Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
mistakes are the FCC's :-). This file is also available via anonymous
FTP from ftp.cs.buffalo.edu under /pub/ham-radio.
73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
PR Docket No. 92-136
In the Matter of
Ammendment of Part 97 of the RM-7849
Commission's Rules to Relax RM-7895
Restrictions on the Scope of RM-7896
Permissible Communications
in the Amateur Service.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Adopted: June 18, 1992 Released: July 2, 1992
Comment Date: October 1, 1992
Reply Comment Date: December 1, 1992
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
In this _Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice)_, we propose to
amend the rules for the amateur service by lessening restrictions on the
scope of the permissible communications that amateur stations may
transmit. This proceeding was initiated by two petitions and a letter
requesting rule making relating to this issue. (1)
II. DISCUSSION
2. The petitioners generally seek greater flexibility for amateur
stations to transmit communications for public service projects and
personal matters. They want to eliminate rules that bar amateur
stations from transmitting occasionally messages that could indirectly
facilitate the business or commercial affairs of some party and messages
that could be transmitted in other radio services. They ask, therefore,
for amendment of Section 97.113 of the Commission's Rules. 17 C.F.R
97.113. The petitioners indicate this rule needs to be reviewed in light
of contemporary communication demands and the operational capabilities
of licensees in the amateur service. The petitioners argue that the
prohibition against using the amateur service as an alternative to other
authorized radio services, except as necessary for emergency
communications, may unnecessarily restrict amateur operators from
participating in many public service activities and from satisfying
their personal communications requirements.
3. The current Section 97.113 is intended to help maintain the
non-commercial character of the service by prohibiting certain types of
transmissions by amateur stations. (2) We do not, however, want to
inhibit amateur operators from using the service frequencies in the
manner they believe best suited to their purposes. The objective of
this proceeding, therefore, is to determine if the prohibitions in
Section 97.113 should be relaxed, and, if so, how Section 97.113 should
be revised to accommodate the uses of the service frequencies that
amateur operators desire.
4. The League contends that restrictions on the content of amateur
station transmission should be based on the principle that any
amateur-to-amateur communication is permitted unless specifically
prohibited. (3) The Leage, therefore, seeks to allow amateur stations
to transmit occasionally certain types of communications that are now
prohibited so that the amateur service community can better meet public
service communications needs. (4) The League states that its suggested
amendment would not subject the service to exploitation because the
self-regulating character of the service would provide the proper checks
and balances. (5) It also argues that each licensee can best determine
for himself or herself whether a particular public service project, such
as providing communications at spectator events, (6) is a reasonable use
of the amateur service frequencies. (7) The League also seeks to allow
an amteur station control operator to accept compensation when using the
station as part of classroom instruction at an educational institution.
(8)
5. Reynolds and Ruh ask that amateur stations be authorized to
fill communications voids in other radio services. (9) They suggest
eliminating the prohibition on amateur stations retransmitting the
broadcasts of stations in other radio services; such as government time
and weather stations. 10 They also request that amateur stations be
allowed to retransmit music included in space shuttle communications.
(11) Ruh further requests that amateur stations be allowed to
retransmit video obtained from government and private radar stations.
(12)
6. Periodicals serving the amateur service community have
indicated that there is already widespread use of amateur service
frequencies by amateur operators to bolster governmental functions.
These periodicals routinely commend and laud amateur operators for
providing communications for police and fire departments, (13) and for
reporting data to the National Weather Service. (14) Correspondence
from amateur operators also suggests that they want to communicate
mmessages relating to their personal business such as ordering goods and
services. (15) Some commenters, however, oppose any change to Section
97.113. One group states that to relaxe the prohibited transmission
rule would undermine the basic principle of non-commercial
communications upone which the amateur service is founded and for which
the frequencies are allocated. (16) Other commenters express the view
that allowing any business-related communications on amateur service
frequencies would be disruptive (17) and that any relaxation of the
prohibited communication rule would mar the end of the amateur service.
(18)
III. PROPOSAL
7. It appears clear from the petitions and comments discussed
above that much of the amateur communicty strongly supports relaxing a
number of the existing res;trictions on the scope of amateur services
communications. Further, it appears that the amateur community
appreciates both the benefits and the burdens of relaxing these existing
restrictions. The restrictions on permissible communications in the
rules were designed to protect the essential character of the amateur
service as a reservoir of volunteer communicators, technicians, and
electronics experts dedicated to advancing the radio art, to provide
public service communications in times of emergencies, and to enhance
international goodwill. While eliminating some of the existing
restrictions would provide the flexibility to expand public service
activites and satisfy the personal communications interests, the
potential for commercial exploitation and abuse of the amateur service's
allocated frequencies could increase.
8. After careful consideration, we propose to relax the
restrictions on the scope of permissible amateur communication.
Specifically, we propose the revision suggested by the League. Our
decision is based on the following factors. First, the League's
suggested proposal appears to best consolidate the views of the amateur
community. Second, relaxing the restriction on permissible
communications would permit the amateur community to increase its public
service activities. Third, as noted by the League, the amateur
community has a long tradition of self-regulation and a strong
commitment to maintaining the unclouded distinction between the amateur
service and other radio services.
9. The proposed rule amendments would expand the scope of public
service communications and personal communications permitted in the
amateur service. More specifically, we propose to relax the prohibition
against amateur stations transmitting any communications that could be
furnished via other radio services. our intent is to allow amateur
operators who so desire to increase their public service activities in
support of parades, races, and other public gatherings. We also propose
to remove the outright bar on amateur stations transmitting
communications that could facilitate the business affairs of any party.
This change would allow amateur stations to transmit, for example,
communications relating to amateur radio club business activities.
Amateur stations could also transmit communications, such as ordering
food, lodging, and transportation, that incidentally facilitated the
commercial activites of some party. We further propose to permit
control operators to accept compensation as an incident of a teaching
position during periods of time when the station is used for classroom
instruction. The general prohibition against amateur operators
transmitting messages for hire or for material compensation, direct or
indirect, however, would remain in the rules.
10. These proposals are not intended to alter in any way the
nature and purpose of the amateur service. Rather, they are intended to
give amateur operators more flexibility to serve the public as well as
to enhance their personal communications capabilities. These proposed
changes, however, would also increase the amateur community's
responsibilities for self-regulation and cooperation in the use of their
allocated frequencies. We request comments, therefore, on the proposed
amendments to the Amateur Radio Services Rules set forth in the attached
Appendix. We are not proposing to allow amateur stations to transmit
music as suggested by Ruh. We believe this proposal could alter the
nature and purpose of the service and is well beyond our goal of
providing greater flexibility for amateur stations to transmit
communications for public service gatherings and personal matters.
Interested parties, however, may comment regarding whether transmissions
of music should be allowed.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Ex-Parte Rules - Non-Restricted Proceeding
11. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making
proceeding. _Ex parte_ presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in
Commission rules. See generally 47 C.F.F. 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
12. We certify that the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does
not apply to this rule making proceeding because, if the proposed rule
ammendments are promulgated, there will not be any significant economic
impact on small business entities, as defined by Section 601(3) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The amateur service may not be used to
transmit business communications on a regular basis. See 47 C.F.R.
97.113(a). The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, including the certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with
paragraph 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L. No. 96-354.
96 Stat. 1164 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (1981).
Comment Dates
13. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties
may file comments on or before October 1, 1992, and reply comments on or
before December 1, 1992. To file formally in this proceeding, you must
file an original and five copies of all comments, and reply comments.
If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your
comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. To file
informally, you must file an original and one copy of your comments,
provided only that the Docket Number is specified in the heading. You
should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and
reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the Dockets Reference Room of the Federal
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554.
14. For further information, contact William T. Cross, Personal
Radio Branch, Private Radio Bureau, (202) 632-4964.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Donna R. Searcy
Secretary
APPENDIX
Part 97 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is proposed to be ammended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 97 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority citation: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 USC 154, 303.
Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 USC
151-155, 301, 609, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 97.113 would be revised to read as follows:
97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
(1) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or
indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwide provided in these rules;
(2) Communications in which the station licensee or control
operator have a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf
of an employer. Amateur operators may, however, notify other amateurs
of the availability for sale or trade, of apparatus normally used in an
amateur station, provided that such activity is not conducted on a
regular basis;
(3) Music; Communications intended to facilitate a criminal act;
Messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof,
except as otherwise provided herein; Obscene, indecent, or profane
words or langauge; or false or deceptive messages, signals, or
identification;
(4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
furnished alternatively through other radio services.
(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of
broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications
except as specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur
station engage in any activity related to program production or
newsgathering for broadcasting purposes, except that communications
directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection
of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for
dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is
reasonably available before or at the time of the event.
(c) A control operator may accept compensation as an incident of a
teaching position during periods of time when an amateur station is used
by that teacher as a part of classroom instruction at an educational
institution.
(d) A control operator of a club station may accept compensation
for the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy
practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits
such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week;
schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands
using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of
normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days in
advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator
does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other
service as a control operator.
(e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from
any type of radio station other than an amateur station, except
propagation and weather forecast information originating from United
States Government stations, and communications originating on United
States Government frequencies between a space shuttle and its associated
Earth stations. Prior approval for such retransmissions must be
obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Such
retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.
Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
normal amateur radio communications.
(f) No amateur station, except in auxilliary, repeater, or space
operation, may automatically retransmit the radio signals of other
amateur stations.
Notes:
(1) Petitions were received from Michael R. Reynolds (RM-7849) and
Henry B. Ruh on behalf of Amateur Television Quarterly Magazine
(RM-7896). The letter was received from the Americal Radio Relay
League, Inc. (League). Because of the detail it contains, it is treated
as a petition (RM-7895).
(2) Section 97.113 prohibits amateur stations from transmitting any
communications the purpose of which is to facilitate the business or
commercial affairs of any party. It prohibits amateur stations from
transmitting communications as an alternative to other authorized radio
services. It also prohibits the transmission of music; communications
in connection with any activity that is contrary to law; encrypted
messages; words, language or meaning that is obscene, indecent, or
profane; and false or deceptive messages or signals. This rule
provides, however, exceptions for providing emergency communications,
facilitating the public's safe observation of public gatherings, selling
amateur station apparatus, and conveying news information.
(3) RM-7895 at 2.
(4) Id. at 1.
(5) Id. at 11.
(6) Id. at 10.
(7) Id. at 10-11. The League's proposed revision is based upon the
principles that (a) amateur operators should not conduct communications
in exchange for compensation or for the benefit of their employers, (b)
amateur operators should not transmit communications in which the
operator has a pecuniary interest, and (c) amateur operators should not
use amateur service frequencies regularly as a substitute for other
licesned radio services. The yardstick the amateur operators would use
for determining pecuniary interest would be the business implication of
the licensee intitiating the communication, not the recipient.
(8) Id. (Attachment) at 1.
(9) RM-7849 at 3 and RM-7896 at 1.
(10) RM-7849 at 1, 3, and RM-7896 at 2. The League also proposes
eliminating this prohibition. See RM-7895 at 14.
(11) RM-7849 at 2, RM-7896 at 2.
(12) RM-7896 at 1-2.
(13) See The National Amateur Radio Association's _The Amateur Radio
Communicator_, October, 1991, 18-20: comment of Gay James at 3,
_Worldradio_ January, 1992, 1,3; QST February, 1992, 23; QST May, 1991,
14.
(14) See The National Amateur Radio Association's _The Amateur Radio
Communicator_, November, 1991, 22-24, Worldradio, Marcy, 1992, 26-27,
QST, July, 1991, 69.
(15) Letter from Mr. C. Murray Robinson to Chief, Personal Radio Branch
(September 10, 1991).
(16) Comment of Hood County Amateur Radio Club at 2.
(17) Comment of A. Prose Walker at 1, Comments of American Amateur Radio
Council (AARC) at 5. The late filed AARC Comments were accompanied by a
request for acceptance. We have accepted and considered AARC's Comments
in the interest of developing as complete a record as possible on this
issue.
(18) Comment of Steve Lund at 1, Jon Book at 1, Southeast Louisiana
Amateur Radio Club at 1.
Uri Blumenthal
|>
|> 2. Section 97.113 would be revised to read as follows:
|>
|> 97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
|> (3) Music;
Would it be nice to clarify once and for all the question of being
put on hold while using autopatch? If there's music in the
background - does that mean you have to hang up
immediately? Would ARRL care to comment?
|> Messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof,
|> except as otherwise provided herein;
I love that "except". Would ARRL care to point to any "exceptions"
noted either in the Part 97, or the ARRL FCC Rule Book?
|> (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
|> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
This one really set me off. Do you realize, that with cellular
phones coming into existence, ALL the communications can be
furnished through this "other radio service"? At least in
Metropolitan areas? Also, this outlaws NTS, since NTS
definitely intrudes into "other service" business.
[You want to send greetings to somebody - call
him on the phone, or send a telegram! :-]
Oh yeah, regular basis. So all you NTS trafficers, beware!
You can participate in the Net at most once a month, but
even that can be considered "regular", I'm afraid (:-).
Would ARRL comment on this, please?
|> It prohibits amateur stations from
|> transmitting communications as an alternative to other authorized radio
|> services.
I have a feeling, that the way it's formulated - any lawyer could
make it mean whatever he/she wishes, including total prohibition
on ANY kind of amateur transmission, especially phone patches,
autopatches and NTS.
|> The yardstick the amateur operators would use
|> for determining pecuniary interest would be the business implication of
|> the licensee intitiating the communication, not the recipient.
This point DEFINITELY makes sense. At last! Thanks!
ARRL, I know you're monitoring! (:-)
Please respond!
--
Regards,
Uri. u...@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Louis A. Mamakos
>|> Messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof,
>|> except as otherwise provided herein;
>
>I love that "except". Would ARRL care to point to any "exceptions"
>noted either in the Part 97, or the ARRL FCC Rule Book?
