Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] broadcast?

AE5PL Lists HamLists at ametx.com
Thu Oct 20 12:37:37 UTC 2005


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Lux
> Posted At: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:39 PM
> Subject: [aprssig] broadcast?
> 
> 
> Love it.. when we've beat our heads against the wall on 
> technical issues, there's always FCC rule interpretation to 
> keep list traffic going..

So true...

> However, a point to point transmission might not be "intended 
> for reception *by the general public*" .

Ah, but if the receiving point is not an amateur station, you are then
also covered by 97.111 which precludes you from communicating directly
with non-amateur stations except as authorized by the FCC.

> ANother example.. I transmit a signal to probe the ionosphere 
> (as a HF radar, for instance), and I have an unlicensed 
> friend some several hundred miles away receive it and send 
> the data back to me.  Clearly not really intended for the 
> general public.

The person you are sending the information to is either the "general
public" (one-way transmission specifically for reception by
non-amateurs) or an unauthorized station (two-way communication with a
station not authorized by the FCC).

As you pointed out, "intent" is key.  For instance, if I am transmitting
APRS information that a non-amateur receives and decodes, that is not
the intent of the transmission _unless_ that is who I _intended_ to
receive the transmission.  If I am transmitting on 144.39 in the U.S.,
such intent would be very difficult to prove, indeed.  On the other
hand, if I put a receiver in a hot air balloon (the start of this
thread) for someone to receive those packets along with all the other
hams' packets, intent would still be very hard to prove.  If we move to
another frequency which is unused in the area specifically so the person
in the balloon can receive only my transmissions or if I simply put some
sort of identification in the transmitted information specifying that it
was for the person in the balloon, then intent would be very easy to
prove.

As you hint at in your post, very murky waters when dealing with
"intent" in the legal system.  For those who might consider testing
those waters, is it worth your license to find out whether you are right
or wrong?

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net 




More information about the aprssig mailing list