| |
VE7NGK > HF 09.05.03 21:22l 35 Lines 1606 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : B50002VE7NGK
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: Re: New BBS
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<WB0TAX<W7NTF<
WB7AWL<VE7KIT<VE7NSR<VE7VBS<VE7DIE<VE7VBB
Sent: 030509/1626Z @:VE7VBB.#SVI.BC.CAN.NA #:44729 [Victoria, BC] $:B50002VE7NG
From: VE7NGK@VE7VBB.#SVI.BC.CAN.NA
To : HF@WW
It's a funny thing how this is truly a new outlet of how to police what
goes on as far as radio traffic is concerned. In your case of GB7ABC,
forwarding mail from an Internet site, he or rather it, is sending that
mail as "Third party traffic" which is a legitimate use of an armature
station, as long as the radio license isn't invalid or the original sender
IE: Internet user, CB operator, or any similar person, didn't want that
message to go out on open air.
The underlying point being that who ever causes the message to be
transmitted via an RF carrier, (Not the one sending or rather creating
it, be it GB7ABC or GB7DBY) is considered to be the sending station - they
have full responsibility for the message(s)
This point makes me laugh:
>> I think the case of GB7ABC , being purely an Internet BBS, is *NOT*
>> Subject to the terms of the amateur radio license.
Why does the dumb shmuck use a radio call sign on a purely Internet BBS.
Sorry, the implication is there that it is a radio related BBS, and any
traffic done threw it, internet or other wise, should be handled as though
it was on air. Come on people - IT IS USING A RADIO CALL, THE OPERATOR IS
ASKING FOR IT... I too have a BBS running, (Both packet and i-Net) and
rest assured, the one on the I-Net makes no mention of ham radio! And some
of the humour files I've received via the I-Net have been sent out on
packet!
>Quite a can of worms isn't it?
Yup, only because people can't "Play together."
-That's my thoughts; hope I didn't anger too many people.
73's de VE7NGK
(Tom)
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