I believe at least one of these cases include control links. For
example, in the Amateur Satellite service, control links can be
encrypted to ensure positive control of the satellite. This might
also be the case for repeater control links as well, though I don't
know for certain.
louie
Unknown
>|> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
>
>This one really set me off. Do you realize, that with cellular
>phones coming into existence, ALL the communications can be
>furnished through this "other radio service"?
How true. This word "reasonable" has to be absolutely defined
or the whole re-write is a waste of time.
Personally, I think the price of cellular, business band, and
trunked radio systems are all unreasonably priced for the average
person. Cellular has great potential but its already corrupted
with crooked pricing structures and poor quality of service. So
I'm told. Similar to the cable TV business I guess.
Fix this part or relegate Amateur Radio to an experimenter's band.
WA7LDV
--
Fan mail may be sent to: |
zar...@rx-db.hf.intel.com |
Bob Witte
> 1. The authority citation for Part 97 would continue to read as
> follows:
>
> Authority citation: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 USC 154, 303.
> Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 USC
> 151-155, 301, 609, unless otherwise noted.
>
> 2. Section 97.113 would be revised to read as follows:
>
> 97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
>
> (a) No amateur station shall transmit:
> (1) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or
> indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwide provided in these rules;
> (2) Communications in which the station licensee or control
> operator have a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf
> of an employer. Amateur operators may, however, notify other amateurs
> of the availability for sale or trade, of apparatus normally used in an
> amateur station, provided that such activity is not conducted on a
> regular basis;
> (3) Music; Communications intended to facilitate a criminal act;
> Messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof,
> except as otherwise provided herein; Obscene, indecent, or profane
> words or langauge; or false or deceptive messages, signals, or
> identification;
> (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of
armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
could be accomplished via Citizens Band?
I am sure that's not the FCC intent, but the wording seems very
open ended.
Bob KB0CY
P.S. Other that this nit, it seems the FCC is headed in the right
direction.
Uri Blumenthal
|> I thought the whole point of amateur radio is that it is an experimenter's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> band and not for competing with telecom carriers.
OK, in that case please never ever use autopatch - it can be
handled over cellular phone and it "competes"...
[Oh, I forgot! You don't have those to begin with! :-]
Please cease using repeaters and long-haul HF rigs - those
communications can be done through telecom carriers. Maybe
you think your QSO with <any forsaken place> is something
"experimental"? "Bleeding edge of research"? C'mon... (:-)
Or you are doing something REALLY different from what's been done
with HF radio and repeaters so far? If not - you don't qualify
for "experimenter" and have no right to compete with telecom
carriers by showing your ... on the air. (:-)
|> However much I hate seeing
|> British Telecom making large amounts of money, there is no way we can justify
|> amateur radio's existence except as a hobby.
I always thought that "hobby" and "experiments" are two different
things(:-).
|> Fortunately, over the years we
|> have helped develop many telecom ideas and provided emergency help, so we
|> should be able to keep our hobby.
NO way! Or do you expect telecom companies to let you be just
out of gratitute for past ideas you might have contributed to
them? Keep hoping! (:-)
[Oh, you're in Europe! So you basically have no rights
by definition (:-), no phone patches and so on... So
you have very little to lose, if anything - everything
was lost long time ago (:-). I only don't understand
why you jumped into discussion, which should be
interesting only to inhabitants on USA.
Or would seeing us losing our current
privilleges will make you feel
better? :-]
Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>
Richard Tomlinson
>
>Fix this part or relegate Amateur Radio to an experimenter's band.
>
>WA7LDV
I thought the whole point of amateur radio is that it is an experimenter's
band and not for competing with telecom carriers. However much I hate seeing
British Telecom making large amounts of money, there is no way we can justify
amateur radio's existence except as a hobby. Fortunately, over the years we
have helped develop many telecom ideas and provided emergency help, so we
should be able to keep our hobby.
Richard G4TGJ
--
Richard Tomlinson, EDS Scicon, Wavendon Tower, Milton Keynes, UK MK17 8LX
r...@edscom.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 908 284539 Amateur radio: G4TGJ
All opinions expressed are mine, and are not necessarily those of my employer.
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
> [stuff deleted]
>> (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
>> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
>
> This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of
> armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
> through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
> be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
> could be accomplished via Citizens Band?
> I am sure that's not the FCC intent, but the wording seems very
> open ended.
> Bob KB0CY
> P.S. Other that this nit, it seems the FCC is headed in the right
> direction.
Glad to see I've stirred up a bit of discussion on the subject with my
posting. I too have some trouble with the bit about "regular use" as
it's so vaguely defined as to be no better (perhaps worse) than the
previous rules.
