Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] APRS Coverage in Key West

Paul Zawada engineerz at gmail.com
Sun Apr 29 20:20:20 UTC 2007


On 4/29/07, Steve Dimse <steve at dimse.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 29, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Paul Zawada wrote:
>
> > On 4/27/07, Steve Dimse <steve at dimse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 27, 2007, at 10:06 PM, Richard Sharp, KQ4KX wrote:
> >>
> >> > Perhaps "the county" should be using a 150 MHz frequency then...
> >>
> >> Why? Having it on APRS is nothing but a benefit to amateur radio.
> >> Maybe not as much of a benefit as Bob would like, but a benefit
> >> nevertheless!
> >
> > Maybe because it's getting really close to violating FCC rules.  If
> > amateur radio operators are not maintaining or actively using the
> > stations,
>
> Where did you get that from? The stations are operated and maintained
> by KQ4AZ in full accord with FCC rules.

In a previous message (on Friday) you stated the stations were owned
and operated by the county.  In another message you also said there
were no other local RF users.  If you add these two factors together,
it at least appears on the surface that the only entity benefitting
from the system is the county.  If that is the case, there are PLMR
frequencies available to be licensed for this type of application.   I
was careful not to explicitly state that the system was in violation
of FCC rules, but was trying to say the way the information came
accross, it appeared it could be that way.  You asked why someone
thought the county should be using 150 freqs, I was trying to answer
why some of us on the list might have thought so.

>There is absolutely nothing
> in the FCC rules that says that APRS equipment must operate in
> exactly the manner Bob Bruninga dictates! Just because Bob issues an
> edict does not make it the only legal way to operate.

I didn't say that the only way way to comply with the FCC rules was to
listens to Bob's edicts.  (But  clearly Bob isn't the only one who
thinks the new paradigm is good operating practice.)  Again, I was
trying to point out that when the county's needs as opposed to hams'
needs (especially when I was lead to believe there were no local hams)
are the rationale for why a certain system is built a certain way, it
*sounds* like a border-line case regulations-wise.

> The Florida Keys is not like anyplace else in the US. It is a small
> town of 70,000 stretched out over 125 miles. If you generously figure
> it a typical town is 5 miles in diameter, it would equate to the
> density of towns with 2500 people. Do you really think you or Bob
> have a right to dictate system requirements in every town of 2500
> people?

I wasn't trying to dictate anything on how things are set up there.  I
don't care what you do in the Keys.  Again, I was just trying to
explain why at least a couple of us on the list were wondering if this
should be on APRS.  When the question "why doesn't system X do Y?" was
asked, we heard it was because system X doesn't have any other local
hams using it  and it's (non-ham) beneficiary doesn't need or want Y
functionality.   Clearly, we don't understand the arrangement down
there and when you defensively responded to KQ4KX's statement without
addressing the root of his point, I was merely pointing out the point
he raised was legitimate given the information we have.

Maybe it's none of our business what the arrangement is down there and
you don't have to explain it to us, but don't turn it around to claim
that I'm trying to dictate that you use the new paradigm there.

--zawada




More information about the aprssig mailing list