| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 18.05.04 23:02l 259 Lines 9818 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3275-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 03, 1/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0WUE<DK0WUE<HA3PG<JK1ZRW<WB0TAX<W7NTF<KD4GCA<
W4JAX<VK4TUB<VK4TTT<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040518/1828Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:24299 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3275-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Monday, May 03, 2004.
1. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
2. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
3. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
4. DAMA was mentioned here !
5. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
6. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
7. Re: On digipeater naming conventions
8. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
9. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
10. FW: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
11. Fw: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
12. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
13. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
14. RE: DAMA was mentioned here !
15. Multi-2000
16. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
17. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
18. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
19. Re: GPS Watch -- does anyone know anything about it??
20. Re: GPS Watch -- does anyone know anything about it??
21. KG6BCP tracker on a Catamaran
22. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
23. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
24. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
25. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
26. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
27. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
28. Re: DAMA was mentioned here !
29. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
30. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
31. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
32. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
33. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
34. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
35. Re: REVISED Updated APRS Symbols posted
36. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
37. Re: DAMA was mentioned here Now ALE
38. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
39. Re: DAMA was mentioned here !
40. Re: On digipeater naming conventions
41. Power control, was yada yada
42. Slotted ALOHA
43. Re: DAMA was mentioned here Flexnet?
44. Kenwood d700a not reconizing my fixed station
45. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
46. Re: Slotted ALOHA
47. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
48. Kenwood D7AG For Sale
49. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
50. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
51. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
52. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
53. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
54. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
55. Re: Slotted ALOHA
56. Re: REVISED Updated APRS Symbols posted
57. Re: Slotted ALOHA
58. Re: DAMA was mentioned here Now ALE
59. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
60. Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
61. Anderson Power Poles
62. Re: Slotted ALOHA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 23:53:29 -0400
X-Message-Number: 1
On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:33:53 -0700, Spider wrote:
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff King" <jeff@aerodata.net>
>>
>>Instead of depending on the APRS-SIG for legal advice(!?!), folks
>>would be better served by directing there questions here:
>
>And miss all this fun? You've got to be kidding!
Honestly, as we discussed off the SIG, it is a diservice to the SIG. These
things almost always boil down to a p*ssing contest and alot of bogus
information gets posted by people that should know better. Better to just
refer folks to the professionals then muddy the water, which is where this
is quickly going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: "Daron J. Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:09:10 -0700
X-Message-Number: 2
>>>No, the test is not that absolute. You just have to use good engineering
>>>practices and that only means making a good faith effort to avoid interfering
>>>with other stations.
>>
>>First that is a great goal, but totally indefinable. Since it is
>>not measurable,
>
>It is measurable.
>
>If the CSMA input on the tracker is dangling in the air, then a effort is not
>being made. If it is hooked up to the squelch or some other means to sense
>channel activity, then an effort is being made.
Sounds like you have made a legal interpretation on this matter,
although I would not agree with it. I could be operating with a manual
beacon button, and monitoring the channel. Or I could have a tiny
tracker with the receiver audio connected but the squelch turned up so
the thing transmits anyway? Anyway it is really not worth debating,
there are many possibilities and many interpretations, and yours seems
narrow.
>Measurable and able to be easily verified.
>Now, how well it works in practice certainly is debatable, but what is not
>debatable here is an effort being made. It is a measurable
I'm sure no attorney, but I seriously doubt one wins many cases on the
premise that his client 'made an effort'. I hope you don't seriously
believe that 'making an effort' is easy to measure and define, it is
almost completely subjective.
>>Second, unless I missed something, the particular system in question
>>(APRS) by DESIGN is intended to have 'interference' from other
>>users/digipeaters. Not every signal transmitted is expected to be
>>decoded and repeated, in fact by DESIGN the system expects to have
>>some collisions and some signals will not be repeated.
>
>Yes, that is true, but that is not what is being questioned. It is throwing
>away the entire CSMA mechanism. Two different things.
