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 licence" for USA, it says: "Amateur Extra".
This is precisely what I said.
Thank you for reinforcing what I'm telling you. I remain steadfast in my
conviction that all CEPT reciprocal licensee are granted Amateur Extra
privileges in the USA. The CEPT document confirms this, along with FCC
Part 97.107. There is no reduction in privileges based on their home
country rules. They are granted full USA Extra Class privileges.
Why would the FCC agree to this? Simple: Zero overhead in figuring out
who is allowed to do what and on what frequencies. The easiest thing to
do? Make them all equivalent to Extra Class. This is indeed what was
done.
73,
Bob W5OV
On Wed, June 7, 2017 1:26 pm, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> 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, remote
> operation from outside the country is excluded.
>
> You can find the full text of the Recommendation here
> http://www.ecodocdb.dk/Docs/doc98/official/pdf/TR6101.pdf. You'll note
> that the US is listed in Appendix 4 as a non-CEPT member who has applied
> and been accepted under the Recommendation, meaning its privileges apply
> multilaterally between the US and the other signatories.
>
> 97.101 further restricts the licensee to the operating conditions of
> their home license, which is more restrictive than 61-01. Hence no > 400W
> for G licensees, etc.
>
> I agree with others that a formal ruling from contest sponsors or the
> FCC on remote operation would be welcome, but it's clear that remote
> operation is not within the scope of 61-01.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 7 June 2017 at 17:18, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>
>> And, nowhere in that agreement does it support anything you're
>> claiming.
>>
>> Please quote any legal document that explicitly says otherwise.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, June 7, 2017 11:23 am, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>
>>> 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 the
>>> CEPT countries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 June 2017 at 15:29, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 in all cases, and there is nothing in the FCC rules that
>>>> supports your claim of CEPT rules taking precedence over any
>>>> operations within the USA under any circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 97.107 (b)(2)
>>>> "The operating terms and conditions of the amateur service license
>>>> granted by the alien's government"
>>>>
>>>> This does not say anything about operating privileges. They are
>>>> covered in the next part. The "terms and conditions *of the amateur
>>>> service license*" refer explicitly to only the *license* and its
>>>> validity - issue dates, expirations, etc.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast, operating privileges are discussed *explicitly* in the
>>>> next part:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the case of the UK: 97.107(b)(3) applies:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The applicable rules of this part, but not to exceed the control
>>>> operator privileges of an FCC-granted Amateur Extra Class operator
>>>> license".
>>>>
>>>> This is germane regarding operating privileges and what it says is:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The applicable rules of this part" which means all USA
>>>> allocations, modes, restrictions and all other rules and regulations
>>>> that apply in the USA *for Extra Class operators*. In other words,
>>>> All foreigners
>>>> eligible for reciprocal operating are granted full USA Extra Class
>>>> privileges - but no more.
>>>>
>>>> As one example of "no more", reciprocal licensees cannot operate
>>>> SSB in
>>>> the USA CW / Digital bands, even though their licenses back home may
>>>> permit it.
>>>>
>>>> In all cases, USA FCC Law takes precedence over all other
>>>> countries' rules.
