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: QSOToday-1
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    So that makes it "OK" if you put in a system that is going to make more mistakes? Regardless of the "100%" argument, you and I both know that the software is going to allow more questionable traffic through than a person.

    Mike, your attitude isn't "I'm going to do what's right", its "I'm going to do what I want to regardless of anyone's interpretation of the rules, and if it's a problem the authorities will tell me."

    Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking.
  2. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    And here's the proof...
  3. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    So from all that, we can conclude that you think it's OK if ham radio forwards comemrcial advertisements. So under your interpretation of the rules, I could also choose to play a tape recorded message of that same person speaking those same words during my QSO, right? There's nothing in the rules that says I have to get the other ops permission, so I could contact someone, get their report, then I could give them their report and say "And here's something I'd like you to hear"...

    Then press Play on the, oh, 30 second tape of advertising material from my favorite retailer. It's not a commercial advertising, it's "passing information" in your worldview.

    I could do that as long as there was no evidence of me getting paid or getting other benefits from making that specific transmission, right? Actual, not potential? Or better yet, as long as the FCC didn't tell me that it was wrong... Because it's all about what you can get away with, not what is right...

    Why didn't you ask Riley the actual problem, which is whether or not you can forward advertising emails via amateur radio?

  4. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Mark, I understand the difference between the two. As you have noted elsewhere, we really don't know how to interpret "retransmitted". Those saying my position is incorrect have been arguing that this statement invalidates email, and I'm saying that Mr. Hollingsworth's statement refutes that interpretation.

    Hope you have a great holiday!

  5. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You and others consistently forget that the FCC holds the control operator responsible for violations.

    If the control operator chooses to do NO filtering, manual or automatic, he is not violating the letter or spirit of the regs. He is accountable IF there is a violation.

    It is in the control operator's best interests to do the best filtering he can, manual or automatic, but either way he still assumes responsibility for violations.

    As other's (and I believe you but I could be incorrect) stated with regard to authentication: the FCC doesn't say how, only that the control operator is responsible for violations.

    The FCC doesn't mandate how to avoid most violations, but merely says what is a violation and who is responsible.

    This has nothing to do with integrity, and you should get off of Tim's bandwagon.

    So, as I hope you can see, my attitude is not against "doing what is right", but against you or other's telling the operator who's license is at risk what is right. That is for him or her to determine, not you. The goal is to not violate, and how that is accomplished is none of your business.

    I hope you have a great holiday!

  6. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Proof of what? That each ham is responsible for his own operations?

    Yea, I guess you got me there!

    You guys amaze me.

    On the one hand, one suggested that if an alternative is available, then is must be used. The rules state reasonably available, but the fact of availability is enough for that person.

    If you accept the regs stating that it must be a reasonably available alternative, then that alternative must be used.

    I say that reasonable is subjective; what is reasonable for you may not be reasonable for another.

    This same person says that cost is not a consideration. Maybe you agree.

    OK then, if not cost, then what determines "reasonably available"?

    I believe that cost is going to be the primary factor in determining what is reasonable, and that is subjective.

    Some argue that those using WinLink have a reasonable alternative with SailMail. $1000 or so for hardware, $250/year for the service. Reasonable for some, no doubt, but reasonable for all?

    Where do you draw the line?

    What if the hardware only cost $100, and the service was only $10/year? Common sense says that is certainly reasonable for many more.

    What if the hardware cost $10,000 and the service was $1000/year? Could you argue that it was only reasonable for fewer?

    The point is that the rules don't say if an alternative is available, but if an alternative is reasonably available. This is by definition subjective, and I ask you who determines what is reasonable? I can think of only one person who can determine what is reasonable for you, and that is you. If you disagree, you tell me who determines what is reasonable for you?

  7. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    If you're attitude is that if you are not violating the regs then you're getting away with something, then I guess you got me again.

    I find this very amusing. If ops do something that YOU consider right and not in violation, then all is OK. If an op does something that YOU consider wrong but is not in violation, then they're getting away with something? Being within the regs is being within the regs.

    I can't imagine why another op would do as you suggested above, and I'd consider it quite rude, but yes, if he is doing so without pecuniary interest, is not broadcasting but directing his transmission to those he is in QSO with, then correct, I don't believe it to be a violation. As I said, I don't see why a ham would do this without first asking because it would be rude, but maybe he's just a lid. I don't think this is any different than with that same QSO you suggest, after exchanging signal reports, the ham launches into some lengthy monologue about anything, something which the other op has absolutely no interest. It would be rude.

    I asked the question that I did because , if you have followed this thread:

    My position is that forwarding an email is no different than a ham reading an email to another op, and it was explicitly stated to me that even that would be a violation.

    So I asked that question of the FCC. My contention is still that if it is OK to read that email over the air, then it is OK to transmit that email as third party data. If the FCC responds that it is in fact a violation to read that email over the air, then my contention is no different, but then I will know from the FCC that transmitting that email as third party traffic is not legal.

    Get it?
  8. K1CJS

    K1CJS Ham Member QRZ Page

    What is really needed is to get SMs elected that will consider ham radio and its promotion/preservation above anything else.  After that, the SMs must get involved in the division and get the leadership there to accept the membership views and needs.  Then the whole thing can shift to HQ, and the higher ups can be taken on.

    The problem with the whole thing is too many have said "Someone else will do it" for too long.  If it can be done, revitalizing the section staff and then the division staff will send the wakeup call to Newington.  Remember the story of the various parts of the body and the argument about who was boss of them all?  Once the butthole made a stand and closed up the rest of the body finally listened.  Well, we have to be that butthole and make our stand.  It will take time, but we can do it!
  9. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page


    You are certainly all about the "ME" generation worldview.

    The bottom line isn't whether the control op gets punished or not.

    The bottom line isn't even whether the control op is caught or not.

    The bottom line is the Amateur Radio Service.

    Not letting "bad" content on the ham bands is for the good of the Amateur Radio Service and not for the benefit of the control operator.

    Letting "bad" content on the ham bands is NOT for the good of the Amateur Radio Service.

    It's not in the amateurs best interest to do the best possible job of filtering -- it is in the interest of the ARS to do so.

    It *IS* a matter of integrity. It is important to *always* do the best job you can, not just enough to get by so in case you get caught you can plead "I tried".

    What you propound results in an every downward spiral of "defining deviancy downward". Well if 95% is ok, 90% is ok. If 90% is ok then 85% should be able to get by. If 85% can get by then no one will say anything about 80%

    The worldview you propound *never* sets any limits on the downward definition of deviancy.

    You sound *exactly* like the ARRL today.

    And you think we shouldn't bring up integrity?

    tim ab0wr
  10. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I still say the Board of Directors should change the ARRL Constitution to put two SM's on the BOD in a voting position. The two would be elected by the SM's from the SM membership, would serve a one year term, and could not serve consecutive terms.

    This would give the SM position some measure of power in the ARRL and would, hopefully, serve to recruit SM's.

    My guess is that it will never be considered by the BOD. The Exec Staff would be totally against it. The Exec staff would have no control over what SM's get elected since they would already be SM's and not subject to disqualification in an election. They might punish an SM by disqualifying the SM from later SM elections but having SM's on the BOD would help keep that in check.

    Something to think about.

    tim ab0wr
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page