In my view the phrase "at the end of each communication" is equivalent to
"at the end of each QSO" and applies equally to both participants in each
QSO.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 14:35 Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com> wrote:
> Almost all the comments in this thread is about what the RUN station is
> doing wrong. An interesting perspective on this is applying the FCC (since
> we are in the USA) rule on identifying. 97.119 (a) says:
>
> Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must
> transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of
> each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication,
> for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the
> station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit
> unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call
> sign, any call sign not authorized to the station.
>
> So the RUN station begins his communication with a CQ (a call to any
> station), and responds to all callers, and is on;y required to identify
> every 10 minutes and when he is done. He is certainly allowed to do it
> more, and we would appreciate that. HOWEVER, all stations, including those
> calling the RUN station are required to sent their call "at the end of each
> communication". With the exception of RTTY contests, I rarely see ID at the
> end of communication, and I am not excluding myself from this practice.
> IDing at the end would sure slow the RUN station down, and you are just
> following the rules. --73, Mike, WV2ZOW
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, ve4xt@mymts.net <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
>
> > Drew wrote:
> >
> > > The other fellow (sorry, forgot the call) about just having fun and not
> > being vindictive. You are right and it is a good message to throw in the
> > mix. This isn't an attack. That being said, we can still strive for
> best
> > practices, and this can include up to DQ for the really bad actors.
> >
> > >
> >
> > The best answer here -- work him, ask for his call, NIL if refused --
> > isn't about being vindictive, it's simply about giving him the chance to
> do
> > the right thing. The NIL at the end is required by the rules: if you
> don't
> > know who you worked, how can you call it a Q?
> >
> > Plus, no rule or even common courtesy would demand you continue listening
> > until he finally does ID. Especially since if you let these guys affect
> > your S&P performance, you have only yourself to blame. Lots of fish in
> the
> > sea...
> >
> > Vindictive would be to work him, not ask for his call and then NIL him
> > without having given him the opportunity to earn your Q.
> >
> > Then again, if we all simply ignored these arses, they'd have no pileups.
> > It's not unreasonable to ask: If you don't know who it is, why are you
> even
> > calling?
> >
> > Somehow, I don't think our pack mentality would allow it.
> >
> > On phone, when the guy says you're a dupe, at least you can answer "But
> > you never ID, so how would I have known?"
> >
> > 73, kelly, ve4xt
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|