Yes, as I predicted. Like I said, I'm done.
Peter
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> All published rules, which I have cited (and you did too) support what I
> am saying.
>
> Your position is not supported and is pure conjecture.
>
> I stand by my assertion and point to both the CEPT agreement and 97.107
> that both agree with me, and state clearly that all CEPT licensees
> operating in the USA are granted USA Amateur Extra privileges.
>
> It is clearly printed there, and in the case of the CEPT document, it is
> irrefutably so. Our 97.107 is unnecessarily cluttered with "legalese"
> that no doubt confuses the matter.
>
> Sorry it is so difficult to understand, but what I am saying is true and
> the documents back me up 100%.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
> On Wed, June 7, 2017 1:51 pm, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > Again you ignore inconvenient references.
> >
> >
> > 97.107 says:
> >
> >
> >
> > The privileges granted to a control operator under this authorization
> > are:
> >
> >
> > (b) For an amateur service license granted by any country, other than
> > Canada, with which the United Stateshas a multilateral or bilateral
> > agreement:
> >
> >
> > (1) The terms of the agreement between the alien's government and the
> > United States;
> >
> >
> > (2) The operating terms and conditions of the amateur servicelicense
> > granted by the alien's government;
> >
> > (3) The applicable rules of this part, but not to exceed the control
> > operator privileges of an FCC-granted Amateur Extra Class operator
> > license; and
> >
> > (c) At any time the FCC may, in its discretion, modify, suspend or
> > cancel the reciprocal operating authority granted to any person by this
> > sectio
> >
> > These limit the privileges granted to Extra Class (3), but also to the
> > licensee's home license (2), and the terms of the agreement (1). The
> entire
> > scope of the agreement, as I've already stated, covers short-term
> > visitors. It contains no provision for any other mechanism of operation.
> > Hence the effect of 97.101 is to only allow operation by
> > those visitors (in the case of the CEPT reciprocity - other regulations
> > probably apply to other agreements).
> >
> > I'm sure you're going to disagree with me again, I'm done now. I hope
> > this has helped others understand how the regulations interact.
> >
> > 73 Peter G4MJS
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7 June 2017 at 18:43, <w5ov@w5ov.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you for providing that link.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you look on page 9 Table 3 for "USA" of that document it says
> >> explicitly:
> >>
> >>
> >> "The operating privileges issued by non-CEPT administrations to holders
> >> of the CEPT licence" for USA, it says: "Amateur Extra".
> >>
> >> This is precisely what I said.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for reinforcing what I'm telling you. I remain steadfast in
> >> my conviction that all CEPT reciprocal licensee are granted Amateur
> >> Extra
> >> privileges in the USA. The CEPT document confirms this, along with FCC
> >> Part 97.107. There is no reduction in privileges based on their home
> >> country rules. They are granted full USA Extra Class privileges.
> >>
> >> Why would the FCC agree to this? Simple: Zero overhead in figuring out
> >> who is allowed to do what and on what frequencies. The easiest thing
> >> to do? Make them all equivalent to Extra Class. This is indeed what
> >> was done.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob W5OV
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, June 7, 2017 1:26 pm, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The scope of CEPT Recommendation T/R 61-01, to which the US is a
> >>> signatory and under which 97.101 grants reciprocal privileges, is for
> >>> short-term visitors to the country concerned. By omission, remote
> >>> operation from outside the country is excluded.
> >>>
> >>> You can find the full text of the Recommendation here
> >>> http://www.ecodocdb.dk/Docs/doc98/official/pdf/TR6101.pdf. You'll note
> >>> that the US is listed in Appendix 4 as a non-CEPT member who has
> >>> applied and been accepted under the Recommendation, meaning its
> >>> privileges apply multilaterally between the US and the other
> >>> signatories.
> >>>
> >>> 97.101 further restricts the licensee to the operating conditions of
> >>> their home license, which is more restrictive than 61-01. Hence no >
> >>> 400W
> >>> for G licensees, etc.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with others that a formal ruling from contest sponsors or the
> >>> FCC on remote operation would be welcome, but it's clear that remote
> >>> operation is not within the scope of 61-01.
