Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Jim Kearman
>Would it be considered "business" if I were to use an autopatch to call
>a fellow HAM at work to discuss non-business matters? I can just see
>someone bringing down the patch on me when they heard the receptionist
>answer with a company name even though the nature and spirit of the
>impending conversation would further NOONE's business interests.
>
>What about making a long distance call on the autopatch? In this case
>the nature and spirit of the conversation also further noone's business
>interests. BUT, the act of establishing the communications is DIRECTLY
>furthering the business interests of the phone company.
1. It's either business or it isn't. If it isn't business
related, it's legal. I've noticed a lot of companies using
background music when they put you on hold. That, of course,
is illegal, and you'd have to disconnect from the patch.
2. I'm not qualified to discuss the legality of a long-distance
call.
73, Jim
****************************************************************
JIM KEARMAN, KR1S Voice: 203-666-1541 ext 279
ARRL Assistant Technical Editor FAX: 203-665-7531
Author of `The DXCC Companion' ARRL Headquarters
Editor of `Now You're Talking!,' 225 Main Street
ARRL License Manuals, Newington, CT 06111
ARRL Instructor Guides e-mail: jkea...@arrl.org
*****************************************************************
P.Bennett
>
>>What about making a long distance call on the autopatch? In this case
>>the nature and spirit of the conversation also further noone's business
>>interests. BUT, the act of establishing the communications is DIRECTLY
>>furthering the business interests of the phone company.
I suspect long-distance patches would be legal, but, speaking as the treasurer
of a repeater club, I doubt that many repeater clubs would allow long distance
calls, to avoid unexpected phone bills. Many repeater controllers will not
allow long distance calls to be made, so the question of legality becomes
irrelevant.
Peter Bennett VE7CEI | Vessels shall be deemed to be in sight
Internet: ben...@erich.triumf.ca | of one another only when one can be
Bitnet: bennett@triumfer | observed visually from the other
TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., Canada | ColRegs 3(k)
John D. Hays
>djen...@wang.com (Dave Jenkins) writes:
>
>related, it's legal. I've noticed a lot of companies using
>background music when they put you on hold. That, of course,
>is illegal, and you'd have to disconnect from the patch.
>
I have found on most autopatches, all you have to do is key your
transmitter to cut off the audio of the telephone line, so you
can eliminate the "on hold" music simply by transmitting. [Sampling
every few seconds to see if the music is gone.]
John - KD7UW
--
John D. Hays jh...@mail.boi.hp.com
Hewlett Packard
Boise Printer Division
Uri Blumenthal
|> djen...@wang.com (Dave Jenkins) writes:
|>
|> >Would it be considered "business" if I were to use an autopatch to call
|> >a fellow HAM at work to discuss non-business matters? I can just see
|> >someone bringing down the patch on me when they heard the receptionist
|> >answer with a company name even though the nature and spirit of the
|> >impending conversation would further NOONE's business interests.
|> >
|> >What about making a long distance call on the autopatch?
|>
|> related, it's legal. I've noticed a lot of companies using
|> background music when they put you on hold. That, of course,
|> is illegal, and you'd have to disconnect from the patch.
This sounds somewhat discouraging... It effectively prevents
you from being able to autopatch to somebody's business phone,
no matter how legal your call per se is...
|> 2. I'm not qualified to discuss the legality of a long-distance
|> call.
What difference is there between "local" and "long-distance"?
I don't recall FCC differentiating between the two.
But now - much more interesting point [I think :-].
Somewhere in the ARRL guidelines about using autopatches
(I guess it was in "ARRL Operating Manual") I found:
You should not use autopatch if a telephone
call can do it. <not the exact quote, sorry>
Now, since cellular phones are well-known and readily
available - THERE IS NO SITUATION when one can't use
a phone! Just get yourself a cellular! "Legally"
there's no excuse for using autopatch rather than
buying a cellular phone...
Does htis mean that we shouldn't use autopatches any
more? Anybody cares to comment?
Regards,
Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
Mike White
> I've noticed a lot of companies using
> background music when they put you on hold. That, of course,
> is illegal, and you'd have to disconnect from the patch.
According to the FCC, this isn't so. The question came
up when a local repeater control op blew off my phone
patch because they had music on hold. I called the
FCC to ask them, and the guy at the PRB desk said that
music on hold is no problem with them; the music rule
is intended to forbid broadcast style operations only.
Incidental music in the background, he said, is ok. I
don't have this in writing, but that's what the FCC guy
told me on the phone, for whatever it's worth.
Mike, N4PDY
************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
>Jim Kearman writes:
>> I've noticed a lot of companies using
>> background music when they put you on hold. That, of course,
>> is illegal, and you'd have to disconnect from the patch.
