[CQ-Contest] ETHICS

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I am impressed.  I have always wondered but never took the time to lookup
calls when I run on 40m below the General subband on 40 on SSB to see how
many were our of their band allocation.


CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1
W0MU.NET or  67.40.148.194

"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may
never get over." Ben Franklin 



-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tonno Vahk
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:43 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS

I think US stations are extremely ethical, at least compared to EU, don't
know how the comparison to VE would look like:)

I did interesting statistics on ES5RR ARRL DX CW SOAB operation from my
station. He worked 797 US Qs on 20m and 304 of those on frequencies below
14025. I was curious as to how much he lost because others than Extras could
not call him at that time. How many of the other categories where around
anyway and how well did they obey band plan?

Well, the answers are:

He worked

Extra 734 (92.4%)
Advanced 15 (1.9%)
General 25 (3.2%)
Technician 2 (0.3%)
Club Stations 18 (2.3%)

BUT ALL QSOs BELOW 14025 WHERE WITH EXTRAS ONLY!!

Even though the share of Extras is extremely high, still nobody else called
him below 14025. I could also conclude based on the amount of other
categories worked above 14025 that he would have maybe worked ca 25 more
QSOs by staying above 14025 all the time.

If in this contest (CW and not so good propagation) the share of extras
calling in was very high then in other situation like ES5TV WAE SSB I had
about 1000 US QSOs on 20m and 8.3% Advanced and 32.1% General out of it. Of
course I stayed above 14225 and you can see that it is possible to lose
nearly HALF of your QSOs by sticking too low.

73
Tonno
ES5TV

P.s. naturally I think that it is by no means the responsibility of the CQ
station to know if the caller is out of band or not. 


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Don Cassel
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:33 PM
To: cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest