[amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: Re:dream)

[Robert Bruninga]

Everyone, 

I want to appologize for the tone (using caps for emphasis which
comes across as shouting!) of my message about asking the FCC
for opinions.  I had just come back off of a week off line while
taking care of my mom and was surprised to see the pager debate
still raging.

So nothing was directed at anyone in particular, it was just a
rant to the walls..  Please do not be offended.  Bob 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org 
> [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of Bob Bruninga 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 7:53 PM
> To: kd8bxp at aol.com; Ben Jackson
> Cc: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and 
> Pagers (WAS Re: Re:dream)
> 
> > Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this 
> > I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for a reason
> 
> THIS IS INSANITY!!!!
> 
> The FCC is nothing but a bunch of bureaucrats trying to sell 
> off spectrum to the highest bidder!  There are no real 
> engineers left there, and no one there with OUR interest in 
> mind.  It is ABSURD to go running to to the FCC to ask for a
ruling!!!
> 
> > What we need is to setup a conferance call or 
> > something so we can get a well written letter 
> > together and get it off to someone who can 
> > make a ruleing at the FCC
> 
> ABSOLUTELY NOT.  That is lunacy. Instead of laying out such 
> kind of completely open ended paperdrill and wasted effort, 
> spend  our time developing a system using pagers in our 
> network.  Geeze.  We are licensed amateurs, we KNOW the 
> rules, we KNOW what amateur radio can do, and WE KNOW what 
> kind of benefits we can produce.  We ALSO know what is not 
> legal when we hear it.  And using Pagers as part of the 
> amateur radio text messaging system IS NOT ILLEGAL!
> 
> > Define a system and descuss the possablities of 
> > doing call sign routing, sending the pages up 
> > to a satellite ect ect.  But before "we" put a 
> > lot of time and effort and money into this 
> > I think we need a ruling
> 
> NO!!! HARDLY ANY TECHNOLOGY in amateur radio has ever been 
> successfully developed that way.  All that develops is a lot 
> of HOT AIR and useless paper.   Progress has RARELY IF EVER 
> BEEN developed by committee.
> 
> Progress in Amateur Radio is made by inspired individuals who 
> see a need, and go off and develop something using their own 
> money, time and effort.  The best way to KILL any good idea 
> is to form a committee that squashes any initiative and 
> progress by overbearing hot air and "geeze wouldnt it be nice 
> if we did this.... where "WE" is some other guy who can 
> actually DO something.
> 
> > I know for a fact that our local repeater is 
> > cabable of doing 2 tone paging - and was in 
> > use back when I was very young and not a ham 
> > - the elders of the local club say it was 
> > able to send alerts for weather, pages for 
> > people to get on the radio, ect. It was all 
> > done with tones at the time - "our" pagers 
> > are far more advanced and can display the 
> > text of whatever
> 
> Using PAGING devices to communicate on amateur radio has 
> always been legal.  If you want to make things illegal, then 
> look at the application and how they are used.  If they are 
> used for the benefit of all the intents and benefits of legal 
> amateur communications, then they are legal.  If they are 
> used for paging to violate the intents and meaning of amateur 
> radio, then such an application is illegal.  It is the 
> APPLICATION AND USE that is legal or illegal, it is NOT THE
DEVICE!
> 
> > No one in the club can tell me why they 
> > stopped using pagers -
> 
> Probably because some nit-picking obstructionist spent all 
> his time trying to find a way to convince others that it was 
> illegal...  And everyone else gave up in disgust.
> 
> > But at around the same time they stopped paging,
> > kantronics also stopped modify pagers for 2 
> > meters,
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> > We need to setup something and get as many 
> > people as we can write up a well written 
> > paper and get a ruling. 
> 
> 
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE NO. 
> 
> > I think as we see here agurements can be 
> > made on both sides. 
> 
> Which you can get on any topic on any subjct whenever you 
> have more than one person in a room!
> 
> > Which is why we need a ruling.
> 
> No, which is exactly why we get a license and read the rules 
> and take good ideas for amateur radio and move out, and do 
> not waste time laying paper at the feet of a bunch of 
> bureaucrats who could care less.  The motivation of most 
> bureaucrats is simply how is the best way to get this paper 
> off my desk, and the answer is to simply say NO rather than 
> say YES, which could only expand to other issues...
> 
