Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From the CAT Automation web site forum regarding their WX-200 product:
Posted: June 29 2004,22:49 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posed a question to the FCC official, William Cross, who is the Amateur Radio Q&A man at the /wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur page. My question was in regards to part 97 and the legality of retransmitting NWS audio for different alerts and notices over amateur radio. I got a very quick, courteous, and detailed response. To summarize his response, a rule violation occurs when alerts and announcements (NWS audio) are retransmitted over amateur radio that are not weather related. I found it interesting that his reply was copied to Mr. Riley Hollingsworth. Non-weather related alerts and notices include many important warnings. Flash flood, nuclear power plant, radiological are non-weather warnings that are applicable to my location. I had mentioned the public service duty of amateur radio in regards to the non-weather alerts. His answer was the same. I was told that it's OK to convey the information contained in the non-weather related alerts, provided you don't use the NWS audio. One way to accomplish that would be to disable the voice announcements and let the WX200 verbally announce the alert condition. I would be very wary of allowing repeater users to activate the receiver and retransmit the NWS audio over an amateur repeater. If any non-weather announcement was in progress then a rules violation could occur. I programmed my controller to only allow the receiver to be user activated during a covered severe weather warning. During those times the NWS audio typicaly consists of weather information only. When the warning is over the user macros controlling the receiver are automaticly disabled. John Pixley, AB0VX --------------------------------------------------------- My comments: I don't know about the rest of you but I find this answer very confusing. Many of these other alerts (e.g. "CAE - aka 'Amber Alerts'", "911 Outage", etc.) are of the type of communications called "emergency communications" covered by either 47 CFR 97.401 or .403. Furthermore, it is likely that under the new "EAS" subsystem that uses NWS transmitters, the very "communications outage" declaration that the FCC wishes to notify the public (and the amateur community) of per .401(c) - for which allows us amateurs to then step in CAN'T be relayed via amateur radio! 47 CFR 97.205(c) indicates that a repeater MAY be automatically controlled. 47 CFR 97.111(b)(4) and (6) authorize one-way transmissions for emergency communications and information bulletins. 47 CFR 97.113(e) permits weather related transmissions from U.S. Government stations [on a non-regular or non-continuous basis], but apparently not non-weather. However, the only non-weather transmissions would be under "EAS," so why would those not be permitted considering the override of subsections .401 ff.? I.e. If the "widest possible transmission" of some of these non-weather related events, especially an "Amber Alert," is what is desired, then why does the FCC FORBID such under their interpretation of the rules, where an equally valid interpretation (placing "Safety of life" - .403 in a superior position) would then permit it? Has the FCC said that "Amber Alerts" (and other non-weather related EAS messages) are NOT in the public interest for amateurs to retransmit automatically? Even that seems to contradict earlier rulings, like 93-17, where the FCC did find that it was in the public interest for an amateur transceiver to incidentally be able to pick up public safety frequencies 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? |