RE: [CQ-Contest] Synthesizer Opinions....

[Eric Hilding <dx35@hilding.com>]

Gerry, W1VE wrote:

> I did not feel that I was broadcasting, since it is specificly 
prohibited in the FCC rules.

Ooops...I must have missed something here.  "What" is specifically 
prohibited?  Using someone else's voice?

> No AT&T laywer got on my case.   Anyway, I am using the NeoSpeech voice now.
> I understand that I am using the voice files "for personal use."  I do not
> think any of the companies would object.  Legally-purchased copies of these
> files, used for Amateur Radio purposes, should be a good thing for these
> companies -- it exposes their product to a wide technical community.

We are on the same page in terms of intended use being a "good 
thing".  However, the licensed company rep said that ANY kind of 
"broadcasting" over ANY kind of airwaves falls under the AT&T licensing 
requirement for Broadcasting.  This is a one time $1,500 "setup fee" Plus 
$1,000 ($2,500 for the 1st year), and $1,000 per year afterwards.  I 
expressed my opinion that this was ridiculous, and that AT&T decision 
makers in this arena need to re-think their narrowly-tailored pricing 
schema.  Where we left things I am going to send a letter suggesting a 
re-structuring of the pricing schedule for NON-Profit Amateur Radio use.

The rep did elude to something that if the natural voice-fonts were used 
for only two-way communication between two individuals, then "personal use" 
might apply.  However, any "CQ" or even holding one's "run frequency" by 
just repeating your callsign (with or without "Test") could be construed as 
"soliciting", which then equals "Broadcasting" in AT&T's mindset.  Pooh pooh.

> Nuff said -- we can take this to the Amateur Radio Law reflector if 
you're worried.

I believe this would be appropriate...didn't know there was one :-)

Tnx & 73...

Rick, K6VVA


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest