WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
 

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?

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 Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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?

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?

Your view is ...?

Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/10/2004 3:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is ALREADY
PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a violation.

The "simultaneous and automatic retransmission" you refer to is for
AMATEUR communications...

The FCC has repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that is it ILLEGAL for
Amateurs to rebroadcast non-Amateur traffic. Period.

At most, the existing problem is one FCC employee's view - and thus a bad
ruling. What is there to actually change?

YOUR understanding of the rules, obviously

It's not ONE "FCC employee's view". It's been stated and restated ever
since I was first licensed (over 30 years now), and there's no likelyhood
they'll change thier minds.

The FCC knows, as well as almost every other active Amateur, that if you
have a 2 meter rig, you can listen to the NOAA weather. So what need is there
to rebroadcast the actual audio?

Your view is ...?

There are NOAA receivers available for less than $20. Non-Amateurs who
want to listen to it can do so without having to buy a $200+ Amateur device and
modify it in order to do so. The NOAA channels are available options in CB's,
FRS and Marine radios already.

The places where NOAA transmissions can NOT be heard are extremely few. I
am sure there is some remote butte in Montanna or some valley in West Virginia
that has poor or no coverage...But certainly not enough for the FCC to reverese
it's policy...Espeically in light of NOAA's expenditures to spread the net. In
my "neighborhood" alone I can hear transmissions on 3 of the seven channels on
an HT...I can imagine what I might hear with a dedicated receiver and
appropriate antenna.

Those Amateurs who want to hear it are usually already involved in SKYWARN
and already know the frequencies to tune to. They don't have to cling to a
local repeater hoping that someone else will "rebroadcast" NOAA audio.

Lastly, for someone who keeps whining about another Amateur posting
Amateur Radio related news items in an Amateur Radio forum, I find it really
funny that you want to play junior disc jockey on Amateur Radio with NON
Amateur weather broadcasts.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/10/2004 3:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is ALREADY
PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a violation.

The "simultaneous and automatic retransmission" you refer to is for
AMATEUR communications...

The FCC has repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that is it ILLEGAL for
Amateurs to rebroadcast non-Amateur traffic. Period.

Wrong. Look at the recent modification to .113 for WX stations. Also,
retransmission of NASA Shuttle communications has been in the rules for more
than a decade (granted, the initial retransmitter is supposed to get permission
from NASA, but the fact that it is allowed in ANY FORM defeats your absolute
statement).

At most, the existing problem is one FCC employee's view - and thus a bad
ruling. What is there to actually change?

YOUR understanding of the rules, obviously

It's not ONE "FCC employee's view". It's been stated and restated ever
since I was first licensed (over 30 years now), and there's no likelyhood
they'll change thier minds.

The FCC knows, as well as almost every other active Amateur, that if you
have a 2 meter rig, you can listen to the NOAA weather. So what need is there
to rebroadcast the actual audio?

Your view is ...?

There are NOAA receivers available for less than $20. Non-Amateurs who
want to listen to it can do so without having to buy a $200+ Amateur device and
modify it in order to do so. The NOAA channels are available options in CB's,
FRS and Marine radios already.

Receivers less than $20.00 don't have SAME or special actions that they take
when hearing an EAS broadcast. You've missed the point here.....

The places where NOAA transmissions can NOT be heard are extremely few. I
am sure there is some remote butte in Montanna or some valley in West Virginia
that has poor or no coverage...But certainly not enough for the FCC to reverese
it's policy...Espeically in light of NOAA's expenditures to spread the net. In
my "neighborhood" alone I can hear transmissions on 3 of the seven channels on
an HT...I can imagine what I might hear with a dedicated receiver and
appropriate antenna.

Those Amateurs who want to hear it are usually already involved in SKYWARN
and already know the frequencies to tune to. They don't have to cling to a
local repeater hoping that someone else will "rebroadcast" NOAA audio.

Then explain why the rules were changed a couple of years ago to permit it....

Lastly, for someone who keeps whining about another Amateur posting
Amateur Radio related news items in an Amateur Radio forum, I find it really
funny that you want to play junior disc jockey on Amateur Radio with NON
Amateur weather broadcasts.

This topic is clearly about the rules and FCC policy (and its interpretation fo
the rules). There are many things in AR Newsline that have nothing to do with
the rules or operating practice and therefore don't belong here on ".policy"
(but may be appropriate to one of the other amateur radio newsgroups).

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 1:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/10/2004 3:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is
ALREADY
PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a
violation.

The "simultaneous and automatic retransmission" you refer to is for
AMATEUR communications...

The FCC has repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that is it ILLEGAL for
Amateurs to rebroadcast non-Amateur traffic. Period.

Wrong. Look at the recent modification to .113 for WX stations. Also,
retransmission of NASA Shuttle communications has been in the rules for more
than a decade (granted, the initial retransmitter is supposed to get
permission
from NASA, but the fact that it is allowed in ANY FORM defeats your absolute
statement).

If all you are looking to do is "defeat( ) (my) absolute statement", then
congratulations.

However the NASA example is a specific waiver from the FCC, and NASA
hardly has hundreds of remote transmitters in every state to share the shuttle
traffic, now do they?

There are NOAA receivers available for less than $20. Non-Amateurs
who
want to listen to it can do so without having to buy a $200+ Amateur device
and
modify it in order to do so. The NOAA channels are available options in
CB's,
FRS and Marine radios already.

