On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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.

I asked for your view, not what to do since I believe that they are wrong.

Is it your position that the ruling is correct AND that my view is incorrect
(since both have support in the rules)?

Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/12/2004 2:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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?

Dieter...r e a d t h i s v e r y s l o w l y ............

97.113(e) No station shall retransmit programs...(SNIP TO...)Propagation,
weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be conducted on a
regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal amateur radio
communication

"...MAY NOT BE CONDUCTED ON A REGULAR BASIS..."

WHERE in that did you get the idea that "simultaneous and automatic"
retransmission is "already provided for"...?!?!?!

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.

I asked for your view, not what to do since I believe that they are wrong.

Kinda like leading a horse to water, Dieter...?!?!

Is it your position that the ruling is correct AND that my view is incorrect
(since both have support in the rules)?

No...they don't. See the above.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:21:13 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

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.

I asked for your view, not what to do since I believe that they are wrong.

C'mon, Deiter - you know how the game is played when someone asks
for professional advice -- tell them what the rules say and how to
get it changed if they don't like it.

The bottom line, though, is the rules mean what the rule-enforcer
says that they mean. Otherwise, one is "itching for a fight" ggg.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

I would agree Phil, as that seems like the type of thing we SHOULD be able
to do as it would be in both the general public (with scanners) as well as
the ham radio public's general safety interest.

Also, AMBER alerts could be included as well as the HOMELAND security
stuff...... With AMBER alerts, the information could be shared within an
area affected, and if a ham sees the child, they could be trained to call
the authorities. (not take matters into their own hands....)

Ryan KC8PMX


"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:07:37 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

If the content of the warning is to reach the greatest number of
people in the shortest period of time, even a "verbatim
retransmission" by an amateur station NOT using the NWS audio of
information heard from there could be an unjustified delay that costs
a life.

Comments?

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

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
I would agree Phil, as that seems like the type of thing we SHOULD be able
to do as it would be in both the general public (with scanners) as well as
the ham radio public's general safety interest.

Also, AMBER alerts could be included as well as the HOMELAND security
stuff...... With AMBER alerts, the information could be shared within an
area affected, and if a ham sees the child, they could be trained to call
the authorities. (not take matters into their own hands....)

Yet, it is exactly that type of transmission that Mr. Cross called ILLEGAL in
his comments. He had better never need that system for one of his children:
"Sorry Mr. Cross. You, as an FCC employee, said that retransmitting an Amber
Alert was illegal. We can't help you."