I missed that line. The FCC has long been known to issue conflicting
rulings. One field office will interpret things one way and another will
interpret them differently. The only resolution is a rule change in part 97
that spells it out in black and white. I guess the following part of the
rules is in question...
Note the end of Section 97.115(a)(2) "This prohibition does not apply to a
message for any third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the
station".
Now you can interpret this both ways.
1. Any valid license holder is NOT considered "Third Party".
2. License holder IS considered "Third Party" if a message is passed on a
frequency that he/she is NOT eligible to use as a control operator.
Which is correct? Only a published decision from FCC HQ in Washington will
decide. Maybe the ARRL should ask again for a clarification or rule change
based on the text of this enforcement action (which comes from a field
office and not Washington). As I mentioned before with regards to satellite
or repeater operations, a tech operating on 440 that is retransmitted on 28
or 21 would not be third party and would not be operating out of band.
Mike, W1NR
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Hull [mailto:gerry@w1ve.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:50 PM
To: 'Mike McCarthy, W1NR'
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's
Holy Cow, you only read what you want to read:
Again, from the FCC Enforcement letter:
"You could have also participated under the direction of a control operator,
but you would have been limited to making contacts as a third party, and any
contacts with countries with which the United States does not have a
third-party agreement would have been in violation of our rules. "
Sure, he was not multi, but he sure was being warned about operating under a
control operator and using frequencies outside his license class. In that
case, according to the above statement, third party rules apply, and any QSO
with countries not having the third-party agreement would be in violation.
Mr. Hollingsworth needs to clarify -- we can argue about this all day, but
it seems there are some differences of opinion within the FCC.
73,
Gerry, W1VE
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike McCarthy, W1NR
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:46 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's
The enforcement letter you link to was NOT for a multi-op. It was a SINGLE
OP by a tech using the extra call sign of the station. Third party don't
apply. He was operating illegally out of band. PERIOD. The FCC/ARRL
clarification that K1TTT posted shows that lower class licensees CAN operate
and third party rules do not apply AS LONG AS THERE IS A DULY LICENSED
OPERATOR SUPERVISING! It appears there was no supervisor in this case. You
cannot be a single op if there is someone else there helping you, licensed
or not.
Mike, W1NR
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:10 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's
The FCC is VERY clear about third party rules and contesting. I'm sure
this FCC Enforcement Letter was what started this thread.
>From the text of the letter, it is VERY clear that a US ham operating
outside his privledges, even with a higher-license-class control Operator
present, is operating in third-party mode... Which is about useless for a
DX contest.
73,
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Quoted from http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2005/0416.html
I removed the callsign... Read the actual web page if you want to know who
this was directed at:
"Furthermore, on October 14, 2004, the American Radio Relay League, to which
you had submitted contest logs, disqualified your KXXX entry, with KCXXXX as
operator, for the 2004 ARRL International DX CW Contest. That action was
based upon logs you submitted that showed your operation of KF0R as a
"Single-Operator Low-Power" entry. At the time of the radio operation,
February 21-22, 2004, you were a Technician Plus class licensee, KCXXXX.
The logs that you submitted to the ARRL for the 2004 ARRL International DX
Contest (CW) show numerous contacts made on 20 meters and 160 meters. Many
contacts on 20 meters were with countries with which we have no third-party
agreement. One contact on 160 meters was also made with a country with which
we have no third-party agreement.
>As a Technician Plus, you would have been authorized to operate on
>10-meter
SSB and all Novice CW frequencies. You could have also participated under
>the direction of a control operator, but you would have been limited to
making contacts as a third party, and any contacts with countries with which
>
>the United States does not have a third-party agreement would have been
>in
violation of our rules.
In summary, if you claim that you were operating under the direction of a
control operator, you apparently violated the third-party agreement rule. If
you claim you did not operate under the direction of a control operator,
then you apparently violated the terms of your Technician Plus privileges,
which do not allow operation on 20 meters or 160 meters. "
_______________________________________________
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
|