| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 18.05.04 21:18l 246 Lines 9361 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3279-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 03, 5/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0ACC<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<WB0TAX<KP4IG<
ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040518/1828Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:24303 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3279-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: "Doug Younker" <dougy@ruraltel.net>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 13:33:17 -0500
X-Message-Number: 27
Gee; the moment we receive our amateur radio license we become "armchair"
communication attorneys, Jeff. Chances are if one mis-interprets part 97
and their operations do cause interference or otherwise violate the
regulations, the first action of the FCC appears to be advisory of nature.
Clearly no one should operate based on the opinions of anyone save the
opinion of the FCC, opinions from other amateurs, including the ARRL, should
be used only as points to ponder.
Jim, I don't see it as a none issue, but one with variables and
unpredictable results. This being FM the flea powered trackers are not
going to be transmitting over stations using the typical transceiver. I
believe it was Steve that said the deaf trackers that are going to be at the
disadvantage, that in itself may limit their popularity. Of course there is
the possibility that owner will use an amplifier to boost output. In the
end I'm not going to put much effort into something I can't possibly prevent
or have little chance of influencing.--73
Doug, N0LKK
dougy@ruraltel.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: DAMA was mentioned here !
From: wes@johnston.net
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:35:42 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 28
Jeff King enlightened me to MACA, and I think it is my preferred method.
MACA allows for multiple "hosts"... I tx a request for a time slot for XX
number of bytes, and any digipeater hearing me TX's an ACK for my request
to send... and that causes all stations within the coverage area of
multiple digipeaters to shut up for a few seconds. Wah lah!! I'm in two or
three digipeaters at the same time.
Wes
ham callsign: kd4rdb
find me: http://wesvan.zapto.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:57:05 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 29
Quoting "Daron J. Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>:
>>My sole point, which is being completely lost, is if someone is that worried
>>about this, they shouldn't seek their legal advice on the SIG. I really don't
>>disagree with your technical assement at all.
>So, if I may paraphrase, rather than have this special interest group
>dedicated to APRS discuss the possible interpretations of the FCC rules
>regarding one type of operation, you feel everyone concerned should
>contact an attorney and ask for an interpretation?
If they are seriously concerned, yes, a communications attorney, if you can
afford it. Otherwise, free services are available on the link I posted. As
I understand it, a number of folks have already sent off e-mails to it.
Do note, having a FCC license is serious business. They (the FCC) can
really make your life miserable if you get on the wrong side of them. Not
sure how many folks here have retained a real communications attorney, but
I have. They are not cheap, and most if not all of them are out of
Washington DC. And if you don't get one, and have a action with the FCC,
they (the FCC) will clean your clock.
So.... what I am saying is this whole thread should not be taken lightly.
FCC rule compliance IS A BIG DEAL and should be treated as such.
>And you believe that all of these opinions will be the same?
No. But I don't ask for specialized legal advice from my gardner, doctor or
TV repairman. In case you didn't notice, that is exactly what is happening
here.
BTW, I once had a attorney give me bad legal advice, that as a result
caused a judge to enter a default summary judgment against me. I filed a
greviance with the State Bar, and the attorney was sanctioned, and I was
able to use that as a very effective defense in reducing the summary
judgement (reduced it from $50,000 to I believe $1700).
For some reason, I don't think I would have been able to ask for sanctions
against my TV repairman if he had given me incorrect legal advice.
>And you believe that if it ever went to a judge for a ruling that
>his interpretation would be the same?
Nope. That is why they call them "Judges" and have a appeals process.
>IMHO it is precisely this type of operation that makes us look like a
>disjointed group.
We are a disjointed group.
>Haven't we been told as a group to be self policing
>and solve as much of these problems ourselves?
Exactly. But the group is AMATEUR RADIO, not APRS. And that is exactly why I
posted those links, so you COULD SELF POLICE. But to self police, you need to
have a clue as to what to do. You won't be getting that on the APRS-SIG.
>I think the concept is a good discussion, use of the technology is a
>good discussion, limiting the discussion to not include views on the
>legality of operation is silly. It is a valid discussion item for the
>SIG to solicit other operators interpretations, which are only that.
I guess, only to prove their are 101 opinions on the matter. This sort of
Payton Place I guess is enjoyable to some. As for me, I plan on following
97.101 (a) and I'll let a professional dictate what that means.
73
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <wa7nwp@jnos.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:59:18 -0700
X-Message-Number: 30
>Neither should be acceptable.
>It's a weird analogy to think if the 300 mw transmitters that don't listen
>are not there then there would be 50 watt mobiles talking to mountain tops.
Not acceptable?
Where do we draw the line?
1200 baud is not acceptable compared to 9600.
Wait - there are 56K repeaters, so write off 9600.
Wifi does 11 MB or better, so now 56K is no longer acceptable.
QPSK15 is better then AFSK. So AFSK isn't acceptable? Now there's QPSK31.
A really fancy APRS rig has a TXD locked at half a second. It should be a
fraction of that. I guess that's not acceptable..
Digipeaters have hidden transmitters and cut the throughput to a fraction
what it starts out as. Sounds like they're not acceptable any longer.
----
Everything is a compromise. By accepting technologies that are
less then perfect and working within the limitations we can do great things.
----
Reasonable operating conditions such as path length, rate of beacons
and putting amplifiers (argh) on pocket trackers is a different topic.
---
This shouldn't be a legal issue but rather a fascinating technical issue.
We should be able to find some way to "mine" the databases to see just how
well the PocketTrackers are working and compare them to the smarter
trackers running higher power. Might be time to revist the "Rate" field of
PHGR.
73,
Bill - WA7NWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 15:03:21 -0400
X-Message-Number: 31
On 5/3/04 at 1:32 PM Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net> sent:
>>A low
>>powered, modestly antennaed station with a reasonable beacon rate is
>>doing quite a bit to limit its interference even without listening.
>
>What is the cutoff here (on a shared CSMA channel)?
I already ansered that, "Where one draws the line...will vary between
different locations and times, there is not one answer that fits all
situations".
It is not the place of this SIG to draw lines in the sand and say "You dare
not cross". As I've said, my opinion is that there is no explict
prohibition of deaf trackers in the rules, and whether such a thing
violates "good amateur practice" must be a case by case decision, there
cannot be a blanket prohibition against (or permission for) deaf trackers.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:03:22 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 32
Quoting Doug Younker <dougy@ruraltel.net>:
>Gee; the moment we receive our amateur radio license we become
>"armchair" communication attorneys, Jeff.
Attribute that to Spider, not me. I have a personal attorney and business
attorney on retainer. I also use the services, on occasion, of a D.C.
communications attorney. But that is overkill. The ARRL offers rules
interrutations as well, and that is part of what your dues pay for. It is
free.
>Chances are if one mis-interprets part 97
>and their operations do cause interference or otherwise violate the
>regulations, the first action of the FCC appears to be advisory of
>nature.
Likely, but not always. I'd rather not see anything in my mailbox from the
FCC other then my license renewal.
>Clearly no one should operate based on the opinions of anyone save
>the opinion of the FCC, opinions from other amateurs, including the ARRL,
>should be used only as points to ponder.
Yes, I think that was what Spider was trying to do here. Not sure if he got
what he wanted, but as he was asking for opinions, my opinion was I seek
legal advice from professionals, not the APRS-SIG. It is just what I do but
anyone here is free to handle it anyway that want. Mine was just one opinon
of over 10 now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
