[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote operation

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote operation
From: Peter Bowyer <peter@bowyer.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:40:44 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Yes, I completely agree that the rules we've been discussing relate to the
reciprocal licensee as control operator. Where they're not the control
operator, their licensing status is irrelevant.

It remains my assertion that because​ of the wording of the CEPT agreement
and the Part 97 clause that incorporates it, only physical visitors are
covered and their privileges are limited by their home license.

Peter G4MJS

On 8 Jun 2017 1:56 a.m., "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com> wrote:

> The rules for operating KU1CW are governed by FCC Part 97. Although not
> explicitly stated in Part 97, it’s clear that CEPT rules would only apply
> if the remote operator is the control operator.
> As long as the control operator holds a valid US license or reciprocal
> operating privileges, and is present at a local or remote control point,
> the location and license status of the other station operators doesn't
> matter. As we all know, the other station operators don't even have to be
> licensed. Any person, licensed or unlicensed, located anywhere in the world
> can operate your station as long as you or another US licensed ham is
> present at a local or remote control point.
> "Present" isn't defined in Part 97, but it implies that the control
> operator has to monitor the station at all times and be able to take
> control of it at any time (e.g., sleeping in the next room doesn't cut it.)
> In theory, multioperator contest stations should always have a designated
> control operator (truly) present with the requisite privileges for
> operating the station, but we all know this isn't always the case. That's a
> different issue.
> So what happens when a person operating remotely from another country
> becomes the control operator? Part 97 allows a person holding reciprocal
> operating privileges to be the control operator, provided that the station
> doesn't exceed the reciprocal operating privileges. It also says that the
> control operator can be at a remote control point. It doesn't say that the
> person holding reciprocal operating privileges has to be in the US.
> My conclusion is that if KU1CW had, at all times, a control operator with
> a valid US license or reciprocal operating privileges that allowed the
> station to be operated as it was, then the operation was legal per FCC
> rules, regardless of where the control operator was located, as long as it
> was a control point.
> Licensing authorities can set operating rules only for stations that are
> physically located within their borders. They cannot set operating rules
> for stations located in other countries. CEPT only says that each licensing
> authority will grant certain operating privileges for stations within its
> borders to citizens of other member countries, which are based to some
> extent on privileges granted by the country in which the citizen holds a
> license. For a U.S. operation, the only issue is whether the holder of
> those privileges is the control operator, whether the control operator was
> at a control point, and whether the station was operated within the control
> operator's privileges.
> CQ WW and WPX rules state that " A remotely operated station must obey all
> station license, operator license, and category limitations." Similarly,
> ARRL contest rules state that "All operators must observe the limitations
> of their operator licenses and station licenses at all times." On the face
> of it, the "station license" and "operator license" are granted by the
> licensing authority in the country in which the station is located, so in
> the case of KU1CW the rules are set by the FCC.
> But it's possible that some countries explicitly forbid their citizens,
> licensed or unlicensed, from remotely operating stations located in other
> countries. That's something of a grey area because while you could say that
> the "operator license" consists of both the home country license and
> reciprocal operating privilege, and the terms of the home country license
> must be obeyed, the term "operator license" doesn't apply to an unlicensed
> individual in another country operating a station in the US under the
> auspices of a control operator who has the required privileges. That's
> legal per the FCC, even if that unlicensed person broke the law of his/her
> country by operating a station in another country. The wording of the
> contest sponsor rules doesn't address this case, at least not clearly.
> 73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ria Jairam [mailto:rjairam@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:27 PM
> To: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>
> Cc: W4AAW@aol.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote operation
> I don't have a problem with remote contesting either, as long as it is
> done legally and ethically.
> The legality under CEPT for US operations at best is undetermined.
> ARRL regulatory has one opinion which says that it is not. Individuals
> have other opinions. What I do not see here is the FCC saying whether it is
> legal or not.
> There is also a potential violation of US regulations if foreign operators
> exceed the power and frequency limits of their home license.
> Despite what W5OV says, Part 97, specifically 97.107 is extremely clear
> about this. The operating terms and conditions of the home license must be
> observed. This includes power and frequency limits.
> The ethics, well that is up to an individual and their conscience.
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Totally out of line!
> >
> > 73...Stan, K5GO
> >
> > Sent from Stan's IPhone
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 10:18 AM, W4AAW@aol.com via CQ-Contest <
> cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul, EI5DI, says he  knows that most or all remote operations are
> running "unattended.". Well, how can he know this?
> >>
> >> He surmises it because he suffers from a visceral hatred of any remote
> operation.
> >>
> >> My station is  certainly is NOT unattended during contests.  I am at
> the station for the full duration of any contest we enter.
> >>
> >> I am the Control Operator at all times.
> >>
> >> Precious Paul, we are getting a little tired of your exaggerated and
> >> often, inaccurate and baseless observations about remote contesting
> >>
> >> We all get it: Paul hates remote operation.   We also get that remote
> contesting is here to stay.  If is a burgeoning niche within contesting.
> >>
> >> Mediocre contesters who try to peddle a third or fourth rate app, to
> the uninformed are not to be taken seriously.  Does any top ten station use
> contesting software from Ireland?
> >>
> >> Thought not.
> >>
> >> 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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>