[aprssig] Pagers as part of the Text Messaging Initiative
k4rjj at bellsouth.net
Mon Jan 26 21:19:38 CST 2009
Steve what about a true two way 902 Mhz paging system? Where would that
fit? I was thinking of retuning an old paging repeater. I would ID it
via CW with a brief description of what it was and an email address if
someone wants to get involved. I had thought of making it an extension
of the Winlink system.
Steve Dimse wrote:
> First, an apology to all you outside the US, this of course only
> applies to the USA APRS network.
> Bob, the FCC does not give hoot about your "Universal Amateur Radio
> Text Messaging Initiative". Even if it was the coolest thing ever in
> ham radio (and it isn't), it still has to fit the rules as they exist
> (or you need to get the FCC to change the rules).
> Please remember that Part 97 is a legal document, and many of the
> terms used within are carefully, and narrowly, defined in ways that
> may be somewhat different from common usage. Interestingly, one-way is
> not defined in the rules, so you have to infer the meaning. Your
> statement about the network implies that if it is "aimed" at a bunch
> of ham listeners, it is not one way. However, the rules specifically
> state that beacon stations can transmit one-way. That means a station
> aimed at a network of listeners is one-way. Auxiliary stations by
> definition are point-to-point, and also are explicitly allowed one-way
> transmissions. I think from all this the only definition I can come up
> with for one-way is the common-sense one, specifically "a transmission
> from one amateur station to one or more amateur stations which receive
> the transmission and do not transmit a reply". If you feel you have a
> better one, please feel free to share.
> No one can realistically claim the APRS RF network is broadcasting.
> Part 97 defines that as "Transmissions intended for reception by the
> general public, either direct or relayed." So please do not use that
> term, it just confuses things.
> One way transmission is distinctly different from broadcasting, and
> the rules directly reflect that. IMNSHO there are many one-way
> transmissions on the APRS RF frequencies. If I send my position out
> with MacAPRS, I do not get a reply from other stations. That makes it
> a one-way transmission.
> In general, one-way transmission is banned, but some specific
> exceptions are allowed. The one that makes much of APRS possible is
> telemetry, defined in the rules as "A one-way transmission of
> measurements at a distance from the measuring instrument."
> Certainly weather transmissions are telemetry under the rules. Only
> slightly less certain to be legal is position, being a measurement of
> the location of a station. Most the other kinds of information sent on
> the APRS network can be stretched with very little effort to be called
> measurements. Most messages appearing on RF can be justified as either
> a two way communication if part of a QSO, or information bulletins,
> another allowed one-way transmission (also with a specific definition
> - "A message directed only to amateur operators consisting solely of
> subject matter of direct interest to the amateur service."). These are
> the rules that make APRS legal, not your general statement that there
> are a network of participants, which nowhere appears in Part 97. Even
> if this were acceptable, clearly pagers do not fit as that is by
> definition aimed at a single receiver designated by the tones.
> I don't think I could call a page I sent to Bob telemetry, nor would
> it be of direct interest to the amateur radio service. There is,
> though, one other allowable one-way transmission that you might be
> able to say covered it "Brief transmissions necessary to establishing
> two-way communications with other stations" If Bob is not on RF, and I
> want to start a QSO with him, I could look the FCC in the eye and say
> a pager transmission was legal. In this case, the content of the
> message matters. If I page "Bob, meet me on 147.000+", I'm absolutely
> covered. If I page "Bob, thanks for creating APRS", I'm not so sure
> I'm safe.
> So my position is that pagers do not qualify as a group, but specific
> content may make it possible to include paging as a component of your
> Just please, don't argue that your idea is good, therefore it must be
> Steve K4HG
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Robert Bruninga wrote:
More information about the aprssig