clements@bbnccq.arpa (02/20/86)
From: Bob Clements <clements@bbnccq.ARPA>
9953 PY 5749 K1BC K1OJH 860220 more on FCC rules
At K1OJH : 197 From K1OJH Rcvd 860219/0200, Sent 860219/1931
Date: Feb. 18, 1986
To: NEPRA SYSOPs
From: Dick Eastman
Subj: New FCC Regs
Just a note to let you know what I've been up to. In addition to
the various bits and pieces of messages that I have been
forwarding to you, I have also been talking with Perry Williams
at the ARRL. Perry is the person at the League who deals
primarily with the FCC. He did tell me a few things that have
been going on recently.
First of all, the FCC monitoring station in Maine that has been
getting all the publicity recently has not yet issued any
citations. They have called (at least) two SYSOPs that they
suspected might be running unattended H.F. stations. In one case,
they found no licensed Amateur on the premises during time of
operation. That person has not yet received a citation. If he
does get one, it will be for unattended operation below 30 MHz.
This issue is unrelated to the recent regulations issued.
Unattended operation below 30 MHz always has been and will
continue to be a violation of FCC regulations.
As to the new regulations, this is considered to be an "Open
Issue", with several items not yet clearly defined by the FCC.
The FCC's Chief of the Special Services Division (who is the Boss
of the head of the Private Radio Branch which administers Amateur
Radio) visited the ARRL in Newington last Thursday. He was given
a demonstration of packet radio, including traffic handling via
W1AW-4 running W0RLI software and W1AW-5 unattended digipeater.
The Chief was favorably impressed by what he saw and discussed it
at some length in a meeting afterwards. He stated that the FCC
should be encouraging development of Amateur Radio digital
networks.
ARRL President Price and several other reps, including Perry
Williams will meet with the head of the FCC's Private Radio
Bureau in Washington at the end of this month. At this meeting,
the ARRL will suggest new definitions of Amateur communications in
a "store and forward" mode versus Third Party Traffic. Both FCC
Chiefs have verbally recognized there is a difference and have
expressed willingness to consider them seperately. The League is
very optimistic on this issue. The regulatory authorities in several
European countries already differentiate handling messages on
behalf of hams versus non-Amateurs. Hopefully similar logic can
be worked into the FCC's regulations.
A second item on the agenda at this meeting will be a discussion
of who holds responsibility for "traditional" Third Party
Traffic. It is the League's position that the analogy is that of
a postcard in the Postal System. It's free and open, anyone in
the path may read it, but in most cases will not. The actual
responsibility lies with the person who originated the message,
not with each "mailman" along the route. The FCC may or may not
agree with this analogy, the League has a bit less optimism on
this.
There is a side issue here that I did not discuss with Perry:
namely the rules about plain and unencrypted communications. I
really have reservations about the recent developments in
sending binary files back and forth. I'm not sure I know all
the ramifications of this, but I sure am uneasy about someone
loading a binary file onto a PBBS to be pulled later by
someone else. In a direct QSO, there would be less of a
question. I would sure hate to "muddy the waters" when
discussing BBS freedoms with the FCC.
Depending upon the outcome of the ARRL/FCC meeting, the ARRL will
file for Reconsideration of the recent rulemaking. Perry Williams
also recommends other interested individuals and groups should
also file for reconsideration. Calm, well-thought out comments in
volume will help. (Unless I hear otherwise from NEPRA's officers,
I will also file such a motion in the name of NEPRA.)
What do we do today? Perry very quickly pointed out that no one
at the League will recommend that you do or do not continue
operating your VHF BBS in unattended mode. He said that in his
recent discussions with FCC officials, it is clear to him that
the FCC has not finally decided how to handle ham radio "store
and forward" QSOs. The recent written rulemaking was very
definitive in some ways, yet does not reflect what the various
FCC officials are saying in face-to-face conversations.
Perry Williams would not give an "official" League
recommendation, but did point out that W1AW-4 and W1AW-5 are
remaining in operation in unattended mode. In fact, this
unattended VHF BBS was demonstrated to a senior FCC official last
Thursday. Perry stated he would be "very surprised" if anyone
receives a citation for unattended operation of a BBS above 30
MHz.
What does NEPRA recommend to New England SYSOPs? The conservative
viewpoint is to operate only when the SYSOP is seated in front of
the screen with his finger on the switch. A more liberal method
is "damned the regulations, full speed ahead". I believe the
reality is some where in between. The FCC is very interested in
unattended operation on H.F., but has paid no attention to VHF
operations. Obviously, each of you must decide for yourselves.
Probably maintaining a low profile is best. I, for one, am very
willing to have an unattended VHF BBS in operation under my call.
If I had an H.F. gateway, I'd power the H.F. rig off whenever
there wasn't a licensed amateur in the house.
For the future: I (we) should file a Request for Reconsideration
with the FCC. Input is hereby solicited. Please pass on your
concerns to the traffic handlers using your BBS. The National
Traffic System should be heavily involved in this.
To quote that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra: the game
ain't over 'till it's over.
- Dick, K1OJH