| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 08.07.09 01:25l 1033 Lines 37848 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 49213-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 324
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<SP7MGD<CX2SA
Sent: 090707/2321Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:49213 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:49213-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Send AMSAT-BB mailing list submissions to
amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
amsat-bb-request@xxxxx.xxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
amsat-bb-owner@xxxxx.xxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of AMSAT-BB digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. GJTRACKER Version 1.06, July 7, 2009 (Lance Collister, W7GJ)
2. FT-530 Wanted (Hal Lund ZS6WB)
3. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: Re:
dream) (Bob Bruninga )
4. Fw: Re: Re: ILN... Is this our future ride to the
(Armando Mercado)
5. FT-736R won't send CW (Allen Vinegar)
6. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: Re:
dream) (Ben Jackson)
7. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream) (kd8bxp@xxx.xxxx
8. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: Re:
dream) (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
9. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream) (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
10. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream) (W4ART Arthur Feller)
11. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:Re:dream)
(kd8bxp@xxx.xxxx
12. Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream) (Roger Kolakowski)
13. Re: FT-746T won't send CW (Allen Vinegar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:11:06 +0000
From: "Lance Collister, W7GJ" <w7gj@x.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] GJTRACKER Version 1.06, July 7, 2009
To: Amateur radio moonbounce <Moon-net@xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>, Magic
Band EME Group <magic@xxxxx.xxx>, DF2ZC Bernd
<BerndDF2ZC@xxxxxxxx.xx>, "DL8EBW, Guy MMM on VHF"
<nw_ebw@xxxxxxxx.xx>
Message-ID: <BLU121-DAV559DFFF8D05D89236C27D89280@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hello!
Thanks to the thoughtful feedback from Codrut, YO3DMU, I have learned that the
GJAZEL.dat file generated by previous versions of GJTRACKER have shown the
azimuth
for the DX station instead of the HOME station. This of course is only
noticed by
somebody who is using an automatic tracking program to obtain aiming data from
this
file, which is updated every minute when GJTRACKER is run in REAL TIME mode.
Codrut wrote such an automatic antenna tracking program, and I am grateful to
him for
bringing this error to my attention. The corrected version 1.06 of GJTRACKER
does now
correctly transfer the HOME STATION azimuth and elevation to the GJAZEL.dat
file:
http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj/GJTRACKER.zip
GL and DX to all! VY 73, Lance
--
Lance Collister, W7GJ (ex: WN3GPL, WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8,
E51SIX)
P.O. Box 73
Frenchtown, MT 59834 USA
QTH: DN27UB
TEL: (406) 626-5728
URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815
Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the MAGIC BAND EME email
reflector!
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:28:27 +0200
From: "Hal Lund ZS6WB" <zs6wb@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] FT-530 Wanted
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BMEJKBJMPCIIBNHPAHIPEEKDDFAA.zs6wb@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I'm looking for a Yaesu FT-530 in working condition to be used with an Arrow
as a loan AO-51 station by DXpeditions in Southern Africa. Dies anyone have
one that isn't being used at a reasonable cost? I can make arrangements for
it to be hand-carried down to me in about ten days.
73 - Hal ZS6WB
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:55:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bob Bruninga " <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re: dream)
To: Ben Jackson <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20090707095514.AKB62032@xxx.xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> Using paging devices on Amateur Radio is perfectly
>> legal like any other radio. It all boils down to
>> use. If you use it for setting up a one-way
>> systemm for a pizza delivery service, it is
>> clearly illegal. If you use it as part of your
>> overall local communications network of amateur
>> radio volunters it is just one more tool in the
>> tool box.
>
> Unfortunately, the way Part 97 currently reads is
> that most pager transmissions to an individual are
> illegal under ?97.111(b), as it is a "one way"
> transmission that, in most cases, would not
> qualify under the "legal" list.
Sorry, one can also claim that every transmission is one-way because only
under full duplex conditions is a system truely two-way. There are all kinds
of applications in amateur radio where one side of the link uses different
hardware than the other return side, and once can make all kinds of arguments
as to how much delay is involved between the transmission and the receiption..
3 seconds? 10 seconds, a minute? 10 minutes? A day? When you make a call
to a party TO ESTABLISH commmunications it is one way, until the person gets
his system going and responds.
