From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of "No-Business" Rule
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:09:19 GMT

In article <17ro0pINNqpe@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu>, steve@nemesis.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Schallehn) writes:
|> While I agree the simplified rules will help amateur radio, I don't
|> want amateur radio to be a personal communications service.

Amateur radio *is* in the FCC's private radio branch...

  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.

This makes more sense than using the same spectrum to exchange
content-free signal and equipment reports ad nauseum, which seems to
be about the only type of amateur communication that everyone agrees
is in keeping with the rules (unless, of course, you construe it as
"advertising" for Yeasu, Kenwood and Icom...)

|> 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.  

Or to use spectrum more efficiently, which would definitely advance the
state of the art. There is much to learn and do in this regard.

|> 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.

This has always been both a problem and an opportunity. Necessity is,
after all, the mother of much invention, and much of the current
innovation in radio communications has been in response to spectrum
congestion brought about by the popularity of previous innovations.
My current work project exists almost solely because of this problem.

|> 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.

I think the solution lies in staying away from making subjective value
judgements about the relative worth of another ham's communications,
and in trying to find the new technology and allocation mechanisms
that will let everybody get what they need (as opposed to what they
say they want.)

|> >There's another aspect that wasn't brought up, namely that of packet
|> >networks.[...]

|> 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.

Why? How? Is the FCC and the League now going to widely publish
articles and flyers telling us exactly how to tell when something is
or is not obscene?  Or will this topic replace "business
communications" as the next great target for the armchair lawyers and
the major roadblock to doing anything interesting and useful with
amateur radio?

I've yet to hear of a case where "obscene" language alone has
physically injured anyone or damaged property, the usual reasons for
making some action illegal. Maybe some day, perhaps even in my
lifetime, people and governments will realize that you cannot
legislate manners. Perhaps they'll even understand the wisdom of the
First Amendment.

Nah, I'm just dreaming.

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy