[RTTY] K1N vs ARRL

[Paul Stoetzer]

The ARRL lawyers' position is that, if they are paying the control
operator, they cannot deviate from the schedule unless the schedule
deviation is announced and published in advance due to the wording of
the regulations, so the control operator at the ARRL has to fire up
the transmitter even if there's a station there.

73,

Paul, N8HM

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Bob Burns W9BU <w9bu_lists at rlburns.net> wrote:
> On 2/7/2015 11:38 AM, Charles Morrison wrote:
>
>> K1N was there first.
>
>
> Didn't we just have a heated discussion about this a few weeks ago?
>
> As I recall, some posters took the position that RTTY operators should know
> that certain frequencies are accepted watering holes for various modes and
> are covered by gentlemen's agreements. More specifically, the stated
> position seemed to be that that RTTY operators should know about relatively
> fixed JT65 operating frequencies and, therefore, avoid them. If that
> position is valid, then those same RTTY operators should know about the
> relatively fixed ARRL bulletin operating frequencies and, therefore, avoid
> them.
>
> If the concept applies to JT65, doesn't it apply to ARRL bulletins?
>
> I acknowledge that I may be poking at the fire.
>
> Bob...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty