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, 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).

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

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 -