[CQ-Contest] Fwd: Novice/Tech in DX contests

Dan Robbins kl7y at Alaska.NET
Thu Mar 6 05:29:49 EST 1997 

This 3rd Party argument raises it head about every year or so.  Here is a
copy of a letter posted to the relector by KI6X which should squash things
for a while.  I have asked the FCC about contesting and third party
operation many years ago and got basically the same response, although this
is worded better than I could probably remember it.

                                        Dan KL7Y

>
>
>                                   February 8, 1994
>
>Dan R. Violette, KI6X
>1122 E. Sail Ave.
>Orange, CA 92665
>
>Dear Dan:
>
>   ARRL Vice President Tom Frenaye, K1KI, shared your recent  contest reflector
>comments with us for comment.  I am addressing  the legal issues; the CAC
>issues need to be addressed separately.
>
>   First, "A station may only be operated in the manner and to  the extent
>permitted by the privileges authorized for the class  of operator license held
>by the control operator." [97.105(b)].  Thus, a Technician isn't eligible to be
>the control operator of  the station while it is transmitting on twenty meters.
>
>   A Technician, however, is eligible to be "a control operator"  of any
>station.  This is true even though he or she cannot act as  THE control
>operator at times when the station is being operated  on frequencies beyond his
>or her license class.
>
>   The Commission specifically acknowledged in the Part 97  rewrite proceeding
>in 1989 that messages sent between amateur  stations on behalf of another
>amateur licensee are not  third  party traffic.  See, the Report and Order,
>Docket 88-139, 4 FCC  Rcd. 4719 (1989), at paragraphs 39 and 42.  The FCC, at
>the  League's request, concurred with the prior holding of the United 
>Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry, that "the passing of  messages on
>behalf of other licensed radio amateurs (at home and  abroad) does not
>contravene the prohibition against third party  traffic..."  FCC codified that
>provision (though not clearly  enough, really), at Section 97.115(a) of the
>rules, saying that   "The prohibition [on international third party traffic
>with  countries with which the United States does not have a third party 
>traffic agreement] does not apply to a message for any third party  who is
>eligible to be a control operator of the station."  Notice  that says "a"
>control operator, not "the" control operator. 
>
>   Therefore, while an unlicensed person operating with a  licensed control
>operator, is limited to communications only with  the United States stations
>and with those stations located in  countries with which the United States has
>a third party traffic  agreement.  Any licensed amateur can operate any station
>and  participate in international communications as long as there is a  control
>operator on hand who is licensed to operate on the  frequency being used.  So,
>a Technician, for example, could  operate at a contest station on 20 meters and
>contact any station  in any country as long as there was a control operator
>present who  is eligible to operate on 20 meters. 
>
>I hope this helps clear the air on the legal aspects of the  issue.  The CAC
>issues should be addressed through your  Division's CAC representative.  If I
>can be of further  assistance, please let me know.  73.
>
>                              Sincerely,
>
>
>
>                              John C. Hennessee, KJ4KB
>                              Regulatory Information Specialist
>                                            ARRL
>
>------- FORWARD, End of original message -------
>
>
>
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

>From Glenn Swanson <gswanson at arrl.org>  Thu Mar  6 15:22:44 1997
From: Glenn Swanson <gswanson at arrl.org> (Glenn Swanson)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:22:44 -0500
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: radio evaluation: lab measurements?
Message-ID: <331EE143.35B4 at arrl.org>

Greetings,

Re: "Trying to find quantitative reasons to chose..."

The ARRL TIS "What Rig Should I Buy" answers this question nicely.

Paper copies are available for $2 members, $4 non members, postpaid.
 It is also available on the ARRL Web page.
See http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/bestrig.html.

73, Glenn Swanson, KB1GW
Educational Programs Coordinator,
Educational Activities Department
kb1gw at arrl.org
ARRL Headquarters
=====

>>Subject: [CQ-Contest] radio evaluation: lab measurements?
>>Date: 4 Mar 1997 21:58:22 -0500
>>From: "Wayne E. Wright" <w5xd at delphi.com>
>>Organization: cq-contest Mailing List
>>Newsgroups: local.cq-contest
>>
>>
>>I'd like some insight into how much weight to assign to lab
>>measurements when choosing a new rig. One of the steps I'm
>>trying is a pair-wise comparison of the ARRL published lab
>>measurements in their product reviews of various rigs that I
>>consider to be candidates, and among these are the FT-1000MP
>>and the Omni VI.
>>
>>The FT-1000MP (April 96 QST) is clearly a popular high-end
>>radio among contesters. The Omni VI (January 93) appears to not
>>enjoy the same level of enthusiasm, so I figured I'd find lab
>>measurements to back that preference. Its been 15 years since I
>>was at the controls of a spectum analyzer, network analyzer or
>>other mega-buck test equipment, but I'm pretty sure I remember
>>what a dB is and the Omni VI appears to consistently, although
>>narrowly, win the numbers game in all the important categories
>>(e.g. two tone IMD figures 3 dB better) and the transmitted
>>phase noise graphs show the Omni VI solidly better.
>>
>>Trying to find quantitative reasons to chose, then, there's a
>>strong hint that I'd better look beyond the measurements.
>>Feature wise, the Yaesu clearly wins the contest of maximizing
>>the count of knobs and switches, but only the sub-receiver
>>qualifies in my mind as a feature that could contribute
>>decisively to contesting.  And another number I'm comparing, of
>>course, is the price and, while its slightly cheaper, I don't
>>consider the Omni VI a winner in this comparison because
>>feature-wise it seems to be about $1K out of line with the
>>feature-comparable imports (i.e. its more like an FT-990 or
>>TS-850).
>>
>>So, unless cost is the whole story, I still haven't found any
>>numbers to support the relative popularity. I do not have any
>>personal experience with either of these radios and am not
>>trying to endorse either. I WOULD like to know how contesters
>>interpret the lab measurements. I have been trained to trust
>>the numbers (electrical engineer) but thats clearly not the
>>whole story or apparently even the biggest part of it.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Wayne, W5XD
>>w5xd at delphi.com
>>
>>PSI apologize if this email appears to have an attachment. I'm
>>using MS Exchange as a POP client and it works great for me,
>>but lots of folks on the receiving end report receipt of an
>>empty text attachment that I don't think I control.
>>
>> --
>>CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>>Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>>
>

--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list