>According to the FCC, this isn't so. The question came
>up when a local repeater control op blew off my phone
>patch because they had music on hold. I called the
>FCC to ask them, and the guy at the PRB desk said that
>music on hold is no problem with them; the music rule
>is intended to forbid broadcast style operations only.
>Incidental music in the background, he said, is ok. I
>don't have this in writing, but that's what the FCC guy
>told me on the phone, for whatever it's worth.
>Mike, N4PDY
Well, Mike, what if the individual at the PRB desk had said it was *NOT*
OK and in addition, said the FCC was going to publish a clarification on
the subject the next day? By asking what probably should have been
unasked (or at least asked of the League), you took a gamble that the
FCC wouldn't have taken further "clarification" action, action that
quite possibly could have instantly made illegal, operating practices
that the ham community and the FCC considered "OK" in the past.
Asking the FCC is dangerous business, and is best left to the experts.
Not really a flame, just a friendly warning. For further reference, see
the column entitled "Don't Ask the FCC" in a recent copy of QST (August
1991, I believe).
73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
Pontus Hedman (VE3RPH)
> According to the FCC, this isn't so. The question came up when a local
> repeater control op blew off my phone patch because they had music on hold.
> I called the FCC to ask them, and the guy at the PRB desk said that music on
> hold is no problem with them; the music rule is intended to forbid broadcast
> style operations only. Incidental music in the background, he said, is ok.
Apparently the FCC rep understood more of "keeping in the spirit, not the
letter, of the law" than your control op did. Probably the rep also knew that
any competent Judge would use the same rule of thumb.
Yeah right, as if a minute of random muzak on a repeater threatens ham
noncommercialism. Gimme a break, armchair lawyers. Nobody who matters, cares.
They're busy dealing with more worthwhile things.
>Mike, N4PDY
--
Pontus Hedman r...@sq.com {uunet|utzoo}!sq!rph
AX25:VE3RPH @ VE3OGS.#SCON.ON.CAN (416) 239-4801
Mike White
> Asking the FCC is dangerous business, and is best left to the experts.
You seem to be saying "If you don't ask, they can't say no". I see you
point, but I have to disagree with you. What if they really did object to
music on hold, and expressed their objection in the form of one of those
$20,000 fines they're throwing around these days. I would rather do
what's right and obey the rules (as I'm sure you would, too) than take
chances by flirting around the edges of poorly understood regulations. If
music on hold is against the rules, then it's against the rules whether I
ask about it or not. "Let sleeging dogs lie" is a dangerous philosophy;
they can wake up and bite you.
Dave Jenkins
>1. It's either business or it isn't. If it isn't business
>related, it's legal.
Jim,
I understand what you are saying and am quite clear on what is business
and what isn't. Or at least I WAS until the other day when I received
a booklet from the ARRL "Welcome to Amateur Radio - All About FM Repeater
Operation" by Brian Battles, WS1O. Clearly, it was intended to arrive BEFORE
I got my ticket and keyed up for the first time. (So it was 1.5 months late.)
There are a few seeming contradictions in that booklet which I would be glad
to comment on to the appropriate person (WS1O isn't in the usenet list).
One issue covered in that booklet confused me: The age old issue of calling
for help from the Highway. I understood that I cannot call AAA or a tow
truck via the autopatch because it is CLEARLY business for the other party
even though it is rescue traffic to me. This booklet suggests that this is OK
since it has to do with potential loss of human life or property.
(I would quote chapter and verse, but, I left it on the table at home.)
Tom Sefranek
DON'T call the FCC!!!
All you can acomplish is drawing undue attention to a problem that is OURS to
solve.
Tom
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/-/-/-/-/ | VE Sessions every Sunday 15:00 EST
/-/-/-/-/ /---/---/ @ Navy Barracks @ Fort Devens, Ma. &
| x | Second & Fourth Mondays of the month.
/--/--/ x /---/---/ @ Lura A. White School Shirley, Ma.
x . x x E-Mail or call 617-981-3474 (Work)
x | x x Call in: 145.41, 145.45, 448.625 Mhz.
x | __x x
x_______|_______||x x Ham Radio (Elmer) Night @ 19:00 EST
/ ||x\ / \ First, Third, (Fifth) Mondays.
/-----------------/||x \ /___ ___\ Thomas C. J. Sefranek WA1RHP
| [ ] [ ] ## [ ]| ||x | || | | || 112 Great Road Shirley, Ma. 01464
| ## | ||x | || | | || Home Phone: 508-425-6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j...@n5ial.chi.il.us
>One issue covered in that booklet confused me: The age old issue of calling
>for help from the Highway. I understood that I cannot call AAA or a tow
>truck via the autopatch because it is CLEARLY business for the other party
>even though it is rescue traffic to me. This booklet suggests that this is OK
>since it has to do with potential loss of human life or property.
