[CQ-Contest] KU1CW location

N4ZR n4zr at comcast.net
Mon Jun 5 22:02:16 EDT 2017 

Am I missing something here?  So long as there is a control operator 
physically present (and in control of) the US station, does it make any 
difference whether any person operating the station (under the control 
operator's oversight) even has a license at all, whether remote or on 
the premises??

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 6/5/2017 2:00 PM, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> I found the quote I was referring to :
>
> "For the past two days I have been corresponding my a gentleman called
>   Scot Stone,  Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless
> Telecommunications Bureau, The FCC
>
> and have asked him several questions about what is allowed and what is
> not allowed in the United States of America with amateur licensing.
> I did not quote any specifics, but merely asked policy and licensing
> questions.
> I did this to be clear in my head what is allowed and what is illegal
> in the USA.   Many people have different view on things and like life,
> many people push the boundaries of things and if they get away with it
> on sufficient occasions, then (to them) it become acceptable practise.
>    My questions to the FCC did not cover every eventuality or
> possibility but merely an outline of the current situation.
> This morning I got a final message that (and I cut copy and paste so
> as to get the words correctly)
>
>
> "Reciprocal authority does not authorize remote control, even when you
> are in the United States.  If you visit the United States, you can
> operate where you are under your CEPT license, but not remotely.
> Remote control of a transmitter located in the United States requires
> a license from the FCC, regardless of where you are located.
>
> You need a USA license in order to remotely operate a transmitter in
> the United States.
>
> The FCC does not grant reciprocal licenses anymore.  Instead, we grant
> reciprocal authority to licensees  from administrations with which the
> United States has a bilateral or multilateral agreement (such as
> CEPT), but this authority applies only to stations under the foreign
> licensee's physical control.
>
> So there you have it from the horse's mouth - MY reading of the above
> simply means that
>
> (1)   I cannot operate a remote station in the USA from Scotland as
> (it is not under my physical control) and I do not have a USA licence
> and
>
> (2)   If I visit the USA even under CEPT, I may operate my own station
> or the station of my host, but I may not operate another station
> within the USA by remote control, unless I have a licence from the
> FCC!
> "
>
> So not a direct, authoritative ruling but perhaps good enough? Note
> that it also states that remote operation isn't included in CEPT
> privileges *at all*, even if you're in-country.
>
> Peter G4MJS
>
> On 5 June 2017 at 18:28, Ria Jairam <rjairam at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There should be clarification on this, so we know what is legal
>> operation and what is not.
>>
>> I have from ARRL but they are not the FCC. But they do sponsor
>> contests and have the FCC's ear.
>>
>> Either way it won't hurt to know where we stand. Every operator should
>> know without a doubt whether their operation is legal. Helps prevent
>> any surprises.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter Bowyer <peter at bowyer.org> wrote:
>>> Well if you're operating remotely from outside the US, it doesn't - which
>>> is a good part of the point here. The CEPT regulation is written such that
>>> it covers the physical presence of a foreign-licensed operator in the US.
>>> I've seen (but can't immediately turn up) a quote from an FCC official
>>> confirming that interpretation, and that remote operation of a US station
>>> from overseas using the CEPT privileges isn't permitted.
>>>
>>> That's one reason why remotehamradio.com insist on every operator having a
>>> US license. I'm getting mine later this year, with a bit of luck :-)
>>>
>>> Peter G4MJS
>>>
>>> On 5 June 2017 at 17:34, Dale Putnam <daleputnam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "simply bring your CEPT or IARP documentation when you visit the US."
>>>>
>>>> How does this get done?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have a great day,
>>>> --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
>>>>
>>>> "Actions speak louder than words"
>>>> 1856 - Abraham Lincoln
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of Peter
>>>> Bowyer <peter at bowyer.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 5, 2017 10:02 AM
>>>> *To:* CQ-Contest Reflector
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] KU1CW location
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> Foreign Licenses Operating in U.S. - American Radio Relay ...
>>>> <http://www.arrl.org/foreign-licenses-operating-in-u-s>
>>>> www.arrl.org
>>>> The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the national association for
>>>> amateur radio, connecting hams around the U.S. with news, information and
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter G4MJS
>>>>
>>>> On 5 June 2017 at 13:07,  <w5ov at 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 at contesting.com
>>>> <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com>] On Behalf Of Ria
>>>>> Jairam
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 5:53 PM
>>>>> To: W4AAW at aol.com
>>>>> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at 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 at aol.com via CQ-Contest
>>>>> <cq-contest at 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 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list