In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:18:15 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Why not petition to change the rules to allow such retransmission?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is
ALREADY
PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a violation.
At most, the existing problem is one FCC employee's view - and thus a bad
ruling. What is there to actually change?

Then submit a request for a Declaratory Ruling. That will settle
the issue one way or the other. The results you get may not be one
that you like, however (the Bill Cross effect....) and then the only
avenue open is to request a rule change which would be unlikely
because "they" will have already dealt with the issue

IOW, be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

Remember the Eye Bank Net?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snip]
IOW, be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

Remember the Eye Bank Net?

73 de Jim, N2EY

What happened to the Eye Bank Net? I was inactive in radio for a while.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:


On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:18:15 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:


Why not petition to change the rules to allow such retransmission?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is

ALREADY

PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a violation.
At most, the existing problem is one FCC employee's view - and thus a bad
ruling. What is there to actually change?

Then submit a request for a Declaratory Ruling. That will settle
the issue one way or the other. The results you get may not be one
that you like, however (the Bill Cross effect....) and then the only
avenue open is to request a rule change which would be unlikely
because "they" will have already dealt with the issue


IOW, be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

Remember the Eye Bank Net?

What on earth is/was the "Eye bank net"? Sounds like an interesting
story. I did a google on the subject, and got one relevant hit, that
oddly enough was on some porn site in Estonia! So I'd rather get the
info somwhere else, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:
In article , "Phil
Kane"
writes:


On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:18:15 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:


Why not petition to change the rules to allow such retransmission?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is

ALREADY

PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a
violation.
At most, the existing problem is one FCC employee's view - and thus a
bad
ruling. What is there to actually change?

Then submit a request for a Declaratory Ruling. That will settle
the issue one way or the other. The results you get may not be one
that you like, however (the Bill Cross effect....) and then the only
avenue open is to request a rule change which would be unlikely
because "they" will have already dealt with the issue


IOW, be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

Remember the Eye Bank Net?

What on earth is/was the "Eye bank net"? Sounds like an interesting
story. I did a google on the subject, and got one relevant hit, that
oddly enough was on some porn site in Estonia! So I'd rather get the
info somwhere else, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -


If my memory serves me right, they facilitated communications regarding
items related to medical needs for the human eye. I never knew the details
though.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Remember the Eye Bank Net?

What on earth is/was the "Eye bank net"?

The techniques of corneal transplants and such operations predate the internet.
In those pre-organ-donor-card days, usable eyes would come from all over the
USA, and matching them to waiting recipients in the limited time available was
a real challenge.

The Eye Bank Net served as a clearinghouse-on-the-air to coordinate donors and
recipients, transportation, etc. Some hospitals (usually eye hospitals) even
had ham stations while most used the services of local volunteer amateurs.

Now, obviously in the case of a life-and-death emergency when there is no other
option, amateur radio communications can step in, even to aid commercial
operations. But eye transplants aren't a life-and-death emergency.

FCC had no official position on the EBN at all - until somebody formally asked
if it was legal, and pointed out that in most cases the required communications
could theoretically all have been done by long distance telephone. Expensive
and cumbersome given the telephone technology of the time, but possible.

So FCC *had to* give a ruling (because they'd been formally asked), and IIRC
the EBN had to change the way it operated in order to meet the rules as
clarified by FCC.

Today of course the whole thing is done online, and transplants of many kinds
are almost routine. But things weren't always that way, and amateur radio was
there when needed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Doesn't the REACT groups still do eye (or organ) transports?? Thought I
heard about that somewhere.....


Ryan KC8PMX


Remember the Eye Bank Net?

What on earth is/was the "Eye bank net"? Sounds like an interesting
story. I did a google on the subject, and got one relevant hit, that
oddly enough was on some porn site in Estonia! So I'd rather get the
info somwhere else, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Doesn't the REACT groups still do eye (or organ) transports?? Thought I
heard about that somewhere.....


Ryan KC8PMX

Yep. They've got Steve's brain in a jar labeled "Abby Normal." None
of the VA hospitals will accept it. So they just pass it from one
REACTor to another at roadside rests and truck stops. Its been on
every major highway in the US, and has been on the ALCAN to Alaska and
back.

;^)