In my mind a pager is just another way of making the call. THe intent is NOT
ONE WAY, it is to provide a call-up or a message as part of a CLEARLY TWO-WAY
amateur network.
There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one way) to
the general public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I think everyone
can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't see the FCC cares one nit
about some of these debates when any one can see that hams are taking
initiative to better their use of the radio art.
>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who
>> have nothing better to do than nit-pick ways
>> to prevent other hams from developing useful
>> applications of technology. A pager is simply
>> the text-to-user device integrated into the
>> normal local 2-way amateur radio communications
>> system.
>
> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't
> be used beyond QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary"
> emergency communications. Could I get away with
> setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to
> stand on when my local OO comes knocking?
> Not so much.
Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution...
>> An amateur satellite would make a great downlink
>> to these pagers. Again, the goal should simply
>> be, any message, any time, anywhere
>> using any device to any user by callsign alone.
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:14:23 -0400
From: "Armando Mercado" <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Re: Re: ILN... Is this our future ride to the
To: <k0vty@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <80D6A0BE778048C889008BCFA5FB1D6F@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
One landing site will be on the western limb of
moon near the equator, the 2nd will be in the
NE highlands. Both locations will exprience
2 weeks of day and 2 weeks of night.
73, Armando, N8IGJ
>Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:20:31 CDT
>From: k0vty <k0vty@xxxx.xxx>
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Re: Re: ILN... Is this our future ride to the
>moon? MM
>To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>Message-ID: <20090706.122112.11225.13892@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>I agree with John on the need for more data:
>Also the attached below suggests we might need to know more about any
>location
>selected on the moon.
>How deep the dust
>How rocky
>How illuminated and when.
>The differences between the poles and non poles areas.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:26:35 -0400
From: "Allen Vinegar" <tokens@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] FT-736R won't send CW
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <1248D6BC86AF4DAF89524EDF7F4E3FAC@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I posted this to the 736R forum but have not received any good answers. I know
I must be missing something obvious but I can't get my FT-736R to work in CW
mode. I plug in the same key I use with my FT-767GX, press the CW button, turn
on the VOX, press down the key and nothing happens. Rig works fine on SSB and
FM. Before I open up the case and dig in, what am I missing??
Thanks!
Al W8KHP
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:20:03 -0400
From: Ben Jackson <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re: dream)
To: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A5367A3.2000804@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bob Bruninga wrote:
*snip*
We'll agree to disagree regarding your take of the rules as almost
everyone else did on APRSSIG. ;)
> There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one
> way) to the general public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I
> think everyone can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't
> see the FCC cares one nit about some of these debates when any one
> can see that hams are taking initiative to better their use of the
> radio art.
Considering that they've recently ruled on whether contesters should
give blanket "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad to rule on
something interesting and relevant. :)
>>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who have nothing better
>>> to do than nit-pick ways to prevent other hams from developing
>>> useful applications of technology. A pager is simply the
>>> text-to-user device integrated into the normal local 2-way
>>> amateur radio communications system.
>> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't be used beyond
>> QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary" emergency communications. Could I
>> get away with setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to stand
>> on when my local OO comes knocking? Not so much.
>
> Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution...
Then the solution has presented itself. Get a ruling from the FCC
regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only devices such as
pagers. Then we can finally put this issue to rest and if anyone comes
knocking regarding the legality of these transmissions, we can have
something concrete to cite.
Again, I'd love to set up something like this, but I'd be hard pressed
to spend a chunk of money on a system that could be taken down if
someone files a complaint to the FCC.
Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
- --
Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKU2ejAAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvhxwH/29Y5oXeLMTfZXholTV4gSdF
IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX
EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB
zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa
RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A
eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0=
=AgEy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:42:30 +0000
From: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re:dream)
To: "Ben Jackson" <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bob Bruninga"
<bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<537651845-1246981347-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-
1744750709-@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for a
reason
What we need is to setup a confrance call or something so we can get a well
written letter together and get it off to someone who can make a ruleing at
the FCC
Skype, echolink, dstar or something where those that are interested can all
join in -
Define a system and descuss the possablities of doing call sign routing,
sending the pages up to a satellite ect ect
But before "we" put a lot of time and effort and money into this
I think we need a ruleing
I know for a fact that our local repeater is cabable of doing 2 tone paging -
and was in use back when I was very young and not a ham - the elders of the
local club say it was able to send alerts for weather, pages for people to get
on the radio, ect. It was all done with tones at the time - "our" pagers are
far more advanced and can display the text of whatever
No one in the club can tell me why they stopped using pagers - a couple of the
guys thought it was because cell phones became small and able to be carried in
your hand.
But at around the same time they stopped paging, kantronics also stopped
modify pagers for 2 meters, and I think they stopped making the tncs that were
able to do POCSAG - so my thinking was that a rule had changed making pagers
illegal in the ham bands. Or at very least questionable. From the kantronics
point of view the may not have been selling many of them and just didn't want
to put the time and resources into making them anymore. But something
happended -
As I said our local repeater is cabable of doing two tone - it was built like
that from the beginning
We need to setup something and get as many people as we can write up a well
written paper and get a ruleing. That is bottom line on it -
I am on the fence as far as if it is legal or not - on one hand an agrument
can be made for telemetery - which is aloud - on the other hand pagers can be
used to send one way personal pages which is where I am unclear
I think as we see here agurements can be made on both sides. Which is why we
need a ruleing. When rules are written this vauge some one needs to decide and
stand by the decision
LeRoy, KD8BXP
http://www.HamOhio.com
------Original Message------
From: Ben Jackson
To: Bob Bruninga
Cc: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: [amsat-bb]
Re:dream)
Sent: Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bob Bruninga wrote:
*snip*
We'll agree to disagree regarding your take of the rules as almost
everyone else did on APRSSIG. ;)
> There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one
> way) to the general public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I
> think everyone can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't
> see the FCC cares one nit about some of these debates when any one
> can see that hams are taking initiative to better their use of the
> radio art.
Considering that they've recently ruled on whether contesters should
give blanket "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad to rule on
something interesting and relevant. :)
>>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who have nothing better
>>> to do than nit-pick ways to prevent other hams from developing
>>> useful applications of technology. A pager is simply the
>>> text-to-user device integrated into the normal local 2-way
>>> amateur radio communications system.
>> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't be used beyond
>> QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary" emergency communications. Could I
>> get away with setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to stand
>> on when my local OO comes knocking? Not so much.
>
> Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution...
Then the solution has presented itself. Get a ruling from the FCC
regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only devices such as
pagers. Then we can finally put this issue to rest and if anyone comes
knocking regarding the legality of these transmissions, we can have
something concrete to cite.
Again, I'd love to set up something like this, but I'd be hard pressed
to spend a chunk of money on a system that could be taken down if
someone files a complaint to the FCC.
Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
- --
Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKU2ejAAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvhxwH/29Y5oXeLMTfZXholTV4gSdF
IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX
EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB
zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa
RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A
eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0=
=AgEy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sent on the Now Network? from my Sprint? BlackBerry
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:57:05 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re: dream)
To: Ben Jackson <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A537051.4090602@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
But traditionally we've always transmitted to receive only devices.
In the early days, you had a general coverage receiverand a seperate crystal
controlled transmitter with, in the days
of battery supplies, nothing connecting the two.
They are definately both one way only devices.
And where in the rules does it say that the reply to a transmission has to be
instant. It rarely was using the AX25
packet network. Whilst with packet or TOR there is usually an ACK packet,
that's for housekeeping and not communication
between the stations.
A reply tomorrow to a message today is valid.
Ben Jackson wrote:
Get a ruling from the FCC regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only
devices
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:06:17 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re:dream)
To: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A537279.4070604@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
No we don't.
The FCC are obviously happy to allow us to do what we do now.
If you stir up trouble and get things banned, there are going to be an awful
lot of pissed amameurs after your arse.
kd8bxp@xxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this I think part 97 is vauge and vauge for
a reason
>
> What we need is to setup a confrance call or something so we can get a well
written letter together and get it off to someone who can make a ruleing at
the FCC
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:13:59 -0400
From: W4ART Arthur Feller <afeller@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re:dream)
To: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <89C11961-B09D-4BF3-9284-9936C68D2A61@xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
"Whenever you get in bed with the Federal government, you often get
more than just a good night's sleep." Ronald Regan.
Translation: Don't ask for a ruling unless prepared to hear something
you won't like.
Better to proceed in good faith and sort out the matter only if needed.
I hope this helps.
73, art.....
