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

[Gene Pentecost]

At 07:37 PM 5/6/05, you wrote:
>Hi Gene:
>Thanks for your reply.
>Question is ?
>Resolved by who?
>Is there an FCC verification?
>If so, why hasn't FCC Rule 97.199c been modified? Or an addition or other
>modification to the FCC rules.
>
>I don't understand the problem! Is there one?
>Has any US Amateur been questioned or notified o any violation of their
>operating practice?  Does it make any difference?
>
>73 de Joe N1JS

Joe-

These are all good questions!  But they remind me that you and others who 
read this thread may not be familiar with some of the history.  So rather 
than answer your questions one by one, let me review a few things.  I 
apologize if you are already familiar with them.

Over twenty years ago when amateur packet began to develop, it was obvious 
multiple call sign IDs were necessary.  This could be because multiple 
transmitters were used, or a single transmitter when different paths for 
data were required.  So the use of W4MT-3, W4IMT-5, etc. was 
devised.  Frankly, I do not recall the specific regulatory action, if any, 
that legitimatized these actions.  But possibly no change in Part 97 rules 
were required.  But it is likely to have occurred during President 
Johnston's tenure with the FCC.  Never-the-less, this method of ID has 
become commonly used by tens of thousands of hams throughout the world.  As 
far as I know, no ham has ever been cited.  Nit-picking 97.199(c) would be 
of no value, so my specific proposal was:

"Have John Johnston contact Riley Hollingsworth, show him all the questions 
and answers on page 13 dealing with APRS, ask him to give an official 
opinion and publish it in the Summer 2005 Journal.  You still have time to 
do this.  And please, let's not have another dissection of the Part 97 rules."

This way, we find out if the practice is legal!  Period!

President Johnston could have come back with any number of answers.  I may 
well have disagreed with him, but that would have been the end of 
it.  Instead, he chose to ignore the request.  No comment at all.  Now I 
suggest you reread my original posting.

There is no question the practice is legal, although some Journal readers 
may not accept that if they have never used the several digital modes.  It 
is really about why President Johnston refuses to address the issue.  I 
SUSPECT it is because he knew it was legal when he wrote the 
article.  Should this be of concern to QCWA members?  I think so.

A number of years ago, the QCWA would take a stand on issues vital to the 
future of amateur radio.  And they were listened to!  Lately, I believe, 
this influence has faded because the organization has become introspective; 
ie, it looks only to the older generation and the way amateur radio used to 
be.  President Johnston may be aiming to please his constituents by leading 
them to believe that the fastest growing mode in ham radio, APRS, is not 
legal. I do not know, and President Johnston is not saying!

So now here is the issue expressed in my posting:

"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."

73

Gene W4IMT