-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In Jeffrey Angus writes:

On 6/11/2010 7:50 AM, William M. Pasternak wrote:
RADIO LAW: FCC DENIES PETITION TO CHANGE BASIS AND PURPOSE OF AMATEUR
RADIO

The FCC has turned away a rules change request from Gordon Schlesinger,
W6LBV, of San Diego, California. One that sought to partially rewrite
Section 97.1 of the Amateur Service Rules.

Section 97.1 deals with the very basis and purpose of ham radio. In hi
s
September 2008 filing, Schlesinger claimed that Section 97.1 is outmode
d
due to changes in technology and practices, and that it diverges from t
he
practical realities of the amateur service today.

I wonder exactly what Gordon thought was wrong or what needed changing.
Anybody have a link to the original petition?

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

I found it in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS):

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume...?id=7020246777

A link to the full text of the FCC's reply was published in the FCC
Daily Digest for June 8th, 2010:

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da.../dd100608.html

Unfortunately, the mail filters for rec.radio.info didn't forward it on,
as they didn't find certain keywords in the text that indicated that
this was an amateur-radio-related (Part 97) action by the FCC.
Otherwise, it would have been automatically posted here.

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFMEnt96Pj0az779o4RAnswAJ9rknohgyECvR5ugFCI6w nt5JG7ewCfaQ9x
ef+Ddsrc60Ij/cn+FXYPDcs=
=1TYK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 6/11/2010 9:40 PM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
I found it in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS):

Thank you Paul.

I'm kind of at a loss to see what his point was.

Part of it feels like this:
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899 ;-)

And part of this feels like a kind of end run to include
Morse code as part of the basis and purpose of the ARS.

Personally, I think it's the latter.

"through preservation of the history of the radio art"

I think the FCC did the right thing.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

On Jun 12, 5:37�am, Jeffrey Angus wrote:

I'm kind of at a loss to see what his point was.

I think he had the idea to update the Basis and Purpose section, which
hasn't been changed much if at all since it was added to the regs in
1951.

Fun fact: Back in 1951, ARRL opposed the addition of the B&P to the
regs. It was an FCC idea, and IIRC all radio services got such
sections.

Part of it feels like this:
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899 ;-)

I see it more as an acceptance of reality that many if not most hams
today don't build their own rigs, even from kits. And that our other
roles have changed over the years.

And part of this feels like a kind of end run to include
Morse code as part of the basis and purpose of the ARS.

Personally, I think it's the latter.

"through preservation of the history of the radio art"

I don't really see that, but if so, what's the harm? It's clear FCC
won't even consider bringing back any form of Morse Code testing,
except possibly to add some technical questions to the written tests.
(Which would be a good thing, btw, if the questions are about things
like necessary/occupied bandwidth of various modes).

"Preservation of the history" could also be interpreted to mean things
like mode-specific subbands for AM and other modes, relaxation of some
technical requirements for older gear (spurs, chirp, hum), reversion
to the old 1 kW input rule at the option of the ham, etc.

I think the FCC did the right thing.

I don't see that the proposal changed 97.1 all that much. Also, not
being able to produce the exact dates of things such as when the B&P
were added might not have impressed the Commission.

If I read the calendar correctly, it took FCC seven months to decide
not to go anywhere with the proposal.

I was kind of disappointed that FCC didn't even put it up for
comments. But I think FCC prefers that hams present fully-developed
proposals with evidence of strong support in the amateur radio
community.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...


I see it more as an acceptance of reality that many if not most hams
today don't build their own rigs, even from kits.


Jim,

The "advancement of the SoTA" clause MUST remain in our basis and purpose
charter, else the next step would be to DENY us the privilege of putting our
experiments on the air.

On that date, Amateur Radio would become a hulk adrift and heading for the
rocks.
__________________
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder
Inventor of "Triple Play"

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indisquishable from magic."
--Arthur C. Clark

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
--K0HB





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jun 12, 4:51�pm, Radio K�HB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I see it more as an acceptance of reality
that many if not most hams
today don't build their own rigs, even from kits.

The "advancement of the SoTA" clause MUST
remain in our basis and purpose
charter, else the next step would be to DENY
us the privilege of putting our
experiments on the air.

That's one I hadn't thought of, Hans.

And it's a valid point.

Most of the other radio services that are readily available to
ordinary citizens do not have anything approaching the freedom-to-
experiment that Amateur Radio does. All of the popular ones (cb, FRS/
GMRS, 802.11(x), RC at 4 meters) restrict their users to very low
power, mandatory channelization, limited modes and various forms of
certification.

On that date, Amateur Radio would become a hulk adrift and
heading for the rocks.

Pretty much, yes.