>(I would quote chapter and verse, but, I left it on the table at home.)
uh-oh, here we go again.....
I'll limit my response to this to one short bit: the people who say that
are the same people who say that if someone is bleeding to death on the
side of the road that you can't call an ambulance or the police, since it
supports their business....keep that in mind. I'd go with the ARRL pub,
myself, considering that being stranded on the highway *IS* potentially
dangerous (possibly very much so, depending on the road).
--jim
\input std_disclaimer % 73 DE N5IAL (/9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[...] the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'." [Jargon file 2.9.10]
INTERNET: j...@n5ial.chi.il.us | gr...@gagme.chi.il.us | j.gr...@ieee.org
UUCP: gagme!n5ial!j...@clout.chi.il.us
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@n9hsi (Chicago.IL.US.Earth)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Angus
> One issue covered in that booklet confused me: The age old issue of calling
> for help from the Highway. I understood that I cannot call AAA or a tow
> truck via the autopatch because it is CLEARLY business for the other party
> even though it is rescue traffic to me. This booklet suggests that this is OK
> since it has to do with potential loss of human life or property.
> (I would quote chapter and verse, but, I left it on the table at home.)
Why isn't this clear? If there's a body laying on the roadway leaking fluids
THAT is a potential loss of life incident. If it means you have to walk 50
feet to a call box and wait an hour like the rest of humanity, THAT is merely
an inconvience and doesn't justify using the auto patch.
If you want to use the auto patch to call a tow truck and save yourself some
inconvience, call a friend tell them what the situation is and have them call.
xenon!skyld!jangus < This space left blank intentionally. >
J Angus, PO Box 4425, Carson CA 90749-4425 voice (310) 324-6080
Brian Kantor
freeway hits a stopped car? PEOPLE DIE, that's what.
The California Highway Patrol and many other such agencies consider a
car broken down on the freeway (even if it is out of the main traffic
lanes) to be an immediate threat to life or safety of property, which
is the definition of an emergency. If you don't feel safe, make the
call.
Use the autopatch and call the towtruck to get you out of there. If
(one chance in a thousand) you get a letter from the FCC asking about
it, just tell them you feared for your life. In my experience, the
FCC, unlike most armchair ham lawyers, are reasonable people.
You are on the scene; you are best qualified to judge the urgency of the
situation. Some drooling old fart sitting at home with his fat ass in
the easy chair second-guessing the degree of danger YOU are in clearly isn't.
Do what you have to. It's an emergency!
- Brian
Kenneth Stuart
calls, like calling a tow truck for a breakdown, I'd like to pass along
information which I received a couple of years ago.
ARES/RACES MEMBERS TAKE NOTE!
I spoke with attorneys at the ARRL, as well as the FCC field office,
with regard to this very issue. The concensus was as follows.
The ham radio service was not intended to be used for the benefit of
business operations (no surprise there..), but the FCC does recognize
the occasional need for communications with businesses WITH BUSINESS
BEING DISCUSSED/TRANSACTED when it is in the interest of public safety
OR WELFARE. Calling for a tow from an auto club falls under that category.
The particular incident which prompted my discussions with the League
concerned the temporary shelter of victims of an apartment fire. About
20 families were affected, and the ARES/RACES director at the scene
was calling motels via autopatch to find rooms for the victims for the
night. Availability of rooms was discussed, and reservations were placed
via ham radio. So the club, with the idea of applying the dreaded WOUFF-HONG
to the EC's more vulnerable body locations, had me call to get the "official"
standing on the issue. However, the response from the attornies was
not what was expected. I was advised that the EC was justified in the
use of the autopatch UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES since the EC was acting
for the welfare of the fire victims - no lives or personal safety were
involved, but the welfare of the people was being protected - and therefore
the use of Ham Radio was OK.
The point is, the FCC expects us to use common sense. Obviously they
don't want us to place carryout orders at the local Burgerburp restaurant
via autopatch, but they also realize that calling for a tow truck on
a highway is an occasional necessity and protects the welfare and safety
of human beings!
73, Ken W3VVN
Ron Natalie
> like the rest of humanity, THAT is merely an inconvience and doesn't
> justify using the auto patch.
Bullshit. If you knock down a patch on my repeater I'd seriously
consider filing a claim with the FCC. Being on the side of a freeway
is dangerous. Three years of being a firefighter/paramedic whose
territory included a six mile stretch of I-95, I can tell you of
at least a dozen accidents (many fatal) that involved cars/people
on the shoulder being struck. Any way you can get first the person
and second the vehicle off the shoulder greatly improves the safety
of both the person on the shoulder and the ones on the road.