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7 June 2017 at 17:18, <w5ov@w5ov.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> And, nowhere in that agreement does it support anything you're
> >>>> claiming.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please quote any legal document that explicitly says otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 73,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob W5OV
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, June 7, 2017 11:23 am, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You failed to quote 97.107(b)(1). Which says :-
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The terms of the agreement between the alien's government and
> >>>>> the United States;"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a multilateral operating agreement between the US and
> >>>>> the CEPT countries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Peter
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 7 June 2017 at 15:29, <w5ov@w5ov.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you quote an actual rule that says what you claim?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In Part 97.107, nothing like what you and others are alleging
> >>>>>> is justified, nor even mentioned. In the USA, the FCC rules
> >>>>>> take precedence in all cases, and there is nothing in the FCC
> >>>>>> rules that supports your claim of CEPT rules taking precedence
> >>>>>> over any operations within the USA under any circumstances.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Specifically:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 97.107 (b)(2)
> >>>>>> "The operating terms and conditions of the amateur service
> >>>>>> license granted by the alien's government"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This does not say anything about operating privileges. They are
> >>>>>> covered in the next part. The "terms and conditions *of the
> >>>>>> amateur service license*" refer explicitly to only the *license*
> >>>>>> and its validity - issue dates, expirations, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In contrast, operating privileges are discussed *explicitly* in
> >>>>>> the next part:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the case of the UK: 97.107(b)(3) applies:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The applicable rules of this part, but not to exceed the
> >>>>>> control operator privileges of an FCC-granted Amateur Extra
> >>>>>> Class operator
> >>>>>> license".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is germane regarding operating privileges and what it says
> >>>>>> is:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The applicable rules of this part" which means all USA
> >>>>>> allocations, modes, restrictions and all other rules and
> >>>>>> regulations that apply in the USA *for Extra Class operators*.
> >>>>>> In other words,
> >>>>>> All foreigners
> >>>>>> eligible for reciprocal operating are granted full USA Extra
> >>>>>> Class
> >>>>>> privileges - but no more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As one example of "no more", reciprocal licensees cannot
> >>>>>> operate SSB in
> >>>>>> the USA CW / Digital bands, even though their licenses back home
> >>>>>> may permit it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In all cases, USA FCC Law takes precedence over all other
> >>>>>> countries' rules.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is what it *actually* says.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're adding things to it that it does not say.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 73,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bob W5OV
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, June 7, 2017 3:08 am, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, but the conditions under which the reciprocal privileges
> >>>>>>> are granted (in this case ) are governed by CEPT and adopted
> >>>>>>> by FCC. In
> >>>>>>> order to benefit from the CEPT arrangements, FCC has to adopt
> >>>>>>> its rules.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The 'no remote operation' principle comes from the CEPT
> >>>>>>> rules.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Peter G4MJS
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 6 Jun 2017 10:46 p.m., <w5ov@w5ov.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From what I read at the link you provided, it is precisely
> >>>>>>>> as I said:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "US Law applies and the operators must comply with FCC
> >>>>>>>> rules as if they were physically within the USA".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I see nothing that changes that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> More specifically, anyone operating a remote station in the
> >>>>>>>> USA
> >>>>>>>> must obey the USA FCC Law as if they were here in the USA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 73,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bob W5OV
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, June 5, 2017 12:02 pm, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry Bob you're wrong there. FCC has adopted the CEPT
> >>>>>>>>> T/R
> >>>>>>>>> 61-01
> >>>>>>>>> regulation to make reciprocal licensing easier.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.arrl.org/foreign-licenses-operating-in-u-s
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Peter G4MJS
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 5 June 2017 at 13:07, <w5ov@w5ov.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> N2RJ said:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> " Just be careful that you are indeed doing so. CEPT
> >>>>>>>>>> T/R
> >>>>>>>>>> 61-01
> >>>>>>>>>> is not sufficient authorization for a European licensee
> >>>>>>>>>> to operate an internet remote base in the US while being
> >>>>>>>>>> physically present overseas...."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> EU rules do not apply to amateur radio transmissions
> >>>>>>>>>> made from within the USA under any circunstances.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where the operator is located is completely irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What happens on the air from a USA station is governed
> >>>>>>>>>> by US
> >>>>>>>>>> FCC
> >>>>>>>>>> Law -
> >>>>>>>>>> nothing else.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> US Law applies and the operators must comply with FCC
> >>>>>>>>>> rules as if they were physically within the USA.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 73,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bob W5OV
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> From: CQ-Contest
> >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com <javascript:;>]
> >>>>>>>>>> On
> >>>>>>>>>> Behalf
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ria
> >>>>>>>>>> Jairam
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 5:53 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> To: W4AAW@aol.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> W1VE and other serious operators of remote-capable
> >>>>>>>>>>> stations will agree with me: We remote-capable
> >>>>>>>>>>> stations are not trying to fool anyone or gain some
> >>>>>>>>>>> sort of geographical or unfair advantage. We're just
> >>>>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>> competitive and striving to do so strictly within the
> >>>>>>>>>> rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There is really nothing wrong with trying to gain an
> >>>>>>>>>> advantage during a contest. That's what contesting is.
