I understand that the wording is confusing, but the intent is clear.
It merely states that the privileges granted (whatever they may be -
completely irrelevant in this context) cannot exceed those of amateur
extra class in the USA. It is all said in one sentence - you cannot parse
out the limitation stated in the second part from the first part. It is
all one continuous idea.
Which is precisely as I have been saying.
The concern is focused on not allowing reciprocal licensees to EXCEED USA
EXTRA CLASS. Period. That's the entire concern.
The concern is strictly regarding the preclusion of the use of frequencies
not authorized in the USA as I mentioned before. Again, no SSB in the USA
digital / CW bands is one example. I can guarantee that no FCC staff
person will be checking to see the limits of anyone's UK license. They
will presume that any reciprocal operator has full USA Extra Class
privileges, and that they do not exceed those USA Extra Class limits.
Trust me, this is the way it is, despite the apparently confusing wording.
The CEPT document has it precisely correct.
It should be re-stated as follows: All reciprocal licensees are granted
USA Extra Class privileges. Under no circumstances can reciprocal
licensees exceed USA Extra Class privileges regardless of what their home
country license might authorize.
That is what is intended.
73,
Bob W5OV
On Thu, June 8, 2017 4:51 am, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> Bob
>
>
> Maybe the FCC website helps...
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-r
> adio-service/reciprocal-operating-arrangements
>
> "Reciprocal operation in a place where the Amateur Radio Service is
> regulated by the FCC must comply with Part 97 of the FCC's Rules and the
> International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations. Operator
> privileges are those authorized by the alien's government, but do not
> exceed those of the FCC Amateur Extra Class operator."
>
> Which confirms that the licensee's home license limits their
> privileges, and that operation is subject to ITU regulations in addition to
> Part 97.
>
>
> 73 Peter
>
>
> On 7 June 2017 at 20:42, <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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ria
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jairam
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 5:53 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: W4AAW@aol.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 via
>>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest
>>>>>>>>>>>> <cq-contest@contesting.com> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-co
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ntes t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-cont
>>>>>>>>>>>> est
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-cont
>>>>>>>>>>>> est
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contes
>>>>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
|