This is even more important with the propensity around here to convert
the shoulders into HOV (carpool) lanes.
> If you want to use the auto patch to call a tow truck and save yourself some
> inconvience, call a friend tell them what the situation is and have them call.
Eh? Explain to me how this is any less a third party business
communication than making the call to Joe's towing directly.
Gary Coffman
[munch]
>The California Highway Patrol and many other such agencies consider a
>car broken down on the freeway (even if it is out of the main traffic
>lanes) to be an immediate threat to life or safety of property, which
>is the definition of an emergency. If you don't feel safe, make the
>call.
>
>Use the autopatch and call the towtruck to get you out of there. If
>(one chance in a thousand) you get a letter from the FCC asking about
>it, just tell them you feared for your life. In my experience, the
>FCC, unlike most armchair ham lawyers, are reasonable people.
If it's a life threatening emergency, call 911. That's what it's for
and no one will question the call. If it doesn't justify a call to 911,
it isn't an emergency. Frankly, cell phones are cheaper than ham rigs
and are ideal for this kind of roadside repair business.
Gary KE4ZV
c...@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
>If it's a life threatening emergency, call 911. That's what it's for
>and no one will question the call. If it doesn't justify a call to 911,
>it isn't an emergency. Frankly, cell phones are cheaper than ham rigs
>and are ideal for this kind of roadside repair business.
>
>Gary KE4ZV
What if you don't have celluar coverage in your area? In Flagstaff our celluar
coverage only encompasses an area slightly larger than the city. Most of the
roadside emergencies that I have heard on the local repeater occur farther out
of town. Cars stranded on the side of the road, especially at night, can be a
big danger. My first attempt would be to get another ham to call a tow truck
for me, but if that didn't work, I would not hesitate to use the autopatch to
make the call myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Michels -- Systems Programmer c...@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Northern Arizona University -- Flagstaff, AZ c...@nauvax.bitnet
Phone: (602) 523-6495 N7YIU
Ray Liles
If you simply checkout Part 97 you will find the following:
97.115 Music prohibited.
The transmission of music by an amateur station is forbidden.
Now, how simple can you get! It didn't list any exceptions (autopatch music,
etc.). It doesn't allow *any* room for interpretation. It doesn't say
*broadcast* it says *transmission* of music. So, until the rules are changed,
let's try to abide by them.
Ray Liles - WA4VME
Ron Natalie
expedient way to get help.
-Ron
Hugo Tafel - South Bay SE
Ray, Ray, Ray, lighten up!
If you are walking down the street yappin on your HT to your buddy AB4YZ and some kid
runs by and screams at his amigo "F**k you !%&%^%$^" and your mike, being so sensitive,
picks this up and transmits this profanity to the world, including your friendly FCC
monitoring station down the street, are you telling me that, by your simplistic way of
reading the rule book, you'd pay the fine and go to jail since it was your call that
the friendly FCC monitor wrote down?????
Or lets say that the same kid does not yell out a profanity but walks by with his
boombox blasting and your conversation has "Santana" playing in the backround over the
airwaves, what then???
I don't see any room for interpretation on these, do you?
Hugo, N6YWH
Jeff Angus
In article <Jul.23.11.37...@pilot.njin.net> r...@pilot.njin.net writes:
(The > > remarks were from my original posting)
> > If it means you have to walk 50 feet to a call box and wait an hour
> > like the rest of humanity, THAT is merely an inconvience and doesn't
> > justify using the auto patch.
>
> Bullshit.
I love it. When you can't offer a rational rebuttal use profanity.
Now back to the ORIGINAL POINT of this. The key phrase is imminent
danger of loss of life (or property). Large traffic accident? Bodies laying
about? Blocking traffic lanes? Vehicle burning? Use whatever means available
to call for assistance. Car ran out of gas because you thought that E means
enough? Car won't start in the parking lot because you left all the radios
turned on while shopping? You are getting hungry and a pizza would really
hit the spot? Sorry, that's not imminent loss of life time. Get on the radio,
tell you friends or call your wife and tell her you'll be a bit late.
Ron Natalie
> > > If it means you have to walk 50 feet to a call box and wait an hour
> > > like the rest of humanity, THAT is merely an inconvience and doesn't
> > > justify using the auto patch.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> I love it. When you can't offer a rational rebuttal use profanity.
I love it, when someone gives you a rational rebuttal, delete all but
the first word of his response. The remainder of the post pointed out
that being parked on the side of the highway is indeed an imminent
loss of property or life situation. If you don't believe me (and I
pointed out that I have experience with this) ask your local police
department or the ARRL.
