Slashdot Mirror

Being able to legally call a product with no cocoa at all "chocolate" doesn't help, either.

According to my understanding of US regulations, you actually can't actually call a product with no cocoa "chocolate". It'll be labeled "chocolate candy", "chocolate-flavored", "chocolatey", or something like that.

There's a separate rule for "white chocolate", which contains cocoa butter instead.

should file an fcc complaint
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...)

Those are FAA requirements, from the same people, who only a few years ago claimed (and compelled the airlines to claim), your cellphone could bring down your airliner...

The FAA made no such claim, and the article you linked to does not state this either. In fact, the only mention of bringing down a plane in your article is a Boeing engineer (not the FAA) stating "It's not necessarily that a phone can bring down an airplane". You need to read all the words in an article in the order they are printed to understand it, you can't skip around and see "bring down an airplane" and "FAA" in the same article and combine them as you want, nor can you ignore words like "not" placed before what you want to claim.

The FAA state it is up to the airlines to prove cell phone usage is safe. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.11Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR 91.21 The FCC currently bans their use in aircraft, so why would any airline go through the effort of getting FAA approval when they still can't allow them?

Read the rule yourself: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...

I'm not at all familiar with US law. But something looks strange there. "Usually" (in other parts of the world) regulations end with a chapter about consequences when not abiding to the rules. I can't find anything like that in the linked document.

So in case of a violation, what are the consequences? Is it the job of the government to prosecute in any case being detected? Is it competitors who can ask the government to enforce it? Individuals being affected by non-compliance? Criminal case, civil?

Except for contact lenses: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...

They definitely do: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...

Whether you think it's worth their time or not is a separate matter.

8 business hours. But if the medical office doesn't exist (e.g. you get the voicemail greeting of some guy named Steve), then that doesn't count as an attempt.

I should mention that this rule is specific to contact lenses: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...

Read the rule yourself: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/t...

I don't see rotenone or azadirachtin listed...

Full-size manned and unmanned aircraft are required to have ADS-B transmitters.

No. The requirement is airspace-based, not aircraft. And not until 2020. 91.225 specifies where aircraft need ADS-B OUT.

1. Class A airspace. Not relevant to most drones, and requires ADS-B OUT ES (extended squitter). Most drones don't have squitters to start with, but they also don't fly in class A airspace.

2. Class B and C airspace. Some of this extends below 400', so appears to apply to drones.

3. Within 30 nautical miles of airspace listed in app. D. (Big airports.) Also surface up.

4. Class E above 10000' MSL, excluding airspace below 2500' AGL. Since Part 107 has a limit of 400' (as do many COAs, and the hobby rules), this doesn't apply to drones.

However, here's this:

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed,

Now I can't speak for all drones, but I know none of the DJIs I have owned or used have electrical systems that are certified to FAA standards. Does yours? Also, the rules for ADS-B require GPS certified to FAA standards. Does the GPS in your drone meet the FAA certification standards? I'm not going to go look it up, but I'm pretty sure that WAAS is a requirement, and I don't know of a drone system that has WAAS augmentation.

this would be an ideal time to push for miniturization of the technology to use on drones.

The FAA regulations require ADS-B OUT equipment manufactured to specific TSO standards. Manned aircraft do not need, and therefore will not get, ADS-B equipment that is small enough to put on a drone, and it will cost a lot of money for such equipment to be built. The second that you make it an FAA TSO product and mandated in aircraft, the price multiplies by a factor of ten, at least. For example, the Icom IC-A220 Panel Mount VHF Air Band Transceiver has a list price of $2200 for what amounts to an 8 watt AM VHF dual channel radio with built in weather radio. I can buy a similarly functional handheld (on FM VHF) from China for less than $100.

Not to mention, flooding the ADS-B system with Phantom 4 and 3 and Mavic and all the other mid-sized drone data is going to create havoc. Many years ago they came out with Mode C transponders which report aircraft altitude and made it similarly mandatory to ADS-B. The situation is currently that you can be told to turn your transponder to standby (not off, but not responding) in areas of high density transponder traffic. Let's not make ADS-B so saturated that it suffers the same fate.