W4ART/4 Miami FL
On 7-Jul-2009, at 11:42 AM, kd8bxp@xxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this I think part 97 is vauge and
> vauge for a reason
>
> What we need is to setup a confrance call or something so we can get
> a well written letter together and get it off to someone who can
> make a ruleing at the FCC
>
> Skype, echolink, dstar or something where those that are interested
> can all join in -
> Define a system and descuss the possablities of doing call sign
> routing, sending the pages up to a satellite ect ect
>
> But before "we" put a lot of time and effort and money into this
> I think we need a ruleing
>
> I know for a fact that our local repeater is cabable of doing 2 tone
> paging - and was in use back when I was very young and not a ham -
> the elders of the local club say it was able to send alerts for
> weather, pages for people to get on the radio, ect. It was all done
> with tones at the time - "our" pagers are far more advanced and can
> display the text of whatever
>
> No one in the club can tell me why they stopped using pagers - a
> couple of the guys thought it was because cell phones became small
> and able to be carried in your hand.
>
> But at around the same time they stopped paging, kantronics also
> stopped modify pagers for 2 meters, and I think they stopped making
> the tncs that were able to do POCSAG - so my thinking was that a
> rule had changed making pagers illegal in the ham bands. Or at very
> least questionable. From the kantronics point of view the may not
> have been selling many of them and just didn't want to put the time
> and resources into making them anymore. But something happended -
> As I said our local repeater is cabable of doing two tone - it was
> built like that from the beginning
>
>
> We need to setup something and get as many people as we can write up
> a well written paper and get a ruleing. That is bottom line on it -
> I am on the fence as far as if it is legal or not - on one hand an
> agrument can be made for telemetery - which is aloud - on the other
> hand pagers can be used to send one way personal pages which is
> where I am unclear
> I think as we see here agurements can be made on both sides. Which
> is why we need a ruleing. When rules are written this vauge some one
> needs to decide and stand by the decision
>
> LeRoy, KD8BXP
> http://www.HamOhio.com
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Ben Jackson
> To: Bob Bruninga
> Cc: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
> Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: [amsat-
> bb] Re:dream)
> Sent: Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> We'll agree to disagree regarding your take of the rules as almost
> everyone else did on APRSSIG. ;)
>
>> There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one
>> way) to the general public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I
>> think everyone can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't
>> see the FCC cares one nit about some of these debates when any one
>> can see that hams are taking initiative to better their use of the
>> radio art.
>
> Considering that they've recently ruled on whether contesters should
> give blanket "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad to rule on
> something interesting and relevant. :)
>
>>>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who have nothing better
>>>> to do than nit-pick ways to prevent other hams from developing
>>>> useful applications of technology. A pager is simply the
>>>> text-to-user device integrated into the normal local 2-way
>>>> amateur radio communications system.
>>> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't be used beyond
>>> QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary" emergency communications. Could I
>>> get away with setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to stand
>>> on when my local OO comes knocking? Not so much.
>>
>> Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution...
>
> Then the solution has presented itself. Get a ruling from the FCC
> regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only devices such as
> pagers. Then we can finally put this issue to rest and if anyone comes
> knocking regarding the legality of these transmissions, we can have
> something concrete to cite.
>
> Again, I'd love to set up something like this, but I'd be hard pressed
> to spend a chunk of money on a system that could be taken down if
> someone files a complaint to the FCC.
>
> Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
>
> - --
> Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
> bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKU2ejAAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvhxwH/29Y5oXeLMTfZXholTV4gSdF
> IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX
> EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB
> zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa
> RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A
> eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0=
> =AgEy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> Sent on the Now Network? from my Sprint?? BlackBerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the
> author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I'm on the road again for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Please,
help! Donate and follow the story on my TNT web site!!
http://pages.teamintraining.org/nca/ambbr09/afeller
CAUTION: Web site may have a photo of me in Spandex..... ;-)
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:28:12 +0000
From: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re:Re:dream)
To: "W4ART Arthur Feller" <afeller@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<626638339-1246984088-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-
1608498818-@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Wow I am honestly surprised by this attiude. This is the 2nd email that I have
seen saying don't ask the FCC anything
I the rules are vauge at best - why else would so many people disagree about
what can and can not be done
I don't have the time or money to go into a legal battle with FCC - and I
don't want to loose my license if this is in their minds illegal. I am just
not willing to do that -
A judgement for or against is the only way to settle the question once and for
all.
