Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just
obey the letter?

Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think
this is right and the rules are wrong

Are we self policing or not?

Should we be self policing?

an_old_friend wrote:

Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just
obey the letter?

Where does it suggest in FCC rules that you are allowed to deviate
from the letter, Mark?

And who's going to be the arbitrator of what is "rule" and what is
"intent"?

Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations are set up to do both,
but on a limited basis.

The "Basis and Purpose" of the ARS as defined in 97.1 establishes
"intent" for the deployment of the Amateur Radio service. But in that
"intent" does not set any "rules" for operating.

The remainder of Part 97, for the most part, makes specific do's
and don'ts, ie: operating bands, power limits, identification, etc.

The Constitution of the United States is a document drawn up in
such a way as to be intentionally susceptible to "interpretation" and
change as current needs dictate.

RULES are just that...rules. They usually specify certain things
you MUST do, things you MAY do and certain things you must NOT do.

Although not always successful, they are written so as to be as
unambiguous as possible.

Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think
this is right and the rules are wrong

That's what the rule making process is all about, and people
already use it every day. As for "hiding", what are you talking about?
You either comply with what is written or you don't.

Are we self policing or not?

To the degree allowed by law. Then the law steps in.

Should we be self policing?

What's your alternative?

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just
obey the letter?

Where does it suggest in FCC rules that you are allowed to deviate
from the letter, Mark?

Excellent question

And who's going to be the arbitrator of what is "rule" and what is
"intent"?

Excellent question

Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations are set up to do both,
but on a limited basis.

The "Basis and Purpose" of the ARS as defined in 97.1 establishes
"intent" for the deployment of the Amateur Radio service. But in that
"intent" does not set any "rules" for operating.

The remainder of Part 97, for the most part, makes specific do's
and don'ts, ie: operating bands, power limits, identification, etc.

The Constitution of the United States is a document drawn up in
such a way as to be intentionally susceptible to "interpretation" and
change as current needs dictate.

RULES are just that...rules. They usually specify certain things
you MUST do, things you MAY do and certain things you must NOT do.

Although not always successful, they are written so as to be as
unambiguous as possible.

Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think
this is right and the rules are wrong

That's what the rule making process is all about, and people
already use it every day. As for "hiding", what are you talking about?
You either comply with what is written or you don't.

Trifle touchy arent we

Are we self policing or not?

To the degree allowed by law. Then the law steps in.

Should we be self policing?

What's your alternative?

Excellent question

Steve, K4YZ

an old friend wrote:

Excellent question

Excellent question

Trifle touchy arent we

Excellent question

Well that was a meaningful exchange.

Steve, K4YZ

well stveie hacks a post apart
K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:

Excellent question

Excellent question

Trifle touchy arent we

Excellent question

Well that was a meaningful exchange.

Gee even when a guy agrees with you, you flame him

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just
obey the letter?

IMHO, hams should respect the intent of the rules as well as the exact
letter of the rules.

The trouble is that different hams have different ideas as to what
the intent really is.

Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think
this is right and the rules are wrong

If someone thinks a rule can be improved, they should say so. However,
they should understand that simply because they think a rule isn't the
way it should be doesn't make it 'wrong'.

I don't see how someone can "hide behind the rules".

Are we self policing or not?

Should we be self policing?

A lot depends on what is meant by "self-policing".

IMHO, hams themselves can do the following:

- Inform fellow hams of observed or suspected violations ("Did you know
your signal is so wide it's bringing up the repeater on the adjacent
frequency?"

- Set a good example in rules compliance

- Inform FCC of uncorrected violations

- Have nothing to do with those who commit repeated and/or serious
violations.

But enforcement by FCC is still needed. That doesn't mean FCC is
expected to do everything, however.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 17 Aug 2005 09:36:19 -0700 wrote:

| I don't see how someone can "hide behind the rules".

How about someone operating in such a way that they are in literal
compliance with the rule, but many others believe they are violating the
intent. Sorry, I can't give an example of such a situation; maybe one can
be found from other people's experience.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil:

At the core of the "Radio Act of 1912", and grossly paraphrased here by
me, seems the statement, "Here you guys sign up and get registered, then
take this range of freqs and see what you can do with them. See if you can
come up with ideas which advance the use of radio and we can use in the
benefit of america and its' citizens."

Somehow, along the way, things got bogged down and an abundance of people
came to the hobby who wanted a set of rules which they could religiously
worship and practice and invoke for disciplinary actions to be taken on
others not holding a religious reverence for such, this has been
detrimental to the original purpose and goals...

This now lays at the extreme end where you must be careful what
experiments you undertake, how you undertake them and why you can't
undertake them... in someways there are "guards" on the bands as exist in
prisons, and you are "allowed out in the yard" if you obey all the
rules... strange for a hobby first created as a means to try new ideas
which could possibly lead somewhere...

BPL is perhaps a very good example, where arrl and other "status quo"
forces banded together and ended up having the effect of saying, "We
already know that won't work! Don't attempt any experiments, don't do any
testing, don't gather any data, don't lay any plans. Don't plan on being
able to change and redesign hardware/software to attempt to make it
work! Cease and desist immediately, we so command you!"

John

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:14:57 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

On 17 Aug 2005 09:36:19 -0700 wrote:

| I don't see how someone can "hide behind the rules".

How about someone operating in such a way that they are in literal
compliance with the rule, but many others believe they are violating the
intent. Sorry, I can't give an example of such a situation; maybe one can
be found from other people's experience.

John Smith wrote:
Phil:

At the core of the "Radio Act of 1912", and grossly paraphrased here by
me, seems the statement, "Here you guys sign up and get registered, then
take this range of freqs and see what you can do with them. See if you can
come up with ideas which advance the use of radio and we can use in the
benefit of america and its' citizens."

Except for "Here you guys sign up and get registered", that's not what
it was about at all.

What the 1912 act did was to organize what had been a haphazard system.
While the Titanic disaster gave them the impetus to act, the
legislation had been
developed and discussed for years before.

Amateurs (meaning stations that were not commercial, government or
maritime) were pushed to 200 meters and beyond, because those
wavelengths were
considered to be relatively useless by the professionals. Licenses were
made
mandatory to keep tabs on all transmitting stations.

But the "200 Meters And Down" spectrum was not limited to amateurs. Any
radio service could use it - all they needed was a station license. Few
except amateurs even tried.

Amateurs did not have free reign, either. Back then a station's
wavelength
was specified on the station license. If a ham wanted to try, say, 110
meters,
s/he needed a license specifying 110 meters.

Somehow, along the way, things got bogged down and an abundance of people
came to the hobby who wanted a set of rules which they could religiously
worship and practice and invoke for disciplinary actions to be taken on
others not holding a religious reverence for such, this has been
detrimental to the original purpose and goals...

That's just nonsense.

What happened was that the regulations evolved over time, driven by a
number of forces.

This now lays at the extreme end where you must be careful what
experiments you undertake, how you undertake them and why you can't
undertake them...

How?

What experiments are you kept from undertaking, and by whom?

in someways there are "guards" on the bands as exist in
prisons, and you are "allowed out in the yard" if you obey all the
rules...

FCC makes the rules. Are you advocating ignoring those rules?

strange for a hobby first created as a means to try new ideas
which could possibly lead somewhere...

So what's your proposal?

BPL is perhaps a very good example, where arrl and other "status quo"
forces banded together and ended up having the effect of saying, "We
already know that won't work! Don't attempt any experiments, don't do any
testing, don't gather any data, don't lay any plans. Don't plan on being
able to change and redesign hardware/software to attempt to make it
work! Cease and desist immediately, we so command you!"

The interference provided by BPL systems has been observed and
demonstrated.
It's a fact. One doesn't have to be a radio genius to see that power
lines
with HF on them will radiate like mad and interfere with licensed radio
stations.

Would you rather that nobody opposed BPL?

N2EY:

I don't imagine any can argue amateur radio has "evolved", sometimes
faster, sometimes slower. Now is just another step in that evolution...

Amateur history can be read on the web, or a book from amazon, your local
library, etc, a few authors give a few different viewpoints also...

John

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:22:10 -0700, N2EY wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Phil:

At the core of the "Radio Act of 1912", and grossly paraphrased here by
me, seems the statement, "Here you guys sign up and get registered, then
take this range of freqs and see what you can do with them. See if you can
come up with ideas which advance the use of radio and we can use in the
benefit of america and its' citizens."

Except for "Here you guys sign up and get registered", that's not what
it was about at all.

What the 1912 act did was to organize what had been a haphazard system.
While the Titanic disaster gave them the impetus to act, the
legislation had been
developed and discussed for years before.

Amateurs (meaning stations that were not commercial, government or
maritime) were pushed to 200 meters and beyond, because those
wavelengths were
considered to be relatively useless by the professionals. Licenses were
made
mandatory to keep tabs on all transmitting stations.

But the "200 Meters And Down" spectrum was not limited to amateurs. Any
radio service could use it - all they needed was a station license. Few
except amateurs even tried.

Amateurs did not have free reign, either. Back then a station's
wavelength
was specified on the station license. If a ham wanted to try, say, 110
meters,
s/he needed a license specifying 110 meters.

Somehow, along the way, things got bogged down and an abundance of people
came to the hobby who wanted a set of rules which they could religiously
worship and practice and invoke for disciplinary actions to be taken on
others not holding a religious reverence for such, this has been
detrimental to the original purpose and goals...

That's just nonsense.

What happened was that the regulations evolved over time, driven by a
number of forces.

This now lays at the extreme end where you must be careful what
experiments you undertake, how you undertake them and why you can't
undertake them...

How?

What experiments are you kept from undertaking, and by whom?

in someways there are "guards" on the bands as exist in
prisons, and you are "allowed out in the yard" if you obey all the
rules...

FCC makes the rules. Are you advocating ignoring those rules?

strange for a hobby first created as a means to try new ideas
which could possibly lead somewhere...

So what's your proposal?

BPL is perhaps a very good example, where arrl and other "status quo"
forces banded together and ended up having the effect of saying, "We
already know that won't work! Don't attempt any experiments, don't do any
testing, don't gather any data, don't lay any plans. Don't plan on being
able to change and redesign hardware/software to attempt to make it
work! Cease and desist immediately, we so command you!"

The interference provided by BPL systems has been observed and
demonstrated.
It's a fact. One doesn't have to be a radio genius to see that power
lines
with HF on them will radiate like mad and interfere with licensed radio
stations.

Would you rather that nobody opposed BPL?