I agree that Ed has a point, but it also represents something of a quandary for the ARRL. Since the Amateur Service is supposed to be self-policing -- would it be right for the ARRL to hold back this
My take is that the ARRL is not part of any enforcement and unless there was a supoena, then they should stay out of it, irregardless of what happened! At this point in time, both agencies should be
it While I agree with all of the above, the ARRL is not an enforcement agency, and unless there's something in the rules about the logs being their property, I believe what they did was an invasion o
Which is why I keep a log. A log is considered a legal document by the FCC (from what I understand) and can be used as proof in a case. Such as we see here. I highly recommend in todays cut throat wo
Not the brightest bulb. The guy should have specified the band and not the frequency in the logging program. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Ma
I saw nothing in the FCC letters which I thought inapproriate. What I did find absolutely disgusting is that the ARRL shared submitted logs with the FCC. So much for submitting contest logs. 73 Ed
I've been trying to not say anything about this thread, but I just can't control my fingers. :>))) You know, we complain when the FCC does no regulation, now are we complaining because they are tryin
The issue is that the FCC is too busy checking logs to address the BPL problem! Gary - WB4SQ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best
-- There are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in Tommy's reasoning. The FCC is the one which unilaterally did away with the log requirements. And just what is "adequately explained" mean? If the request wa