If I personally don't like the ruleing then I would just have to live with it
- or file for an appeal.
There is no reason that I can see to break the law (maybe) and let it sort
itself out latter.
I am really surprised by this -
Truely surprised
A judgement needs to be made - some people may not like it - but if that is
the rules - we can make reasoned arguments as to why the rules need to be
changed. Not just break the rules and then sort it out later
LeRoy, KD8BXP
http://www.HamOhio.com
Sent on the Now Network? from my Sprint? BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: W4ART Arthur Feller <afeller@xxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:13:59
To: <kd8bxp@xxx.xxx>
Cc: Ben Jackson<bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>; Bob Bruninga<bruninga@xxxx.xxx>; <amsat-
bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream)
"Whenever you get in bed with the Federal government, you often get
more than just a good night's sleep." Ronald Regan.
Translation: Don't ask for a ruling unless prepared to hear something
you won't like.
Better to proceed in good faith and sort out the matter only if needed.
I hope this helps.
73, art.....
W4ART/4 Miami FL
On 7-Jul-2009, at 11:42 AM, kd8bxp@xxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben, I agree we need a ruling on this I think part 97 is vauge and
> vauge for a reason
>
> What we need is to setup a confrance call or something so we can get
> a well written letter together and get it off to someone who can
> make a ruleing at the FCC
>
> Skype, echolink, dstar or something where those that are interested
> can all join in -
> Define a system and descuss the possablities of doing call sign
> routing, sending the pages up to a satellite ect ect
>
> But before "we" put a lot of time and effort and money into this
> I think we need a ruleing
>
> I know for a fact that our local repeater is cabable of doing 2 tone
> paging - and was in use back when I was very young and not a ham -
> the elders of the local club say it was able to send alerts for
> weather, pages for people to get on the radio, ect. It was all done
> with tones at the time - "our" pagers are far more advanced and can
> display the text of whatever
>
> No one in the club can tell me why they stopped using pagers - a
> couple of the guys thought it was because cell phones became small
> and able to be carried in your hand.
>
> But at around the same time they stopped paging, kantronics also
> stopped modify pagers for 2 meters, and I think they stopped making
> the tncs that were able to do POCSAG - so my thinking was that a
> rule had changed making pagers illegal in the ham bands. Or at very
> least questionable. From the kantronics point of view the may not
> have been selling many of them and just didn't want to put the time
> and resources into making them anymore. But something happended -
> As I said our local repeater is cabable of doing two tone - it was
> built like that from the beginning
>
>
> We need to setup something and get as many people as we can write up
> a well written paper and get a ruleing. That is bottom line on it -
> I am on the fence as far as if it is legal or not - on one hand an
> agrument can be made for telemetery - which is aloud - on the other
> hand pagers can be used to send one way personal pages which is
> where I am unclear
> I think as we see here agurements can be made on both sides. Which
> is why we need a ruleing. When rules are written this vauge some one
> needs to decide and stand by the decision
>
> LeRoy, KD8BXP
> http://www.HamOhio.com
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Ben Jackson
> To: Bob Bruninga
> Cc: kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
> Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re: [amsat-
> bb] Re:dream)
> Sent: Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> We'll agree to disagree regarding your take of the rules as almost
> everyone else did on APRSSIG. ;)
>
>> There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one
>> way) to the general public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I
>> think everyone can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't
>> see the FCC cares one nit about some of these debates when any one
>> can see that hams are taking initiative to better their use of the
>> radio art.
>
> Considering that they've recently ruled on whether contesters should
> give blanket "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad to rule on
> something interesting and relevant. :)
>
>>>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who have nothing better
>>>> to do than nit-pick ways to prevent other hams from developing
>>>> useful applications of technology. A pager is simply the
>>>> text-to-user device integrated into the normal local 2-way
>>>> amateur radio communications system.
>>> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't be used beyond
>>> QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary" emergency communications. Could I
>>> get away with setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to stand
>>> on when my local OO comes knocking? Not so much.
>>
>> Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution...
>
> Then the solution has presented itself. Get a ruling from the FCC
> regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only devices such as
> pagers. Then we can finally put this issue to rest and if anyone comes
> knocking regarding the legality of these transmissions, we can have
> something concrete to cite.
>
> Again, I'd love to set up something like this, but I'd be hard pressed
> to spend a chunk of money on a system that could be taken down if
> someone files a complaint to the FCC.
>
> Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
>
> - --
> Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
> bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKU2ejAAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvhxwH/29Y5oXeLMTfZXholTV4gSdF
> IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX
> EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB
> zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa
> RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A
> eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0=
> =AgEy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> Sent on the Now Network? from my Sprint?? BlackBerry
>
>_______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the
> author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I'm on the road again for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Please,
help! Donate and follow the story on my TNT web site!!
http://pages.teamintraining.org/nca/ambbr09/afeller
CAUTION: Web site may have a photo of me in Spandex..... ;-)
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:11:49 -0400
From: "Roger Kolakowski" <rogerkola@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS
Re: Re:dream)
To: "Ben Jackson" <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bob Bruninga"
<bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <009301c9ff26$0570f9e0$0300a8c0@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Having been the recipient of many OO reports during my Novice Days (I used
to tune my Globe Scout for maximum smoke into a 60 watt light bulb as a
dummy load and then just switch to my 80 meter antenna...)and a rabid
satellite APRS user...
...I volunteer to be the first person to send out pager data on the
satellites as the test station...not having changed callsigns in 40+ years,
some of the OOs will probably recognize me as already being in their logs...
My Mom can forward the cards from my original address if the OO's don't have
up to date Callbooks.
Roger
WA1KAT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Jackson" <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: OT: Universal Text Messaging and Pagers (WAS Re:
Re:dream)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> We'll agree to disagree regarding your take of the rules as almost
> everyone else did on APRSSIG. ;)
>
> > There is no reason to nit pick rules. When one is broadcasting (one
> > way) to the general public or using amateur radio inappropriately, I
> > think everyone can tell when it is blatanly illegal. I just don't
> > see the FCC cares one nit about some of these debates when any one
> > can see that hams are taking initiative to better their use of the
> > radio art.
>
> Considering that they've recently ruled on whether contesters should
> give blanket "5-by-9" signals, I'd think they'd be glad to rule on
> something interesting and relevant. :)
>
> >>> You just have to ignore the curmudgeons who have nothing better
> >>> to do than nit-pick ways to prevent other hams from developing
> >>> useful applications of technology. A pager is simply the
> >>> text-to-user device integrated into the normal local 2-way
> >>> amateur radio communications system.
> >> The issue is that, according to Part 97, it can't be used beyond
> >> QSTs, telemetry, or "necessary" emergency communications. Could I
> >> get away with setting up such a system? Likely. Do I foot to stand
> >> on when my local OO comes knocking? Not so much.
> >
> > Some OO's are part of the problem, not the solution...
>
> Then the solution has presented itself. Get a ruling from the FCC
> regarding the use of transmissions to receive-only devices such as
> pagers. Then we can finally put this issue to rest and if anyone comes
> knocking regarding the legality of these transmissions, we can have
> something concrete to cite.
>
> Again, I'd love to set up something like this, but I'd be hard pressed
> to spend a chunk of money on a system that could be taken down if
> someone files a complaint to the FCC.
>
> Let's take any further discussion about this offline.
>
> - --
> Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
> bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKU2ejAAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvhxwH/29Y5oXeLMTfZXholTV4gSdF
> IQmEBb3wBQbZK/V9ltjNQZhVnH1senvo8M1eYH/Cb60H3e+3bimuj1awAEZc+ACX
> EIuUI+l88+vABjjkv0YGzES3tDobFPMIgyP1pUWdlbrG3c8ZRBUxu3dFUbYWNMaB
> zothv8yGChMIFF+S60h/StmNpA4lEKm+J4hBsHlFhoBhjiX0kVD3G6IOxZGworIa
> RNwCwbQ4M1NNG62hp3a8YWF3y7qgjO6hTaq2hz3hTx9ktb4ajyCeMZYesNXByQ2A
> eFepP7fNTTD4ga9wVTX5xZeQ9+saREFxU0NcFS/GeCkWeAwy9FcJczfJWBVnha0=
> =AgEy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0400
From: "Allen Vinegar" <tokens@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FT-746T won't send CW
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <CCD51F8871994B96873EB9FBC6DE51DF@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I am following all the steps in the manual. The problem seems to be beyond
that.
Al W8KHP
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 4, Issue 324
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
