Am I missing something here? So long as there is a control operator
physically present (and in control of) the US station, does it make any
difference whether any person operating the station (under the control
operator's oversight) even has a license at all, whether remote or on
the premises??
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 6/5/2017 2:00 PM, Peter Bowyer wrote:
I found the quote I was referring to :
"For the past two days I have been corresponding my a gentleman called
Scot Stone, Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, The FCC
and have asked him several questions about what is allowed and what is
not allowed in the United States of America with amateur licensing.
I did not quote any specifics, but merely asked policy and licensing
questions.
I did this to be clear in my head what is allowed and what is illegal
in the USA. Many people have different view on things and like life,
many people push the boundaries of things and if they get away with it
on sufficient occasions, then (to them) it become acceptable practise.
My questions to the FCC did not cover every eventuality or
possibility but merely an outline of the current situation.
This morning I got a final message that (and I cut copy and paste so
as to get the words correctly)
"Reciprocal authority does not authorize remote control, even when you
are in the United States. If you visit the United States, you can
operate where you are under your CEPT license, but not remotely.
Remote control of a transmitter located in the United States requires
a license from the FCC, regardless of where you are located.
You need a USA license in order to remotely operate a transmitter in
the United States.
The FCC does not grant reciprocal licenses anymore. Instead, we grant
reciprocal authority to licensees from administrations with which the
United States has a bilateral or multilateral agreement (such as
CEPT), but this authority applies only to stations under the foreign
licensee's physical control.
So there you have it from the horse's mouth - MY reading of the above
simply means that
(1) I cannot operate a remote station in the USA from Scotland as
(it is not under my physical control) and I do not have a USA licence
and
(2) If I visit the USA even under CEPT, I may operate my own station
or the station of my host, but I may not operate another station
within the USA by remote control, unless I have a licence from the
FCC!
"
So not a direct, authoritative ruling but perhaps good enough? Note
that it also states that remote operation isn't included in CEPT
privileges *at all*, even if you're in-country.
Peter G4MJS
On 5 June 2017 at 18:28, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be clarification on this, so we know what is legal
operation and what is not.
I have from ARRL but they are not the FCC. But they do sponsor
contests and have the FCC's ear.
Either way it won't hurt to know where we stand. Every operator should
know without a doubt whether their operation is legal. Helps prevent
any surprises.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org> wrote:
Well if you're operating remotely from outside the US, it doesn't - which
is a good part of the point here. The CEPT regulation is written such that
it covers the physical presence of a foreign-licensed operator in the US.
I've seen (but can't immediately turn up) a quote from an FCC official
confirming that interpretation, and that remote operation of a US station
from overseas using the CEPT privileges isn't permitted.
That's one reason why remotehamradio.com insist on every operator having a
US license. I'm getting mine later this year, with a bit of luck :-)
Peter G4MJS
On 5 June 2017 at 17:34, Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"simply bring your CEPT or IARP documentation when you visit the US."
How does this get done?
Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------
*From:* CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Peter
Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>
*Sent:* Monday, June 5, 2017 10:02 AM
*To:* CQ-Contest Reflector
*Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location
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
Foreign Licenses Operating in U.S. - American Radio Relay ...
<http://www.arrl.org/foreign-licenses-operating-in-u-s>
www.arrl.org
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the national association for
amateur radio, connecting hams around the U.S. with news, information and
resources.
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
<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-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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|