Too bad it's not for the airlines to decide what is and isn't covered. The LAW says that airlines must reimburse up to $3500 for lost or damaged property without restriction.

...no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

Part 15.5

They define "harmful interference" as

Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.

Part 15.3

No, your monitor is not a radio device.

...no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

Part 15.5

They define "harmful interference" as

Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.

Part 15.3

No, your monitor is not a radio device.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/re...

"Individuals not members of designated groups. (1) An individual who is not a member of one of the groups presumed to be socially disadvantaged in paragraph (b)(1)"

the FCC eased the regulations on CB but didn't "give up", there are still regulations for the power, antenna height, frequency, etc.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

. . .at least by the definitions used by the FAA. See CFR 14, 101.22, viz.:

101.22 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this subpart:

(a) Class 1—Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that:
                    (1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant;
                    (2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
                    (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic;
                    (4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and
                    (5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant.

(b) Class 2—High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket that is propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds) or less.

(c) Class 3—Advanced High-Power Rocket means an amateur rocket other than a model rocket or high-power rocket.

Using these definitions, in the US the rocket is legally either a "High-Power Rocket" or an "Advanced High-Power Rocket", depending on the total impulse of the motor(s), but it is clearly not a "Model Rocket."

I guess according to you, the people in the US Army at Yuma don't know how to run their own facility.

Now you are being stupid, because you know I didn't say that. I replied to your asinine claim that FAA has no control over MOA. Quote from you: "The FAA does not control airspace in military operating areas (MOAs), which Yuma is one of. " That's ridiculous.

Your "cite" is called the FAR -- Federal Aviation Regulations, and the Aeronautical Information Manual. For example, AIM 3-4-5, Military Operations Areas: "a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic." IF, as you ignorantly claim, FAA has no regulatory authority over a MOA, there could be no IFR (or VFR) traffic therein. It would be (and is, according to you) uncontrolled. A civil aircraft could simply wander about the MOA in IMC as they desired because FAA has no authority to control them there.

Before you start to yammer that the military has regulatory control over MOA, consider AIM 3-4-5 (c): "Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories." Notice that it does not say they MUST contact someone for permission to enter, it says they SHOULD (recommended) contact the "controlling agency" (which is an FAA facility, usually the encompassing center), for traffic advisories.

Further, FAR 91.1 says, in part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and SS91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) have nothing to do with military (public) aircraft, and (a) does not exempt public aircraft. It refers only to "aircraft". The word "military" appears 11 times in 14CFR91, none in the context of "MOA" or exclusion of certain special use airspace from FAA regulation. There are specific exemptions from certain FAA regulations for military aircraft in 14CFR91, but no blanket one that would remove MOA from FAA controlled airspace.

You have no clue about FAA regulations or authority, so please stop. Yes, Yuma has authorizations to operate UAS, but that does not remove FAA control from that MOA. MOA are not isolated from controlled airspace in any way -- they are non-regulatory and have no different rules than the airspace they are a part of.

No, a single sensor wouldn't meet the reqs:

S4.2 In the case of vehicles powered by electric motors, the words throttle and idle refer to the motor speed controller and motor shutdown, respectively.

So I'll substitute that in the following text.

S5.1 There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the motor speed controller to motor shutdown within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the motor speed controller shall return to motor shutdown within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

S5.2 The motor speed controller shall return to motor shutdown from any accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point. The return to motor shutdown shall occur within the time limit specified by S5.3, measured either from the time of severance or disconnection or from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver.

  The text was clearly written with old-school gas vehicles in mind ("source of energy" and such to pull on mechanical linkages), but they're certainly not going to let drive-by-wire vehicles get by with a more lax reading than traditional vehicles.

they're designed to not fail catastrophically

Correct.

What they're not generally designed to do is survive in an operational manner.

Wrong.
See here for the requirements. This article (quoted below, emphasis added) puts the former article into easier-to-understand English.

Current standards, for both multiple and single bird engine ingestions into a single fixed wing aircraft engine, exist in equivalent form in 14 CFR Part 33-77 and in EASA Airworthiness Code CS-E 800 ’Bird Strike and Ingestion’. The basic requirements for engine ingestion were revised in 2000 to take account of both evidence of an increase in the size of birds impacting aircraft and issues raised by the development of very large inlet, high by pass ratio, engines. The requirements, to be demonstrated by testing, are, in outline, now as follows:

* That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, ingestion of a single bird of maximum weight between 1.8kg and 3.65kg dependent upon engine inlet area shall not cause an engine to catch fire, suffer uncontained failure or become impossible to shut down and shall enable at least 50% thrust to be obtained for at least 14 minutes after ingestion. These requirements to be met with no thrust lever movement on an affected engine until at least 15 seconds have elapsed post impact.

* That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, ingestion of a single bird of maximum weight 1.35kg shall not cause a sustained thrust or power loss of more than 25%, shall not require engine shut down within 5 minutes and shall not result in hazardous engine condition.

* That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, simultaneous ingestion of up to 7 medium sized birds of various sizes between weight 0.35kg and weight 1.15kg, with the number and size depending upon the engine inlet area, shall not cause the engine to suddenly and completely fail and it shall continue to deliver usable but slowly decreasing minimum thrust over a period of 20 minutes after ingestion. [Engines with inlet sizes of less than 0.2 m2 (300 square inches) only have to meet the standard for a single bird of this weight]

* That at a typical initial climb speed and take off thrust, simultaneous ingestion of up to 16 small sized birds of weight 0.85kg, with the number dependent upon the engine inlet area, shall not cause the engine to suddenly and completely fail and it shall continue to deliver usable but slowly decreasing minimum thrust over a period of 20 minutes after ingestion. [Direct testing to this standard may not be required if the medium bird multiple standard is demonstrated or if this bird size can pass the inlet guide vanes into the rotor blades]

FCC OET Bulletin No. 63, October 1993:

Do you notice that this bulletin is 23 years old, perhaps?

47CFR15 has an entire subpart H that deals with "white space transmitters". That subpart covers an AWFUL lot of Part 15 transmitters that are none of intermittent, periodic, or biomedical telemetry, but live in the TV broadcast bands, all unlicensed.

The times they is a changin', Jeb. Next thing you'll know, they'll have phones that you don't need to jingle Mable to get you connected to someone else. What is the world coming to?

It's probably somewhere in Subtitle B if you want to go hunting:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

This marketing press-release is making the rounds, and with each retelling it's getting more farfetched.

No, you will not be able to *ever* call up a helicopter to pick you up with Uber. This is just a marketing press release (and fairly effective obviously).

In the United States helicopter manufacturers don't fly helicopter -- helicopter flight operations companies do. Those that do on-demand (charter) flights are licensed under "Part 135" (14 CFR 135 to be precise). See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te... for details.

Part 135 operators have strict requirements for pilots, aircraft, maintenance, and flight operations. They also have requirements for passengers some of which are dictated by the TSA. PDF (sorry): http://nata.aero/data/files/gi...

Now if Uber and Airbus were *TRULY* committed to doing something together, then Airbus would provide aircraft at reduced lease rates to operating companies that could then partner with Uber. Uber would deliver the passenger to the helicopter; the helicopter would do the long-haul flight; another Uber car would deliver the passenger to the final destination. All this is doable, but none of it is in the press-release. None of it is in the plans. None of it is going to make a flight-ops company buy multi-million-dollar aircraft.

It sure would be nice though. I'd love to fly more people around in a helicopter.

Ehud Gavron
FAA Commercial Helicopter Pilot
 

Unless my info is out of date, tethered drones are classified as "moored balloons" at the moment. Slightly more restricted than kites. Key points:

• Stay under 150 ft, unless you notify air traffic control - in which case stay under 500 ft. If you go higher than 150 ft, you need to light or flag the tether.
• Stay 5 miles away from an airport
• If you are within 250 ft of a tall structure, you can go as high as that structure.
• Only fly in daylight unless you have a lit tether and drone.
• There has to be a fail-safe where the drone descends if the tether breaks.

"Basic" is defined by the FCC. Some may break the law and call it "limited basic"

From the page you linked: "Cable systems generally are required to offer a 'basic tier' of programming".
I'm aware that the page you linked is no substitute for the text of the regulation But the wording presented on this page ("a 'basic tier'") implies to me a requirement that at least one tier of TV service has a channel set and price regulated by local government. Section 76.901(a) defines the "basic service tier" for purposes of the FCC regulation. I don't see how it forbids offering other tiers also branded "basic", as Comcast does, so long as one of them is the FCC-mandated "basic service tier". Or is it time to report Comcast to the FCC?

Nearly all have a sub-$20 basic. And that gets you in the door for Internet, phone and the other services.

But does it get you in the door for Internet with a higher ca^W monthly usage allowance? For example, Comcast has experimented in the past with a 5 GB/mo usage allowance, which I admit is more reminiscent of cellular or satellite Internet service than of typical cable Internet service in the United States. Is there a regulation that forbids cable operators from requiring a subscription to what the regulation calls a "cable programming services tier" (that is, something beyond basic) before the Internet subscriber can increase his monthly usage allowance?

LTE-U is a proprietary system developed by the LTE-U group for use in North America.

LTE-U is built on the global 3GPP Release 10 specification for LTE. It is backed by the leading providers of LTE technology. How many backers does a technology need to go from "proprietary" to "standard"? 10? 100? 1000?

It takes advantage of the fact that the 5Ghz band is not regulated in the US.

False. The 5GHz band is regulated by FCC Part 15 rules, specifically subpart E (regulations for the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure devices). Here's a link to the US regulations which govern LTE-U.

LTE-U does not implement the "Listen before talk" mechanism used in WiFi to allow stations to co-exists on the same frequency.

Neither does Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy, 8021.15.4 (used for ZigBee and countless other proprietary protocols), cordless phones, AMIMON's 5GHz Wireless HDI "standard" (it's backed by only 13 companies - does that qualify it as a standard?), Nordic semiconductor's proprietary 2.4GHz transceivers, TI's proprietary 2.4GHz transceivers, Digi's proprietary 900MHz and 2.4GHz transceivers, every 2.4GHz radio used for RC cars/helicopters/drones, and countless others. Should I keep listing them?

Tests by companies like Intel show that CSAT can greatly impact packet latency in WiFi which impacts things like VoIP and streaming video

Please provide a link to the test results.

What does the frame structure have to do with complying with Part 15? From a physical layer perspective, the transmitter (the LTE-U small cell) abides by the maximum output power, maximum EIRP, and spectral density limits set in Part 15. Here are the rules.

Um, the "shill for money" program got busted, so don't wait by your mailbox for your $2500.

Yes. The American Egg Board is an FDA-established entity specifically to market an agricultural commodity to consumers. It's intentionally a joint effort between the industry and the agency, so bias is inevitable. It's advertising.

A lot of the sturm und drang on this page, and in the media, is the unfairness of it, but honestly, "unfair" is to be expected from advertising.

Real opprobrium is called for, though, because this attack marketing campaign appears to violate the actual regulations with respect AEB advertising:

(e) No advertising or promotion programs shall use false or unwarranted claims or make any reference to private brand names of eggs, egg products, spent fowl, and products of spent fowl or use unfair or deceptive acts or practices with respect to quality, value, or use of any competing product.

(2015 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XI, Part 1250, Section 1250.341(e); emphasis added)

Now, lawyers could make shedloads of money arguing about the legal boundaries of "unfair or deceptive acts", but I suspect that if you take the AEB's acts to a judge (assuming you find one who hadn't already been bought out by the industry), he would assess that the attack marketing and astroturfing would qualify. Certainly, with all the publicity, the bureaucrats responsible for administering the government part of the program (and enforcing the rules) would be encouraged to see it that way. (Although bureaucrats are also known for occasionally doubling down on stupid and digging in. At least, until the lawsuit, after which the "no fault admitted" settlement puts the entire issue to bed.)

"tl;dr:" The point that the AEB attack campaign violates the intent of the controlling regulation is supportable, and is the legal sticking point in play. The AEB attack campaign is also unethical, but then again ethics is what makes loser business lose. Winner businesses don't let themselves be burdened by anything that doesn't have an explicit and costly punishment for violating.

Which is stated as what, exactly, (with a cite).

The same cite I gave last time. 14 CFR 97.119:

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
...
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface --
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

And no, I don't think an unmanned drone is a helicopter by FAA rules either.

Sorry, but the FAA disagrees. Once they class a drone as an aircraft, then 14 CFR 1.1 says:

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

And "rotorcraft"? "Rotorcraft means a heavier-than-air aircraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors."

A quad-copter is a helicopter according to the FAR.

How long exactly can i hover a drone over your back yard before it irritates you 'substantially'?

The law doesn't talk about "irritate". You're changing the words to make a straw argument.

not a generic "infraction". A "trespass". That's a specific legal term.

The text you didn't quote despite relying on it for the rest of your argument doesn't talk about trespass, it talks about "infraction". But you are right. "Trespass" is a specific legal term. In Kentucky, trespass law says "A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly enters ...". A quad-copter is not a person.

And trespass by an unmanned unregistered drone is new legal territory... if a car parks on my lawn

Not so new territory. People have hit tennis balls and baseballs onto someone else's property and it hasn't been trespass. Inanimate objects cannot trespass. And if a car parks itself on your lawn, well, it's autonomous and therefore perfect. It can make no mistakes, cause no accidents.

I suppose it is ok to shoot a "trespassing" autonomous vehicle, too. It has cameras! It may be spying on you.

The difference is mainly in legal vs illegal. It's not illegal to hide yourself, but it IS illegal using the previous method. Broadcasting all over a licensed band ...

1. It's not "broadcasting", it's point-to-point data.

2. It's unlicensed for the devices that were being used.

HAMs self report, no FCC required. Hell, we'd grab the YAGIs and make a game out of finding the prick.

Yeah, go track down a legal secondary user of a band where you are a secondary user yourself and Part 97 (97.301 and 97.303(e)) tells you that you must accept interference from, and then what? Force them to stop their legal use of the frequencies you want to call your own?

The "previous method" is no different than the current one. You didn't bother to read any of the discussion about this in the earlier /. dust-up and conspiracy party, did you? It was pointed out by several people, myself included, that the ProxyHam hardware shown in the pictures they released were simple 900 MHz unlicensed data radios and cheap Yagi-Uda antennas. That's not illegal. They weren't shut down by some awful FCC or NSA conspiracy to stop some dangerous hacking activity, because it was both legal and the intended use for the commercial products they were using.

The difference is mainly in legal vs illegal. It's not illegal to hide yourself, but it IS illegal using the previous method. Broadcasting all over a licensed band ...

1. It's not "broadcasting", it's point-to-point data.

2. It's unlicensed for the devices that were being used.

HAMs self report, no FCC required. Hell, we'd grab the YAGIs and make a game out of finding the prick.

Yeah, go track down a legal secondary user of a band where you are a secondary user yourself and Part 97 (97.301 and 97.303(e)) tells you that you must accept interference from, and then what? Force them to stop their legal use of the frequencies you want to call your own?

The "previous method" is no different than the current one. You didn't bother to read any of the discussion about this in the earlier /. dust-up and conspiracy party, did you? It was pointed out by several people, myself included, that the ProxyHam hardware shown in the pictures they released were simple 900 MHz unlicensed data radios and cheap Yagi-Uda antennas. That's not illegal. They weren't shut down by some awful FCC or NSA conspiracy to stop some dangerous hacking activity, because it was both legal and the intended use for the commercial products they were using.

The Novice license stopped being the path to entry

"Path to entry" is not the same as the lowest level license class.

Similarly, FCC actually raised code speed requirements at the behest of ARRL.

You're talking about the original move to incentive licensing where higher class licenses had access to a bit more spectrum and earned that through both more advanced testing and faster code requirements. That was a VERY long time ago. That was the system in place when I was first licensed more than 40 years ago. You make it sound like the speeds were going up up up until you came along to lobby for them to go away by simply not using code.

