Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+KU1CW\s+location\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+KU1CW\s+location\s*$/: 57 ]

Total 57 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Brett Graham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>; Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:07:11 +0000; We were told: 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 fr; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00059.html (12,131 bytes)
22. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 13:28:56 -0400; 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 i; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00061.html (19,795 bytes)
23. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>; Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:00:56 +0100; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00064.html (23,085 bytes)
24. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 22:02:16 -0400; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00067.html (24,358 bytes)
25. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>; Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:06:08 +0100; On 06/06/2017 03:02, N4ZR wrote: 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 per; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00071.html (12,494 bytes)
26. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:45:42 -0400; "US Law applies and the operators must comply with FCC rules as if they were physically within the USA". I see nothing that changes that. More specifically, anyone operating a remote station in the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00072.html (16,807 bytes)
27. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:08:08 +0100; Yes, but the conditions under which the reciprocal privileges are granted (in this case ) are governed by CEPT and adopted by FCC. In order to benefit from the CEPT arrangements, FCC has to adopt its; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00073.html (18,230 bytes)
28. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:04:46 +0000; Part 97 also plainly states that the agreement also applies. 97.107: The privileges granted to a control operator <https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&d; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00075.html (23,912 bytes)
29. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:23:58 +0100; Bob You failed to quote 97.107(b)(1). Which says :- "The terms of the agreement between the alien's government and the United States;" There is a multilateral operating agreement between the US and t; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00077.html (24,198 bytes)
30. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:23:40 -0400; The Station owner is responsible for the legal use of their station. If I were a station owner in the US allowing remote operation, I would make sure the remote operator has a US license and stay on; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00078.html (8,488 bytes)
31. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:29:35 -0400; Peter, Can you quote an actual rule that says what you claim? In Part 97.107, nothing like what you and others are alleging is justified, nor even mentioned. In the USA, the FCC rules take precedence; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00079.html (22,293 bytes)
32. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:38:57 -0500; I'm confused. Those links are only to definitions of terms, not to any regulations. 73, Zack W9SZ <div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00081.html (28,173 bytes)
33. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:01:13 +0000; What's even worse is that he claims there is nothing about operator privileges when part 97 clearly states that the *OPERATING* terms and conditions of the alien's license must also be followed. In m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00083.html (26,977 bytes)
34. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:18:17 -0400; It's part 97. Every FCC amateur licensee should be familiar with Part 97. 97.107 is the relevant section. http://www.arrl.org/part-97-text Ria N2RJ _______________________________________________ CQ-; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00085.html (30,336 bytes)
35. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:18:27 -0400; And, nowhere in that agreement does it support anything you're claiming. Please quote any legal document that explicitly says otherwise. 73, Bob W5OV _______________________________________________ C; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00087.html (27,437 bytes)
36. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:26:57 +0100; Bob The scope of CEPT Recommendation T/R 61-01, to which the US is a signatory and under which 97.101 grants reciprocal privileges, is for short-term visitors to the country concerned. By omission, r; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00090.html (29,996 bytes)
37. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:37:12 -0700; The words "control operator" have a specific meaning in FCC Rules. They apply to the holder of the FCC license responsible for assuring that the station is operated within the Rules. Joe Blow, from a; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00092.html (12,388 bytes)
38. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: w5ov@w5ov.com; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:43:08 -0400; Thank you for providing that link. If you look on page 9 Table 3 for "USA" of that document it says explicitly: "The operating privileges issued by non-CEPT administrations to holders of the CEPT lic; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00093.html (35,831 bytes)
39. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:55:28 -0400; This whole argument perplexes me. If a properly-licensed US control operator is present at the station being operated remotely, the licensing status of any remote operators makes no difference toanyt; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00094.html (23,506 bytes)
40. Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location (score: 1): Author: Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>; Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:54 +0100; Bob Again you ignore inconvenient references. The privileges granted to a control operator under this authorization are: (b) For an amateur service license granted by any country, other than Canada,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2017-06/msg00095.html (39,556 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]