I thought the question was: Is operating an APRS transmitter without
using CSMA considered as interference?
It could very well depend on the location and the network involved.
>Still, I really hope folks would stop relying on the SIG for legal advice.
>Here is the right place to ask these questions:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/index.html
Yeah...I don't think we are relying on this SIG for legal advice, and
I'm sure not going to rely on the arrl to take care of my legal issues
:) We're expressing opinions, which is pretty much what attorneys and
judges do regarding law.
73 N7HQR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 01:08:34 -0400
X-Message-Number: 3
On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:09:10 -0700, Daron J. Wilson wrote:
>I'm sure no attorney, but I seriously doubt one wins many cases on
>the premise that his client 'made an effort'. I hope you don't
>seriously believe that 'making an effort' is easy to measure and
>define, it is almost completely subjective.
OK, how about making "no effort"? Is that completely subjective? If I
purposely disconnect my speaker on my 2 meter voice radio, and as such
transmit over QSO's in progress, is this also subjective?
Honestly, I really wanted to avoid this nitpicking... I really don't care how
you or anyone else operate's their station, I'm just saying I try and err on
the side of caution when it comes to the FCC.
>I thought the question was: Is operating an APRS transmitter
>without using CSMA considered as interference?
No, this was the question (from Spider's first post):
>>Is transmitting before listening an acceptable practice for this product
>>and products to come on APRS...on any Amateur Radio Frequency?
The question really had nothing to do with interference per say, IMHO it had
to do with good amateur practice.
>Yeah...I don't think we are relying on this SIG for legal advice,
>and I'm sure not going to rely on the arrl to take care of my legal
>issues :) We're expressing opinions, which is pretty much what
>attorneys and judges do regarding law.
OK, here is a real world example. I sit on the ARRL HSMM (High Speed
MultiMedia). Basically using 802.11b under part 97. We had a need to
separate our networks from part 15 networks. As such, one way to do this
would have been to use WEP, but that could have been construed as
encryption. So what we did was write the FCC a letter, from a real
breathing high power communications attorney, indicating why we wanted to
use WEP. Now, that doesn't mean they said ok, what it means is we
documented with the FCC what we were going to do and told them we where
going to do it. AFAIK, they never responded, but if they get bent out of
shape, we have a defensible position for the prior act.
And that is what good faith is. I'm going to make my best attempt to
listen, make sure the channel is clear, before I transmit. As 97.101(a)
dictates I do.
73
Jeff wb8wka
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: DAMA was mentioned here !
From: "Sadowski, Allan" <allan.sadowski@ncshp.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 07:39:39 -0400
X-Message-Number: 4
DAMA.... did I actually hear DAMA here??? My neck spun so fast when I
caught that out the corner of my eye.. as I was repeatedly hitting the
delete key on the "armchair" thread... that my eyes circled twice in
their sockets !!!
Wistful sigh... Hams actually taking a fancy to DAMA.. what a concept...
maybe we can get them to consider ALE on HF at the same time as well...
sigh...
OK... enough of my wishful thinking about 20+ year old technology
actually making inroads to Ham radio. Scott... can we have DAMA and ALE
as extensions to OpenTrac ???
Time slotting is a good thing... and a tiny step towards DAMA... now to
figure out how to do distributed control for time slotting so everyone
can use it... rather than having to coordinate in advance of the special
event... after all, we also have a concurrent thread about smarter
digi's to do auto routing via maidenhead coordinate destinations!!!
Seems that a couple of years ago when this came up... I heard several
hams respond that they weren't ever going to allow anyone else tell them
how often to transmit their position... what a concept... digi's making
the decision based on distance moved.. or emergency status of the
tracker... smart digi's ... that do routing, time slot control, and
clamp down on lids that beacon too often... wow....
I guess I ought to crawl back under my rock...
-----Original Message-----
From: wes@johnston.net
Sent: Sunday, 02 May, 2004 21:52
Looks like we've got to switch to MACA or DAMA.... <grin>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