---

That reminds me; gotta finish homebrewing some 40 meter antenna traps.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jun 13, 1:19 am, N2EY wrote:
On Jun 12, 4:51 pm, Radio K HB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
..
..

I see it more as an acceptance of reality
that many if not most hams
today don't build their own rigs, even from kits.

The "advancement of the SoTA" clause MUST
remain in our basis and purpose
charter, else the next step would be to DENY
us the privilege of putting our
experiments on the air.

That's one I hadn't thought of, Hans.

And it's a valid point.

I might point out that technical advancement does not have to be
furtherance of some basic science or physics. Indeed, I think Gordon
has missed the boat a little here. He's looking at it from a RF
centric view. The person that applied phase shift keying with a
computer sound card with programming on a computer is also performing
advancement of the art. This sort of thing is largely overlooked
because many amateurs are thinking that unless it is the discovery of
say one particular GHz frequency that otherwise behaves like 160
meters, it isn't worthwhile. It's a fairly mature science, and our
advancements are incremental. But we've done a lot more advancement
than Gordon gives us credit for.

Also moving the voluntary service to the lead position is a bit of a
concern. It's an argument that's a bit old, but as the ARS works out
it's problems with the emergency folks, moving it to the head of the
list is just possibly a bit of a step backwards. As I've noted in the
past the local folks who said they were going to declare eminent
domain on our repeater would have loved to point out that their work
is our primary purpose for existence.

On 6/28/2010 1:45 PM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

I might point out that technical advancement does not have to be
furtherance of some basic science or physics. Indeed, I think Gordon
has missed the boat a little here. He's looking at it from a RF
centric view. The person that applied phase shift keying with a
computer sound card with programming on a computer is also performing
advancement of the art. This sort of thing is largely overlooked
because many amateurs are thinking that unless it is the discovery of
say one particular GHz frequency that otherwise behaves like 160
meters, it isn't worthwhile. It's a fairly mature science, and our
advancements are incremental. But we've done a lot more advancement
than Gordon gives us credit for.

I recall some years ago, Reading a news article on how doctors at a
local teaching hospital had developed a system (not unlike the one Dr.
Hawking uses) to allow a patient who could not speak or type to use a
puff-sip switch to convert puffs and sips into text which a computer
could then translate to speach.

They spend well over 100,000 dollars doing it

At that time, a Commodore VIC-20 was under 100 bucks, and could be
powered by the 12 or 24 volt battery on an electric wheel chair (using a
regulator in the 24 volt case) since it only needed 12VDC to work

A Curtis Keyer chip which could translate puff/sip to morse code (With
the addition of the puff sip switch) was about 10 bucks plus supporting
hardware, and could be powreed by the 9-v accessory line on the VIC's
expansion port.. Ham radio software could have been downloaded or
purchases for a few bucks.

Basically.. A ham could have built such a system for under 200 dollars,
AND. what's more, Opened a whole new world to the patient at the same
time (Since he would have been a world class CW operator in less than a
month of practice with the puff/sip to Speach system, and all he'd need
to do is study and pass the Technician test to get on the air)

Now in this case, Ham radio was not involved.

But think of how much better it woudl have been for the patient if he
could have done for a couple hundred, what cost over a hundred though.

I did send a message to the doctors at that hospital (Via another
doctor, who was my customer, I sold Commodore computers at the time, he
had a C=64 and his very cute Korean wife an Amiga. They were both a lot
of fun to be around in the store

On 6/12/2010 5:37 AM, Jeffrey Angus wrote:
On 6/11/2010 9:40 PM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
I found it in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS):

Thank you Paul.

I'm kind of at a loss to see what his point was.

Part of it feels like this:
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899 ;-)

And part of this feels like a kind of end run to include
Morse code as part of the basis and purpose of the ARS.

Personally, I think it's the latter.

"through preservation of the history of the radio art"

I think the FCC did the right thing.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi


If you are saying you did not see the point of the petittioner.. clearly
the FCC fully agrees with you.

I would like to see the petittion once again. (I likely saw it long ago
but not recently)

I do see folks saying things (IN OTHER AREAS) like "This law was written
in 19xx and has not been modified since" (Fact is, the last time I read
that it was a law where we got updates every month when I was working,
no I won't say what law it was cause only a couple paragraphs apply to
Amateur Radio, and, I might add, both got updated)

Sometimes a law does not get changed,,, Because the "original" version
was very well written and there is no need to change it.

In the case of the purpose of Amateur radio.. I do not see as it has
changed.. Refined a bit, Emphasis moved from one thing to another
(Within the original purpose statement) yes,,, but changed enough to
need a re-wirte.. I doubt that will ever happen.