RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] K1N vs ARRL

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] K1N vs ARRL
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 15:57:09 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>

Where in that does it say that the bulletin station has any more right
to use those frequencies than those already using them?  If the schedule
consists of *more than* 40 hours per week, being late or not running a
given transmitter because it would interfere with the existing user of
a frequency would not endanger the ability to pay the control operator.

ARRL is simply making the "control operator" argument out of laziness -
no different than the contest operator who is too lazy (or in too big
of a hurry) to listen for weak signal activity before he hits F1 on
his KW and stacked antennas.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2015-02-07 3:11 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
"v) The control operator of a club station may accept compensation for
the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy
practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits
such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week;
schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands
using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of
normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days
in advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator
does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other
service as a control operator."

73,

Paul, N8HM

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:09 PM, john <w8wej@citynet.net> wrote:
what???
On 2/7/2015 7:34 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:

The ARRL lawyers' position is that, if they are paying the control
operator, they cannot deviate from the schedule unless the schedule
deviation is announced and published in advance due to the wording of
the regulations, so the control operator at the ARRL has to fire up
the transmitter even if there's a station there.

73,

Paul, N8HM

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bob Burns W9BU <w9bu_lists@rlburns.net>
wrote:

On 2/7/2015 11:38 AM, Charles Morrison wrote:

K1N was there first.


Didn't we just have a heated discussion about this a few weeks ago?

As I recall, some posters took the position that RTTY operators should
know
that certain frequencies are accepted watering holes for various modes
and
are covered by gentlemen's agreements. More specifically, the stated
position seemed to be that that RTTY operators should know about
relatively
fixed JT65 operating frequencies and, therefore, avoid them. If that
position is valid, then those same RTTY operators should know about the
relatively fixed ARRL bulletin operating frequencies and, therefore,
avoid
them.

If the concept applies to JT65, doesn't it apply to ARRL bulletins?

I acknowledge that I may be poking at the fire.

Bob...


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty


_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

--



_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>