K0HB: Well, its interpretation. Your view has them both violating the rule
-- my interpretation cuts the RUN station some slack as it could be grey
area for him, but pretty clear for the calling station. Think net control
on a net where stations check in and leave, not always checking out. --73,
Mike
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view the phrase "at the end of each communication" is equivalent to
> "at the end of each QSO" and applies equally to both participants in each
> QSO.
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 14:35 Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Almost all the comments in this thread is about what the RUN station is
>> doing wrong. An interesting perspective on this is applying the FCC (since
>> we are in the USA) rule on identifying. 97.119 (a) says:
>>
>> Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must
>> transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of
>> each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication,
>> for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the
>> station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may
>> transmit
>> unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call
>> sign, any call sign not authorized to the station.
>>
>> So the RUN station begins his communication with a CQ (a call to any
>> station), and responds to all callers, and is on;y required to identify
>> every 10 minutes and when he is done. He is certainly allowed to do it
>> more, and we would appreciate that. HOWEVER, all stations, including those
>> calling the RUN station are required to sent their call "at the end of
>> each
>> communication". With the exception of RTTY contests, I rarely see ID at
>> the
>> end of communication, and I am not excluding myself from this practice.
>> IDing at the end would sure slow the RUN station down, and you are just
>> following the rules. --73, Mike, WV2ZOW
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, ve4xt@mymts.net <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Drew wrote:
>> >
>> > > The other fellow (sorry, forgot the call) about just having fun and
>> not
>> > being vindictive. You are right and it is a good message to throw in
>> the
>> > mix. This isn't an attack. That being said, we can still strive for
>> best
>> > practices, and this can include up to DQ for the really bad actors.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > The best answer here -- work him, ask for his call, NIL if refused --
>> > isn't about being vindictive, it's simply about giving him the chance
>> to do
>> > the right thing. The NIL at the end is required by the rules: if you
>> don't
>> > know who you worked, how can you call it a Q?
>> >
>> > Plus, no rule or even common courtesy would demand you continue
>> listening
>> > until he finally does ID. Especially since if you let these guys affect
>> > your S&P performance, you have only yourself to blame. Lots of fish in
>> the
>> > sea...
>> >
>> > Vindictive would be to work him, not ask for his call and then NIL him
>> > without having given him the opportunity to earn your Q.
>> >
>> > Then again, if we all simply ignored these arses, they'd have no
>> pileups.
>> > It's not unreasonable to ask: If you don't know who it is, why are you
>> even
>> > calling?
>> >
>> > Somehow, I don't think our pack mentality would allow it.
>> >
>> > On phone, when the guy says you're a dupe, at least you can answer "But
>> > you never ID, so how would I have known?"
>> >
>> > 73, kelly, ve4xt
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|