Comments on: Bill 118 definitions http://blog.rac.ca/?p=365 All about ham radio in Canada - Tous pour la radioamateur au Canada Sun, 12 May 2013 22:59:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Walter Cang http://blog.rac.ca/?p=365&cpage=1#comment-102 Walter Cang Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:34:52 +0000 http://racblog.wordpress.com/?p=365#comment-102 Brian, There is strength in numbers but we are a small club. We would like to draft a petition that we hope to circulate amongst the different clubs in Toronto. Would you be willing to provide us a copy of your letter so that we may include your arguments in the petition? Thank you. Walter Cang President South Pickering Amateur Radio Club Brian,

There is strength in numbers but we are a small club. We would like to draft a petition that we hope to circulate amongst the different clubs in Toronto. Would you be willing to provide us a copy of your letter so that we may include your arguments in the petition? Thank you.

Walter Cang
President
South Pickering Amateur Radio Club

]]> By: Warren Paulson http://blog.rac.ca/?p=365&cpage=1#comment-101 Warren Paulson Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:06:06 +0000 http://racblog.wordpress.com/?p=365#comment-101 "while pressing a button on a device that... is attached to his or her clothing and is linked to a hand-held wireless communication device to... transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio or a hand microphone or portable radio." Seems to me if we duct tape our mic cords to our shirts while driving, we're good to go... VE3FYN “while pressing a button on a device that… is attached to his or her clothing and is linked to a hand-held wireless communication device to… transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio or a hand microphone or portable radio.”

Seems to me if we duct tape our mic cords to our shirts while driving, we’re good to go…

VE3FYN

]]> By: Oh yes they can……. « VA3QV’s Weblog http://blog.rac.ca/?p=365&cpage=1#comment-100 Oh yes they can……. « VA3QV’s Weblog Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:37:58 +0000 http://racblog.wordpress.com/?p=365#comment-100 [...] By va3qv As I make this comment I would ask that you head over to the RAC Blog and check out THIS ARTICLE  and then carefully read the article and its comments and then just to refresh your mind read the [...] [...] By va3qv As I make this comment I would ask that you head over to the RAC Blog and check out THIS ARTICLE  and then carefully read the article and its comments and then just to refresh your mind read the [...]

]]> By: Brian Dixon http://blog.rac.ca/?p=365&cpage=1#comment-99 Brian Dixon Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:51:12 +0000 http://racblog.wordpress.com/?p=365#comment-99 This is not over yet. I have written a letter to my MPP to point a few things out. They may be starting to realize they have no authority over 'hand mics' anyway. The definition of terms in the Radio Communications Act is very clear: From the Radio Communications Act: 1993, c. 40, s. 23 "radio apparatus" *appareil radio+ ""radio apparatus" means a device or combination of devices intended for, or capable of being used for, radiocommunication;" This makes it pretty clear that the Microphone is part of the 'apparatus'. They can't dictate our use of 'hand mics' any more than they can tell CFRB to move from 1010 to 1060 and reduce power to 5 KW! Rac needs to take them to court with a 'constitutional challenge' to Bill 118. I've written to RAC as well along with a copy of my letter. I've not heard back as yet. I'm looking forward to hearing from RAC's legal council. Anyone intersted in my letter can contact me thru RAC email. This is not over yet. I have written a letter to my MPP to point a few things out. They may be starting to realize they have no authority over ‘hand mics’ anyway. The definition of terms in the Radio Communications Act is very clear:

From the Radio Communications Act:
1993, c. 40, s. 23
“radio apparatus”
*appareil radio+
“”radio apparatus” means a device or combination of devices
intended for, or capable of being used for, radiocommunication;”

This makes it pretty clear that the Microphone is part of the ‘apparatus’.

They can’t dictate our use of ‘hand mics’ any more than they can tell CFRB to move from 1010 to 1060 and reduce power to 5 KW!

Rac needs to take them to court with a ‘constitutional challenge’ to Bill 118.

I’ve written to RAC as well along with a copy of my letter. I’ve not heard back as yet. I’m looking forward to hearing from RAC’s legal council.

Anyone intersted in my letter can contact me thru RAC email.

]]> By: Joseph Verdirame http://blog.rac.ca/?p=365&cpage=1#comment-98 Joseph Verdirame Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:08:07 +0000 http://racblog.wordpress.com/?p=365#comment-98 Hi Peter, Thanks for highlighting this part of the regulation. It really does seem that the MTO are trying to accommodate the operators of two-way radios as much as possible, while still maintaining the 'spirit' of hands-free communication, i.e. you shouldn't actually be able to see a driver holding a microphone or HT in his/her hand. The exemptions do seem to provide plenty of options for mobile operators, with just a little tinkering and imagination. I look forward to reading about any light you can shed on the subject through further investigation; in the meantime, this certainly does seem encouraging. Whether or not we get a permanent exemption after Jan. 1, 2013, I think most people could work with this reg even as it is currently written; we should not be discouraged. 73 Joe, VE3LNU Hi Peter,

Thanks for highlighting this part of the regulation. It really does seem that the MTO are trying to accommodate the operators of two-way radios as much as possible, while still maintaining the ‘spirit’ of hands-free communication, i.e. you shouldn’t actually be able to see a driver holding a microphone or HT in his/her hand. The exemptions do seem to provide plenty of options for mobile operators, with just a little tinkering and imagination.

I look forward to reading about any light you can shed on the subject through further investigation; in the meantime, this certainly does seem encouraging. Whether or not we get a permanent exemption after Jan. 1, 2013, I think most people could work with this reg even as it is currently written; we should not be discouraged.

73

Joe, VE3LNU

]]>