I believe there are two flaws in this discussion.
1) Many are comparing apples to oranges
2) Many are losing sight of the subject, ETHICS
Please allow me to elaborate.
KNOWINGLY working a another station who is out of band is unethical,
while UNKNOWINGLY working someone out of band is not unethical.
It is incorrect to compare an extra class operator working a general
class operator on 14.153 to, let's say ME, working any US operator on
14.140 from 6Y1V.
If we are speaking strictly of ethics, in the first case I am unaware
that the other party is breaking the law while in the second case I am
certain of it.
Both morally and ethically speaking, I have an obligation to tell the
other party they are "out of band" and NOT log an illegal contact.
David ~ KY1V
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Don Cassel
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:33 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS
I agree. It's not uncommon to be called by a U.S. station when running
below
14150. My responsibility is to be sure I am operating within the bounds
of
my license not to check whether anyone else is. The U.S. or any other
caller
is responsible to be sure they are operating within the bounds of their
license. So if I work anyone when I am on 14.140 them I am legal and
ethical. It's not my responsibility to police the one out of bounds.
Chad's example of working on 14153 would also apply to a U.S. Extra
class.
Do these guys check to see if all U.S. callers are appropriately
licensed to
be calling in on that frequency. Again, it is the responsibility of the
calling station not the one doing the running.
73, Don VE3XD
> This brings up an interesting point. Is it really the VE's
responsibility
> to know that every answer to his CQs is within their band or license
class?
> Sure, this example is a little easier, knowing that US hams can't go
below
> 14150, but what if he was on 14153 and a US general class licensee
call
> him? Should he quickly evaluate every caller to see if they are
approved
to
> operate on 14153? If you say "of course not", I ask you, what's the
> difference? In either case, the US ham is operating beyond their
license
> class. Why is it the VE's responsibility to police him if under 14150
and
> not at 14153?
>
> Chad WE9V
_______________________________________________
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
|