Phil Karn, KA9Q, discussed this subject previously, and suggested that
only the compensation of the operator (direct or indirect) should be
relevant. Indeed, in the footnotes to the docket, the FCC says:
>> (7) Id. at 10-11. The League's proposed revision is based upon the
>> principles that (a) amateur operators should not conduct communications
>> in exchange for compensation or for the benefit of their employers, (b)
>> amateur operators should not transmit communications in which the
>> operator has a pecuniary interest, and (c) amateur operators should not
>> use amateur service frequencies regularly as a substitute for other
>> licensed radio services. The yardstick the amateur operators would use
>> for determining pecuniary interest would be the business implication of
>> the licensee intitiating the communication, not the recipient.
Except for (c), this is essentially the KA9Q position (nice to see
others get credit for your ideas, eh Phil? :-).
I think some well-reasoned comments (hint, hint) in support of this
simplified interpretation (with the code/bulletin practice and
instructional exceptions thrown in, of course), would convince the FCC to
do the right thing. Perhaps even some discussion of "incidental music"
in amateur transmissions would end, once and for all, the autopatch
hold-music debates.
Let's face it, amateur operators will not stand to let their bands get
taken over the business interests. No matter how naive, or
well-meaning we may be, no amateur is going to allow some greedy
corporate interest to exploit the ham bands with no compensation to
themselves. There wouldn't even be any incentive for an unscrupulous
person to get a ham license for the purpose of business communications
as there would be no profit in it.
There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
networks. Most of the legal problems that have thwarted meaningful
network experimentation (business communications, internetworking,
incidental benefit of ANY third party, etc.) would be eliminated with this
simplified rule.
I'm going to put together my own comments in support of the "no operator
compensation" idea, and point out the vagueness of the "regular use"
provision, suggesting that it be thrown out. I'd like to strongly
encourage others to do the same.
Steve Schallehn
>Let's face it, amateur operators will not stand to let their bands get
>taken over the business interests. No matter how naive, or
>well-meaning we may be, no amateur is going to allow some greedy
>corporate interest to exploit the ham bands with no compensation to
>themselves. There wouldn't even be any incentive for an unscrupulous
>person to get a ham license for the purpose of business communications
>as there would be no profit in it.
While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
want amateur radio to be a personal communications service. For
example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
personal communications between family members. I see this trend
occurring all over the US.
On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio
spectrum and it keeps our service growing. It also may moderately enhance
our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
autopatch facilities.
On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
just trivially enhance the art of radio communications. Unfortunately,
with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
experimenters as it is.
Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture: Are we a
personal communications provider or are we experimenters? There should
be room for both, but where is the dividing line? Comments welcome.
>There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
>networks. Most of the legal problems that have thwarted meaningful
>network experimentation (business communications, internetworking,
>incidental benefit of ANY third party, etc.) would be eliminated with this
>simplified rule.
Not entirely. We still have to do obscene filtering and control
operators are still responsible for everything going though their
repeaters. Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.
-Steve Schallehn KB0AGD
Kansas State University
"I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing by." John Cougar Mellencamp
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
>psch...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>>Let's face it, amateur operators will not stand to let their bands get
>>taken over the business interests. No matter how naive, or
>>well-meaning we may be, no amateur is going to allow some greedy
>>corporate interest to exploit the ham bands with no compensation to
>>themselves. There wouldn't even be any incentive for an unscrupulous
>>person to get a ham license for the purpose of business communications
>>as there would be no profit in it.
>While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
>want amateur radio to be a personal communications service. For
>example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
>personal communications between family members. I see this trend
>occurring all over the US.
Indeed, which implies that neither interpretation of 97.113 would
significantly affect it one way or another. Hand-wringing over
"business use" and "incidental music," among other concerns, HAS gutted
the technical content and motivation to get on the air, rather than the
other way around.
>On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio
>spectrum and it keeps our service growing. It also may moderately enhance
>our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
>repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
>autopatch facilities.
Here in Omaha, the 2m repeaters are hardly used except for ARES nets.
I'd love to see more traffic (perhaps along the lines of the "Insomnia
Net" on the 146.76 repeater in Jessup, MD). I'd also like to see a
modest high-speed TCP/IP packet network as well (we're working on it!).
>On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
>VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
>just trivially enhance the art of radio communications. Unfortunately,
>with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
>VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
>experimenters as it is.
That's a bad thing? Amateur history is full of the use/overcrowding/
push-the-technology-envolope-to-higher-bands/use/overcrowding/push,
etc., etc cycle. Ever since the days of "200 meters and down" there has
been an ongoing debate over use and content, and band overcrowding. Use of
better receivers and band-efficient modes, and higher bands that were
previously thought "unusable," has been the byproduct of this ongoing
pressure.
>Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture: Are we a
>personal communications provider or are we experimenters? There should
>be room for both, but where is the dividing line? Comments welcome.
The answer is, indeed, BOTH! I think we can coexist. We need a
critical mass to give us the next "bump." There's plenty of relatively
unexplored and unused frontier up in the high UHF and microwave bands.
The dividing line is where there is compensation to the operator, direct
or indirect, either through the undertaking of personal business, or
communications-for-hire.
>>There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
>>networks. Most of the legal problems that have thwarted meaningful
>>network experimentation (business communications, internetworking,
>>incidental benefit of ANY third party, etc.) would be eliminated with this
>>simplified rule.
>Not entirely. We still have to do obscene filtering and control
>operators are still responsible for everything going though their
>repeaters. Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
>want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.
True, that's why I said "Most." Clearly, sysops censoring discussions
of IBM-PC's because they aren't "radio-related enough" is ridiculous,
and should be obviated by this new rulemaking.
On the other hand, pushing packet radio into a real network that can
handle more than the trivial bandwidth it handles now, would be GOOD
thing, IMHO. The true experimenter can always stay one or two bands
ahead of the "users."
>-Steve Schallehn KB0AGD
> Kansas State University
>"I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing by." John Cougar Mellencamp
Regardless of anyone's position on the matter, I *DO* encourage them to
provide the FCC with thoughtful comments on the subject. Watch for mine
soon.
Bill Gunshannon
|>
|> I believe at least one of these cases include control links. For
|> example, in the Amateur Satellite service, control links can be
|> encrypted to ensure positive control of the satellite. This might
|> also be the case for repeater control links as well, though I don't
|> know for certain.
Does that mean that encryption would be allowed as a means of ensuring the
accuracy, verifiability and true originator of a message, (ala RSA or some
other public key system??)
I applaud the effortgoing into making these changes. There are a lot of
important (in the real world) things like education that we could be supporting
if the rules didn't specifically forbid it, but after reading this, I think
a little more work is going to be necessary. Has anyone (Phil??) considered
including a similar APPENDIX with what might be a more reasonable but less
ambiuous example in their comments??
All the best.
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>
Bob Witte
>
> While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service. For
> example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
> personal communications between family members. I see this trend
> occurring all over the US.
>
> On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio
> spectrum and it keeps our service growing. It also may moderately enhance
> our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
> repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
> autopatch facilities.
>
> On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
> VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
> just trivially enhance the art of radio communications. Unfortunately,
> with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
> VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
> experimenters as it is.
>
> Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture: Are we a
> personal communications provider or are we experimenters? There should
> be room for both, but where is the dividing line? Comments welcome.
>
last year) was based on an interview with a ham whose name escapes
me at the moment. I think the guy hit the nail on the head when he
said that ham radio was seeing a shift to where the radio activity
is coupled with other activities, but is more of a sideline. Examples
are bicycling with am radio, hiking with am radio, hang gliding with
am radio, boating with am radio, <whatever> with am radio. This does
start to sound alot like a personal communications service. Oh yeah,
I forgot "talking to other family members with am radio."
I think this trend started years ago and has been accelerated (but
not caused by) the no-code license. I can think of many cases where
a radio amateur convinced, harassed or encouraged a spouse, hiking
partner, bicycling partner, ... to get their radio license while
5 WPM Morse was still a requirement.
I expect this trend to continue in the future. I am not sure whether
its good, bad or a "don't care", but I am convinced that its happening.
Bob KB0CY
"An experimenter who also talks to the spousal unit on the radio"
~
Uri Blumenthal
|> While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
|> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service. For
|> example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
|> personal communications between family members. I see this trend
|> occurring all over the US.
Fine. You don't, I do. I think it's great if family members
share a hobby, twice as great if that hobby is such a useful
one as Radio. Besides, it helps to strengthen family values,
which are definitely down the hill in this country...
As a note of personal attack, please rest assured, that I'll
have a lot more desire and need to talk to my family members
[over the radio], than to YOU.
|> Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture: Are we a
|> personal communications provider or are we experimenters? There should
|> be room for both, but where is the dividing line? Comments welcome.
"Experimenters"? I dare say there's much less "experimenters"
on the air, than communications providers. The dividing line
is very simple. If you want and have enough knowledge to play
with radio PLUS your brains are capable of producing something
innovative - you can count yourself as "experimenter". On the
other hand if all you do is [maybe] build your own equipment
and communicate with other folks over it - gosh, what kind of
great "experiment" is it?! You proved that water is wet, and
what was done by lots of people during long radio history- you
can do too... In that sense we all are "experimenters"...
