Is 7O6T operation legitimate?

I dont even see that call as being a good call sign.

 

Actually very different - the ops didn't make the rules in this case.

 

7O6T Approved For DXCC Credit

In answer to the original question of legitimacy of the 7O6T Yemen operation, that question was answered a bit ago by this release from Bill Moore NC1L at the DXCC Awards Desk at ARRL:

The following operations are approved for DXCC credit:

7O6T - Yemen
Current Operations

6O3A - Somalia
2012 Operation

73 es DX!
Bill Moore NC1L
Awards Branch Manager
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™

 

YOU ARE RIGHT

 

Just out of curiosity, was the prohibition created by the U.S. government, or in response to protests by the other governments?

 

On this matter Article 25.1 of the ITU Radio Regulations provides the position of the international community. It is covered in this document of the ITU, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/100192425/T-SP-RR251-2010-MSW-E . From a Bahraini standpoint our licence states that Bahraini licensees shall not communicate with stations of administrations which have forbidden communications generally or specifically with stations licensed in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Looking at this latest document I see that I should not communicate with amateur stations in Eritrea or North Korea. As you will see from the documentation not too many administrations communicate their views on this matter to the ITU as there are a lot of Note 1) references in column 4 of the table of territories. However it is interesting to note that there is no specific reference to the State of Israel by any other administration which is a member of the ITU in the Table.

The information I have provided is the current international position and in summary only the administrations of North Korea and Eritrea have objected to communications between amateur stations on their territory and amateur stations external to their territories. However administrations may implement local arrangements as they see fit and may not communicate these to the ITU. Lastly it may be a requirement of your licence not to communicate with stations of any administration which has formally objected to communications between stations it has licensed and stations in your country.

Best 73s Dave A92IO

 

Apologies re' my last post, I subsequently see that Syria has specifically named 4X in column 4 of the Table and has therefore banned communications between YK and 4X stations.
73s Dave A92IO

 

Personal example: I worked the 706T yesterday on 10 m USB. I was asked to confirm once AX6AV/M. I corrected the operator. Then I was asked to confirm LX6AV/M. I corrected the operator, and finally, the operator confirmed that he got my transmission loud and clear and greeted me with 73. I think that I was over, and above any other signal as they were booming with an s9 +
Today, I looked at the log book in the website of 706T. There is no sign in the log for our qso in any of the said call signs...
73,
Oded 4x6av/m

 

Israelis, please use the back door and we'll take care of you after the fact....wink wink nod nod.

How charming.

John AE5X
http://www.ae5x.com/blog

 

If the "Country" or any "Country" US included does not allow contact with Specific other Countries, DXCC list should not include them. By disallowing Hams from any country is an insult to all of us. ARRL should take the High road for a change. This should allow everyone the same advantage.
Wayne

 

Although I can understand the frustration and resentment some might feel for what seems to be unfair, whenever you visit a host country, you are bound by their rules whether you like them or not. And yes, if a P5 operation came up and the operators were told by the North Korean government that they could not work any US stations, although I wouldn't' like it, I would accept it as just the way things are. I certainly wouldn't shake my finger at the ARRL telling them that the operation should be disallowed. That would be unfair to all those who could work the operation, and the operators who put their time and effort into the DX'pedition.

What we hope for is that someday our governments will change so that we will not have to worry about such nonsense. But until then, not expecting it in my lifetime, that's the way it is.

John K7KB

 

While that may seem logical and reasonable, then the ARRL would have to "monitor" political squabbles between other countries across the world. Politics between should not hold hostage Amateur Radio, and it is up to each country to restrict their Amateurs as they see fit, (whether morally or ethically correct or not.) The alternative may be less than desirable; a country could simply revoke aall Amateur licenses and prohibit Amateur operations, as has apparently occurred in North Korea. WHO wins in such a situation? Certainly not the Amateurs in the country imposing the prohibition; they have to follow the rules of their own country.

In the past, when the U.S. and Viet Nam did not allow Amateur exchanges, how many operators throughout the world refused to contact U.S. operators, and how many refused to work VietNamese operators, and how many called for a boycvott of stations on either side?

IMHO, this is injecting a political issue INTO Amateur Radio. That's the ultimate insult.

 

K2NCC doesn't represent the views of the state of Oregon, period.

 

U can't make a contact wit 2Kw , a massive beam ?

Should i even try with 400 watts and a dipole , Come H*** or High water i will try , NO SLEEP before i work them ,

And if high water come i will evac to my repeater site at 2300Mtrs asl and continue with Icom 703 , long wire,portable battery pack and solar panel

85 Countries worked with dipoles only.

ZS6AF

 

Yeah they shuold but the federal government does not pay a great deal of attention to ARRL in matters of foreign policy nor do other governments. I think we are swinging at fences here since the list of restrictions by the FCC for US amateurs is very small, like none, and has not changed in decades.