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: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Tim,

    You and I agree that manual reviewing of messages is the best way to insure FCC compliance with third party messages. No argument there.

    The rules don't require manual reviewing of messages, in fact they don't require any sort of review process at all. What the rules do require is that the control operator accept accountability for any violation of the FCC rules in messages it retransmits in the ARS. That is the free will aspect of these particular regulations.

    Here is an example from a completely different area. 97.307 tells us about spurious emissions. I would suspect that most Hams never check their transmitters for compliance. Is the control operator of a station required to meet the enumerated spurious emissions standards of 97.307?

    73,
    Mark N5RFX
     
  2. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Once again making it up as you go along. You asked if it concerns me that some are trying to "correct" me, I replied that it doesn't concern me that a few are trying to do so, and your reply is "it isn't an issue of how many"? OK...I'm sure that makes sense to you.

    I don't feel at all shunned Tim. Do you? Just where is the "vast majority of hams", those agreeing with you? Why no posts from them? Perhaps they just feel you're holding you own OK? Could be. Works both ways. [​IMG]

    What I said I don't care about is your opinion of what is inappropriate content getting through, such as what you call "business". I said that it is inevitable that some cursing will get through, just as it is inevitable with phone QSOs. Get your accusations straight Tim.

    I did ask you to quote it, but I guess it was too much trouble or you just couldn't find it, or once again you're just taking a piece from here, a piece from there, composing it as if coming from me and saying what you want to say. Amusing. [​IMG]

    Mike
     
  3. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Oh my goodness!

    Morals!?!?! Who's Tim, your's?

    I agree with you 100%, an "attempt" to operate legally does not absolve anyone if they then don't. No argument from me!

    And that operator responsible for that illegal operation is accountable. I agree 100%.

    Which means that UNTIL that filtering system fails, that it IS fulfilling the obligations of the control operator.

    I don't believe that any automatic system can be 100%, which means that in the universe of all that can be thrown at it, it will fail.

    However that's not saying that where it can fail will be thrown at it for certain! You presume an awful lot. You talk about not ever having passed nor have seen passed invalid traffic. I NEVER receive pornographic or obscene emails Tim, which means that a filter passing my emails, though it is possible for it to fail, will never fail with my messages.

    But now that you have introduced morals, who's to say that one op's morals are the same as another's, eh? What's immoral for one may be perfectly fine with another. THERE'S one infallibility of people doing the filtering Tim.

    There is NO method of filtering third party traffic that is 100%.

    Mike
     
  4. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I've never equivocated. I've said the operator is responsible so many times now.

    Yes, if something gets through that shouldn't, then yes, the operator should be held accountable. This is in no way contrary to anything that I've posted. YOU are the one who attributed otherwise to me, and anyone reading knows this.
     
  5. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    What planet are you living on?[​IMG]

    That is EXACTLY what he said!

    This is too much, even for entertainment. Discussion with you has crossed the line from difficult to impossible. Say whatever you want, I won't respond. Anyone who has been following and get's this far will know why I'm no longer going to participate with you.

    I am not acquiescing to your position, it's just no longer possible for me to continue with you. This makes me fair game, enjoy yourself.

    Mike
     
  6. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, they are required to meet the enumerated standards. There just isn't any question about it.

    As I have said in the past, integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking.

    Not checking your spurious emissions *because* no one might be looking is not having integrity.

    Telling hams that "you don't have to check" is breeding a scofflaw attitude in the Amateur Radio Service. The result of such an attitude has been quite evident on this thread!

    While a new ham may not have the newest or best test equipment that *is* becoming less of an excuse every day.

    I have a General Electric 566 Wavemeter that I use once a year to check my transmitters. I have found that my softrock SDR is *very* effective in checking my IC745, IC751a, and my homebrew transceiver. I use an oscilloscope and two-tone generator once a year to check where the linear operating level of my transmitters and linear amp fall and I use a monitor scope to insure I don't go past those levels. I have two different deviation meters I use to check my 2m/70cm transmitters once a year. I check the idle current on the finals of all transmitters once a year to insure intermod from crossover distortion meets manufacture specs.

    Much of this could all be done by a ham with an SDR and a good panoramic display, even another ham at a distant location. The local ham would need little more than a two-tone generator. As soon as I get a a good variable source built for my SDR I plan on digging out my old 70's vintage 2m transverter and see if I can get it to work with the SDR. That will give a good test bed for that band. I'll have to see about building one for 70cm.

    I don't have a spectrum analyzer but do as well as I can.

    I just don't buy never doing *anything* because you might be able to get away with it. That *seems* to be the attitude of too many today. It is a paradigm to be expected from a service that uses type-accepted equipment. The more we accept, or even actively propound, such an attitude the closer we will actually get to becoming such a service.

    If your test ability is limited and you have a problem then consideration needs to be given to the attempts you have made to comply. With the cost of an SDR being only about $60 total (plus a PC, of course) the excuse of not having any good test equipment is going to be less and less of an acceptable excuse in the coming years. The lack of integrity of those hams who don't even attempt to insure they are meeting the emission rules will stand out more and more.

    Perhaps the advent of cheap SDR's will have even more impact than many realize.

    tim ab0wr
     
  7. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Mike,

    Mark told you exactly the same thing as I have.

    It's like I said. NO ONE is supporting your positions.

    tim ab0wr
     
  8. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    So, you are advocating the use of a system that you *know* will cost hams their licenses.

    That's a real good position to take.

    That *is* why no one is supporting your positions.

    tim ab0wr
     
  9. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Put in the question that was asked, not just the preface:

    and the response was:

    The question related to the difference between the two rules, and the only difference is the source of the third party traffic, with the questionable word "retransmitted" being used, as you have pointed out.

    There was nothing asked or implied about determining "if" the traffic is third party. All traffic is third party unless it originates with the control operator transmitting it. Not sure where you got that from.

    According the the head of FCC enforcement, the source doesn't matter, it is third party traffic, and the control operator is responsible (which is all that I've been saying all along).

    I understand that the actual question being asked was if the control operator needs to monitor the email traffic, and this was a direct response, that yes, the control operator is responsible (not that he had to monitor). However this response does also say that emails are third party traffic, no different from any other third party traffic, and the control operator is responsible. The point is that he did acknowledge that email is third party traffic, which would be prohibited by 97.109 (e).

    Another on here tried to say that this is NOT what Mr. Hollingsworth said, but there it is quoted again.

    Mike
     
  10. N5RFX

    N5RFX Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't think anyone will argue with you on that. I think the argument right now is about whether or not there is an accepted procedure for making sure that third party traffic does not violate the rules. The FCC does not specify a procedure, but we as as Amateur radio operators are free to come up with our own procedures for insuring that third party traffic does not violate the rules. If it were not for treaty obligations with the ITU, the FCC may not even have third party rules in part 97.

    The difference between 109(e) and 115© is the origination clause. Origination determines whether a third party message can be retransmitted in the ARS.

    73,
    Mark N5RFX
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page