[RTTY] Legality of Circumventing Commercial Maritime ISP Services??

[Al Kozakiewicz]

Besides, it's not the location, it's the content of the communication.  

Careful, though.  Is it a pecuniary interest to use an autopatch instead of my cell phone to call home in order to save a few cents?  What if I don't own a cell phone?  Or does the widespread availability of cellular phone service now make it illegal to use an autopatch for anything except 911 calls?

Personally, I think this is a line of argument fraught with unintended consequences.  A better argument is made concerning the assertion that anyone initiating a Winlink session is a "control operator" in the sense that the FCC means.

Al
AB2ZY


-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter Laws
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:12 PM
To: RTTY contest group
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Legality of Circumventing Commercial Maritime ISP Services??

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, John Becker <w0jab at big-river.net> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/2014 5:35 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps someone should point out to Sailmail the amount of revenue 
>> they are losing. Of course, we can't be sure if those transmissions 
>> coming from sailboats are actually coming from sailboats because the 
>> content of the message is obscured ...
>
> So your wanting to restrict a HAMS use of the bands by location?



In the same way that I want to restrict an amateur's use of the bands for communications in which they have a pecuniary interest, yes.  I didn't make the rules, I just try to abide by them.



--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty