WRUM335

This is a very thought provoking discussion and raises lots of good points. Before I say much, I feel it necessary to clarify something first. I'm not here to debate the legality of the issue, that is for the courts to decide if and when it comes before them. That said, I do have a point to consider, from my comfort zone of being a subject matter expert in a specific area being discussed: The Internet. As others have correctly pointed out, the FCC regulations predate (to a large extent), the internetworking of computers and the explosion of data being transmitted "over the wire" of this new technology. As many have also pointed out, this newer technology doesn't always transit a pair (or more) of wires any longer. This blending of the wired vs. the wireless world intrudes upon the realm of the FCC, but it is, at the same time, separate. The FCC has the authority to regulate "how" devices are employed to transmit and receive communications, both through a wired medium as well as over the air (RF), however, it's authority has limits. The first limit is the entity that grants it the authority, the United States. Because RF transmissions can exceed the boundary of this geographical location, this limit can only be enforced upon the individuals that claim citizenship and corporations wishing to offer products to it's citizens. Through agreements with other nations, this can be extended, but only with the cooperation of the other nations governmental agency with a similar jurisdictional area. Some nations lack such an agency and international regulation is spotty at best, particularly when it comes to the technology that makes up the Internet. The second limit is that of specific boundaries for both the frequencies used and the technologies employed. Their authority is strictly limited to what the U.S. government has authorized them to regulate. To date, they have very limited authority when it comes to wireless technologies in use in the digital data world. Specifically, their authority is limited to only defining emissions limits and what frequencies can be utilized. They cannot regulate who uses the equipment nor what (from a content perspective) is transmitted and received. What this boils down to is the somewhat correct statement that the Internet is unregulated. For purposes of this particular topic, this statement introduces an interesting component. What happens when a particular transmission transitions from a regulated and known state to an unregulated and different state? A complimentary question also exists in the reverse scenario, when a transmission transitions back from an unregulated and different state to the regulated and known state. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hold of citing specific regulations, nor offer interpretation or definition of terms, but I will say this: context matters, so does intent. The original intent of the prohibition was to limit the burden on public switched networks (at the time, this was primarily the telephone network). The Internet was never intended to be regulated, is not considered even today to be a public service, and it is very difficult to see how the slow and small size of a radio transmission packet would be a burden on it. VoIP is a technology that takes an analog audio wave, digitizes it, and encases it into IP packets, regardless of how the analog audio wave originates. As soon as it becomes encased, it ceases to have any meaning under part 95 until it reverts back to an analog audio wave and again is transmitted by a station under the part 95 regulation. It follows that while it is in the form of an IP packet, part 95 has no authority. Let us supposed, for a minute, that a licensed station's speaker is setup in such a way that a listening device, separate from the roster of equipment is within range to pick up that audio wave. That listening device is configured in such a way as to transmit anything it hears to a specific destination using VoIP. The destination is then configured to play, in real time, anything it receives through a connected speaker. Within range of that speaker, a GMRS repeater station, under automatic control, is configured to start and stop transmission when an audible audio wave is detected. What is different about this scenario vs. directly connecting a GRMS transmitter to a solid circuit designed to do the same thing? I'm not trying to stir up a hornets nest here, this is an honest question.