> >>>>>>>>>> As
> >>>>>>>>>> long as it is within the rules. Operating from elsewhere
> >>>>>>>>>> to do better in contests has been a staple of contesting
> >>>>>>>>>> for pretty much as long as it has existed.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Alex is a member of TeamW4AAW, which operates the
> >>>>>>>>>>> first Totally Remote
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> M/M station.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We have 31 team members who operate W4AAW's positions
> >>>>>>>>>>> from all over NA, from Panama, Europe and Asia,
> >>>>>>>>>>> provided they meet legal/licensing
> >>>>>>>>>> requirements.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Just be careful that you are indeed doing so. CEPT T/R
> >>>>>>>>>> 61-01 is
> >>>>>>>>>> not sufficient authorization for a European licensee to
> >>>>>>>>>> operate an internet remote base in the US while being
> >>>>>>>>>> physically present overseas. Even if they were allowed,
> >>>>>>>>>> their home license restrictions and power limits
> >>>>>>>>>> (while not
> >>>>>>>>>> exceeding US Extra) apply. In the UK it is 400 watts for
> >>>>>>>>>> full licenses and in Germany it is 750W for class A
> >>>>>>>>>> licenses. Other European countries may be different. The
> >>>>>>>>>> best thing for them to do to be compliant with the laws
> >>>>>>>>>> of the US is to get a US license. There are VE
> >>>>>>>>>> sessions in many countries overseas and one can get a
> >>>>>>>>>> license by passing the (now very easy) exams. No code
> >>>>>>>>>> required, even.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. The 3830 comments for KU1CW @ W4AAW in the CQWPX
> >>>>>>>>>>> CW
> >>>>>>>>>>> test very clearly show the locations of each
> >>>>>>>>>>> operator.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> An awards chaser who isn't competing in the contest is
> >>>>>>>>>> unlikely to know about nor care about 3830. The best
> >>>>>>>>>> thing to do would be to put the location of the stations
> >>>>>>>>>> in the QRZ profile, which is
> >>>>>>>>>> the first place they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 73
> >>>>>>>>>> Ria, N2RJ
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:30 PM, W4AAW@aol.com <javascript:;>
> via
> >>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest
> >>>>>>>>>> <cq-contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here is the correct information on KU1CW in the CQWPX
> >>>>>>>>>>> CW
> >>>>>>>>>>> contest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Alex has just moved to Washington State. He has
> >>>>>>>>>>> not yet modified his
> >>>>>>>>>> license to reflect this recent development.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Alex is a member of TeamW4AAW, which operates the
> >>>>>>>>>>> first Totally Remote
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> M/M station. We have 31 team members who operate
> >>>>>>>>>> W4AAW's
> >>>>>>>>>> positions from all over NA, from Panama, Europe and
> >>>>>>>>>> Asia,
> >>>>>>>>>> provided they meet legal/licensing requirements.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since a W4 call sign is common in WPX tests, I
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggested to Alex we use
> >>>>>>>>>> KU1CW for the contest. Alex agreed. So, the entry (as
> >>>>>>>>>> shown on 3830) was KU1CW@ W4AAW.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. The 3830 comments for KU1CW @ W4AAW in the CQWPX
> >>>>>>>>>>> CW
> >>>>>>>>>>> test very clearly
> >>>>>>>>>> show the locations of each operator.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If some people had bothered to read information that
> >>>>>>>>>>> is readily available
> >>>>>>>>>> in that posting, it would not have been necessary to
> >>>>>>>>>> cast aspersions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> During some periods of the contest, Alex even
> >>>>>>>>>>> operated SO2R,
> >>>>>>>>>>> using two
> >>>>>>>>>> W4AAW positions remotely, from Washington State.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> W1VE and other serious operators of remote-capable
> >>>>>>>>>>> stations will agree
> >>>>>>>>>> with me: We remote-capable stations are not trying to
> >>>>>>>>>> fool anyone or gain some sort of geographical or unfair
> >>>>>>>>>> advantage. We're just being competitive and striving to
> >>>>>>>>>> do so strictly within the rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 73, Mike W4AAW
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contes
> >>>>>>>>>>> t
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|