Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is This Leagal?  (Read 5836 times)
KC8VWM
Member

Posts: 3121




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2005, 10:15:07 PM »

The control point is not the control operator.

The control point refers to the location of the equipment, not the control operators responsibilities in maintaining correct operation of the station itself.

Quite frankly, I fail to see the confusion.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

Logged
KC8VWM
Member

Posts: 3121




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2005, 10:19:52 PM »

"The control point is not for the purpose of shutting down the station."

You might want to think about this for a minute.

Logged
KC8VWM
Member

Posts: 3121




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2005, 10:54:59 PM »

"The control operator does not merely oversee the operation of the station, he operates the station."

True or False?


False... Why do I say that?


I have yet to see a repeater that the control operator physically presses the TX/RX buttons directly controlling every transmission on that repeater at any given time.

Agreed? Disagree?

However, the control operator must have access to controlling the "point" at which the transmissions are made to prevent any illegal operation of that persons repeater.

Do you agree? Disagree?

Therefore, the control operator is responsible for "Overseeing" the proper operation of the repeater as the control operator as a requirement by law.

True or false?

Then would you agree that the primary purpose of the control operator at the station is to ensure the operation of his equipment is being conducted according to FCC rules and the equipment is functioning correctly at all times.

True or false?


We have already clearly established that one does not actually require a license to have the ability to operate the receiver and transmitter sections of your equipment and is permitted to speak into a microphone at your station as long as a control operator is supervising and present at the control point haven't we?

True or false?

Therefore, is a control point the same thing as a control operator?

Yes or No?


73

Charles - KC8VWM
Logged
AE6RV
Member

Posts: 146




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: January 14, 2005, 11:26:19 PM »

The control operator does not merely oversee the operation of the station, he operates the station."

True or False?


False... Why do I say that?

Because you're trying to find a way around the intent, and are not paying much attention to what the whole of Part 97 says.  You can't just pick a particular paragraph and ignore the rest.  A guest operating your station is not a user of a repeater.  Think on that for more than just the 3 seconds it requires you to ignore it and move on.


I have yet to see a repeater that the control operator physically presses the TX/RX buttons directly controlling every transmission on that repeater at any given time.

Agreed? Disagree?

Do you NOT know the difference between local control and either automatic control or remote control?  If not, see Part 97.  We are not talking about a repeater where the users are licensed operators.  The rules for repeaters are different from locally controlled stations.  Read Part 97, PLEASE.



However, the control operator must have access to controlling the "point" at which the transmissions are made to prevent any illegal operation of that persons repeater.

Do you agree? Disagree?

See above WRT local control.

Therefore, the control operator is responsible for "Overseeing" the proper operation of the repeater as the control operator as a requirement by law.

True or false?

See above.

Then would you agree that the primary purpose of the control operator at the station is to ensure the operation of his equipment is being conducted according to FCC rules and the equipment is functioning correctly at all times.

True or false?

See above.


We have already clearly established that one does not actually require a license to have the ability to operate the receiver and transmitter sections of your equipment and is permitted to speak into a microphone at your station as long as a control operator is supervising and present at the control point haven't we?

True or false?

See above.

Therefore, is a control point the same thing as a control operator?

Yes or No?

See above.  Stop trying to apply the rules for remotely controlled stations to locally controlled stations.


73

Charles - KC8VWM

Charles, this is rapidly turning into a contest to find out who can write their names the largest in the snow, isn't it?.  

PLEASE READ Part 97 and make at least an attempt to understand it as a cohesive whole, and not just a list of items you can pick and choose from as you desire in order to get around the intent of Part 97.  IOW RTFM.
Logged
KC8VWM
Member

Posts: 3121




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2005, 11:34:35 PM »

ยง97.115 Third party communications

(b) The third party may participate in stating the message where:

(1) The control operator is present at the control point and is continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation; and ...



I Rest my case....

73

Charles - KC8VWM
Logged
KC8VWM
Member

Posts: 3121




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2005, 12:01:15 AM »

My friend, this is not a contest...

Remember, We are both on the same side of the same fence.

This is what I would refer to as an exercise in self policing and believe me, I have only the highest regard for you and your argument of the facts.

My intention is to do what is in the best interests of Amateur Radio regardless of many opinions expressed in this forum.

The best approach if you should have any doubts is to contact Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC directly if you should have any questions.