And that "20 wpm test" you passed? You didn't need to pass that test to use, or not use, CW at 20wpm. You needed to pass that test to get a more advanced class of license which had access to more spectrum. Please tell me that you never used any of the additional privileges that came with that license as your way of "lobbying" against that class of license, because "20 wpm CW" is not a privilege that came with passing that test or the license.

There was only a token continuing monitoring of Morse ship transmissions, now entirely gone.

Yes, as I said, the dependence on CW for maritime emergency traffic went away, and thus also the requirement in the international treaty that required it for HF frequency access.

Now there are more hams than ever, and Amateur Radio is healthy.

Yes, and many of them are government or NGO employees who are getting licenses because they are being paid to do so. Congratulations on winning.

There isn't really any reason for government agencies and NGOs to use Amateur Radio. They have satellite phones, etc.

Now you're just showing your ignorance. Do you realize how much it costs to keep a satphone account active? Do you not realize how many ham radios you can buy for that money? And do you not realize the hassle and expense involved in coordinating and building out another land mobile frequency when the ones you already have are getting close to capacity? That's if you can get another frequency at all.

Perhaps you just aren't paying attention to the FCC enforcement bureau actions regarding intruding users, such as the Indianapolis city police. They aren't the only ones who were and are picking up cheap ham radios and using them without bothering with licenses.

And perhaps you just don't realize how much money governments and NGOs can save by underbuilding their communications systems and relying on amateur radio to save them when the ice storm hits the fan.

No, they SHOULD have no reason to use amateur radio, but that's not reality. "Save money" is. "Easy to access" is. "Use free existing infrastructure" is. "Lots of open spectrum" is. All are reasons for governments and NGO to use amateur radio, so your claim that they have no reason is patent nonsense.

But if it really bothers you, why not lobby against allowing compensation for operators?

Because that battle has been lost, and it was lost when our own ARRL got their employees a special exemption. 47CFR97.113(iv) is written to such an extent that nobody but ARRL/W1AW could meet the requirements. That section is there only so ARRL can have paid employees running the W1AW code practice transmissions.

Today any attempt to get the governmental/NGO exemption removed would be met with a hailstorm of opposing comments from all those governmental and NGO that you say have no need for amateur radio, but who were very effective in presenting the case that "amateur radio saves lives" and "when all else fails

Until 2007, the U.S. Federal Government required it before they would license all but the lowest grade of Amateur Radio hobbyists.

1. The novice class license had a Morse code requirement. That was the lowest grade of amateur radio license. Five WPM.

2. The Morse code requirement was mandated by the ITU treaty (International Telecommunications Union) that required anyone who had access to HF bands (that included Novice class amateur radio licensees) to know Morse code. That requirement was based on maritime safety, as an ability to read CW could help during emergencies. Satellite and other systems have replaced the old radio op sending the weak SOS signal from a sinking vessel, so that requirement went away.

As part of my lobbying effort, I successfully passed a test for receiving code at 20 words per minute, and then subsequently refused to use the code on the air.

As if the FCC cared that you passed the test and then never used code on the air. I dare say, there were many many people who lobbied the same way -- without any effect, and without even knowing it. Does it count that I passed the test and used CW exactly once, forty years ago?

We won.

There are a lot of people who lost, or at least have a good argument that they did. If nothing else, CW was a good way of holding back the push for government agencies and NGO to get access to amateur frequencies.

With the loss of CW and the changes to the rules, all it takes for a government agency to get essentially free access to the ham bands is having their employees pass a 34 question test. At that point, paid employees can use the ham bands for exercises and drills:

(i) A station licensee or station control operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours.

NGO are limited to one hour per week but for two weeks they can be 3 days long. There is no time limit on government-sponsored "drills".

I know that government agencies are doing exactly this, because I've VEd exam sessions where they had employees getting their licenses.

Accessing an open WiFi connection using a repeater would not violate the CFAA -- the connection is open and your device would log on to it. You'd be using it the way it was intended. Of course, The DOJ claims that simply violating terms of service can make you a federal felon, but that's wrong. Read Prof. Orin Kerr's work for more on this

On the other hand, the FCC allows anyone to use the 900MHz band but tightly regulates what can be done there (for example, no "retransmission of .. signals emanating from ... radio station other than an amateur radio station", which likely does make this idea illegal. See 47 CFR Part 97.