> Now back to the ORIGINAL POINT of this. The key phrase is imminent
> danger of loss of life (or property).
> Car ran out of gas because you thought that E means
> enough? Car won't start in the parking lot because you left all the radios
> turned on while shopping?
Parking lots, no. On the side of the highway, a stopped car for what
ever reason (accident, break down, driver stupidity (forgot to get
gas)), IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION for both the stranded driver and for
other users of the road.
Gary Coffman
[attribution not given]
>> Car ran out of gas because you thought that E means
>> enough? Car won't start in the parking lot because you left all the radios
>> turned on while shopping?
>
>Parking lots, no. On the side of the highway, a stopped car for what
>ever reason (accident, break down, driver stupidity (forgot to get
>gas)), IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION for both the stranded driver and for
>other users of the road.
Funny, I pass dozens of cars on the shoulder of the road every day. Some
of them stay there for weeks, gradually losing parts, until the State
Highway Department finally hauls the stripped carcass away. I work for
a news organization that specializes in blood on the highway stories.
The last time we reported a collision with a parked car was three years
ago when a sleeping trucker ran off the road and hit a hiding police
car running a radar trap. That car was waaaaaay back in the bushes, as
far as if he had been parked in a driveway. Atlanta is a busy traffic
town, yet collisions with parked cars are very rare. I think you are
over reacting to a situation that isn't an imminent threat to life.
A car stalled in the *middle* of a traffic lane now, that's different,
and requires an immediate call to 911, not some commercial towing
service.
Gary KE4ZV
Gary Coffman
>Dialing 911 on a cell phone some systems is not likely to be the most
>expedient way to get help.
Most cell systems route you to a central dispatch center that will ask
what county you are calling from and transfer your call to the correct
agency. The few that don't should have the wrath of the Public Service
Commission brought down on them. On BellSouth systems 911 is always a
free call, even for units that are deliquent in their bills and have
had their regular service disconnected.
On the other hand, dialing 911 via an autopatch will often result in
emergency response units being sent to the *repeater* location. Even
if you explain to the dim bulb answering the phone that you are calling
from a mobile unit, they will still push the button that transfers the
location information to the police or fire department. That information
is the *repeater's* address. Then the repeater *trustee* starts getting
$100 fines for false emergency calls and discontinues autopatch service.
Gary KE4ZV
Gary Coffman
>In a previous article, ga...@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>
>>If it's a life threatening emergency, call 911. That's what it's for
>>and no one will question the call. If it doesn't justify a call to 911,
>>it isn't an emergency. Frankly, cell phones are cheaper than ham rigs
>>and are ideal for this kind of roadside repair business.
>>
>>Gary KE4ZV
>
>What if you don't have celluar coverage in your area? In Flagstaff our celluar
>coverage only encompasses an area slightly larger than the city. Most of the
>roadside emergencies that I have heard on the local repeater occur farther out
>of town. Cars stranded on the side of the road, especially at night, can be a
>big danger. My first attempt would be to get another ham to call a tow truck
>for me, but if that didn't work, I would not hesitate to use the autopatch to
>make the call myself.
If you break down 70 miles into the desert, there's no cellular service,
no passing vehicles for the last two days that you can flag down, and
the buzzards have started to circle, you still shouldn't call a commercial
towing service. You should call the Sheriff's Rescue Unit. It's not an
emergency unless you need emergency services personnel.
Gary KE4ZV
Gary Coffman
I don't see any room for interpretation either. As control operator of
the station, it's your duty to *immediately* cease transmission to avoid
violating the rules. If you fail to do so, you are in willful violation
and should be fined. I'll bang the repeater down on anyone yapping away
in their mobiles with the entertainment radio blaring in the background.
If you must operate in a high noise environment, like a parade, where
music is likely to be transmitted, you should use a close talking noise
cancelling microphone to avoid pickup. If you can't do that, you're not
using good engineering practice and shouldn't be transmitting.
Gary KE4ZV
Kenberg Frieth
That assumes that you have lots of room to get off the road. Also, walking along a
freeway is not my idea of safe. Of course, I have been in the Detroit area for about
3 years now, so I hear eneough about people getting killed in the most creative ways on
the freeway.
Ken n8pbe
Ron Natalie
> threat to life.
I spent a little over three years in a volunteer fire department
(Cowenton Volunteer Fire Company, White Marsh, MD). We had
responsibility for running on I-95 from approximately the Baltimore
Beltway up to the county line. In that time I saw the following
fatal accidents (and there were likely to be more that were responded
to when I wasn't around):
1. Car stops for some relatively minor problem (flat or
something). Wheel comes off Semitrailer and bounces down the
shoulder eventually hitting and killing the car driver (Yes,
I know this one is bizarre).