Receivers less than $20.00 don't have SAME or special actions that they take
when hearing an EAS broadcast. You've missed the point here.....

No I haven't.

Neither my $150 2 meter rig nor my $350 V/UHF rig have SAME function in
them either. What would be the point of having those alert tones squawking on
2M or 70CM...?!?!

So...We bump the $20 up to $40...I can find at least a half dozen radios
in that price range that DO have SAME in them. So what then?

Personally, I'd rather keep the radio seperate so I could monitor NOAA
while keeping my 2M rig for 2-way purposes.

The places where NOAA transmissions can NOT be heard are extremely
few. I
am sure there is some remote butte in Montanna or some valley in West
Virginia
that has poor or no coverage...But certainly not enough for the FCC to
reverese
it's policy...Espeically in light of NOAA's expenditures to spread the net.
In
my "neighborhood" alone I can hear transmissions on 3 of the seven channels
on
an HT...I can imagine what I might hear with a dedicated receiver and
appropriate antenna.

Those Amateurs who want to hear it are usually already involved in
SKYWARN
and already know the frequencies to tune to. They don't have to cling to a
local repeater hoping that someone else will "rebroadcast" NOAA audio.

Then explain why the rules were changed a couple of years ago to permit
it....

Explain to me where it's permitted 24/7, Dieter...

Explain to me where it's allowed to be AUTOMATICALLY retransmitted.

Follow along:

97.113(e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any
type of radio station other than an amateur station, except propagation and
weather forecast information intended for use by the general public and
originated from United States Government stations and communications, including
incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a
space shuttle and its associated Earth stations. Prior approval for shuttle
retransmissions must be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur
operators. Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not
be conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
normal amateur radio communications.

Re-read that LAST LINE over and over, Dieter.

Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal
amateur radio communications.

Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal
amateur radio communications.

Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal
amateur radio communications.

(Just thought I'd help you along a little bit.)

Allow me to make further emphasis of part of that regulation:

Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.

Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.

Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.

So what would be your point? There's no way you can make those
rebroadcasts and NOT be assured that the broadcast was NOT being used by
non-Amateurs.

Lastly, for someone who keeps whining about another Amateur posting
Amateur Radio related news items in an Amateur Radio forum, I find it
really
funny that you want to play junior disc jockey on Amateur Radio with NON
Amateur weather broadcasts.

This topic is clearly about the rules and FCC policy (and its interpretation
fo
the rules). There are many things in AR Newsline that have nothing to do
with
the rules or operating practice and therefore don't belong here on ".policy"
(but may be appropriate to one of the other amateur radio newsgroups).

And I can pick almost any thread in any other of the other NG's and find
discussions going on there about topics OTHER than wha the charter for those
NG's may have "allowed".

How come I don't find Dieter Stussy in any of those NG's howling about the
inappropriateness of those posts...?!?!

Lastly, I didn't imply that this wasn't about the rules...It certainly
is...I just said I find it ironic that you want to play junior disc jockey with
NOAA weather broadcasts.

WHERE in LA County can you go and NOT hear an NOAA broadcast, Dieter?

I've been in Mojave, up to Bishop and down in Imperial County and was
never out of earshot of an NOAA weather station...and THAT was in the late 80's
and early 90's. I used to sit in the Marine Expeditionary Airfield shelters
with my HT and copy NOAA.

And having BEEN in SoCal, I am intimately aware at how congested most of
the 2meter band is...All we need is for Uncle Same to "green light" the
rebroadcasts you suggest to have a whole band full of junior weathermen...What
next? Health reports on Ashley and Mary-Kate?

Steve, K4YZ

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

In article , (Steve
the Stalker) writes:


I've been in Mojave, up to Bishop and down in Imperial County and was
never out of earshot of an NOAA weather station...and THAT was in the late
80's
and early 90's. I used to sit in the Marine Expeditionary Airfield shelters
with my HT and copy NOAA.

During one of those famous, heroic "seven hostile actions?!?"

"Just say NOAA..." :-)

LHA / WMD

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:34:56 -0400, WA wrote:


Wasn't it Cross who once stated The Great Liberty Net had a right
in perpetuity to 3950 kHz?

If it was I didn't pay attention to it.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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 -

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve the Stalker) writes:

I've been in Mojave, up to Bishop and down in Imperial County and was
never out of earshot of an NOAA weather station...and THAT was in the late
80's
and early 90's. I used to sit in the Marine Expeditionary Airfield
shelters
with my HT and copy NOAA.

During one of those famous, heroic "seven hostile actions?!?"

"Just say NOAA..." :-)

LHA / WMD

NOAH!

"I've been through the desert on a horse with no name, (with my shack
on my hip) It felt good to be encoded with S.A.M.E."

It got hostile when someone made fun of his shack on his hip and asked
him if he was a real ham. He said, "NOAA IS Amateur Radio!" and
everyone laughed at him. Again.

:-)

Interesting that The Stalker has mentioned 3 warehousing areas of the
USMC in California, all of them rather well inland. Now Kellie, the
Katapult
King has, along with the Stalker, accused us of doing "clerk" duties while
in the military. Those two important heroes of the U.S. military seem to
have no information about military duties other than clerking!

Sunnuvagun! :-)

Nancy says "Hello...and just say NOAA..."