Are you sure a pilots license is required? No license is required to fly an Ultralight aircraft.

The definition of "ultralight" includes: "(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed." I.e., it must not stall if you go faster than 24 knots. If your fans stop and you're still going 40 knots (74 kph), but you have zero lift, you've stalled. As you fall you will reach terminal velocity. That will probably be more than 24 knots, but you will still have zero lift.

I don't see any technical details other than planned cruise speed, but if it carries more than 5 gallons of fuel or weighs more than 254 pounds dry, it also isn't an ultralight.

If it is an ultralight, the prohibition that it cannot be operated over congested areas of cities, towns, or settlements, or over any open-air assembly of persons makes this a pretty expensive toy.

While there is no legal definition of "congested area", the FAA has said it will be determined on a case by case basis, and cases come about when someone complains. So, if you're flying one of these things over someone's head and they complain, you are going to have to defend yourself.

Are you sure a pilots license is required? No license is required to fly an Ultralight aircraft.

The definition of "ultralight" includes: "(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed." I.e., it must not stall if you go faster than 24 knots. If your fans stop and you're still going 40 knots (74 kph), but you have zero lift, you've stalled. As you fall you will reach terminal velocity. That will probably be more than 24 knots, but you will still have zero lift.

I don't see any technical details other than planned cruise speed, but if it carries more than 5 gallons of fuel or weighs more than 254 pounds dry, it also isn't an ultralight.

If it is an ultralight, the prohibition that it cannot be operated over congested areas of cities, towns, or settlements, or over any open-air assembly of persons makes this a pretty expensive toy.

While there is no legal definition of "congested area", the FAA has said it will be determined on a case by case basis, and cases come about when someone complains. So, if you're flying one of these things over someone's head and they complain, you are going to have to defend yourself.

Agree. I've personally read 900MHz backscatter tags at more than 10m. I _think_ we used a 1W transmitter with a legal-limit (6 dBi) antenna, but it might've been a lower-power transmitter with a higher gain (narrower beamwidth) antenna. These were GEN-I tags from 10 years ago.

Title 47 Part 15 15.247(b)(3) and (4)

Flying an unregistered ultralight vehicle isn't illegal in the US (eCFR.gov).

This should be amusing to watch.

Not quite, the FAA might have a few concerns...

Geebus ! god save us from these short-sighted MoFos.

I would like to say that the Dept of State needs to know about this.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt22.1.121

However, too many members of the Executive Branch in DC seem to hate the USA more than they hate the Chinese and are likely to WANT this to happen to all our Corps.

-- kjh

Here you go.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/

3 links at the bottom of the page going over regulation for government, non-government, and hobby usage, including relevent references to existing law.

And none of those laws pertain to drones. At most they give the FAA authority to regulate them. That means the FAA can create regulations. It doesn't mean that they can put up a webpage and tell people what to do.

By all means cite a law or regulation you believe says otherwise. However, I want a citation of a specific passage of law, not an FAA website.

Hint, you can find it all at one of these two sites:
http://uscode.house.gov/
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/EC...

Every enforceable law has a basis in one of those.

Here you go:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

Otherwise known as 47 CFR 8 "PRESERVING THE OPEN INTERNET"

I understand Part 15 (as well as Part 97, since I'm licensed under those rules). The mechanisms mentioned in the GP _do_ exist in law for 5GHz U-NII (read WiFi) systems. Please refer to Title 47 Part 15, Subpart E, particularly 15.407(h)(1) and (2) and also 15.37(e).

Also, (if I read it correctly) 15.37(h) forbids the marketing or sale of devices that use any digital modulation technique other than Spread Spectrum operating in the 5725-5850 MHz bands starting on June 2, 2016.

The definition of "digital modulation" is distinct from SS - from 15.403(f):

(f) Digital modulation. The process by which the characteristics of a carrier wave are varied among a set of predetermined discrete values in accordance with a digital modulating function as specified in document ANSI C63.17-1998.

