Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Milt Forsberg
    Unfortunately, the most logical choice is not always the choice of those writing some of the rules. As I understand it, Third Party rules have been in effect
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 14, 2002
      Unfortunately, the most logical choice is not always the choice of those
      writing some of the rules. As I understand it, Third Party rules have
      been in effect for a long time, and are probably much outdated. However,
      they still are in effect, and we need to follow them until changed. It
      appears that much of the problem comes from the fact that the governments
      of many of the foreign countries control the telecommunications systems,
      and in many places, own the systems. There is a concern (right or wrong)
      that Amateur Radio might cut into the income of the telecom systems, so
      the governments are very restrictive on types of communications permitted
      on the Amateur bands. It is disappointing that Scouts can't talk to
      everyone on the bands, but we have to live with that fact at present. I
      don't know if we can do anything to change it as the US will enter into a
      treaty with any of the other countires willing to do so to permit Third
      Party traffic, as has been done with most of the Central and South
      American countries, along with a few in other parts of the world. The
      change in attitude must come from the foreign governments.

      The ones who will lose the most in case of a violation are the foreign
      operators. We have to respect their license.

      It is good that this subject had come to light here. Hopefully, it will
      prevent some problems down the road related to JOTA and other Scout
      related Amateur Radio functions.

      Milt Forsberg, K9QZI
      Champaign, IL

      On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Fred Stevens K2FRD wrote:

      > Here's the answer I just received from Riley Hollingsworth. I don't
      > like it because it makes me wrong, but I'll accept it. For now.
      > However, it's clearly interpretive and subject to
      > policy/interpretation changes. I'd like to see the intent of the
      > original legislation, both at the U.S. Federal and ITU levels. It is
      > not logical that a control operator may communicate with a distant
      > operator in a non-treaty nation, but a non-ham standing right next to
      > him/her may not unless this is the precise intent of this regulation,
      > to wit: prevent non-licensed hams from talking on the radio under any
      > circumstances. If this IS the intent, why doesn't it clearly say so
      > instead of masterful obfuscation? I need to do more follow-up and
      > research, but I don't have the time right now. Once again, the losers
      > are the Scouts.
      > de Fred
      > K2FRD
      > ****************************
      > Fred--here's the answer.
      > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:37:08 -0500
      > From: "William Cross" <BCROSS@...>
      > To: "Riley Hollingsworth" <RHOLLING@...>
      > Subject: Re: Fwd: THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC
      > Mime-Version: 1.0
      > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
      > Content-Disposition: inline
      > You got it-the rule 97.115(a)(2) says "No amateur station shall
      > transmit messages for a third party to any station within the
      > jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has not
      > made such an arrangement [with the United States to allow amateur
      > stations to be used for transmitting international communications on
      > behalf of third parties].
      > What the message is about or how close the 3rd party is to the
      > control operator of the station in the US is irrelevant: No
      > agreement-no messages. Straight from the international Radio
      > Regulations.
      > Bill
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.