and immediate
family (and perhaps some close friends). Whilst I don't care who
operates an amateur radio station (at least as long as they follow the
rules), it seems a bit rude to me to expect to have a *personal*
repeater coordinated and occupy a portion of a band that no one in the
area can use. It would preclude the use of the frequencies for perhaps
50 to 200 miles. That, to me, seems a bit much to formally claim two
15 KHz bands 24/7 for personal use.
This seems to be the crux of many problems. Code vs no-code. It is
more than just wanting priveliges, the no-coders would like to see not
only HF authorization, but a reduction of the spectrum currently
reserved for cw (and digital modes) and thus see enhanced spectrum for
themselves.
The pro-code simply wish to keep the numbers (of amateurs) down so they
enjoy enhanced spectrum for themselves.
K1MAN (whom I don't agree with, but makes a valid point) would either
like his own spectrum or to see the ARRL loose their own spectrum
It would appear that we have a few choices; either learn to live
together and share peacefully or go hire expensive lawyers and litigate
to our hearts content in order to try and obtain our own personal
spectrum.
With several billion people on this planet, it would appear doubtful
that we could all enjoy our own personal piece of this spectrum. If
everyone were allocated a 1 Hz slice of bandwidth (now *there* is a
uselessly small slice of spectrum), some folks couldn't erect an
antenna even 1% efficient (how the heck do you build a 10 KHz dipole?)
and most folks would be stuck in the microwave spectrum (above 1 GHz).
With only a 1 Hz bandwidth, it is doubtful most folks could even get on
their assigned frequency (this would require 1 part in 10^10 accuracy
to be within 10% of your assigned bandwidth - I.E. within 1/10 Hz of
your tremendous 1 Hz bandwidth).
Whilst I am aware of the typical American attitude that we are entitled
to everything, it just isn't going to work that way LOL!
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
K0HB
todda...@yahoo.com wrote:
> W1AW is making money indirectly
I have never in any W1AW transmission seen them "making money".
73, de Hans, K0HB
todda...@yahoo.com
that crap that was going on at rec.radio.amateur.policy. My view is, if
you want to talk about Code-no code or any other amateur radio stuff go
right ahead; if people want to get on here and name call and harass go
to the other one I'm here to discuss amateur radio issues, like i said
I got sick of that stuff on rec.radio.amateur.policy. Anyway Welcome
along with K0HB. Speaking of repeaters did you hear about that guy out
west?? it seems that he had a restraining order on him to keep him off
some repeaters and now it seems the FCC has told him that if he gets on
them again that he will lose is license. So much for the idea that no
one owns a frequency. it seems that the FCC is giving repeater
operators some more "special rights". Anyway again welcome to you and
anyone else on here
73
Todd N9OGL
K0HB
todda...@yahoo.com wrote:
> it seems that the FCC is giving repeater
> operators some more "special rights".
No rights that any other station owner doesn't enjoy. A repeater is a
station owned by someone. That "someone" owner, just like the owners
of stations K0HB and N9OGL, has the right to determine who uses their
station.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Jim
The problem there is willful interference. In such a case, it is great
that the FCC has ordered him to stay off of those repeaters. There is
a difference between open repeaters and anarchy ;)
Well, I see you're getting some activity. Perhaps we may have
reasonable discussions on this group - something which is in the
extreme minority on rec.radio.amateur.most anything LOL.
Jim
You are correct; in general, most repeaters are "open", but are still
owned by someone or some group of folks. Most people are welcome on my
property and can visit. There are two who are not and one who is
within a micron of my obtaining a restraining order against her. The
same likely applies to most repeaters. Autopatches are generally not
open unless someone wishes to assist the repeater owner(s) in some
manner. This is fine, but folks who become obnoxious can become
unwelcome in a hurry :))
K4YZ
todda...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Speaking of repeaters did you hear about that guy out
> west?? it seems that he had a restraining order on him to keep him off
> some repeaters and now it seems the FCC has told him that if he gets on
> them again that he will lose is license. So much for the idea that no
> one owns a frequency. it seems that the FCC is giving repeater
> operators some more "special rights". Anyway again welcome to you and
> anyone else on here
However the FCC clearly states that it expects repeater owners and
control operators to exert proactive control over the MACHINES that may
be occupying a frequency pair that was assigned to it via a recognized
coordinating agency IAW the "good Amateur practice" they make reference
to in Part 97.
They also recognize the RIGHT of the owners and control operators
to inhibit another persons access to that machine if they deem that
persons usage to be inappropriate or potentially in violation of Part
97.
73
Steve, K4YZ