[Elecraft] Amateur Station Operations - rag chews and macro clicks

[Phil Wheeler]

This list needs a "Don't read this thread" option. 
Pedantically quoting the Radio Regs and FCC regs 
seems a bit OT in an Elecraft list. It certainly 
has become tiresome! Perhaps the Moderator will agree.

Phil W7OX

On 3/16/17 3:01 PM, Colin wrote:
> Going back to basics the Radio Regulations 
> (2016) state -
>
> 1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication 
> service for the purpose of self-training,
> intercommunication and technical investigations 
> carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly 
> authorized
> persons interested in radio technique solely 
> with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
>
> 1.57 amateur-satellite service: A 
> radiocommunication service using space stations on
> earth satellites for the same purposes as those 
> of the amateur service.
>
> and more specifically -
>
> *ARTICLE 25*
> Amateur services
> Section I − Amateur service
> 25.1 § 1 Radiocommunication between amateur 
> stations of different countries shall be 
> permitted unless the administration of one of 
> the countries concerned has notified that it 
> objects to such radiocommunications. (WRC-03)
> 25.2 § 2 1) Transmissions between amateur 
> stations of different countries shall be limited 
> to communications incidental to the purposes of 
> the amateur service, as defined in No. 1.56 and 
> to remarks of a personal character. (WRC-03)
> 25.2A 1A) Transmissions between amateur stations 
> of different countries shall not be encoded for 
> the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except 
> for control signals exchanged between earth 
> command stations and space stations in the 
> amateur-satellite service. (WRC-03)
> 25.3 2) Amateur stations may be used for 
> transmitting international communications on 
> behalf of third parties only in case of 
> emergencies or disaster relief. An 
> administration may
> determine the applicability of this provision to 
> amateur stations under its jurisdiction. (WRC-03)
> 25.4 (SUP - WRC-03)
> 25.5 § 3 1) Administrations shall determine 
> whether or not a person seeking a licence to 
> operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the 
> ability to send and receive texts in Morse code 
> signals. (WRC-03)
> 25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the 
> operational and technical qualifications of any 
> person wishing to operate an amateur station. 
> Guidance for standards of competence may be
> found in the most recent version of 
> Recommendation ITU-R M.1544. (WRC-03)
> 25.7 § 4 The maximum power of amateur stations 
> shall be fixed by the administrations concerned. 
> (WRC-03)
> 25.8 § 5 1) All pertinent Articles and 
> provisions of the Constitution, the Convention 
> and of these Regulations shall apply to amateur 
> stations. (WRC-03)
> 25.9 2) During the course of their 
> transmissions, amateur stations shall transmit 
> their call sign at short intervals.
> 25.9A § 5A Administrations are encouraged to 
> take the necessary steps to allow amateur 
> stations to prepare for and meet communication 
> needs in support of disaster relief. (WRC-03)
> 25.9B § 5B An administration may determine 
> whether or not to permit a person who has been 
> granted a licence to operate an amateur station 
> by another administration to operate an amateur 
> station while that person is temporarily in its 
> territory, subject to such conditions or 
> restrictions it may impose. (WRC-03)
>
> Section II − Amateur-satellite service
> 25.10 § 6 The provisions of Section I of this 
> Article shall apply equally, as appropriate, to 
> the amateur-satellite service.
> 25.11 § 7 Administrations authorizing space 
> stations in the amateur-satellite service shall 
> ensure that sufficient earth command stations 
> are established before launch to ensure that any 
> harmful interference caused by emissions from a 
> station in the amateur-satellite service can be 
> terminated immediately (see No. 22.1). (WRC-03)
>
> I hope that helps
>
> 73
>
> Colin, G3PSM
> UK Delegate to WRC-03, WRC-07, WRC-12 and WRC-15
>
> On 16/03/2017 21:02, Dauer, Edward wrote:
>>
>> With all due respect, gents, section 97.1 is 
>> not what we in the legal biz call substantive.  
>> It is an introductory preamble included there 
>> originally for political purposes, and after 
