Dick. As you said, its debated. I disagree with your interpretation.
>From Part 97:
97.115 Third Party Communications:
The third party may participate in stating the message where:
(1) The control operator is present at the control point and is continuously
monitoring and supervising the third party's participation;
97.117 International communications.
Transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be limited to
communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service and to
remarks of a personal character.
Definitions:
Third party communications. A message from the control operator (first
party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control operator
(second party) on behalf of another person (third party).
To me, it is quite clear. If an unlicensed person is making ANY
communication from a US Amateur Station to a another Amateur Station - that
person is in fact a third party. If they are not a third party, what is the
definition of this person? Since a third party is involved, those
communications are only allowed with countries that have a third party
agreement with the US.
I see no interpretation of the regulation that distinguishes who created the
message. I also see no definition of a non-third party, non-licensed
amateur entity.
There is no difference between a newbie at the station and a person on the
other end of a telephone line being "phone patched" in. The Control
Operator is controlling the station.
Reasonable people can disagree.
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:wc1m73@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 1:40 PM
To: sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] third-party communications in DX contests (was:
KU1CW location)
Ed,
Although tangentially related, this issue is different from the KU1CW
debate, so I've changed the topic line.
I suspect the third party traffic issue has been debated before, but here's
my two cents:
Reading the third party rules, I don't see how anyone could be quite sure
that when an unlicensed person operates a station with you as the control
operator in a DX contest that it constitutes third party communications. The
wording simply isn't clear enough to be 100% sure that DX contest QSOs
constitute third party traffic.
My own opinion is that it's not third party traffic. It comes down to
identifying the person on whose behalf the message is being sent. I believe
a strong case can be made that in a DX contest the message is being sent on
behalf of the station licensee or the designated control operator, not
necessarily the person sending the message, and therefore it isn't third
party traffic. The fact that the message is being sent by someone other than
the control operator, as allowed by Part 97, isn't relevant. It's not their
message, it's the station's message or the control operator's message.
Also, while the section states that under certain conditions the person
originating the message may participate in sending it, there's no mention of
the license status of that person. Under your interpretation, *anyone*
participating in a DX contest who is not the control operator, licensed or
not, would be violating third party rules (i.e., the FCC doesn't care about
the license status of anyone but the control operator.) I don't see how that
could be the intent of the FCC.
73, Dick WC1M
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Sawyer [mailto:sawyered@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 6:19 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location
I am quite sure that if a person is unlicensed, and operating your station
(with you as the control operator), the third party country rules apply. No
contacts can be made with any country with which the US does not have a
third party agreement. No problem on Field Day. A big problem in a DX
contest.
73
Ed N1UR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|