> > When rules are written this vague, some one 
> > needs to decide and stand by the decision
> 
> HUh?  They make it vague so that we can move forward without 
> being nit-picked by aremchair hams turning over rocks trying 
> to find ways to kill progress by playing bureaucrat.
> 
> VAGUE IS GOOD!  It means PROCEED!!!
> 
> >------Original Message------
> >Subject: Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers 
> >
> > We'll agree to disagree regarding your take 
> > of the rules as almost everyone else did 
> > on APRSSIG. ;)
> >
> >> There is no reason to nit pick rules.  When 
> >> one is broadcasting (one >> way) to the general 
> >> public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I
> >> think everyone can tell when something is 
> >> blatanly illegal.  I just don't see the FCC 
> >> cares one nit about some of these debates when 
> >> any one can see that hams are taking initiative 
> >> to better their use of the radio art.
> >
> > Considering that they've recently ruled on 
> > whether contesters should give blanket 
> > "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad 
> > to rule on something interesting and relevant.
> 
> THEY WILL RULE ON ANYTHING!  And that is the LAST thing we 
> want or need.  There is just no reason to be running to 
> bureaucrats with stupid questions, or you get stupid answers!
> 
> >>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who 
> >>> have nothing better to do than nit-pick 
> >>> ways to prevent other hams from developing
> >>> useful applications of technology.  A pager 
> >>> is simply the text-to-user device integrated 
> >>> into the normal local 2-way amateur radio 
> >>> communications system.
> 
> >> The issue is that, according to Part 97, 
> >> it can't be used beyond QSTs, telemetry, 
> >> or "necessary" emergency communications.
> 
> WHAT IS THE "IT" here?  The "IT" is "ONE WAY BROADCASTS". and 
> that has nothing to do with the hardware.  STOP READING "IT" 
> AS PAGERS.  They are separate entities.
> 
> ONE WAY BROADCASTS beyond the scope of amateur radio are 
> clearly illegal. 
> 
> Making the stretch to declare all pagers to be ONE WAY 
> BROADCASTS is just as silly (in an amateur radio 
> communications network) as declaring that ALL TRANSMITTERS 
> are illegal because they are also ONE WAY!!!
> 
> >>> Could I get away with setting up such a 
> >>> system? Likely. Do I foot to stand
> >>> on when my local OO comes knocking? 
> >>> Not so much.
> >> 
> >> Some OO's are part of the problem, 
> >> not the solution...
> >
> > Then the solution has presented itself. 
> > Get a ruling from the FCC regarding the 
> > use of transmissions to receive-only 
> > devices such as pagers. 
> 
> Oh, this is absurd.  EVERY receiver is a receive-only 
> device!!! and every TRANSMITTER is a transmit only device.  
> It is NOT THE DEVICE that determines legality, it is the
APPLICATION.
> 
> > Then we can finally put this issue to rest 
> > and if anyone comes knocking regarding the 
> > legality of these transmissions, we can have
> > something concrete to cite.
> 
> Yes, and what you will site is some bureaucratic off the wall 
> decision made in the vacuum of engineering that exists at the 
> FCC made in the best interest of the FCC which is to decalare 
> most anything brought before it as illegal simply to clear 
> their desk of these stupid "requests for opinions".
> 
> > Again, I'd love to set up something like this, 
> > but I'd be hard pressed to spend a chunk of 
> > money on a system that could be taken down if
> > someone files a complaint to the FCC.
> 
> Pagers are being sold for scrap metal.  If someone cannot 
> afford maybe $10 for a crystal to put in a practically free 
> pager to get it on the air, then amateur radio is probably 
> not a good hobby for him.
> 
> > Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
> 
> LETS STOP DISCUSSING IT AND SPEND OUR TIME DOING IT!
> 
> Again, nothing technical in amateur radio gets done by 
> nit-picking rules, and forming committees, and running off to 
> the FCC, it is individuals that see an opportunity and have 
> the ability to move out and accomplish it.
> 
> THe worst part of amateur radio is all the nit-pickers and 
> ankle biters that hold back progress. Sometimes they win and 
> the guy in the lead just gives up.  SOmetimes these guys with 
> an idea get far enough ahead of the nit-pickers and ankle 
> biters, that the great silent majority of amateurs begin to 
> think outside of their boxes and start to slowly get on board.

> 
> Of course the nit-pickers and ankle biters will always be 
> there to the end, but hopefully they are in the minority and 
> the majority will continue to move forward.
> 
> Bob, WB4APR
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of 
> the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur 
> satellite program!
> Subscription settings:
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>