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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:40:50 GMT

steve@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Schallehn) writes:

>pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU) writes:

>>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.

>While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
>want amateur radio to be a personal communications service.  For
>example, there are many amateurs in my area that use VHF/UHF for
>personal communications between family members.  I see this trend 
>occurring all over the US.

Indeed, which implies that neither interpretation of 97.113 would
significantly affect it one way or another.  Hand-wringing over
"business use" and "incidental music," among other concerns, HAS gutted
the technical content and motivation to get on the air, rather than the
other way around.

>On the good side, there is a greater utilization of our amateur radio 
>spectrum and it keeps our service growing.  It also may moderately enhance
>our technical know-how: the added communications demands will encourage
>repeater owners to tweak the operation of their equipment such as improving
>autopatch facilities.  

Here in Omaha, the 2m repeaters are hardly used except for ARES nets.
I'd love to see more traffic (perhaps along the lines of the "Insomnia
Net" on the 146.76 repeater in Jessup, MD).  I'd also like to see a
modest high-speed TCP/IP packet network as well (we're working on it!).

>On the bad side, the communications explosion will continue crowd
>VHF/UHF experimenters who want to develop completely new services, not
>just trivially enhance the art of radio communications.  Unfortunately,
>with repeaters and packet frequencies filling up the majority of
>VHF/UHF frequencies, there currently is little room for such
>experimenters as it is.

That's a bad thing?  Amateur history is full of the use/overcrowding/
push-the-technology-envolope-to-higher-bands/use/overcrowding/push,
etc., etc cycle.  Ever since the days of "200 meters and down" there has 
been an ongoing debate over use and content, and band overcrowding.  Use of
better receivers and band-efficient modes, and higher bands that were
previously thought "unusable," has been the byproduct of this ongoing
pressure.

>Amateur Radio in the US seems to be at a critical juncture:  Are we a
>personal communications provider or are we experimenters?  There should
>be room for both, but where is the dividing line?  Comments welcome.

The answer is, indeed, BOTH!  I think we can coexist.  We need a
critical mass to give us the next "bump."  There's plenty of relatively
unexplored and unused frontier up in the high UHF and microwave bands.

The dividing line is where there is compensation to the operator, direct
or indirect, either through the undertaking of personal business, or
communications-for-hire.

>>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.

>Not entirely.  We still have to do obscene filtering and control
>operators are still responsible for everything going though their
>repeaters.  Even though it would enhance the radio art, I don't
>want to see AMPR become one huge Internet feed.

True, that's why I said "Most."  Clearly, sysops censoring discussions
of IBM-PC's because they aren't "radio-related enough" is ridiculous,
and should be obviated by this new rulemaking.

On the other hand, pushing packet radio into a real network that can
handle more than the trivial bandwidth it handles now, would be GOOD
thing, IMHO.  The true experimenter can always stay one or two bands
ahead of the "users."

>-Steve Schallehn  KB0AGD
> Kansas State University
>"I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing by." John Cougar Mellencamp

Regardless of anyone's position on the matter, I *DO* encourage them to
provide the FCC with thoughtful comments on the subject.  Watch for mine
soon.

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu