Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:18:03 +1300 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Ray!
Yep, the license held is what governs the privilege, not a body's location
nor circumstancial convenience.
Of course, if you have an agreement with a remote owner that satisfies both
parties, that is OK too.
73,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: For blind ham radio operators [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ray T. Mahorney
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2016 1:01 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CEPT, and remote hams question
just to expand as I also hold a UK call I think CEPT would only come into
play if I were to operate outside the UK under either call.
Ray T. Mahorney
WA4WGA
M0WGA
-----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
|
|
|