"William" wrote ...

I could be wrong, but I think only school teachers and the ARRL's W1AW
Operator are allowed to be paid while using amateur radio.
__________________________________________________ _________

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.

Arnie -









ary communications has a specialized function
for such purposes.


I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted
us --
and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing
all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in
contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it
made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place.
We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF.
The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means
of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course
the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Arnie -

Fair enough.

"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 -

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

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?

Government employees engaged in government activities would be
under regulations from the NTIA, not the FCC.

Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. applies to civil (and rrap) U.S. radio
amateurs. Title 47 C.F.R. applies only to civil U.S. radio services.
Have you got the distinction clear yet?
Hello?

Plonk

LHA / WMD

"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.

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

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

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

bb

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Steve, K4YZ

(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.

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 9:39 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(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 ...

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.

I have no "task" to take you to over Part 97 rules.

They are pretty clear. Not a whole lot of "interpretation" required
there. You either do (or don't do, as may be the case) what they say, or be
held liable for fines.

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.

I didn't post them in the first place, Brain.

They were not assertions of mine.

There ARE public resources to validate the FCC previous "positions" on
rulings. I suggest that you use them.

On the otherhand, YOU are the ONLY person who can "validate" assertions
YOU make. And "we" are still waiting for you to answer the question "What
"major role" in "emergency comms" do unlicensed radio services play...???

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???

The VEC's have not administred any "dot-dash" exams, either.

They have, however, administered thousands of Element 1 Morse Code tests.

These tests were administered in accordance with FCC parameters and
approval.

UNLESS, of course, you can provide some reference to some FCC rule or
regulation that mandates a "Farnsworth" test or a "dot-dash" test...?!?!

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.

Which documents would you like posted, Brain? A simple Google search for
"Part 97" or "Amateur Radio Rules" will deliver tons of links to FCC comments
on the topic, and since they will come from a third party, it will deny you or
Lennie the opportunity to claim I either "editied" the find or drew solely upon
ARRL resources to provide them.

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.

The FCC has issued many "interpretations" on "pecuniary interest" since I
was first licensed in 1972, from "absolutely not", to "It's OK under these
restrictions..."

Do you REALLY need over 30 years of FCC comments to wade through?

You can't even handle ONE question asked of you in the last hour...How are
you going to proceess THAT amount of data...?!?!

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

I have noting to "get through", Brain...I just don't use Amateur Radio to
make ANY business related communicaitons. Period. What anyone else does is at
the peril of THIER license, not mine.

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.

If you think that, you've not been paying attention.

That you and I are at odds is living proof of that.

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.

What "rant", Brainless One?

Do you disagree that the FCC staffers are the defacto "experts" on radio
regulations?

Yes or no.

Brain, it's obvious that getting your nose rubbed in your own newsgroup
excrement is beginning to cause you to act in an unstable manner.

I am sorry that you find it offensive that you are being required to take
responsiblity for your own actions, but most of us ARE required to do that...or
at least expected to...

That you were not rasied that way is not my problem. But you are over 18
now and it IS expected of you.

That you are incapable is obvious.

Steve, K4YZ

"William" wrote in message
m...

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???


What the HECK is a dash-dot exam?? They have NEVER given dash-dot exams.
They've only given Morse code receiving and/or sending exams as far as I am
aware of. Since it is far easier to copy using Farnsworth spacing at 5wpm
than other spacing methods, that is what they use.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE