Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation

[m.r.c.]

this is a bit long, but I think explaining the hole in the rules and how they apply to us is worthwhile..
.

Unfortunately, there is a significant hole in the regulations on this subject.  An Amateur STATION in the 
US no longer HAS an assigned call sign.  - We used to be issued a license that consisted of two parts, a 
station license and an operators license.  That is no longer so.  The "station" license issued now says 
station privileges=PRIMARY.

All this means is that as a properly licensed operator, we may be the primary control operator of any 
amateur station.

The licensed OWNER of an amateur station  - a licensee - is required to adequately secure and control his 
station.  It REQUIRES his ACTIVE agreement to allow another amateur to control (operate) his station. 
Because we are authorized to be primary control operator, we are more likely to - and generally are 
expected to - identify with our own callsign.  We are identifying the licensee who is responsible for the 
station emissions at that time.   Minor variations for club callsigns and special event callsigns. Never 
the less ANY amateur station must have a suitably licensed control operator. (some minor allowances for 
certain types of automatic stations generally on VHF-UHF)

There is absolutely nothing in the rules relating to the physical location of the control operator.  This 
is only slightly confused if a licensee of another country utilizes control operator privileges on a US 
station.  It appears to be a non issue for any appropriately licensed operator from a country with a 
reciprocal operating agreement in place.  It gets sticky when it is an operator from a country with no 
such agreement.

Never the less, an amateur station within the FCC jurisdiction must identify with an FCC issued callsign, 
or one officially recognized by the FCC in reciprocal operator agreement IE  W2/G5ABC.  This provides 
proper identification of the control operator.   ( somehow I think W2/P5DX would not be accepted)

These are issues I've dealt with for many decades in the VHF-UHF repeater and remotely controlled station 
environment.  Id rather have a station license.

ALL comments above ONLY apply to stations within the FCC jurisdiction area

In summary, RF generated within a country must be identified by a callsign recognized by the authorities 
of that country. For remote stations within the US operated by a US licensee, it appears to be legal to 
use either his own callsign, or the callsign of the station owner ( club/special event variations)

Today, the callsign districts carry little meaning.  We are not required to identify W2/WA6CDR if we are 
either visiting or have moved to the 2nd district and have yet to notify the change in station location.

I know that I am correct that it is NOT legal if a foreign operator uses a station inside the US and 
signs ONLY his own county callsign.  I desire for that to be true in other countries, but it is not a 
fact, it is a desire.

Remotely controlled stations should not be treated any differently than any other station as long as the 
station is properly identified.

If the remote stations equipment and antennas conform to the contest or DXCC regulations, the station, 
Properly Identified should be treated identically to any other.

It is FCC legal for me to log into a remote station in Maine for the evening hours of the 160CW contest, 
and then switch to my own station for the morning hours. However, such operation clearly does NOT conform 
to the contest rules.

Unfortunately, there are people who choose to violate the rules- either the words or the intent of the 
rules in order to gain a perceived advantage.  Those people KNOW they cheated in order to get what they 
got.  We can encourage the responsible entity to take notice, but we can not stop it.  We can notify the 
Contest/DXCC folks if we observe such an activity, BUT, be sure of your facts.  Using such an accusation 
as a "weapon"- in either direction - is just as much cheating as the original issue.

We can submit our own entries proudly knowing that we did everything within the rules.

Enough from me

Robin Critchell
WA6CDR






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger D Johnson" <n1rj at roadrunner.com>
To: "Top Band Reflector" <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 15:23
Subject: Re: Topband: Blatant cheating using Remote Operation


I've been saying this for years! It's pretty clear in the regs:

§ 97.119 Station identification.

(a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must
transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each
communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the
purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known
to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified
communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign
not authorized to the station.

Unfortunately, the FCC is a shadow of it's former self with virtually no
enforcement anymore. They're a bunch of lawyers whose main concern appears
the auctioning of spectrum to make big bucks for the Government...and I thought
the airwaves belonged to the people!.

73, Roger N1RJ


On 10/12/2019 4:39 PM, Dave Clouser wrote:
> My opinion, may not be popular.
> Note:  I'm not talking about hams remoting to _their own_ station.  That is what the great technology 
> is meant for.
>
> A remote station to someone else s equipment is not identifying legally in my opinion.  Think about it. 
> What if there is RFI or other malicious interference other coming from that station? There is no way to 
> identify it.  The station identifies as whoever is using the remote.
>
> Remotes should be required, per FCC, to identify as the station that is transmitting.  That means the 
> licensed operator in that particular location who owns the station.
> Example: NZ3M/W1XXX or whatever.
>
> There are hundreds of stations that hams can log into all over the world and operate using their own 
> call sign.  Some large stations are $ per minute and many are free.
>
> This is my 2 cents, take it as you wish.
>
> 73
>
> Dave NZ3M
>
>
> On 10/12/2019 3:54 PM, Raymond Benny wrote:
>> Greg, you, VU2GSM and others openly state how you are operating, and follow
>> the accepted rules. And I'm glad you do.
>>
>> Those who do not and claim DXCC credit for a out of country remote credit
>> should openly be called out. This may not stop many of them but atleast
>> they will known we know their mode of operation.
>>
>> I do hope that those calling out stations have darn good evidence and not
>> doing it as a personal vendetta.
>>
>> Ray,
>> N6VR
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 11:59 AM Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix at inet.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys need to be more discriminatory when discussing remote operation. I
>>> use a remote installation, and have for years, but I abide by the DXCC
>>> rules which state that the Tx and Rx antennas have to be within 500 m of
>>> each other. Furthermore, this installation I designed and built myself,
>>> and I maintain myself, with great effort. This practice should NOT be
>>> equated with the practice of using a random Rx installation on the Net,
>>> probably not even in the same country as the operator using it.
>>>
>>> 73, Greg, ZL3IX
>>>
>>> On 2019-10-13 07:34, WW3S wrote:
>>>> Good for you Roger....you always hear about hams using remotes to work
>>> the dx, but they don’t usually say much when the dx uses a remote to hear
>>> them....
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Roger D Johnson <n1rj at roadrunner.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> There is no way an organization such as the ARRL can prevent cheating
>>> in the DXCC program. It has to depend on the honesty of the hams involved.
>>> Yes..some
>>>>> people will cheat but I can't see how they can derive any satisfaction
>>> from
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year I worked VU2GSM on Top Band. I heard rumors that Kanti used
>>> remote
>>>>> receiving locations and, when asked, he freely admitted it. He's in my
>>> log
>>>>> but I didn't claim credit for that contact.
>>>>>
>>>>> YMMV!
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, Roger N1RJ
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>>> Reflector
>>>> _________________
>>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>>> Reflector
>>>
>>> _________________
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>>> Reflector
>>>
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector