From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:37:56 GMT

bobw@col.hp.com (Bob Witte) writes:

>  [stuff deleted]

>>      (4) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonable be
>> furnished alternatively through other radio services.
>   
>    This last paragraph seems like a perfect catalyst for years of 
>    armchair lawyer discussions. What does "be furnished alternatively
>    through other radio services" mean? No autopatch because that could
>    be done via cellular telephones? No chitchat on 2M because that
>    could be accomplished via Citizens Band? 

>    I am sure that's not the FCC intent, but the wording seems very
>    open ended.

>    Bob KB0CY

>    P.S. Other that this nit, it seems the FCC is headed in the right
>         direction.

Glad to see I've stirred up a bit of discussion on the subject with my
posting.  I too have some trouble with the bit about "regular use" as
it's so vaguely defined as to be no better (perhaps worse) than the
previous rules.

Phil Karn, KA9Q, discussed this subject previously, and suggested that
only the compensation of the operator (direct or indirect) should be
relevant.  Indeed, in the footnotes to the docket, the FCC says:

>> (7)  Id. at 10-11.  The League's proposed revision is based upon the
>> principles that (a) amateur operators should not conduct communications
>> in exchange for compensation or for the benefit of their employers, (b)
>> amateur operators should not transmit communications in which the
>> operator has a pecuniary interest, and (c) amateur operators should not
>> use amateur service frequencies regularly as a substitute for other
>> licensed radio services.  The yardstick the amateur operators would use
>> for determining pecuniary interest would be the business implication of
>> the licensee intitiating the communication, not the recipient.

Except for (c), this is essentially the KA9Q position (nice to see
others get credit for your ideas, eh Phil? :-).

I think some well-reasoned comments (hint, hint) in support of this
simplified interpretation (with the code/bulletin practice and
instructional exceptions thrown in, of course), would convince the FCC to
do the right thing.  Perhaps even some discussion of "incidental music"
in amateur transmissions would end, once and for all, the autopatch
hold-music debates.

Let's face it, amateur operators will not stand to let their bands get
taken over the business interests.  No matter how naive, or
well-meaning we may be, no amateur is going to allow some greedy
corporate interest to exploit the ham bands with no compensation to
themselves.  There wouldn't even be any incentive for an unscrupulous
person to get a ham license for the purpose of business communications
as there would be no profit in it.

There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
networks.  Most of the legal problems that have thwarted meaningful
network experimentation (business communications, internetworking,
incidental benefit of ANY third party, etc.) would be eliminated with this
simplified rule.

I'm going to put together my own comments in support of the "no operator
compensation" idea, and point out the vagueness of the "regular use"
provision, suggesting that it be thrown out.  I'd like to strongly
encourage others to do the same.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,acm.forum.comm,uno.radio