>> enactment for purposes of interpreting the 
>> regulations that are substantive, when 
>> questions about interpretation arise.  The 
>> substantive regulations go from 97.2 ro 97.527, 
>> though there aren’t nearly 526 of them.  Those 
>> are the sections that tell us what we can and, 
>> about as frequently, what we cannot do.   The 
>> statement of purpose is legally speaking 
>> neither a grant of specific operational 
>> authority nor itself a limitation.
>>
>> As for international communications, the 
>> proscription of some forms of political 
>> discourse was not uniquely a product of the 
>> Soviet Union.  The U.S. law is in 47 C.F.R. 
>> §97.117 “International communications:
>> Transmissions to a different country, where 
>> permitted, shall be limited to communications 
>> incidental to the purposes of the amateur 
>> service [namely, the list in 97.1] and to 
>> remarks of a personal character.”
>>
>> I have not researched whether there are any 
>> judicial opinions or FCC policy statements that 
>> further explain that substantive rule.
>>
>> All of that said, nothing that anyone has 
>> written in this thread which they enjoy or 
>> dislike seems to me to be outside the scope of 
>> our legal authority.  **HOW** we do it 
>> technically and in some respects operationally 
>> (e.g. deliberate interference) is of course 
>> subject to lots of rules.  But the rest is a 
>> matter of culture, tradition, preference, and 
>> simple operating courtesy. On those things I do 
>> not opine.  I do what I enjoy.  Within the 
>> scope of the substantive law, of course.
>>
>> Ted, KN1CBR (and a lawyer)
>>
>>
>>      ------------------------------
>>           Message: 5
>>      Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:44:16 -0700
>>      From: "Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT" 
>> <KX3 at ColdRocksHotBrooms.com>
>>      To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>      Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RTTY
>>      Message-ID:
>> <c69df99f-7a91-81f7-978e-e7469655cbad at ColdRocksHotBrooms.com> 
>>
>>      Content-Type: text/plain; 
>> charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>>           Okay, Kevin....
>>           Here is the appropriate section:
>> <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f320c16fc6e027120cc58558cc7a0926&mc=true&node=se47.5.97_11&rgn=div8>
>>           I was told that basically there was 
>> no place for ragchewing in Amateur
>>      Radio -- no place at all.
>>           97.1(e) says there is a place for a 
>> good ragchew.  Not sure where
>>      contesting comes in, but I'll stipulate 
>> that it can be fit into 97.1
>>      somewhere.
>>           It does not say that every place is a 
>> good place for a ragchew, at any
>>      time.  It seems intuitively obvious that a 
>> DX pileup is neither the time
>>      nor the place.
>>           You then compare typing on a keyboard 
>> to using paddles, and going back
>>      to the post just before mine, it was about 
>> using pre-programmed macros
>>      for a contest exchange.
>>           The operators aren't really talking.  
>> They're pressing two macro keys
>>      and making an entry in the log.
>>           NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WHAT YOU LIKE 
>> TO DO, SOMEONE WILL SAY "THIS ISN'T
>>      AMATEUR RADIO."
>>           I do respectfully disagree.
>>           It may not be what I want to do, but 
>> I've seen the Full-Scan TV ops get
>>      very excited about their favored mode.  
>> Moonbounce doesn't excite me,
>>      but it excites moonbounce enthusiasts.  
>> Satellites?  Did it once, happy
>>      to know about it, not enough to really 
>> gear-up for it.
>>           There is room for all of this in 
>> Amateur Radio.
>>           ... and I'm more than happy to do 
>> something else on big Contest
>>      weekends, and to steer clear of the pileups.
>>           I won't name the person I quoted, but 
>> his technical contributions are
>>      significant.  He'd still rather carry on a 
>> conversation than just send
>>      macros.
>>           In my opinion, it is a little bit sad 
>> that we have reduced communication
>>      to a couple of macros.
>>           I don't require you to share that 
>> opinion, Kevin, nor will I deny you
>>      the pleasure of operating that way if it's 
>> what you love.
>>           I won't ridicule it either.
>>           73 -- Lynn