[drats_users] Non-Hams on D-RATS

[Raleigh Stout]

I have seen as many as eight questionable D-RATS identifiers on D-RATS
ratflectors.  While most of that activity is confined to the RAT
ratflector where no RF bridging is allowed, I have seen identifier
GWN-ARES for about three days on the Atlanta, GA ratflector, where
there is no ham radio callsign associated and the opportunity exists
for RF bridging.  I have noted no amatuer radio callsign associated
with GWN-ARES nor any emergency related traffic over D-RATS Atlanta
ratlector as yet.

My concern is the legality of a legitimate ham on the Atlanta
reflector pinging and getting a response from the questionable Atlanta
GA identifier and that response going out over RF.  Or what happens to
GWN-ARES if it decides to transfer files or ping other stations on the
ratlfector and RF bridging is utilized?

I would be more comfortable seeing an amateur radio callsign given
along with such questionable identifiers because anyone can come on
D-RATS and assume an identity and have that assumed identity
transmitted over RF without meeting the FCC rules for amateur station
identification on RF.

Now is the time before emergencies to resolve such issues because as a
ham, I would have a legitimate and legal choice to refuse traffic from
any unidentified or questionably identified station in order to keep
my station legal, especially where RF bridging is possible or in
operation.

Thoughts, anyone ?

73 Raleigh AC5JW

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM,
<drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com> wrote:
> Send drats_users mailing list submissions to
>        drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        drats_users-owner at intrepid.danplanet.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of drats_users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Non-Hams On D-RATS (kc4mts)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:39:56 -0500
> From: "kc4mts" <kc4mts at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [drats_users] Non-Hams On D-RATS
> To: <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
> Message-ID: <564DC36F8D3748AFA4E59BCA8A40205D at DelLat610ARES>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello Kirk and all!
>
> In reference to "    The term control operator throws me a bit here because an unmanned D-RATS RF station has no control operator.   I'm not even certain an unmanned D-RATS RF station can exist under Part 97.  ".... An unmanned station refers to a system which is in remote operation. As an amateur operator we are responsible for any transmission which is sent over RF at our station and if we are not at the radio sending the transmission, we must monitor and have remote control over the station to stop undesired operation. Even a Station operating in beacon mode must have a control operator.
>  This is not a new problem. Packet radio using automatic forwarding of mail has caused the same issue to arise before. It is part of our job to monitor transmissions as we are ultimatly responsible for what ever is sent over our radios.
>
> You have some good ideas for gaining some automatic control over what is passed through RF. On the other hand a feature that would stop an email from going through an RF link would probably need to be turned off for emergencies as some DRATS users and EOCs use tactical call signs and a critical emergency or priority message could easily be rejected instead of getting to the destination.
>
> I believe your statement about non Hams refers to a party (as in trouble maker or rif-raf) that is sending data over amatuer frequecies during a non emergency condition for the purposes of bypassing paid subscription or normal  unlicenced methods of sending the data. This is usually handled in the same manner that a trouble maker (even a Ham) would be delt with when causing spurious transmissions over voice. You do not have to be an official observer to request some one to stop violating FCC rules, and if the party continues to violate the rules they can be reported to the FCC for further action.
>
> Alan McGrew kc4mts
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/drats_users/attachments/20111225/c80cf8e3/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> drats_users mailing list
> drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
> http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users
>
>
> End of drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 4
> ******************************************