The FCC in the US hasn’t acted on most pending amateur petitions in over a
decade. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
That said - I agree that we should look to make it more fun and open.
However, respect for the existing rules supersedes that.
For example want to run 10kW, be loud and make more contacts, but rules
don’t allow that. Should I just do it anyway and hope not to be caught? I
want to go below US phone bands and run pileups for hours - should I do it
anyway and hope the volunteer monitors don’t send me a pink card?
Of course not.
Let’s aim for more fun but let’s not look for a way to excuse the rules
violation.
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:08 PM Emir Memic <emir.memic@emssolutions.at>
wrote:
> Why do we made our lives more difficult as they are?
>
> If we realized there is problem with FCC and CEPT
> Why don´t we work on it and try to change it to better
>
> What is better ? I would say more activity, more contesting, more
> operators on the air ...more fun.
>
> All those restrictions are good for what ?
>
> I´m here not to charge if rules were broken or not...just imagine to focus
> all energy from here to
> allow more activity over the world.
>
> Going back to W2GD first post
> "So the questions: Was the use of FS/KO1A for this ARRL DX CW operation
> legal under US CEPT rules governing the use of a US issued call? If not a
> legitimate use of his US call, should the operator have been awarded first
> place over VP2V/AA7V in the results? If we agree use of an unauthorized
> callsign took place, should the operation be assigned check log status or
> be disqualified under ARRL DX rules? And one more question, should the
> contacts made with FS/KO1A be given credit under the DXCC program if the
> callsign was in fact unauthorized?"
> I would say
> The question should be: "what do we need to change to make operation like
> this more "legal" and have more competition each ear. And how we need to
> change FCC and CEPT rules if needed! "
>
>
> 73
> Braco
> E77DX
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Emir Memic
> EMS Solutions
> Koehlergasse 12/3
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Koehlergasse+12%2F3?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 1180 Vienna
> Austria
> +4369919227041
> ATU53588808
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+emir.memic=
> emssolutions.at@contesting.com> Im Auftrag von r-emails@n5ot.com
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2023 23:21
> An: Cq Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Betreff: [CQ-Contest] R: ARRL DX CW Results - Did Anyone Else Notice?
>
> Matt, thanks for posting. Of course everyone in the conversation is
> interested in what you have to say. I will try to keep my comments brief
> and on-topic.
>
> Your posts convince me I am right by urging us to move the conversation
> away from CEPT. It turns out CEPT is a big mud pit way out in the weeds.
> There is no reason to talk about CEPT, when it is easier to talk about
> whether or not it is okay for someone to use their FCC license the way you
> used yours.
>
> That is easier and more sensible.
>
> Your posts explain your opinion about what FCC rules mean. I appreciate
> your sharing your opinion about it. I'm curious if you (Matt) or the
> contest sponsor (ARRL), have actually asked the FCC what they think, or if
> you are guessing at the answer. That should determine if your score should
> stand or if your operation was in violation of the rules of your FCC
> license.
>
> To clarify, W5OV did say "We consulted with the FCC on this specific
> matter" but the specific matter he is talking about (CEPT) is not the one I
> am asking about here (FCC License). CEPT is not the question. I get it
> they are intertwined, but at the end of the day, the FCC should be able to
> say YES it was within FCC rules for Matt to use his USA license the way he
> did -or- NO it was not. It sounds like it's possible the FCC said
> something like "it's CEPT there is nothing we can do" but of course I could
> be wrong which is why I am asking the guy who had the conversastion. Bob,
> if you will clarify that the FCC specifically said that what Matt did is
> allowed under FCC rules, I feel sure the issue will end and everyone will
> be satisfied. Thank you for graciously accepting doubt in a respectful and
> courteous forum.
>
> I totally understand that maybe FCC never considered this question and did
> not have an answer. Oops. We are all human, after all. That will just
> show us (me, you, ARRL, FCC) where we need to improve.
>
> Matt, thank you again for weighing in.
>
> 73 - Mark N5OT
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|