BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: CEPT, and remote hams question
From:
"Ray T. Mahorney" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:54:39 -0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines) 
I concur with Dave Alan when I was in the UK and operating a US based remote CEPT did not apply the
only condition under which it would apply would be if I were accessing the US based remote through a
UK based RF node instead of via the w4mq software or whatever's out there these days.


Ray T. Mahorney
WA4WGA


-----Original Message-----
From: For blind ham radio operators [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Pearson
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 23:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CEPT, and remote hams question

Hi:

The ARRL seems to feel  that in order to "control" an amateur station governed by the CEPt agreement
a ham must be physically present in the CEPT's qth(country).If this interpretation is correct, this
would severely reduce the # of stations which may be operated by U.S hams via the
RCFORB(client) application.

Any other opinions on this?

Best regards,



David S. Pearson-wa4dsp 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2