LHA / WMD

"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.

;^)

Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: (William)
Date: 7/14/2004 5:26 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message

Interesting that The Stalker has mentioned 3 warehousing areas of the
USMC in California, all of them rather well inland.

All of those areas used for combat training.

But then you knew that....

Hi, hi, har de har.

How do you shave with all the egg on your face, Brain?

Or even pay attention long enough to do it with that hand up your
skirt......?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/12/2004 1:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/10/2004 3:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
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?

Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is
ALREADY
PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a
violation.

The "simultaneous and automatic retransmission" you refer to is for
AMATEUR communications...

The FCC has repeatedly and unwaveringly stated that is it ILLEGAL for
Amateurs to rebroadcast non-Amateur traffic. Period.

Wrong. Look at the recent modification to .113 for WX stations. Also,
retransmission of NASA Shuttle communications has been in the rules for more
than a decade (granted, the initial retransmitter is supposed to get
permission
from NASA, but the fact that it is allowed in ANY FORM defeats your absolute
statement).

If all you are looking to do is "defeat( ) (my) absolute statement", then
congratulations.

However the NASA example is a specific waiver from the FCC, and NASA
hardly has hundreds of remote transmitters in every state to share the shuttle
traffic, now do they?

And if you bothered to look at the current .113, there is also a "waiver" for
retransmitting NOAA/NWS weather transmissions - with the limitation that it is
NOT done on a continuous basis (communications emergency or failure
notwithstanding for which the rules in .400 ff. take priority anyway).

There are NOAA receivers available for less than $20. Non-Amateurs
who
want to listen to it can do so without having to buy a $200+ Amateur device
and
modify it in order to do so. The NOAA channels are available options in
CB's,
FRS and Marine radios already.

Receivers less than $20.00 don't have SAME or special actions that they take
when hearing an EAS broadcast. You've missed the point here.....

No I haven't.

Neither my $150 2 meter rig nor my $350 V/UHF rig have SAME function in
them either. What would be the point of having those alert tones squawking on
2M or 70CM...?!?!

Because those alert tones are part of "EAS," while the normal weather status
transmission isn't. Emergency communications that may affect life or property
are always ALLOWED - and the concept of the FCC enacting the new EAS to replace
EAB was to have it reach as many [people] as possible as soon as possible.
Yet, we have the FCC's Mr. Cross now saying that this is forbidden. If so,
then I think he's insane - a rules violation is clearly less significant than
saving someone's life.

So...We bump the $20 up to $40...I can find at least a half dozen radios
in that price range that DO have SAME in them. So what then?

Personally, I'd rather keep the radio seperate so I could monitor NOAA
while keeping my 2M rig for 2-way purposes.

Well, no one said that YOU (or anyone else) HAD TO interface your local
repeater to a SAME-activated weatherradio. However, now that the rules do
permit it, why is there this "strange" interpretation of that rule?

The places where NOAA transmissions can NOT be heard are extremely
few. I
am sure there is some remote butte in Montanna or some valley in West
Virginia
that has poor or no coverage...But certainly not enough for the FCC to
reverese
it's policy...Espeically in light of NOAA's expenditures to spread the net.
In
my "neighborhood" alone I can hear transmissions on 3 of the seven channels
on
an HT...I can imagine what I might hear with a dedicated receiver and
appropriate antenna.

Those Amateurs who want to hear it are usually already involved in
SKYWARN
and already know the frequencies to tune to. They don't have to cling to a
local repeater hoping that someone else will "rebroadcast" NOAA audio.

Then explain why the rules were changed a couple of years ago to permit
it....

Explain to me where it's permitted 24/7, Dieter...

Explain to me where it's allowed to be AUTOMATICALLY retransmitted.

Follow along:

97.113(e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any
type of radio station other than an amateur station, except propagation and
weather forecast information intended for use by the general public and
originated from United States Government stations and communications, including
incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a
space shuttle and its associated Earth stations. Prior approval for shuttle
retransmissions must be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur
operators. Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not
be conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
normal amateur radio communications.

Re-read that LAST LINE over and over, Dieter.

I have. That does not forbid automatic retransmission. It does forbid
scheduled, regular, and/or continuous retransmission. It permits occasional
retransmission. [Emergencies are also not "regular" in nature.]

As for automatic, the issue arose with regard to a device that would be
interfaced to an amateur repeater, and repeaters MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY
CONTROLLED, so that's where the "automatic" aspect comes in.

Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal
amateur radio communications.

Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal
amateur radio communications.

Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not be
conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal
amateur radio communications.

(Just thought I'd help you along a little bit.)

Allow me to make further emphasis of part of that regulation:

Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.

Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.

Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators.

So what would be your point? There's no way you can make those
rebroadcasts and NOT be assured that the broadcast was NOT being used by
non-Amateurs.

Not any more so than under circumstances where no shuttle or weather
transmissions are occuring. Amateur frequencies are often included in
scanners - devices which don't require an FCC license to operate.

The only thing I gather from your statements is that you believe that ANY
retransmission of non-amateur communications is a rules violation. That also
is not what .113 says - it is permitting SOME types of non-amateur originated
communications to be [re]transmitted on an OCCASIONAL basis.

Lastly, for someone who keeps whining about another Amateur posting
Amateur Radio related news items in an Amateur Radio forum, I find it
really
funny that you want to play junior disc jockey on Amateur Radio with NON
Amateur weather broadcasts.

