[aprssig] Pagers as part of the Text Messaging Initiative

Ronny Julian k4rjj at bellsouth.net
Mon Jan 26 22:19:38 EST 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.

Ronny K4RJJ

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  
> system.
> Just please, don't argue that your idea is good, therefore it must be  
> legal!
> Steve K4HG
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Robert Bruninga wrote:

More information about the aprssig mailing list