owner-cq-contest@contesting.com wrote:
> Contesters:
> I wrote this up a few days ago, re-read it, then deleted it. I thought this
> thread would die and didn't need me to keep it going. But it's still going,
> so....
>
> Doesn't anyone else see a difference between "trying to steal" or "trying to
> win" a frequency from another contest entrant and someone engaged in a real
> qso?
This is just an example of semantics. You can call it anything
you want, but the operative word is "interference", and for the
particular contest, you are violating the rules.
>
> I would have a very difficult time saying who was interfering with whom if I
> tuned onto a freq and heard two entrants CQ'ing on top of each other. If
> stations A is calling CQ CONTEST, does he really have a "right" to that
> frequency? Doesn't station B have just as much right to CQ CONTEST on that
> frequency? Who is to say that station A is interfering with station B or
> vice versa? A CQ is a CQ...it is not a qso. A "history" of successful CQ's
> (resulting in a contest qso) doesn't give that station any rights to "own"
> that frequency.
I assume from your lack of definition that Station A was first on
the frequency,
and again, it doesn't matter one bit if he is calling CQ. FCC
rules do not define a CQ, a contest exchange, or whatever, and
properly so. They do however
define intentional interference.
> Again, I say that if Station 2 can out-CQ station 1 as evidenced by
> successful QSO's, then station 2 "won" the frequency and did NOT steal it
> from station 1. This IS a contest. By CQ'ing, the frequency is up for grabs.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems you are
merely using
semantics and attempting to justify an operation which is
illegal. A rule ( in this case, actually a law ) which is as
clearly defined as this one is not subject to interpretation.
73
Ed
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|