Phil Kane wrote:




I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Nowadays one can download a copy off the 'net. Of course one needs to
know what
"pecuniary" means, and such. Which means that you can't use a 2 meter
repeater to
dispatch taxi cabs, or if you're a real estate agent to auto-patch call
your office to
work a house sale. Nowadays with cell phones, I doubt anyone would consider
doing this. This rule is a good one; it keeps businesses from invading
our bands
and taking over (lawsuits over QRM, anyone?).

Ever enforcement action anyone who truly didn't know that they were
violating
some rule? I'm sure everyone who ever maliciously QRMed someone knew full
well that that is against the rules. Maybe once in a great while you
find someone
who say set up a reverse autopatch on their repeater to respond to incoming
calls from the phone company. Heard someone did that and thought it was
okay if
the machine just said "incoming call, press * to allow caller's voice to
be transmitted".
Seems that there was still the problem that an unlicensed caller could
do something
to make a ham transmitter key up even though they couldn't talk over it
yet.


Whether one complies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane