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