As another attack - would you mind telling, what "experiments"
are you performing with the radio? Any innovation lately?
Besides, who told you that Amateur Radio *should* be
"experimenters"? It's just ONE of SEVERAL prposes of
of Amateur Radio, that's all...
|> We still have to do obscene filtering and control
|> operators are still responsible for everything going though their
|> repeaters.
Great! If you have enough time to do stupid work of filtering
the whole feed of your computer, and if you're strong and
jobless enough to be awake 24 hours a day to monitor
your repeater lest somebody slips dirty word on
the air - by all means do it.
But if others are less free/stupid and want to relax the
rules somewhat - by all means I'm with them.
|> Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
|> want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.
Don't worry. By performance and widespread-nessInternet
is way ahead, and there is no [visible] way AMPR can
catch up with it. So your wish is granted (:-).
Phil Karn
|> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service.
Amateur radio *is* in the FCC's private radio branch...
For
|> example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
|> personal communications between family members. I see this trend
|> occurring all over the US.
This makes more sense than using the same spectrum to exchange
content-free signal and equipment reports ad nauseum, which seems to
be about the only type of amateur communication that everyone agrees
is in keeping with the rules (unless, of course, you construe it as
"advertising" for Yeasu, Kenwood and Icom...)
|> On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio
|> spectrum and it keeps our service growing. It also may moderately enhance
|> our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
|> repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
|> autopatch facilities.
Or to use spectrum more efficiently, which would definitely advance the
state of the art. There is much to learn and do in this regard.
|> On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
|> VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
|> just trivially enhance the art of radio communications. Unfortunately,
|> with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
|> VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
|> experimenters as it is.
This has always been both a problem and an opportunity. Necessity is,
after all, the mother of much invention, and much of the current
innovation in radio communications has been in response to spectrum
congestion brought about by the popularity of previous innovations.
My current work project exists almost solely because of this problem.
|> Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture: Are we a
|> personal communications provider or are we experimenters? There should
|> be room for both, but where is the dividing line? Comments welcome.
I think the solution lies in staying away from making subjective value
judgements about the relative worth of another ham's communications,
and in trying to find the new technology and allocation mechanisms
that will let everybody get what they need (as opposed to what they
say they want.)
|> >There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
|> >networks.[...]
|> Not entirely. We still have to do obscene filtering and control
|> operators are still responsible for everything going though their
|> repeaters. Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
|> want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.
Why? How? Is the FCC and the League now going to widely publish
articles and flyers telling us exactly how to tell when something is
or is not obscene? Or will this topic replace "business
communications" as the next great target for the armchair lawyers and
the major roadblock to doing anything interesting and useful with
amateur radio?
I've yet to hear of a case where "obscene" language alone has
physically injured anyone or damaged property, the usual reasons for
making some action illegal. Maybe some day, perhaps even in my
lifetime, people and governments will realize that you cannot
legislate manners. Perhaps they'll even understand the wisdom of the
First Amendment.
Nah, I'm just dreaming.
Phil
Paul Koning
In article <10...@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bi...@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
|>Does that mean that encryption would be allowed as a means of ensuring the
|>accuracy, verifiability and true originator of a message, (ala RSA or some
|>other public key system??)
You don't need encryption (in the sense of "hiding information") do
do this. That's a common misconception which even carries over into the
existing rules (which allow encryption on satellite control links).
What you need is to include an additional piece of data into the message
that authenticates it (the "signature" or "message authentication code").
It takes cryptography to construct and check such a signature, but it
isn't necessary or even useful to encrypt (hide) the body of the data
itself. The only reason why encryption of data is ever needed is when
you want to keep the message confidential -- which is a valid concern in
business communication but not in amateur communication. (As an aside:
some countries prohibit encryption of ANY messages coming across their
borders. But they allow authentication. Thus you cannot have any privacy
when communication into or out of such countries, but you can nevertheless
have authentication of your messages. Curiously, some of these countries
are ones that are generally regarded as "free"...)
Maybe there's a belief that you have to encrypt the message data in control
links to hide the meaning of the messages -- for fear that someone will
record the message and then replay it. But if that's a cause for concern
(and it certainly seems a valid concern) then encrypting the command data
does not help! It might prevent the attacker from knowing what the command
means, but it does not in itself prevent a replay from doing harm.
The way to deal with this problem is to take explicit replay-prevention
measures (of which there are a number). This adds work to the authentication
part, but again it does not require hiding the message content itself.
Thus I would argue that (a) all NECESSARY security functions for control
links and the like are already available and permitted by the existing rules,
(b) the special exemption for satellite control links is neither necessary
nor useful.
paul, ni1d
Phil Karn
>Thus I would argue that (a) all NECESSARY security functions for control
>links and the like are already available and permitted by the existing rules,
>(b) the special exemption for satellite control links is neither necessary
>nor useful.
