[RTTY] K1N vs ARRL

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Where in that does it say that the bulletin station has any more right
to use those frequencies than those already using them?  If the schedule
consists of *more than* 40 hours per week, being late or not running a
given transmitter because it would interfere with the existing user of
a frequency would not endanger the ability to pay the control operator.

ARRL is simply making the "control operator" argument out of laziness -
no different than the contest operator who is too lazy (or in too big
of a hurry) to listen for weak signal activity before he hits F1 on
his KW and stacked antennas.

73,

     ... Joe, W4TV


On 2015-02-07 3:11 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> "v) The control operator of a club station may accept compensation for
> the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy
> practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits
> such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week;
> schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands
> using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of
> normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days
> in advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator
> does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other
> service as a control operator."
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:09 PM, john <w8wej at citynet.net> wrote:
>> what???
>> On 2/7/2015 7:34 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
--