This topic is clearly about the rules and FCC policy (and its interpretation
fo
the rules). There are many things in AR Newsline that have nothing to do
with
the rules or operating practice and therefore don't belong here on ".policy"
(but may be appropriate to one of the other amateur radio newsgroups).

And I can pick almost any thread in any other of the other NG's and find
discussions going on there about topics OTHER than wha the charter for those
NG's may have "allowed".

How come I don't find Dieter Stussy in any of those NG's howling about the
inappropriateness of those posts...?!?!

1) I don't read every newsgroup.
2) Spam happens. You expect me to "explain the entire universe" to you?
3) There is quite alot of "****" posts that happen here.
4) What is the point of complaining about someone else's off-topic post if
nothing can or will be done about it? Here, there is someone to whom I can
complain about to get it stopped.
5) For the most part, people RESPECT the purpose of the group and usually stay
on topic. Amateur radio seems to attract anarchists by its nature - and it is
clear what we have here is anarchy.

Lastly, I didn't imply that this wasn't about the rules...It certainly
is...I just said I find it ironic that you want to play junior disc jockey with
NOAA weather broadcasts.

WHERE in LA County can you go and NOT hear an NOAA broadcast, Dieter?

If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

Remember that Mr. Cross's comment was the same when the issue of a
communications emergency was brought up. However, is your question even
relevant? It doesn't matter that I can hear up to 5 NWS transmitters where I
may be. The issue was with regard to the retransmission rule. To retransmit,
it first must be heard (obviously).

I've been in Mojave, up to Bishop and down in Imperial County and was
never out of earshot of an NOAA weather station...and THAT was in the late 80's
and early 90's. I used to sit in the Marine Expeditionary Airfield shelters
with my HT and copy NOAA.

And having BEEN in SoCal, I am intimately aware at how congested most of
the 2meter band is...All we need is for Uncle Same to "green light" the
rebroadcasts you suggest to have a whole band full of junior weathermen...What
next? Health reports on Ashley and Mary-Kate?

The Olsen Twins are not in the rules. NWS weather transmissions are. I leave
it to you to get the rules amended to add them if that's what you really want.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:34:56 -0400, WA wrote:

Wasn't it Cross who once stated The Great Liberty Net had a right
in perpetuity to 3950 kHz?

If it was I didn't pay attention to it.

Are you saying that we shouldn't pay any attention to his statement this time
as well?

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."

On Wed, 13 Jul 2004, William wrote:
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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"...?!?!?!

Deiter, if it occurred on a regular basis, then it would not cause
alarms to go off. It occurs only occasionally. And alarms then go
off.

??? Why are you addressing THAT to me? I didn't say that. SR said it.

I said that it IS (or should be) allowed, and that the FCC's William Cross
seems to be wrong as his answer appears to be contrary to the public good (an
implied mandate for the ARS via its "goodwill" and "emergency communication"
aspects).

What use would an alarm be if it occurred on a regular basis?

No kidding. Obviously, some responders to this topic have missed that point.

"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.

And if you bothered to look at the current .113, there is also a "waiver" for
retransmitting NOAA/NWS weather transmissions - with the limitation that it is
NOT done on a continuous basis (communications emergency or failure
notwithstanding for which the rules in .400 ff. take priority anyway).

I DID read them, Dieter. You however, seem to think that ANY
acknowldegement of it's opportunity means you can retransmit that
audio "automatically".

The rules specifically say no.


Neither my $150 2 meter rig nor my $350 V/UHF rig have SAME function in
them either. What would be the point of having those alert tones squawking on
2M or 70CM...?!?!

Because those alert tones are part of "EAS," while the normal weather status
transmission isn't. Emergency communications that may affect life or property
are always ALLOWED - and the concept of the FCC enacting the new EAS to replace
EAB was to have it reach as many [people] as possible as soon as possible.
Yet, we have the FCC's Mr. Cross now saying that this is forbidden. If so,
then I think he's insane - a rules violation is clearly less significant than
saving someone's life.

No one's life is likely to be saved due to retransmitting NWS
audio on an Amateur transceiver, Dieter. Amateur transceivers don't
decode the SAME codes.

So...We bump the $20 up to $40...I can find at least a half dozen radios
in that price range that DO have SAME in them. So what then?

Personally, I'd rather keep the radio seperate so I could monitor NOAA
while keeping my 2M rig for 2-way purposes.

Well, no one said that YOU (or anyone else) HAD TO interface your local
repeater to a SAME-activated weatherradio. However, now that the rules do
permit it, why is there this "strange" interpretation of that rule?

There's nothing strange here EXCEPT your interpretation that this
would be a legitimate rebroadcast.

R E A D T H E R E G U L A T I O N, D I E T E R ! ! ! ! ! !

The places where NOAA transmissions can NOT be heard are extremely
few. I
am sure there is some remote butte in Montanna or some valley in West
Virginia
that has poor or no coverage...But certainly not enough for the FCC to
reverese
it's policy...Espeically in light of NOAA's expenditures to spread the net.
In
my "neighborhood" alone I can hear transmissions on 3 of the seven channels
on
an HT...I can imagine what I might hear with a dedicated receiver and
appropriate antenna.