>>>>
>>>> That is what it *actually* says.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're adding things to it that it does not say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob W5OV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, June 7, 2017 3:08 am, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'no remote operation' principle comes from the CEPT rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter G4MJS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Jun 2017 10:46 p.m., <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I read at the link you provided, it is precisely as I
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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 USA
>>>>>> must obey the USA FCC Law as if they were here in the USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob W5OV
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, June 5, 2017 12:02 pm, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry Bob you're wrong there. FCC has adopted the CEPT T/R
>>>>>>> 61-01
>>>>>>> regulation to make reciprocal licensing easier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.arrl.org/foreign-licenses-operating-in-u-s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter G4MJS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 June 2017 at 13:07, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> N2RJ said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " Just be careful that you are indeed doing so. CEPT T/R
>>>>>>>> 61-01
>>>>>>>> is not sufficient authorization for a European licensee to
>>>>>>>> operate an internet remote base in the US while being
>>>>>>>> physically present overseas...."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 from a USA station is governed by
>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>> FCC
>>>>>>>> Law -
>>>>>>>> nothing else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> US Law applies and the operators must comply with FCC rules
>>>>>>>> as if they were physically within the USA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 73,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob W5OV
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Behalf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ria
>>>>>>>> Jairam
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 5:53 PM
>>>>>>>> To: W4AAW@aol.com
>>>>>>>> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> W1VE and other serious operators of remote-capable
>>>>>>>>> stations will agree with me: We remote-capable stations
>>>>>>>>> are not trying to fool anyone or gain some sort of
>>>>>>>>> geographical or unfair advantage. We're just being
>>>>>>>> competitive and striving to do so strictly within the
>>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is really nothing wrong with trying to gain an
>>>>>>>> advantage during a contest. That's what contesting is. As
>>>>>>>> long as it is within the rules. Operating from elsewhere to
>>>>>>>> do better in contests has been a staple of contesting for
>>>>>>>> pretty much as long as it has existed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Alex is a member of TeamW4AAW, which operates the
>>>>>>>>> first Totally
>>>>>>>>> Remote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M/M station.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have 31 team members who operate W4AAW's positions
>>>>>>>>> from all over NA, from Panama, Europe and Asia, provided
>>>>>>>>> they meet legal/licensing
>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just be careful that you are indeed doing so. CEPT T/R
>>>>>>>> 61-01 is
>>>>>>>> not sufficient authorization for a European licensee to
>>>>>>>> operate an internet remote base in the US while being
>>>>>>>> physically present overseas. Even if they were allowed,
>>>>>>>> their home license restrictions and power limits (while not
>>>>>>>> exceeding US Extra) apply. In the UK it is 400 watts for
>>>>>>>> full licenses and in Germany it is 750W for class A
>>>>>>>> licenses. Other European countries
>>>>>>>> may be different. The best thing for them to do to be
>>>>>>>> compliant with the laws of the US is to get a US license.
>>>>>>>> There are VE
>>>>>>>> sessions in many countries overseas and one can get a
>>>>>>>> license by passing the (now very easy) exams. No code
>>>>>>>> required, even.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. The 3830 comments for KU1CW @ W4AAW in the CQWPX CW
>>>>>>>>> test very clearly show the locations of each operator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An awards chaser who isn't competing in the contest is
>>>>>>>> unlikely to know about nor care about 3830. The best thing
>>>>>>>> to do would be to put the location of the stations in the
>>>>>>>> QRZ profile, which is
>>>>>>>> the first place they look.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 73
>>>>>>>> Ria, N2RJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:30 PM, W4AAW@aol.com via
>>>>>>>> CQ-Contest
>>>>>>>> <cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is the correct information on KU1CW in the CQWPX CW
>>>>>>>>> contest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Alex has just moved to Washington State. He has not
>>>>>>>>> yet modified his
>>>>>>>> license to reflect this recent development.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Alex is a member of TeamW4AAW, which operates the
>>>>>>>>> first Totally
>>>>>>>>> Remote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M/M station. We have 31 team members who operate W4AAW's
>>>>>>>> positions from all over NA, from Panama, Europe and Asia,
>>>>>>>> provided they meet legal/licensing requirements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. Since a W4 call sign is common in WPX tests, I
>>>>>>>>> suggested to Alex we use
>>>>>>>> KU1CW for the contest. Alex agreed. So, the entry (as
>>>>>>>> shown on 3830)
>>>>>>>> was KU1CW@ W4AAW.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. The 3830 comments for KU1CW @ W4AAW in the CQWPX CW
>>>>>>>>> test very clearly
>>>>>>>> show the locations of each operator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If some people had bothered to read information that is
>>>>>>>>> readily available
>>>>>>>> in that posting, it would not have been necessary to cast
>>>>>>>> aspersions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> During some periods of the contest, Alex even operated
>>>>>>>>> SO2R,
>>>>>>>>> using two
>>>>>>>> W4AAW positions remotely, from Washington State.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> W1VE and other serious operators of remote-capable
>>>>>>>>> stations will agree
>>>>>>>> with me: We remote-capable stations are not trying to fool
>>>>>>>> anyone or gain some sort of geographical or unfair
>>>>>>>> advantage. We're just
>>>>>>>> being competitive and striving to do so strictly within the
>>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 73, Mike W4AAW
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|