[QCWA] Is APRS legal? QCWA President says NO!

[Joe Santangelo]

FCC Rule 97.199c from a copy of ARRL FCC Rule Book follows:
(c) An indicator may be included with the call sign. It must be separated
from the call sign by the slant mark or by any suitable word that denotes
the slant mark. if the indicator is self assigned, it must be included after
the call sign and must not conflict with any other indicator specified by
FCC Rules or by any prefix assigned to any other country.

73 de Joe N1JS Life member of QCWA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gene Pentecost" <gene.pentecost at ieee.org>
To: <qcwa at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:23 PM
Subject: [QCWA] Is APRS legal? QCWA President says NO!


> On pages 12-13 of the QCWA Journal, Spring 2005, President John Johnston,
> W3BE, uses a question and answer format to address the legality of some
> APRS practices.  Those of us who are familiar with APRS will question some
> of his statements, but all who have used digital modes know the MYCALL-N
> identification has been accepted and used for over twenty years.  The
> President says this does not meet the station ID requirement of Section
> 97.119(c).
>
> Rather than engage in a fruitless debate, I asked John C. Hennessee, N1KB,
> the ARRL's Regulatory Information Specialist.  His reply: "This practice
> was, is and will continue to be quite legal".  The world's leading
> authority on APRS said: "Unless I misunderstand things, this guy is so out
> of it that it is amazing".  He then continued with an historical
accounting
> of the long-standing practice of digital station ID.
>
> The full text of these replies was sent to Officers and Directors of the
> Quarter Century Wireless Association with a request that the President
> contact FCC's Riley Hollingsworth to get an opinion and publish the result
> in the next issue of the Journal.  According to two QCWA officers, the
> President refuses to answer me but will address the matter in some
> unspecified future issue.
>
> The logical question is: How or why did this happen?  President Johnston
> has a distinguished record.  Among his accomplishments listed in his
> biography on QRZ.COM is: "Retired in 1998 from the FCC after 27 years of
> regulatory work for the private radio services".  So his position cannot
be
> based on ignorance.  And if the objective of his column were to educate
the
> reader, he would be eager to correct this mistake.  So was it a
> mistake?  Is it his personal agenda?  Or could he be implementing a BoD
> decision?
>
> An e-mail to QCWA Secretary Alan Pickering, KJ9N, requested copies of the
> minutes of the Board of Directors meetings for the last year.  Alan
> initially agreed to send the information, but after a conversation with
> President Johnston wrote: "By the way, I have checked all of the QCWA
Board
> actions of the past nine months (the time I have been acting as Secretary)
> and find no references to your concern in any of the motions made or the
> discussions related thereto".  But I was really looking for any Board
> actions that might give President Johnston reason to undermine digital
> modes.  So I asked again.  He has ignored my request.
>
> So what is to be done?  If you are concerned that President Johnston is
> reinforcing the image of QCWA as a bunch of "old pharts", then make your
> view known to QCWA officers and members of the BoD.  But more important,
> let's try through the election process to get someone in the office who is
> responsive to member concerns.
>
> One good thing has come about.  The column was published without a
> disclaimer.  Future issues will contain one that indicates articles are
the
> views of the authors alone.
>
> I have not yet decided to submit this to QRZ .COM.  The benefit is
reaching
> many more QCWA members.  But the collateral damage to the QCWA
organization
> may outweigh the benefit.
>
> 73
>
> Gene Pentecost W4IMT
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> QCWA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>