Those Amateurs who want to hear it are usually already involved in
SKYWARN
and already know the frequencies to tune to. They don't have to cling to a
local repeater hoping that someone else will "rebroadcast" NOAA audio.

Then explain why the rules were changed a couple of years ago to permit
it....

Explain to me where it's permitted 24/7, Dieter...

Explain to me where it's allowed to be AUTOMATICALLY retransmitted.

Follow along:

97.113(e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any
type of radio station other than an amateur station, except propagation and
weather forecast information intended for use by the general public and
originated from United States Government stations and communications, including
incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a
space shuttle and its associated Earth stations. Prior approval for shuttle
retransmissions must be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur
operators. Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not
be conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
normal amateur radio communications.

Re-read that LAST LINE over and over, Dieter.

I have. That does not forbid automatic retransmission.

It SPECIFICALLY says no automatic retransmissions, Dieter! ! !

It does forbid
scheduled, regular, and/or continuous retransmission. It permits occasional
retransmission. [Emergencies are also not "regular" in nature.]

And without the intervention of a control operator (manual
operation), how do you determine which transmissions are in compliance
with Part 97...?!?!

As for automatic, the issue arose with regard to a device that would be
interfaced to an amateur repeater, and repeaters MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY
CONTROLLED, so that's where the "automatic" aspect comes in.

You're trying to twist the regulation to fit YOUR interpretation.

You can try that excuse if Riley sends you a QSL, but the sting
from tjhe slap on the wrist you'll get will still hurt none-the-less.

So what would be your point? There's no way you can make those
rebroadcasts and NOT be assured that the broadcast was NOT being used by
non-Amateurs.

Not any more so than under circumstances where no shuttle or weather
transmissions are occuring. Amateur frequencies are often included in
scanners - devices which don't require an FCC license to operate.

No, they don't.

But FCC rules DO specify what we can "retransmit" via our
stations. Like I said...you go right ahead and push the envelope on
this one. I think you'll get your wrist slapped.

The only thing I gather from your statements is that you believe that ANY
retransmission of non-amateur communications is a rules violation.

Then you're not paying attention.

That also
is not what .113 says - it is permitting SOME types of non-amateur originated
communications to be [re]transmitted on an OCCASIONAL basis.

And that "OCCASSIONAL" basis will require that a livign, breathing
person make the determination as to whether to make the rebroadcast.

THAT is NOT "automatic".

How come I don't find Dieter Stussy in any of those NG's howling about the
inappropriateness of those posts...?!?!

1) I don't read every newsgroup.

Just the one's where you might get your feelings hurt?

2) Spam happens. You expect me to "explain the entire universe" to you?

No I don't. However Bill Pasternak's posts are not spam. YOU
may not like them, but that's you.

3) There is quite alot of "****" posts that happen here.

Most of them by persons who find it necessary to use profanity in
order to effectively express themselves. =)

4) What is the point of complaining about someone else's off-topic post if
nothing can or will be done about it? Here, there is someone to whom I can
complain about to get it stopped.

Yuo are one person "complaining" about a post that IS relevant to
this NG whether it meets YOUR definition or not.

5) For the most part, people RESPECT the purpose of the group and usually stay
on topic. Amateur radio seems to attract anarchists by its nature - and it is
clear what we have here is anarchy.

Only to you, and only due to your frustration with Bill.

Lastly, I didn't imply that this wasn't about the rules...It certainly
is...I just said I find it ironic that you want to play junior disc jockey with
NOAA weather broadcasts.

WHERE in LA County can you go and NOT hear an NOAA broadcast, Dieter?

If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?

Remember that Mr. Cross's comment was the same when the issue of a
communications emergency was brought up. However, is your question even
relevant? It doesn't matter that I can hear up to 5 NWS transmitters where I
may be. The issue was with regard to the retransmission rule. To retransmit,
it first must be heard (obviously).

And if you can hear it, what's the purpose of retransmitting it?

I've been in Mojave, up to Bishop and down in Imperial County and was
never out of earshot of an NOAA weather station...and THAT was in the late 80's
and early 90's. I used to sit in the Marine Expeditionary Airfield shelters
with my HT and copy NOAA.

And having BEEN in SoCal, I am intimately aware at how congested most of
the 2meter band is...All we need is for Uncle Same to "green light" the
rebroadcasts you suggest to have a whole band full of junior weathermen...What
next? Health reports on Ashley and Mary-Kate?

The Olsen Twins are not in the rules. NWS weather transmissions are. I leave
it to you to get the rules amended to add them if that's what you really want.

No, I leave it to YOU to get the rules ammended to what YOU want.
Right now automatic rebroadcast of NWS transmissions is NOT legal.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather
alerts.


If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?


Plus if their weather transmitters fail, how are you going to retransmit
that which isn't there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 7/18/2004 6:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
. com...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather
alerts.


If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?


Plus if their weather transmitters fail, how are you going to retransmit
that which isn't there.

The do what our club does when the SKYWARN net is active...

Read the announcement from the website.

The announcement is published on NWS's website...Print it off and READ it
on the repeater. THAT way you comply with the letter AND the spirit of the
law, plus you don't create enemies in the local repeater crowd for all the
unannounced "alerts" that would ignore what ever was already going on the
repeater.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?

Plus if their weather transmitters fail, how are you going to retransmit
that which isn't there.

