Hi Robin.
>>>> Please advise how one would put the callsign GB50BOB into
>>>> a packet radio transceiver then?
>>> I do not like to cite my cites but:
>>>>>> just using DL1NC and (just in case) sending a beacon every 10
>>>>>> minutes containing my complete callsign and QTH. If anybody
>>>>>> wants to know more, they can connect me and ask.
>>> Just put GB50BO in the callsign field...
>> Thereby contravening the regulations in just about EVERY country
>> I've ever operated in! Certainly, doing that is against the
>> British regulations, the US regulations, the Canadian
>> regulations, the French regulations...should I keep going?
> Have looked long and hard through BR68 I can't find ANYTHING
> that even mentions AX25 never mind that a callsign MUST be used
> as a part of the protocol.
Let me clarify then: From BR68, I read.
3.2.b Other Requirements: The licencee shall comply with all
relevant statuary enactments...
One 'relevant statuary enactment' in the UK is the Fraud Act, which
makes it illegal to identify oneself by an identifier allocated to
some other legal entity with whom the said identifier would normally
be associated.
Therefore, it is ILLEGAL to identify oneself by a callsign which one
has not been allocated with. The special event station was allocated
callsign GB50BOB and it is quite possible that the (equally valid)
special event callsign GB50BO was issued to a DIFFERENT special event
station at the same time.
I can confirm that when the special event callsign GB50RAF was in
operation, the special event callsign GB50RA was ALSO in operation, as
I have BOTH cards in my collection, received following contacts on the
SAME DAY. According to a certain rather stupid suggestion, both should
use the SAME callsign as their address for packet radio purposes !!!
> Do not confuse station identification (necessary by MORSE in
> the UK) with the particular digital communications method
> (protocol).
This has nothing to do with that.
> Other countries may be different (I understand that the FCC
> don't allow a packet size greater than 256 bytes - sounds stupid
> so I hope its not true).
I know that at one time, the FCC regulations required that what they
referred to as "digital transmissions" were limited to "one sentence
or 100 characters, whichever was the smaller", but I understand that
requirement no longer exists.
> Why is it that so many amateurs (not looking at anyone on this
> thread in particular) seem to find so many 'regulations' that
> will stop them experimenting. Talk you your local rep and I'm
> sure there is a lot more you CAN do rather than not.
I see NOTHING wrong with experimenting, and certainly in the UK, the
ham regulations are phrased to encourage that. However, they rarely
authorise illegal acts to be carried out.
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
* http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
