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
|