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

(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.

Hi, hi!

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 -