2. Tractor-trailer stops on shoulder (nice wide I-95
paved shoulder and the truck is well over in it not encroaching
on the left lane. Another truck (straight van, not tractor-trailor)
slams into the rear such that the right half front of the striking
truck hits the back corner of the trailer driving it and the front
seat passenger five or six feet backwards. Both driver and passenger
killed. In the backup that this created a careens off the road
striking tree (driver alive, but seriously injured), then three trucks
carrying lumber get involved further back in the backup and the middle
one catches fire, flambee'ing the driver (fatality 3).
3. Bakery delivery truck strikes car on shoulder and driver.
Driver is driven so far into the undercarriage of the truck that
it is not removed in one piece.
4. A church group stops (bladder break?) on the side of the road.
Another car slams into the rear of the parked car. A small child in
the back seat his hidden by the wreckage and is not even missed until
after all the other injuries are transported. She dies.
These are fatalities directly related to someone being stopped on the side
of the road and either being struck by or striking the stopped
vehicle. I've seen two other fatalities that involve a backup caused
by people slowing down to look at cars on the shoulder. One was an
n-way truck slams into a car driving several others into another
flipping one camaro over in the process. The driver immediately
in front of the truck is killed, as the truck ends up on top of
his car. We had initially though it was a volkswagen from the
wreckage, it turns out it's a pickup truck. In another a car
careens off the road when it realizes traffic is near stopped ahead
and heads into a tree. Driver is medeveced but dies anyhow.
In each case there is no indication that these accidents involve
any alchohol (fatigue, highway hypnosis, maybe), in stark contrast
to nearly every other motor vehicle fatality I've dealt with. In
those cases either the victim or the other driver had been drinking.
Since I've moved and have been down here in Va, I've read in the
paper (the Washington Post, not the McPaper) about two other similar
accidents.
-Ron
Bob Witte
> In article <l70g1a...@west.west.sun.com> hu...@huge.West.Sun.COM writes:
> >In article 14...@mlb.semi.harris.com, rli...@heimdall.mlb.semi.harris.com (Ray Liles) writes:
> >> Why is it everyone tries to ignore rules or find loop holes?
> >>
> >> If you simply checkout Part 97 you will find the following:
> >>
> >> 97.115 Music prohibited.
> >>
> >> The transmission of music by an amateur station is forbidden.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, how simple can you get! It didn't list any exceptions (autopatch music,
Hey, guys, I hate to be a drag, but we've got a great little group
called rec.radio.amateur.policy were people who love to argue over
the fine points of amateur radio regulations hang out. Let's move
the discussion there.
Bob KB0CY
Brian Kantor
seemed to me that there were a lot of dead cars on the roads. I just
attributed it to the poverty of the region (no money for state tow
trucks, etc), but whatever the cause, there did seem to be some wide
margins in the center and on the side of the roads.
On the other hand, in the area around here (San Diego), where I used to
make my living doing spot news, there aren't large center dividers nor
wide margins. There are spots on the freeway where there aren't ANY
shoulders - the freeway's been widened to the point where to do it
further will require removing hills and buildings. I've sold film of
more than one stalled car that got reared and smeared.
Again, the person at the scene is the one who can judge the danger of the
situation. Don't try to second-guess him. If he says it's an emergency,
IT IS.
- Brian
Steven Wilson
> On the other hand, dialing 911 via an autopatch will often result in
> emergency response units being sent to the *repeater* location. Even
> if you explain to the dim bulb answering the phone that you are calling
> from a mobile unit, they will still push the button that transfers the
> location information to the police or fire department. That information
> is the *repeater's* address. Then the repeater *trustee* starts getting
> $100 fines for false emergency calls and discontinues autopatch service.
>
> Gary KE4ZV
That's why we don't use 911 around here but rather direct dial to
the appropriate agency!
In fact, I can hardly wait for the phone system we're installing
on my repeater. The phone is actually going to be located in
at the police station ;-) I'll bet that is going to get some
interesting comments from the dispatchers ;-)
Steve KA6S
Uri Blumenthal
|> Why is it everyone tries to ignore rules or find loop holes?
Because some time after the rules are made:
1) Situation changes;
2) The equipment, usage of which the rules regulate,
gets changed;
|> If you simply checkout Part 97 you will find the following:
|>
|> 97.115 Music prohibited.
|> The transmission of music by an amateur station is forbidden.
|>
|> Now, how simple can you get!
