Article View: comp.archives
Article #560[comp.dcom.telecom] FCC Docket 92-136 Available via Anonymous FTP
From: Paul W Schleck KD3FU
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 21:19
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 21:19
61 lines
3508 bytes
3508 bytes
Archive-name: auto/comp.dcom.telecom/FCC-Docket-92-136-Available-via-Anonymous-FTP Just a short note to let everyone know that a copy of FCC PR Docket 92-136 (Ammendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules to Relax Restrictions on the Scope of Permissible Communications in the Amateur Service) is available via anonymous FTP from ftp.cs.buffalo.edu in file /pub/ham-radio/pr_docket_92-136. As any reader of rec.radio.amateur.policy knows, the subject of permissible communications in Amateur Radio is a matter of some dispute. Historically, amateurs had great latitude on content, the FCC only being concerned with the pecuniary interest of the operator himself, rather than that of incidental 3rd parties who may benefit from that communication. In 1972, however, in response to an inquiry (isn't it always some poor sucker asking a leading question of the Commission that causes them to do really undesirable things?) the FCC decided to take a much more restrictive view of business communications, making illegal any communications that could POSSIBLY benefit third parties. The docket attempts to restore the rules to their pre-1972 state. This has put a serious crimp on many types of public-service communications (the Idiatrod dog race in Alaska is a prime example) as well as up-and-coming amateur packet networks (remember the Desert Storm message of 1990?). Some of the interesting questions raised by the docket (and subsequent discussion on rec.radio.amateur.policy) include: 1. Are amateur operators responsible enough to insure that the service isn't exploited by commercial interests? 2. Would simplified rules concerned only with operator compensation be a help or a hindrance? Would this open the door to commercial exploitation? 3. Is the Amateur Radio Service an experimental service, a communications service, or both? Where do we draw the line between the two? 4. Is the transmission of "incidental music" (such as when making a telephone call via radio patch and you get hold music, or some occasional background music during FCC-authorized retransmissions of "NASA Select" shuttle audio/video) something that should be permitted, with restrictions, or prohibited? 5. What consitutes "regular use" of amateur radio for communications and when should such communications be relegated to alternative services such as cellular phone? 6. Should transmissions by a compensated control operator, when such transmissions are for the purpose of classroom instruction at an education institution, be permitted? (Currently the only exception is for the transmission of bulletins and Morse Code practice, with certain scheduling and frequency-use requirements). Interested parties should submit comments to the FCC by October 1, 1992 and reply comments by December 1, 1992. Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU pschleck@unomaha.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<185vhkINNpas@agate.berkeley.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!agate!usenetReferences:
<telecom12.679.4@eecs.nwu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!agate!usenet From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) Newsgroups: comp.archives Subject: [comp.dcom.telecom] FCC Docket 92-136 Available via Anonymous FTP Followup-To: comp.dcom.telecom Date: 3 Sep 1992 21:19:48 GMT Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 63 Approved: adam@soda.berkeley.edu Distribution: world Message-ID: <185vhkINNpas@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <telecom12.679.4@eecs.nwu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom X-Original-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 12:20:33 CDT