CQ Magazine's 97.113 Petition

On December 21, CQ Communications, publisher of CQ Magazine, filed a petition to amend the FCC’s prohibition against business communication over Amateur Radio. This proposal was written not just to cover emergency communications (as was the N5GAR/WB6NOA/N5FDL petition filed Oct. 15) but to include certain other groups as well, such as astronauts and CQ’s own employees.

(Download a copy of the petition here. .DOC format).

These groups, and a few others, could run afoul of the “pecuniary interest” prohibition while doing things like operating from the International Space Station, writing a product review, or participating in a contest.

Here is CQ’s proposed wording:

Proposed Rule Changes

18. Therefore, for the reasons cited above, petitioner proposes the following changes to §97.113 (Proposed additions in italics; proposed deletions are shown with a strikethrough):

1. Amend subsection (a), paragraph (3), as follows:

§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer, except as otherwise provided in these rules. Amateur operators may, however, notify other amateur operators of the availability for sale or trade of apparatus normally used in an amateur station, provided that such activity is not conducted on a regular basis;

2. Add a new subsection(e), as follows:

(e) Communications on behalf of an employer may be transmitted on an occasional basis, provided that:

(1) Such communications are incidental to the employee’s normal job responsibilities and are conducted voluntarily;

(2) Such communications are conducted during an employee’s personal time, including but not limited to lunch hours, days off and other non-compensated time periods, and

(3) The primary beneficiaries of such communications are other amateurs and/or members of the general public, and not the employer.

(4) Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit the recreational use of an amateur station on an employer’s premises by a duly licensed employee, as authorized by the station licensee.

3. Redesignate existing subsection (e) as (f) make the following changes:

(f) No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any type of radio station other than an amateur station, except propagation and weather forecast information intended for use by the general public and originated from United States Government stations and communications, including incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a manned space vehicle shuttle and its associated Earth stations. Prior approval for manned space vehicle shuttle retransmissions must be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Such retransmissions must be for the exclusive use of amateur operators. Propagation, weather forecasts, and manned space vehicle shuttle retransmissions may not be conducted on a regular basis, but only occasionally, as an incident of normal amateur radio communications.

4. Redesignate existing subsection (f) as (g).

In a more-reasoned era, this wording was not necessary and good sense prevailed. With the FCC on the warpath, this petition now seems necessary.

I am supportive of this petition, but don’t like one paragraph, specifically the one that requires employees to communicate “on their own time.”

I don’t see how to make this work in the real world, especially with public safety employees. Are workers really expected to submit special time sheets to make sure they are not paid while on-the-air? And what about people who multitask, are they supposed to add up their total airtime and have it deducted from their wages?

I understand what CQ hoped to accomplish with the paragraph. We considered and quickly rejected similiar wording for our petition, based on the reasoning I’ve outlined.

When the FCC finally assigns a Rule Making number and comment periods on this issue, I will comment in favor of the CQ proposal.

Goodbye, Worldradio

It is with profound sadness that I (belatedly) report the death of Worldradio, at least as a monthly print publication. WorldRadio, which had been published since 1971, was purchased by the publisher of CQ magazine, which is converting WR into a free, Internet-only publication. The print version is being discontinued.

In a press release (November 12), Armond Noble, N6WR, Publisher of WorldRadio, said that at the age of 74 the time had come for him to retire. “I wanted to be sure that WorldRadio found a good home, and that our readers would continue to be served by an independent voice in amateur radio,” Noble said.

Gee, it’s hard to say that killing the print version qualifies CQ as providing a “good home.” Also, CQ is an “independent voice” only in the sense that it isn’t published by the ARRL. I suppose QST is also an independent voice because it isn’t published by CQ. No matter how you figure it, what used to be three independent ham publications now becomes two.

What I will miss most about WR are the columns. The best days of Kurt N. Sterba’s “Aerials” column were probably 20 years ago, but it was still the first thing I read each month. Jerry Wellman’s “Search and Rescue” columns from Salt Lake City were always interesting, too. WR also gave space to many membership groups, which I think will be missed.

Now, I know what you’re saying, “Isn’t this what the Internet is for, small specialized publications?” That’s true to a point. There is still something special about paper magazines. First, they arrive in the mail and grab your attention. The articles can be longer and better illustrated than most online articles I’ve seen. The advertising is more accessible.

The closest online comes to this are emailed newsletters, which arrive, grab the reader’s attention and then link back to a web site where the content lives. I used to do one of these for CNET and I still think it’s a great way to keep readers involved in a publication—and reminding them to come back.

The primary value of being online, compared to print, is the unlimited page length. WR wanted to be a larger print publication than the advertising would support. Online, the magazine can go as long as it likes. Which gives me an idea—why not publish WR online, but as a PDF document so it can be easily printed by readers? Send an email every month to readers that includes links to online versions of the articles (in HTML) but also to an entire PDF magazine.

I’ve been getting Monitoring Times as a PDF for more than a year and, while I generally don’t print each issue, I find the Acrobat version much more satisfying to read than a web site.

It will be interesting to see what happens to WorldRadio, but I am not expecting good things under CQ’s ownership.

Update on Fri, November 28, 2008 at 5:14PM by David Coursey, N5FDL

It is my understanding that WR may very will continue as HTML and a PDF version that will look very much like the current print publication. And, yes, there will be email. I am assured that Kurt and Jerry will continue their columns. So, there is some lemonade to be made of this sad situation.