So let's get to details and look at 33.76 regarding bird strike. The rules regarding what an aircraft engine should be able to ingest are enlightening: even the largest engines are only certified safe to fly after ingesting a bird of 8lb. This is a lot less than a person (that was a ridiculous example from the GP; ingesting a person would destroy an engine). Birds are obviously a lot more easily ingested than a carbon-fibre and steel drone.

Any reasonably large drone would have enough mass to endanger a civil airliner and you're just playing the numbers until one is brought down with three to four hundred deaths.

So let's get to details and look at 33.76 regarding bird strike. The rules regarding what an aircraft engine should be able to ingest are enlightening: even the largest engines are only certified safe to fly after ingesting a bird of 8lb. This is a lot less than a person (that was a ridiculous example from the GP; ingesting a person would destroy an engine). Birds are obviously a lot more easily ingested than a carbon-fibre and steel drone.

Any reasonably large drone would have enough mass to endanger a civil airliner and you're just playing the numbers until one is brought down with three to four hundred deaths.

"Navigable airspace" actually has a definition, you know.

"Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft. By policy, the term "airspace above minimum altitudes of flight" is interpreted to mean "airspace at or above minimum flight altitudes."

The referenced 14 CFR 91.119 defines minimum altitudes as altitudes allowing a safe emergency landing, and various other restrictions depending on whether you're over a "congested area", "other than congested area", or a "sparsely populated area".

So if you're over cornfields, the plains, a beach, or a lake (with no boats within 500 feet) it's perfectly legal to fly at 20 feet, and that counts as "navigable airspace". Hence the FAA purview. It's well established that the FAA has authority over all airspace in the country. The only rebuke the FAA has gotten in court has been "you have to go through rulemaking for this, you know" - which is precisely what they're doing.

Frankly, these drone idiots are ruining things for everybody. Model aircraft folks came to an understanding with the FAA something like 30 years ago, and the rules were quite sensible, and kept everybody safe and out of each other's way. But in comes Mr. Drone flying his just-bought Phantom out of sight at 1500 feet in an approach path, and now they have to regulate it.

I'm a pilot, and getting too close to birds gives me the willies. But birds don't have metal. If your toy puts a hole in my windshield with a closing speed of 230 MPH, it will probably kill me - what skin do you have in the game?

Title 21 of the US Code of federal regulations (21 CFR) lists all of the ingredients approved for use in the US food supply, whether for humans or animals. The US is a net exporter of corn and soy, and China is a net importer, so your example is not the best but I get your point.

More importantly, so does the FDA. They are currently working on the second draft of the proposed rules to cover verification that imported food products are produced to US standards as part of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). FSMA is the most extensive revision of US food and feed laws since the original 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. One of the proposed regulations is to cover Foreign Supplier Verification, by which importers must certify (through inspections) that foreign companies are following the same rules as US based companies when producing their products for export to the US. Furthermore, the FDA plans to begin on-site inspections of foreign sites at a minimum of every 3 years. For those sites that are classified as a higher risk level, they will be inspecting every year, and only the first inspection is free. The FDA will bill the company for the cost of follow up inspections if problems are found and a re-inspection is deemed necessary.

Also, FSMA gives the FDA vast new enforcement powers. Currently, they can recommend a product recall, but the manufacturer ultimately decides. Once the act is in place, they will be able to sieze all product in the supplychain, issue recalls, and close down manufacturing sites on the suspicion of a problem. They don't need to have any hard evidence like testing data or sick people.

This does not apply to tourists. This does not apply to someone pulling out their video camera to video the family frolicking through the wilderness. Here is the definition of "still photography" that the proposed regulation uses: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/re... "Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities." Does that sound that bad? You'll also need a permit for commercial filming, if you are a business and want to make a film set in a certain designated wilderness areas you'll need a permit. Stop the presses!

Since it is a public entity you'll likely run into a roadblock of what the law lets them pay for. Honestly it isn't much and the rules are rather inflexible due to some abuses that regularly come up (a conference in Vegas is likely to be huge red flag after this).

It sucks, but it's one of the trade offs for working for a public entity.