From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: Re: Text of FCC PR Docket 92-136, Relaxation of 'No-Business' Rule
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:58:47 GMT
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: American Reasonably Restrained Lawyers

In article <476@arrl.org>, jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:

|> Once again I am forced to point out that the best way to get an answer
|> from ARRL HQ is to ask directly.  

I don't seek the "best way". I'm trying to ask my question in
such a way, that wide amateur population will see what I'm
concerned about, and probably will participate in my
attempts to clarify/fix the issue.

|> deal with regularly, so often I can't help.  Of course, I *could*
|> give my uneducated opinion on those issues.  But I think there is
|> sufficient uneducated opinion on the net that mine isn't needed in
|> addition.  

Of course. Then wouldn't it be reasonable to pass it to
somebody *inside* ARRL who can give an *educated* 
opinion? [Sorry for sounding rude, I don't 
really want to pick on you.]


|> In short:  If you want specific questions answered, write to:
|>    rpalm@arrl.org

Already done. Thanks for the hint.

|> and ask.  Or call ARRL HQ on the phone and say you have a question on
|> the rules.  Or write via snail-mail.

Well, it's much faster to type my letter on the keyboard and have
it delivered to you in matter of minutes, without bothering
myself with envelops, addresses, stamps and other
nonsense... And as I said - I want others
to know what my concern is, for I
believe they'll share it.

|> Or, better yet, get a copy of ARRL's "FCC Rule Book."  If an answer
|> to the question is known by ARRL, it probably will be in this book.
|> For example, on page 7-4 (8th ed.) is a box containing common
|> Q&As regarding music transmission.

Fine. Unfortunately, *my* question about music isn't answered 
there, at least not explicitely. So why not answer it here,
once and for all? 

"Being put on hold while using autopatch with music in
the background" - must I hang up immediately?

|> And, as John Johnston of the FCC said in the FCC Forum at the ARRL
|> National Convention last weekend, when you call with a question,
|> please have your copy of the rules open to the rule you wish to have
|> read to you.  :-)

OK, fine. Now back to business. ARRL proposes the change to the rules.
While good in general - I think there's a loophole with potentially
devastating effects. Namely, in the item covering PROHIBITED
TRANSMISSION item 4) - it says something like "prohibiting
regular transmissions which can be handled through other
radio services". I think there's word "reasonable"
somewhere there...

My point is - ARRL wording is too vague, especially for
today's  Many-Lawyers-Little-Sense society. And since
even "Yes" and "No" are being interpreted these days
by our good lawyers and politicians to mean just
what they need at the moment - I believe that
"regular", "reasonable" and so on aren't
terms satisfactory for the new regulations.
Maybe I'm too paranoic with this.   Then let
other hams express their opinion.  If I'm the
only one who smells problems with this proposal,
let's ignore me.  If others are concerned as well -
then let THEM press ARRL to change the wording of that 
item to be more explicit/specific about what  EXACTLY is
prohibited, and what isn't.


Dixi.
--
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>