Agreed, except that existing satellites do not use public key
authentication to protect their command links. To the extent that the
lowest levels of their command systems (e.g., the CPU reset function)
depend on hardware, they cannot be changed now that they are in orbit.
And although more sophisticated higher level software mechanisms could
indeed be implemented, there's much to be said for keeping the basic
hardware reset function as simple (and reliable) as possible.
Phil
Faith Senie
> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service. For
> example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
> personal communications between family members. I see this trend
> occurring all over the US.
>
I guess I don't understand something here. What's wrong with amateur radio
being a personal communcations service? What else do you want me to do with
my radio? I realize this is supposed to be a technical hobby, but one can
only build so many radios before one wants to actually _use_ one, and what
else should we be using them for but personal communications? Message-passing,
perhaps, but other than traffic nets and emergency drills/actual emergencies,
there isn't much call for message-passing. And business communications are
out, for obvious reasons. As far as I can see, the only thing left is
personal communications. Whether family members or non-family members are
involved shouldn't make one bit of difference...
73 de Faith N1JIT
--
Faith M. Senie InterNet: f...@vos.stratus.com
Stratus Computer, Inc. InterNet: f...@hoop.sw.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Blvd. Pkt Radio: n1...@ka1srd.ma.usa.na
Marlboro, MA 01752 Phone: (508)460-2632
"I'm afraid I don't know very much about Romulan Disruptor settings" --Spock
John Gardiner Myers
>
> > [stuff deleted]
>
> >> (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
> >> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
> >
> > This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of
> > armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
> > through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
> > be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
> > could be accomplished via Citizens Band?
>
> posting. I too have some trouble with the bit about "regular use" as
> it's so vaguely defined as to be no better (perhaps worse) than the
> previous rules.
Docket 92-136 paragraph 9 states that the FCC is proposing to RELAX
the prohibition against amateur stations transmitting any
communications that could be furnished via other radio services.
The copy of 97.112 I found in the library appears to be somewhat out
of date (last update reference is May 2, '85) and doesn't mention this
restriction. Is there someone who has an up-to-date version of 97.112
who can shed some light on what the current situation is?
--
_.John G. Myers Internet: jg...@CMU.EDU
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
>psch...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:
>> bo...@col.hp.com (Bob Witte) writes:
>>
>> > [stuff deleted]
>>
>> >> (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
>> >> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
>> >
>> > This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of
>> > armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
>> > through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
>> > be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
>> > could be accomplished via Citizens Band?
>>
>> Glad to see I've stirred up a bit of discussion on the subject with my
>> posting. I too have some trouble with the bit about "regular use" as
>> it's so vaguely defined as to be no better (perhaps worse) than the
>> previous rules.
>Docket 92-136 paragraph 9 states that the FCC is proposing to RELAX
>the prohibition against amateur stations transmitting any
>communications that could be furnished via other radio services.
Like when the IRS set out to simplify the tax code, and wound up adding
100 pages of "clarifications?" While I do believe that the FCC is
sincerely attempting to relax the regulations, the horribly vague
prohibitions on "regular use" is bound to get misinterpreted, probably
during the next changeover of power at the FCC (Commissioners *ARE*
political appointees, don't you know).
>The copy of 97.112 I found in the library appears to be somewhat out
>of date (last update reference is May 2, '85) and doesn't mention this
>restriction. Is there someone who has an up-to-date version of 97.112
>who can shed some light on what the current situation is?
The wherabouts of on-line copies of Part-97 are in the FAQ, so I won't
repeat them here.
Gary Morris @pulsar
> 97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
> (e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from
>any type of radio station other than an amateur station, except
>propagation and weather forecast information originating from United
>States Government stations, and communications originating on United
>States Government frequencies between a space shuttle and its associated
>Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
>conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
>normal amateur radio communications.
I didn't see this mentioned by anyone, but the proposed 97.113(e) has a NEW
restriction on retransmitting shuttle communications, that is,
"...retransmissions may not be conducted on a regular basis". Does this
mean that stations such as WA3NAN (Goddard Space Flight Center ARC) which
retransmit the shuttle comm for every flight would be in violation of the
new rule?
This is yet another rule that is open to interpretation. How do we interpret
"regular"?
I don't see any point to this added restriction, especially in a
proposal to RELAX restrictions.
--GaryM
--
Gary Morris KK6YB Internet: ga...@telesoft.com
TeleSoft Packet: KK6YB@W2XO or KK6YB@KC6NZN
San Diego, CA USA Phone: +1 619-457-2700 x128