[drats_users] Non-Hams on D-RATS

Mon Dec 26 08:12:03 PST 2011

As the owner/operator of the "Atlanta" Ratflector and the GWN-ARES tactical callsigns referred to, I can assure you it is operated in a legal manner.  First, the Ratflector I operate is connected to a radio on my local repeater.  GWN-ARES is a tactical callsign for an occurrence of D-RATS running on the same PC as the Ratflector.  It is used as a file server for our local ARES group.  Tactical callsigns are a wonderful feature of D-RATS for EmComm use and whether originating on the Internet or another local radio, when any traffic hits RF, the D-STAR radio transmits the legal, FCC callsign associated with that radio. If you were monitoring on the RF side, you would see my callsign.  As far not seeing any emergency traffic, I apologize that we haven't had any disasters or other emergency operations for you to see.  However, we have used D-RATS as an integral part of our county's exercises and statewide drills.

As others have correctly pointed out, Packet, EchoLink and IRLP stations as well as repeaters operate in an unattended mode and the "control operator" or trustee bears the responsibility for the station.  As the ARES EC for my county, I am more than happy to provide the Ratflector with local RF connectivity bearing my callsign. Non-hams and abuse are always possible and it is up to us as the amateur community to be the first line of defense for illegal operation. 

D-RATS offers fabulous capabilities for EmComm (thanks, Dan) and we should focus on this instead of rare edge cases for abuse.  If you are too worried about the less than 1% that could abuse this, you should NOT operate on D-RATS and definitely on our Ratflector.   As with many Ham discussions, this one has run its course so can we please move on.

John Davis WB4QDX
Emergency Coordinator - Gwinnett County, GA
Amateur Radio Emergency Service
wb4qdx at arrl.net

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/201112
> 25/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
> ******************************************
_______________________________________________
drats_users mailing list
drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4703 - Release Date: 12/25/11