As far as FCC regulations go, I have studied them very closely for many years and I do understand that much is open to interpretation.

However, we must realize that regardless of these open interpretations, we have to do the right thing and yes, I am actually on your side.

Take Care and I encourage everyone to do the right thing in the best interests to ensure our family of amateur radio operators and our operating standards only becomes better in the future.

73

Charles - KC8VWM
Logged
WILLY
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2005, 09:57:55 AM »

 by KC8VWM on January 15, 2005     

"
My friend, this is not a contest... "

He's just interpreting the rules as he wishes, to continue this thread.

If you ask him questions about what he has said, he gets rattled.  Smiley



" ...
My intention is to do what is in the best interests of Amateur Radio regardless of many opinions expressed in this forum.

The best approach if you should have any doubts is to contact Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC directly if you should have any questions. "

I already advised him to do this.  If he was like you, out for the best interest of Amateur Radio, he would have done so by now.  Therefore it looks like he just wants to perpetuate this thread.

Now let's see if he replies to you, telling YOU to write to Riley.  That's what I got for my effort.  Smiley


73
Logged
AE6RV
Member

Posts: 146




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2005, 01:20:23 PM »

"The best approach if you should have any doubts is to contact Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC directly if you should have any questions."

It should be clear to both of you that I have no doubts at all about what Part 97 says and what it means.  Seemingly, neither of you do either.  BTW, the technique of name dropping and challenging others to dare to contact your named authority does nothing to further your case.  Just a thought.

Logged
KQ6Q
Member

Posts: 991




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2005, 08:25:52 PM »

Did you talk to the station with the very young YL operator? We have a family here in southern california where the dad and two daughters (about 10 and 12 now, about 8 and 10 when first licensed) have consecutive callsigns. They are very much legal. Use the callsign lookup to get the address for the callsign, then use a by-address lookup, and you'll probably find some other callsigns at the same address - and one of them will be a parent! Or talk to the operator, and get to know her, find out when she got her license, etc.   This whole thread is probably pointless - some kids DO get licensed very young. I was late myself, didn't get a ticket until I was in 9th grade!
Logged
WILLY
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2005, 09:07:48 AM »

 by AE6RV on January 17, 2005     

"
"The best approach if you should have any doubts is to contact Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC directly if you should have any questions."

It should be clear to both of you that I have no doubts at all about what Part 97 says and what it means."

It is clear that you think you know what it means.  It is clear that you aren't going to ask Riley.  
That's ok.  You are allowed to have your opinion, and of course you are allowed to be wrong.


"Seemingly, neither of you do either."

Again, you are allowed your opinion, and you are allowed to be wrong.  


"BTW, the technique of name dropping and challenging others to dare to contact your named authority does nothing to further your case. Just a thought. "

Apparently not with you.  Like I said, it looks like you are more interested in arguing than you are in actually getting the info, thus eliminating your opinion.    Regarding the so called challenge - if you go back and look, it was a friendly suggestion, of which you needed to be reminded.


Are you done now?   I sure hope so.
Logged
KC8VWM
Member

Posts: 3121




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2005, 08:46:41 PM »

"BTW, the technique of name dropping and challenging others to dare to contact your named authority does nothing to further your case. "

Please...

This was not a "challenge" as you put it.

I was "indicating" that you could contact Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC for such information. This is after all the right person and right place where one gets such information about these matters if they have a question pertaining to amateur radio isn't it?  

Anyways, I have considered that perhaps Willy seems to have a valid point about the intentions some are demonstrating here.

Gentleman don't offer challenges, they offer solutions to the problem.

What category do you consider yourself in ?

Charles - KC8VWM
Logged
WILLY
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2005, 12:42:46 PM »


by KC8VWM on January 18, 2005  Mail this to a friend!  

"...

Gentleman don't offer challenges, they offer solutions to the problem.

What category do you consider yourself in ?  "


I found this very interesting.




Three days and no reply to your question.  <chuckle>
I didn't really expect one though, I said he gets rattled when you question him.


73



Logged
W9SZ
Member

Posts: 66


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #57 on: January 22, 2005, 05:47:08 PM »

One obvious thing everyone seems to be overlooking here is that the "operator" in question may indeed be licensed.  Did you get the callsign being used? If you go to http://www.hamdata.com and enter it, you can find info on the licensee including birthday (including year).

And voices over the air are sometimes deceiving.  A person may older than he/she sounds.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!