Has the thought ever occured to you, that by the time this
particular ruling was adopted, there were no autopatches,
and no music sound while put on hold?
|> It didn't list any exceptions (autopatch music, etc.).
|> It doesn't allow *any* room for interpretation. It doesn't say
|> *broadcast* it says *transmission* of music.
The strictest interpretation most often is not the smartest.
Also, could you explain how your "transmission" is not
"broadcasting" [since anybody tuned to your frequency
can (and will :-) receive it]?
Or are you "interpreting" that "broadcasting" must mean
"commercial one-way transmission"? (:-)
|> So, until the rules are changed, let's try to abide by them.
So when the situation changes - let's bring the rules
in sync with it.
Regards,
Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
Uri Blumenthal
|>
|> > > If it means you have to walk 50 feet to a call box and wait an hour
|> > > like the rest of humanity, THAT is merely an inconvience and doesn't
|> > > justify using the auto patch.
|> >
|> > Bullshit.
|>
|> I love it. When you can't offer a rational rebuttal use profanity.
But what should he do, when you so badly deserved it [profanity]?
|> Now back to the ORIGINAL POINT of this. The key phrase is imminent
|> danger of loss of life (or property). Large traffic accident? Bodies laying
|> about? Blocking traffic lanes? Vehicle burning? Use whatever means available
|> to call for assistance.
Does your vehicle have to start BURNING in order to make it
emergency? Simply staying on a highway shoulder is not a
problem? Truck which MIGHT come and flatten your car
(and you) is not a danger?
OK, fine. I'll use autopatch in such situation, and
you walk to the nearest call box (about a couple of
miles), and let's hope you get hit, so less of such
"experts" will be hanging around. Natural selection.
|> Car ran out of gas because you thought that E means
|> enough?
Depends on where it happened. In the middle of Arizona
Desert, or in your garage?
|> Sorry, that's not imminent loss of life time. Get on the radio,
|> tell you friends or call your wife and tell her you'll be a
|> bit late.
Yeah... Possibly a life late... I hope you abide by your
interpretation of the rules, so the society will soon be
free of one more "armchair home-brew lawyer".
Regards,
Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
Jeff Angus
> Again, the person at the scene is the one who can judge the danger of the
> situation. Don't try to second-guess him. If he says it's an emergency,
> IT IS.
A glimmer of light. To those that HAD to offer pages of explanations on why
THEY were right and why I was wrong, read the above three lines. I never said
I would take down the patch. I merely stated my opinion on where the lines
were drawn on emergency situations.
Mark Curtis
I have and will continue to use our phone patch to help anyone on
the roadside. I don't care if they call the dealership, AAA,
Joanne's Flower service, or GOD on the damn thing. They need
help! I'm not making any money, and most of all it's excellent
PR for ham radio. If some religous type kills the patch, which
they don't have the codes to anyway. I'd give them a real
emergency to call 911 for.
Part 97 wasn't written in stone 2000 years ago. The FCC doesn't
walk on water. Get a life! Ham radio is a hobby. I'm not in
the military, so bag your blind unthinking rule/order following.
Music on hold is never a problem with us, it just times out the
LL side timer(safety net). We didn't plan on it, we don't take
requests, ads, or play discs. We are not broadcasting music.
Next they will start complaining about phone answering machine
outgoing messages. As said above, get a life!
Mark
Andrew Pitonyak
>In article <711996...@skyld.UUCP>, jan...@skyld.UUCP (Jeff Angus) writes:
>OK, fine. I'll use autopatch in such situation, and
>you walk to the nearest call box (about a couple of
>miles), and let's hope you get hit, so less of such
>"experts" will be hanging around. Natural selection.
I suppose that if there is a call box fairly close
(you decide where fairly close is) but in one of the
ARRL publications (I think it was Now Your Talking)
they indicated that if your car has broken down then
by all means call a tow truck on the auto patch.
I have seen many people die while waiting in their car
after they broke down. (note: I did not see say
one car hit another as such but I have seen the
resulting destruction).
andy
22501-sohl
I'd suggest that your definition of an emergency is very limited and
not in sync with what most hams would apply in a common sense view.
As many others have mentioned, vehicles on the side of any road (especially
interstates) are always a potentially dangerous situation. If the
"breakdown" does not require medical attention then why call 911
and place greater time and resource burdens on those folks. Call
the tow service, AAA or whatever.
Anyway, I understand and respect your opinion,
but it is not what I would do in a strictly mechanical breakdown
case.
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Bill Gunshannon
>
> it isn't an emergency. Frankly, cell phones are cheaper than ham rigs
> and are ideal for this kind of roadside repair business.
>
Yeah, remember, the next time you want to fight a state law
banning ham raduios in cars, cell phones are cheaper. And
any way, nothing short of a natural disaster warrants using
your 2 meter rig for anything other than discussing your gall
bladder.
