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
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
X-Original-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 12:20:33 CDT

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