What do you want in an Amateur Organization?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by AE6JM, Nov 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
  1. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    That is the bottom line isn't it? What 97.109(e) adds in its origination clause is a prohibition on retransmitting messages that do not originate from a station under remote or local control. In other words, a message that originates from an automatically controlled station can be transmitted in the ARS; but, it cannot be re-transmitted by another station in the ARS.

    I think the intention of the regulation is to prohibit an automatically controlled station from originating any third party traffic and that all third party traffic must originate from a station under local or remote control.

    Unfortunately 97.109(e) was changed in 1995 and the wording muddied, probably on purpose.

    I have no argument with Riley's response. I don't think however he was commenting on the origination clause of 97.109(e).

    Mark N5RFX
  2. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page


    You are still showing your view that while the control operator is responsible you don't think they have to be responsible.

    If some stuff gets through, who cares, right?

    Hollingsworth has it right. If a control operator is truly responsible for what gets sent from their station then the only way for them to accept that responsibility is for them to review all retransmitted messages.

    You simply cannot say in the same breath that "they are responsible" and "who cares?". Responsibility with no accountability is NOT responsibility -- it is empty rhetoric.

    The most restrictive rule is the controlling legal authority, using Al Gore's terminology.

    tim ab0wr
  3. K6CRC

    K6CRC XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I do not understand your comments about the ARRL membership not having a voice. One looney voice is ignored, and there are more than a few hams who would qualify. One hundred thousand voices or the loss of a few million dollars of membership fees would have an effect. Where is the leak in that argument? It "holds water" for any organization where a membership fee AND/OR a vote is counted.

    References to the US Congress simply reinforces my point. If all the bitching American voters ACTUALLY SHOWED UP on election day, then the average congressman or senator WOULD stand up and listen, and probably not appoint "friends" to jobs or give themselves raises.

    ARRL is no different. That cannot be too hard to understand.

    Hams in the USA have three choices; get involved and vote in the ARRL, create an alternative organization, or continue to complain on-line - but do nothing. Since the leadership has not changed at the ARRL, and there is no alternative group, then many hams have chosen the third option. At least they are consistent with the average American citizen.

  4. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Riley didn't say that the only way for them to accept that responsibility is for them to review all retransmitted messages. No where does the FCC require a control operator to review all retransmitted messages. What the FCC does say:

    1. the control operator of the station originating a message is primarily accountable for any violation

    2. the control operator accepts accountability for any violation of the rules contained in messages it retransmits

    The FCC doesn't tell us how to do this, it only tells us that control operators are responsible for transmissions from their stations. If you are cited, then you can tell the FCC how you complied with the rules. We are free will agents with respect to how we comply with the Third Party Rules, but comply we must.

    Mark N5RFX
  5. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Mike, you are ignoring the part where I have never heard, not once, not ever, an inappropriate message sent on a traffic net.

    How much traffic have you ever handled? How much traffic have you ever even listened to in two years?

    Being *responsible* is being 100%. You owe it not only to yourself but to your fellow hams and to the ARS itself. A control operator "being distracted" is a non sequitur. You review the messages before you send them, not while you are sending them.

    How do you know if you have never handled third party traffic? This isn't an issue of a time-constrained production line. It isn't an issue of reaction time.

    You are coming at this from the viewpoint that automatic systems can never be 100% so neither can humans. Your paradigm is wrong.

    If you can't show *any* evidence of manual relaying having *ever* resulted in inappropriate messages getting relayed then how can you say manual relaying isn't 100%?

    You have exactly zero for evidence but you just *know*, right?

    tim ab0wr
  6. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I suppose that it could work, but I was asking someone if he thought we'd be better off with no national organization rather than the one we now have. Which, by the way, he did reply yes.

    Honestly, I think there is some merit to the proposition that when faced with bankruptsy, there could be some significant sort of change.

    However this, as with attempts to change the orgnization from within, would take time, and what would we have in the mean time?

    Any solution, whether it is change or a new organization, is going to take time, resources, and committment.

    This is exactly why I don't think a new organization will ever happen.

    Change can be accomplished via election of the board members. This take time. It takes ops running for the board positions, which takes time, resources, and committment. It requires the members to vote.

    Now of all of those so admanantly opposed to the League, most seem to choose the easy, no resource, no time, no committment alternative: withhold their membership.

    If they can't expend what is necessary to make changes, then what makes anyone think that they'll expend anything for a new organization? It may very well be that they would, I just haven't seen anything indicating so.

  7. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    This isn't an issue of how many are trying to correct you. The issue is that *NO ONE* is supporting your viewpoint. Usually people being shunned ask why? But not you.

    That should be telling to the readers of the thread.

    Hey! You are the one that said "who cares" if some non-appropriate emails get through! Some of those non-appropriate emails will contain cursing. But YOU DON"T CARE.

    Saying that cursing over the air *happens* and saying that you *don't care* are two totally different things.

    tim ab0wr
  8. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Because YOU redefined the argument to be *about* business.

    Mike, it *is* third party traffic. And if it sent over the ham bands by an automatic station, or even by a manual station, on a regular basis when reasonable alternative radio services exist to carry the traffic then it is against the rules and regulations.

    As I tried to point out to you with the Dow Jones report, once you open ham radio up to be a marketing channel for retailers, it will get *buried* in such emails.

    According to you, that would be acceptable. If we wound up with 100 stations of 2.7khz each on 40m, thus chewing up most of the band, transmitting nothing but advertisements to hams via automatic email stations there would be nothing wrong with that. The fact that the band would no longer be usable for amateur-to-amateur intercommunications but only for amateur-to-3rd party communications would be totally acceptable according to your viewpoint.

    It is no wonder that no one ever comes on here to support your views of what is acceptable in amateur radio.

    tim ab0wr
  9. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    pquote]If a ham hitting the road in an RV for a couple of weeks vacation does not believe that he has a reasonable alternative for checking his emails while away from home, then I have no problem with him doing so. And yes, if he receives what you are calling "business" emails, then I have no problem with that either as long as they're not related to him "doing" business.

    I think this is what is key here. The ham decides what is reasonable for himself, not you (!), and only the FCC can decide differently.[/quote]

    This is what Patrick Monyihan called "defining morality downward". It is the definition of moral relativism -- what is right for me at the time is right. It doesn't matter what society thinks or what the impact on society will be -- it is right for me at the time so it is right to do.

    That seems to be a common theme in your views.

    tim ab0wr
  10. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Give us the rule, Mike. I want to see the keywords you would filter on to stop all these emails while letting legitimate emails through.

    You claim it can be done? Do it. I want to see the rule.

    I say it can't be done. You say it can.

    Prove it.

    tim ab0wr
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: vanity