XPost: rec.radio.amateur.policy, uk.radio.amateur
From: rodger@diddley-dipole.com
The call sign is issued to an individual, but it identifies the station and
NOT the person it is issued to.
This idea that people are G1XYU etc. it complete bollocks, if you establish
your station, and you let another person use it, they MUST continue to use
the call sign the station was established with.
Even with the relaxed Terms & Conditions, if someone uses that established
station and claims to be a different call sign, they are guilty of
"establishing a station without the benefit of a license", as they haven't
given the call sign at the commencement of transmission (3 words or 8
syllables). With the old BR68 legislation this type of operation was far
more difficult as the original station would first have to close down, the
person than using it with another call sign would have to re-establish it
with the new call, then close down before passing the mike back to the
original operator, who would then have to re-establish it with the original
call sign. LUCKILY, we no longer have to do that as these rules have
substantially changed.
Previously, if it was a static station, it would generate a huge amount of
log entries, plus the secondary call sign would have had to comply with the
alternate address legislation giving the location to within (as far as I can
remember, 3 miles, or quoting some obvious landmark).
A call sign is therefore not personal and does not refer to a specific
individual, only to the station that individual establishes. This is a very
common misconception, but it was all there in blue & white, and now in black
& white, albeit somewhat simpler to understand.
This particular misconception gets passed on to newcomers as they are
indoctrinated by others who "KNOW" the rules, but in practice do not.
Personally, I only became aware of the many strange nuances of the rules by
reading them and then comparing the BR68 with the Terms & Conditions, and
working out the actual legal meaning which is vastly different with a small
change of wording. A good example is a small change between "must be used"
and "should be used" - quite different legal meaning. Another good example
is the Phonetic Alphabet which was published in the BR68, and now we don't
have to use the correct words as the legislation has been changes to "it is
recommended that"
"Brian Reay" wrote in message news:no4nja$n52$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/08/16 13:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <001a114f3c6221bb17053965c405@google.com>, Southgate Amateur
> Radio News RSS Feed writes
>
>
>>
>> The RSGB website reports Ofcom have been re-issuing old amateur radio
>> call signs
>
> It looks like the end of amateur radio as we know it.
>
I don't see why.
It has happened in the UK and elsewhere for years. Just because you
don't approve of it doesn't mean it will 'end amateur radio as we know it'.
Many people won't wish to change call signs they have held for years.
Some will wish to get an 'old' call sign, for whatever reason, if it is
to gain so 'kudos' by seeming to be more 'established' than their really
are, then chances are it will be pretty obvious to those who they come
into contact with and it will backfire. I know a couple of cases of
this, it was very, very, obvious. Both had gone to some lengths to
acquire the old call signs (it was some years back). I believe at least
one is no longer active, having met so much ridicule due to his
incompetence etc. (Despite having passed the Morse test!)
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