"In emergencies, all infrastructure radios fail but amateur radio
always survives to save the day." :-)

LHA / WMD

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather
alerts.


If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?


Plus if their weather transmitters fail, how are you going to retransmit
that which isn't there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It's possible that it will keep transmitting on lower power.

When was the last time a failed amateur transmitter caused a problem?

On Sun, 17 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.

And if you bothered to look at the current .113, there is also a "waiver" for
retransmitting NOAA/NWS weather transmissions - with the limitation that it is
NOT done on a continuous basis (communications emergency or failure
notwithstanding for which the rules in .400 ff. take priority anyway).

I DID read them, Dieter. You however, seem to think that ANY
acknowldegement of it's opportunity means you can retransmit that
audio "automatically".

The rules specifically say no.

Where does it say that it may NOT be automatically retransmitted? A repeater
MAY be under automatic control (.205(d)), these signals CAN BE RETRANSMITTED
(.113(e)), and there is no rule that specifies that a repeater cannot be the
station doing the retransmission. There very well may be other conditions on
the retransmission, but automatically isn't among the restrictions. [On a
continuous basis is among the restrictions; e.g.]

Neither my $150 2 meter rig nor my $350 V/UHF rig have SAME function in
them either. What would be the point of having those alert tones squawking on
2M or 70CM...?!?!

Because those alert tones are part of "EAS," while the normal weather status
transmission isn't. Emergency communications that may affect life or property
are always ALLOWED - and the concept of the FCC enacting the new EAS to replace
EAB was to have it reach as many [people] as possible as soon as possible.
Yet, we have the FCC's Mr. Cross now saying that this is forbidden. If so,
then I think he's insane - a rules violation is clearly less significant than
saving someone's life.

No one's life is likely to be saved due to retransmitting NWS
audio on an Amateur transceiver, Dieter. Amateur transceivers don't
decode the SAME codes.

The WX-200 unit that the original forum was about is a piece of equipment that
is meant to be interfaced to an amateur repeater that listens to the WX station
and DOES decode SAME codes. Amber Alerts are among the non-weather events that
can be transmitted over the WX stations with a SAME code of "CAE" - and that is
a message conveying a direct threat to a [specific] life.

The FCC response indicates that there is no problem with the WEATHER RELATED
alerts, but apparently states that non-weather related messages that still
represent content regarding a threat to life or property are a violation, even
considering 47 CFR 97.403.

I don't see how ANYTHING can be more important that someone's life.
Apparently, William Cross at the FCC thinks that there is, but doesn't explain
himself.

So...We bump the $20 up to $40...I can find at least a half dozen radios
in that price range that DO have SAME in them. So what then?

Personally, I'd rather keep the radio seperate so I could monitor NOAA
while keeping my 2M rig for 2-way purposes.

Well, no one said that YOU (or anyone else) HAD TO interface your local
repeater to a SAME-activated weatherradio. However, now that the rules do
permit it, why is there this "strange" interpretation of that rule?

There's nothing strange here EXCEPT your interpretation that this
would be a legitimate rebroadcast.

R E A D T H E R E G U L A T I O N, D I E T E R ! ! ! ! ! !

I have. That's the COMMON SENSE conclusion one gets from the plain reading of
the regulations in toto: That non-weather related transmissions that
communicate a [immediate] threat to life or property are provided for and are
LEGAL under .403, so they don't need to be included under .113(e).

The places where NOAA transmissions can NOT be heard are extremely
few. I
am sure there is some remote butte in Montanna or some valley in West
Virginia
that has poor or no coverage...But certainly not enough for the FCC to
reverese
it's policy...Espeically in light of NOAA's expenditures to spread the net.
In
my "neighborhood" alone I can hear transmissions on 3 of the seven channels
on
an HT...I can imagine what I might hear with a dedicated receiver and
appropriate antenna.

Those Amateurs who want to hear it are usually already involved in
SKYWARN
and already know the frequencies to tune to. They don't have to cling to a
local repeater hoping that someone else will "rebroadcast" NOAA audio.

Then explain why the rules were changed a couple of years ago to permit
it....

Explain to me where it's permitted 24/7, Dieter...

Explain to me where it's allowed to be AUTOMATICALLY retransmitted.

Follow along:

97.113(e) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any
type of radio station other than an amateur station, except propagation and
weather forecast information intended for use by the general public and
originated from United States Government stations and communications, including
incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a
space shuttle and its associated Earth stations. Prior approval for shuttle
retransmissions must be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur
operators. Propagation, weather forecasts, and shuttle retransmissions may not
be conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of
normal amateur radio communications.

Re-read that LAST LINE over and over, Dieter.

I have. That does not forbid automatic retransmission.

It SPECIFICALLY says no automatic retransmissions, Dieter! ! !

I don't see such: The word "automatic" is missing from the text.

It does forbid
scheduled, regular, and/or continuous retransmission. It permits occasional
retransmission. [Emergencies are also not "regular" in nature.]

And without the intervention of a control operator (manual
operation), how do you determine which transmissions are in compliance
with Part 97...?!?!

If I were to answer that question the way you posed it, repeater transmissions
would be themselves a violation - because there could be no retransmission
without manual operation. Obviously, they are not a violation - because they
are allowed to be automatically controlled.

