RadioBanter - View Single Post

March 27th 04, 03:39 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/26/2004 9:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Arnie Macy" wrote ...

I understand your point, but the intent of this section in the FCC rules
was
to stop Ham radio from being used for commercial purposes, not to
prohibit
emergency communications. Nothing in the rules prohibits use of this
equipment during an emergency by any licensed person. Or for that
matter,
any person whatever. As I said, our Ham equipment is being used for
redundancy, so for all practical purposes, it will never be used for
routine
communication -- other than testing to ensure it is working properly.

I just wanted to add that there are always exceptions to the rule. Two
that
I can think of, right off hand, would be the Space Shuttle Crew (obviously
government employees) and Federal, State, and local EM directors and staff
(many of whom are Hams). Do you really think either of the aforementioned
would not be allowed to use their privileges because of part 97?

Arnie -

Arnie, please don't ask me to bless what others do on amateur radio.
I've been heavily criticized for a couple of positions that I've taken
wrt a literal "interpretation" of Part 97.

1. The no monetary rule, and repeater owners charging "dues" for
repeater use.

What "interpretation" did YOU make, Brain?

I put interpretation in "" because it is a literal reading of the
rules. Everyone else who has taken me to task calls it an
interpretation.

The FCC itself has issued several "clarifications" on these very specific
topoics that you've cited here. What interpretation was left to be made?

You must post those at once or you are a liar. You have 12 hours to
do so.

2. Administering a Farnsworth exam when Part 97 clearly states "Morse
Code."

There is no such thing as a "Farnsworth" exam, Brain.

Then no dash-dot exams have been given by the ARRL VEC since 1988.

Which is it? Has the ARRL given dash-dot exams or haven't they?

Huh? Huh?? Huh???

I don't make the rules, and I don't take it upon myself to interpret
workarounds to what Part 97 states.

What "workarounds"...?!?! The FCC had already "interpreted" the specific
items you've mentioned in this post, Brain.

Then it is imperative that you post such documents.

Or are you simply voicing your disagreement with thier position on those
specifics?

Their position is stated in Part 97. Even though you think it may
take many libraries to hold all of the content of Part 97, you might
try embarking on such a reading journey. It might take you the
remainder of your natural life to get through it all, but it is worth
the effort.

Hey, I managed to get through it, and so can you.

I leave that sort of work to the experts on RRAP and the FCC.

The "experts" in RRAP are one thing....

Correct. They are one thing, one mind, lock step.

The FCC staffers, on the otherhand, ARE the "experts". Even your
"mentor" says so. Do you disagree?

SORRY to BUST YOUR RANT!!!

That is why I deferred to their document when Arnie asked me to
provide a workaround to the monetary rule. I cannot do so.