CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Fw: license class and m-m op's

To: "CQ Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Fw: license class and m-m op's
From: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:58:21 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Here is one of the many replies I received about M-M operations and control 
op and priviledges of the operators....de Rick
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JIM" <N2NRD@COMCAST.NET>
To: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's


> K1TTT Technical Reference
>
>
>
> K1TTT Home | What's New | Weather | Webcams | Tech Reference
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Here it is guys, from ARRL HQ.  I sent the following message and got the
> reply that follows my message.  Looks like as long as the op has his
> liscence, he can talk to anyone, anywhere under the higher class
> liscence.
>
>>From: ke1fo
>>To: reginfo
>>Subject: Contesting/3rd party question
>>Date: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 1:47PM
>>
>>I have a question regarding Multi Single operating in contests and the
>>liscence class of the participants.  Here is the scenario.
>>
>>The contest group is using an extra class callsign for the event, but
>>not all the operators are extra class.  Can the "non extra" hams operate
>>outside their liscence priviliges while using the extra callsign?  And
>>if they can, do they have to limit their contacts to countries with
>>which the US holds a valid 3rd party aggrement?
>>
>>If this is not the appropriate person to recieve this message, please
>>let me knwo who to send it to or foward it to them for me.  Thanks in
>>advance.
>>
>>Al, KE1FO
>>--
>
> Subject: CORRECTION: Contesting/3rd party questio
>   Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:16:00 -0500
>   From: "Hogerty, Tom, KC1J" <thogerty@arrl.org>
>     To: ke1fo <ke1fo@contesting.com>
>
> Al,
> On further investigation I found that my original response to you is 
> incorrect.  The correct answer is yes, it is legal. It is also legal for 
> the "3rd party" to pass a message as well. Note the end of Section 
> 97.115(a)(2) "This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third 
> party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station". While not 
> clear from this rule, it is clear from the Report & Order that implemented 
> the new rules in 1989 that if the "3rd party" is a
> licensed amateur (regardless of license class or country of issue) the 
> international 3rd party prohibition does not apply.
> Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
>
> 73,
> Tom Hogerty, KC1J
> Regulatory Information
>
> another version:
>
>
> This 3rd Party argument raises it head about every year or so.  Here is a
> copy of a letter posted to the relector by KI6X which should squash things
> for a while.  I have asked the FCC about contesting and third party
> operation many years ago and got basically the same response, although 
> this
> is worded better than I could probably remember it.
>
>                                        Dan KL7Y
>
>>
>>
>>                                   February 8, 1994
>>
>>Dan R. Violette, KI6X
>>1122 E. Sail Ave.
>>Orange, CA 92665
>>
>>Dear Dan:
>>
>>   ARRL Vice President Tom Frenaye, K1KI, shared your recent  contest 
>> reflector
>>comments with us for comment.  I am addressing  the legal issues; the CAC
>>issues need to be addressed separately.
>>
>>   First, "A station may only be operated in the manner and to  the extent
>>permitted by the privileges authorized for the class  of operator license 
>>held
>>by the control operator." [97.105(b)].  Thus, a Technician isn't eligible 
>>to be
>>the control operator of  the station while it is transmitting on twenty 
>>meters.
>>
>>   A Technician, however, is eligible to be "a control operator"  of any
>>station.  This is true even though he or she cannot act as  THE control
>>operator at times when the station is being operated  on frequencies 
>>beyond his
>>or her license class.
>>
>>   The Commission specifically acknowledged in the Part 97  rewrite 
>> proceeding
>>in 1989 that messages sent between amateur  stations on behalf of another
>>amateur licensee are not  third  party traffic.  See, the Report and 
>>Order,
>>Docket 88-139, 4 FCC  Rcd. 4719 (1989), at paragraphs 39 and 42.  The FCC, 
>>at
>>the  League's request, concurred with the prior holding of the United
>>Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry, that "the passing of  messages 
>>on
>>behalf of other licensed radio amateurs (at home and  abroad) does not
>>contravene the prohibition against third party  traffic..."  FCC codified 
>>that
>>provision (though not clearly  enough, really), at Section 97.115(a) of 
>>the
>>rules, saying that   "The prohibition [on international third party 
>>traffic
>>with  countries with which the United States does not have a third party
>>traffic agreement] does not apply to a message for any third party  who is
>>eligible to be a control operator of the station."  Notice  that says "a"
>>control operator, not "the" control operator.
>>
>>   Therefore, while an unlicensed person operating with a  licensed 
>> control
>>operator, is limited to communications only with  the United States 
>>stations
>>and with those stations located in  countries with which the United States 
>>has
>>a third party traffic  agreement.  Any licensed amateur can operate any 
>>station
>>and  participate in international communications as long as there is a 
>>control
>>operator on hand who is licensed to operate on the  frequency being used. 
>>So,
>>a Technician, for example, could  operate at a contest station on 20 
>>meters and
>>contact any station  in any country as long as there was a control 
>>operator
>>present who  is eligible to operate on 20 meters.
>>
>>I hope this helps clear the air on the legal aspects of the  issue.  The 
>>CAC
>>issues should be addressed through your  Division's CAC representative. 
>>If I
>>can be of further  assistance, please let me know.  73.
>>
>>                              Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>                              John C. Hennessee, KJ4KB
>>                              Regulatory Information Specialist
>>                                            ARRL
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> David Robbins, K1TTT K1TTT@arrl.net
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>
> To: "CQ Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 6:51 AM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's
>
>
>> Hi all...I have heard that there was a recent FCC action taken against a
>> station that allowed a technician class ham who operated in a
>> contest.....the FCC said that the control operator allowed him to make 
>> qso's
>> with stations in a contest that he did not have 3rd party 
>> qualifications...I
>> may have some of the details not quite correct, but the message is still
>> valid...can a m-m have operators who are operating with privileges of the
>> control operator?? Is the operator limited to the frequency limits of
>> his/her class of license? Or am I simply overacting on something that's
>> really not that important??
>>
>> thanks de Rick nq4i
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Fw: license class and m-m op's, Rick Dougherty NQ4I <=