All that is required is that there be a means of intervention available to a
control operator that can be used the moment a violation is detected to prevent
its continuance, JUST LIKE WITH ANY REPEATER OPERATION that is automatically
controlled.

Why is that not obvious to you? Are you really that stupid?

As for automatic, the issue arose with regard to a device that would be
interfaced to an amateur repeater, and repeaters MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY
CONTROLLED, so that's where the "automatic" aspect comes in.

You're trying to twist the regulation to fit YOUR interpretation.

Wrong. Read the identification of the ORIGINAL CONTEXT. The original point
was specifically with regard to the interfacing of a "CAT Automation" WX-200
unit to an amateur repeater.

You can try that excuse if Riley sends you a QSL, but the sting
from tjhe slap on the wrist you'll get will still hurt none-the-less.

So what would be your point? There's no way you can make those
rebroadcasts and NOT be assured that the broadcast was NOT being used by
non-Amateurs.

Not any more so than under circumstances where no shuttle or weather
transmissions are occuring. Amateur frequencies are often included in
scanners - devices which don't require an FCC license to operate.

No, they don't.

But FCC rules DO specify what we can "retransmit" via our
stations. Like I said...you go right ahead and push the envelope on
this one. I think you'll get your wrist slapped.

Yes, the rules do say what we can retransmit:

..113(e) Weather related broadcasts originating from U.S. Government stations
.... if not on a continuous basis ... and [paraphrased] for the exclusive use of
amateur stations.

..403 NO PROVISION OF THESE RULES PREVENTS the use by an amateur station OF
ANY MEANS OF RADIO COMMUNICATION AT ITS DISPOSAL to provide essential
communication needs IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMMEDIATE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE and
immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not
available.

There is NO "normal communication system" designed to reach all people.
Neither is the "EAS" a system for normal use. The only non-weather related
messages over WX receivers would be EAS messages, except for the weekly test
message, that would relate either directly to the safety of human life and/or
property.

Therefore, the content that can come over the WX receiver that is not permitted
by .113 is permitted by .403. So, where's the violation, assuming all other
aspects of the two rules are met?

The only thing I gather from your statements is that you believe that ANY
retransmission of non-amateur communications is a rules violation.

Then you're not paying attention.

That also
is not what .113 says - it is permitting SOME types of non-amateur originated
communications to be [re]transmitted on an OCCASIONAL basis.

And that "OCCASSIONAL" basis will require that a livign, breathing
person make the determination as to whether to make the rebroadcast.

THAT is NOT "automatic".

Being occasional and being automatic have nothing to do with each other.
Something can be BOTH: E.g. The EAS SAME weekly test message occurs for 15
seconds once per week. It is certainly "occasional" because its period isn't
even a measurable percentage of weekly time, and what the repeater does when it
receives the message can be fully automatic, such as having its controller
speak, "EAS Weekly test message received" (then identifying).

Explain why that example isn't occasional nor automatic?

How come I don't find Dieter Stussy in any of those NG's howling about the
inappropriateness of those posts...?!?!

1) I don't read every newsgroup.

Just the one's where you might get your feelings hurt?

2) Spam happens. You expect me to "explain the entire universe" to you?

No I don't. However Bill Pasternak's posts are not spam. YOU
may not like them, but that's you.

Apparently, you couldn't care less about the newsgroup charter/guidelines. I'm
not like you - willing to let the few newsgroups I participate in "go to hell."

3) There is quite alot of "****" posts that happen here.

Most of them by persons who find it necessary to use profanity in
order to effectively express themselves. =)

4) What is the point of complaining about someone else's off-topic post if
nothing can or will be done about it? Here, there is someone to whom I can
complain about to get it stopped.

Yuo are one person "complaining" about a post that IS relevant to
this NG whether it meets YOUR definition or not.

It's not my definition. I didn't write the newsgroup charter, nor did I vote
on founding this group. However, aren't you the hyprocrite? You bitch about
this stuff violating the amateur rules but have no problem with BP's violation
of the newsgroup policy.

5) For the most part, people RESPECT the purpose of the group and usually stay
on topic. Amateur radio seems to attract anarchists by its nature - and it is
clear what we have here is anarchy.

Only to you, and only due to your frustration with Bill.

Lastly, I didn't imply that this wasn't about the rules...It certainly
is...I just said I find it ironic that you want to play junior disc jockey with
NOAA weather broadcasts.

WHERE in LA County can you go and NOT hear an NOAA broadcast, Dieter?

If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?

The fact that it CAN is all that the amateur rules need address.

Remember that Mr. Cross's comment was the same when the issue of a
communications emergency was brought up. However, is your question even
relevant? It doesn't matter that I can hear up to 5 NWS transmitters where I
may be. The issue was with regard to the retransmission rule. To retransmit,
it first must be heard (obviously).

And if you can hear it, what's the purpose of retransmitting it?

Why ask me? I didn't lobby to have the weather stuff added to .113(e).
However, it is there, and thus there must have been some reason why the FCC
chose or was persuaded to add it. Whether that reason makes sense I cannot
say.

I've been in Mojave, up to Bishop and down in Imperial County and was
never out of earshot of an NOAA weather station...and THAT was in the late 80's
and early 90's. I used to sit in the Marine Expeditionary Airfield shelters
with my HT and copy NOAA.