The demise of amateur radio has oft been predicted,
if it comes, it will be driven from within.
bill KB3YV
--
Bill Gunshannon | If this statement wasn't here,
bi...@platypus.uofs.edu | This space would be left intentionally blank
bi...@tuatara.uofs.edu | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Dave Bushong
> 1) Situation changes;
Many times it is helpful to consult this book I have (you have
to know the alphabet to use it) called the dictionary:
transmission, n. ... 4. The sending of modulated carrier waves
from a transmitter.
broadcast, v. -tr. 1. To transmit (a program) by radio or television.
Ergo(*), it would be VERY hard to explain how his "transmission"
is not "broadcasting".
But then maybe the definitions section of the rules makes a distinction.
Dave
--
==========================================================================
Dave Bushong, KZ...@K1UGM.MA + No .sig, no tattoo,
Wang Laboratories, Inc. + no bald spot, no nothin!!
Internet: dbus...@wang.com +-------------------------------------
Project leader, OCR Products + (reserved for future expansion)
Dave Bushong
>Some people just don't seem to be able to think on their own!
>I have and will continue to use our phone patch to help anyone on
>the roadside. I don't care if they call the dealership, AAA,
>Joanne's Flower service, or GOD on the damn thing. They need
>help! I'm not making any money, and most of all it's excellent
>PR for ham radio. If some religous type kills the patch, which
>they don't have the codes to anyway. I'd give them a real
>emergency to call 911 for.
Agreed! (Especially the last part)
Rusty Carruth
In article <1992Jul28.1...@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wh...@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.0...@ke4zv.uucp> ga...@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <24JUL92....@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu> c...@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, ga...@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If it's a life threatening emergency, call 911. That's what it's for
>>>>and no one will question the call.
Unfortunately, I've heard of cases where folks have questioned 911 calls!
>>>>If it doesn't justify a call to 911,
>>>>it isn't an emergency.
Ok, maybe, but what if 911 is not the best (for some value of best)
way to get help?
>>If you break down 70 miles into the desert, there's no cellular service,
>>no passing vehicles for the last two days that you can flag down, and
>>the buzzards have started to circle, you still shouldn't call a commercial
>>towing service. You should call the Sheriff's Rescue Unit. It's not an
>>emergency unless you need emergency services personnel.
Hmm. I'm sure I've missed the repost of the appropriate section of
the FCC rules (:-), but I seem to recall that the verbiage had
to do with risk to property or life, not necessarily an emergency,
and also note that the FCC definition of "needing to use for help"
may NOT be the same as the 911's definition of "needing to use for help"
(in fact, that article in QST recently on use of autopatch said that
I should NOT use the autopatch to call in a person going 90 on the
freeway (speed limit 55), whereas 911 would most likely be the
number to call were you at an appropriate phone - but note that
this was the ARRL's definition of autopatch "fair use").
>I'd suggest that your definition of an emergency is very limited and
>not in sync with what most hams would apply in a common sense view.
Actually, as already stated, I think getting off on defining "emergency"
looks a lot like a rabbit to chase (i.e. that is probably not the point
here).
>... are always a potentially dangerous situation. If the
>"breakdown" does not require medical attention then why call 911
>and place greater time and resource burdens on those folks. Call
>the tow service, AAA or whatever.
>
> Anyway, I understand and respect your opinion,
>but it is not what I would do in a strictly mechanical breakdown
>case.
As Phil stated very well (something about what the regs do and don't
say) - while the regs may not state one way or the other, I agree
with Bill here. (Assuming the attributions are right :-)
--
73 de Rusty Carruth, N7IKQ P.O. Box 27001, Tempe, AZ 85285
(602) 870-3330 !'s:{ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!rusty
@'s: ru...@anasazi.com LastResort: rusty%anasa...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Join the Usenet Un-Net: 1700-1900Z Saturdays, 28.410 or 28.390 MHz
EEK! The 1992 Summer Callsign Project lives! Details: Fred....@West.Sun.COM
Gary Morris @pulsar
>Many times it is helpful to consult this book I have (you have
>to know the alphabet to use it) called the dictionary:
>
>transmission, n. ... 4. The sending of modulated carrier waves
> from a transmitter.
>broadcast, v. -tr. 1. To transmit (a program) by radio or television.
>
>Ergo(*), it would be VERY hard to explain how his "transmission"
>is not "broadcasting".
>
>But then maybe the definitions section of the rules makes a distinction.
It sure does, what matters (here) is the intent of the transmission.
97.3 Definitions
(10) Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by
the general public, either direct or relayed.
--GaryM