Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bbn!clements
From: clements@bbn.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Ham radio & USENET
Message-ID: <4008@bbn.COM>
Date: Tue, 1-Sep-87 00:08:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbn.4008
Posted: Tue Sep  1 00:08:42 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Sep-87 01:46:05 EDT
References: <275@ndmath.UUCP> <810@qiclab.pdx.com>
Reply-To: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 69
Xref: utgpu rec.ham-radio:2222 comp.dcom.modems:811
Summary: More debunking needed

This is a flame about people posting pure nonsense to the net.
Why do people do things like this?  It means you can't trust anything
you read on the net (probably including this message, too).   Damn.
I have deleted the poster's name, since it's just one example of
a general problem - failure to engage brain before putting mouth in gear.

A totally uninformed poster writes:
>I was under the impression that hams are _specifically_ forbidden to 
>broadcast.

True, but with a _specific_ definition of "broadcasting". At least s/he
admits it's an "impression", but why post if that's all it is?  It
certainly doesn't help anyone.

>(ie point-to-point communications only). 

Total hogwash.

>The only thing they are
>allowed to send without a _specific_ recipient is a CQ (ie "anybody out there
>want to talk").

Again, total hogwash.

Section 97.91 reads:   "In addition to beacon operation and radio control
operation [discussed elsewhere in the rules], the following kinds of
one-way communications, addressed to amateur stations, are authorized
and will not be construed as broadcasting: (a) Emergency communications,
including bona fide emergency drill practice transmissions; (b) Information
bulletins consisting solely of subject matter having direct interest to
the amateur radio service as such; (c) Round-table discussions [...];
and (d) Code practice transmissions intended for persons learning
or improving proficiency in the international Morse code."

Section 97.113 prohibits broadcasting and defines it for the amateur radio
service: "Subject to the provisions of 97.91 [above], an amateur station shall
not be used to engage in any form of broadcasting, that is, the dissemination
of radio communications intended to be received BY THE PUBLIC [emphasis added]
directly or by the intermediary of relay stations, nor for the retransmission
by automatic means of programs or signals emanating from any class of station
other than amateur."

Nothing about point-to-point, or about specific recipients.

>Of course the ARRL station has an exemption for the code practice and
>ARRL bulletin transmissions, 

Also total hogwash.  Lots of other stations transmit bulletins
and code practice sessions.  No exemption needed.   (But see below *)

>but news would be stretching things a _lot_!!

Finally something true!  But the reasons are the third-party rules and the
non-business rules, as previously posted.

* There IS a paragraph which was written to allow the ARRL to pay their
full-time operators.  This is a narrow exception to the "Thou shalt not make
any money from thy ham station" rule, for stations which send at least 40 hours
per week of code practice and bulletins, and which meet some other
requirements.  It allows only salaries for their time while sending such
bulletins and code practice.  W1AW meets this paragraph and nobody else does,
though they could if they wanted.  See section 97.112.

Sorry, this is getting a bit far from the original comp.dcom.modems article
about using Amateur Radio to distribute USENET articles.  But I just
couldn't let such falsehoods stand.

/Rcc  (K1BC)
clements@bbn.com