And having BEEN in SoCal, I am intimately aware at how congested most of
the 2meter band is...All we need is for Uncle Same to "green light" the
rebroadcasts you suggest to have a whole band full of junior weathermen...What
next? Health reports on Ashley and Mary-Kate?

The Olsen Twins are not in the rules. NWS weather transmissions are. I leave
it to you to get the rules amended to add them if that's what you really want.

No, I leave it to YOU to get the rules ammended to what YOU want.
Right now automatic rebroadcast of NWS transmissions is NOT legal.

Your citation?

What I see in .113(e) is that CONTINUOUS retransmission of NWS signals are not
legal, but occasional retransmission for use by amateur stations IS permitted.
The rule makes NO reference to the type of control - automatic or manual.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather
alerts.


If their transmitters fail, ANYWHERE! :-)

And when was the last time one failed and caused a problem?


Plus if their weather transmitters fail, how are you going to retransmit
that which isn't there.

One could retransmit from a neighboring area. (Certainly, that does meet the
"communications failure" part of .403 in the amateur rules. All one needs to
add is an actual emergency - beyond transmitter failure.)

Aside:
When was the last time you listened for NWS transmissions? In the past week, I
have, and I found signals on five of the seven assigned frequencies.

For me, in Los Angeles County:
162.400 KEC62 San Diego (Inland)
.425 WNG57 San Diego (Coastal)
.450 WWG21 Santa Ana
.525 WNG58 Catalina Island (LA Coastal)
.550 KWO37 Mount Wilson (LA Inland)

The two channels I could not hear originate from Santa Barbara and Victorville.
Some of the signals would not be heard under all conditions. Only three of
them are strong enough to be heard in bad weather (i.e. rain/snow).

The NWS has maps showing where their transmitters are. For example, in Kansas,
they are laid out in a repeating cellular pattern, so for those counties that
don't have a transmitter themselves, there are usually 2 or 3 signals from
neighboring counties that can be heard that will overlap the counties lacking
their own. The overlapping transmitters would probably ALL carry messages for
the overlapped counties, even if they only covered part of it, and especially
if one failed.
-----------
Back to the topic:

Why is this in the rules if as K6YZ thinks, no retransmission is EVER
permitted?

Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/19/2004 2:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

The WX-200 unit that the original forum was about is a piece of equipment
that
is meant to be interfaced to an amateur repeater that listens to the WX
station
and DOES decode SAME codes. Amber Alerts are among the non-weather events
that
can be transmitted over the WX stations with a SAME code of "CAE" - and that
is
a message conveying a direct threat to a [specific] life.

OK, Dieter...We can use that rationale to put all sorts of interfaces on
Amateur Repeaters.

Let's put an automatic alarm on the repeater anytime an aircraft ELT
squawks.

We can also inlcude EPIRB's.

Then we'll also put a receiver to pick up local "Medic Alert" pendants for
the elderly who have fallen at home.

We can then include an alarm for "LOW-JAC" systems...Anytime someone's
stolen HUMMER is within earshot of the repreater we'll get an alarm for that.

While we're at it, let's demand a smoke alarm in microwaves that tell us
when popcorn is about to go critical mass, and we can then shock our neighbors
with how fast we called 9-1-1.

We can also put FRS/GMRS monitors on our Amateur repeaters so any time
one of then transmits a LITZ tone, we get the beep.

You getting the picture of where things go if you open that
floodgate...?!?!

The FCC response indicates that there is no problem with the WEATHER RELATED
alerts, but apparently states that non-weather related messages that still
represent content regarding a threat to life or property are a violation,
even
considering 47 CFR 97.403.

More people are killed by bad weather every year other than auto
accidents. It can drop in on you even if you're in your own home watching
re-runs of "Twister"...

I don't see how ANYTHING can be more important that someone's life.
Apparently, William Cross at the FCC thinks that there is, but doesn't
explain
himself.

I think the above explained it perfectly well.

You want to add an "Amber Alert" to the repeater...?!?! Do it with a
controller card that sends "AE" so those who want to get involved and hear the
broadcast can tune in.

No, I leave it to YOU to get the rules ammended to what YOU want.
Right now automatic rebroadcast of NWS transmissions is NOT legal.

Your citation?

How are you going to meet the criteria of "occassional retransmission"
otherwise, Dieter?

A control operator needs to hear it, decide it's valid, then put it on the
air.

Otherwise you just have a system that breaks in whenever IT wants to,
regardless of what traffic may already be on there.

What I see in .113(e) is that CONTINUOUS retransmission of NWS signals are
not
legal, but occasional retransmission for use by amateur stations IS
permitted.
The rule makes NO reference to the type of control - automatic or manual.

I reiterate...HOW do you meet the prerequisite of "occassional" if the
repeater is set to retansmit any SAME alert "automatically"...????

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: WX Receivers and Repeaters retransmitting non-weather alerts.
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/19/2004 3:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Aside:
When was the last time you listened for NWS transmissions? In the past week,
I
have, and I found signals on five of the seven assigned frequencies.

24/7, here...On my battery-back-up RadioTrash WX receiver. Works just
fine.

We live in a tornado prone area.

Why is this in the rules if as K6YZ thinks, no retransmission is EVER
permitted?

Unless I missed something, K6YZ is not invlved in this discussion.

As for K-4-YZ, he N E V E R said "no retransmission is EVER permitted"...

Please show where I did...

73

Steve, K4YZ