Believe it or not while you hear continuous calling, I hear a short pause in between. I send out my call and they usually come back. So I'm not entirely convinced that people simply leave the computer CQing and don't listen.
I've heard very long CQ calls from other many non-contest ops too. A certain AM op that you and I both know does this regularly on 40m 7.160. So I'm not entirely convinced it's illegal either. Like I said, it *MAY* be unethical in a contest. But it's not against the rules of any contest I know of to send long CQs and not against the FCC rules as far as I can tell. Even if you CQ for a very long time you are still soliciting contacts, not broadcasting. There is no time limit on a CQ, at least not in the USA. Working mults while holding the freq CQing *is* against contest rules in many contests for single op as you are allowed only one transmitted signal at a time. 73 Ryan, N2RJ On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3...@verizon.net> wrote: > > With all due respect Ryan, I’m not convinced. Consider: > > > > Why send a CQ? To solicit someone to answer you. That is a perfectly > acceptable, and legal, one way transmission… you don’t know who is going to > call you, but your intent is that someone answer you back. And just as > obviously, sending CQ TEST in a contest is also saying that you are IN the > contest and are soliciting contacts FOR the purpose of adding them to your > contest log. Right? > > > > Someone sending CQ TEST continuously, without pausing to listen? And that’s > the key here, “without pausing to listen.” That’s merely a one way > transmission… a broadcast. Announcing who you are, but falsely (at least at > the moment in question) soliciting contests. And I say “falsely” because > the transmitting station is NOT answering anyone… deliberately. > > > > Is this in violation of the rules regarding prohibited transmissions? > Technically, maybe not. As a practical matter? Considering the intent of > the transmission? Questionable at best. > > > > However… I’m not a lawyer, let alone a communications lawyer. However, my > lawyer is. He’ll be sharing my table at the club hamfest on Sunday, so I > can discuss it with him. Since Mike is an inactive contester, he has more > than a little insight into the matter! > > > > Legalisms aside… there is the issue of ethics. Is it ethical, even if it is > legal, to “hold” a frequency for minutes, or even hours, by continuously > transmitting a fake CQ TEST while you go off and do other things? I’m not > talking about contest rules, either. I’m talking about good amateur > practice. That is, after all, what we contesters are supposed to be doing, > as we demonstrate our operating skills, right? > > > > IMHO, confiscating a frequency for a lengthy period of time, just to hold > it, deprives other operators the chance to use that frequency. Instead of > doing something positive to boost your score, at best, you hurt the > opportunities of the other operators… both those you are directly competing > against in your entry category, and potentially anyone else in the contest > as well. > > > > I can’t see how that could possibly be considered ethical. It strikes me as > anything but. > > > > Just because something is legal, within the strict confines of the laws of > the land and the rules of the contest, doesn’t make it right. > > > > And that’s something too many contesters seem to have forgotten. > > > > 73, ron w3wn > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ryan Jairam [mailto:rjai...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:17 PM > To: wn3...@verizon.net > Cc: dx-chat@njdxa.org > Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers > > > > No Ron, it is not a violation of Part 97, specifically 97.113. Perfectly > legal and not a violation of any contest rules either. Some Other countries > do have limits on transmission length though but even those are akin to blue > laws since they were designed for the cw only era. It may violate control op > rules if the op steps away. > > Is it unethical? My opinion is "maybe." but no rules broken, FCC or > otherwise. > > __ > > Ryan, N2RJ > > Via iPhone > > > > > On Feb 23, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > I noticed a few of those during the contest. What I found interesting is > that it would be an almost continuous, non-stop CQ for a few minutes (most 4 > -5, some as many as 10)... and then all of a sudden, there'd be a pause and > then they'd hear and work you. > > Let's call this what it is: A sneaky, underhanded, and unsportsmanlike > method to "hold" a frequency, while the station goes elsewhere to work a few > mults... or go to the bathroom, answer the phone, or grab a drink or > whatever. > > Sorry. If you have to leave, leave. You have no guarantee the frequency will > be clear, but that is (or should be) the risk you take. And if the frequency > is occupied when you return, whatever the reason, tough. First come, first > served. Nobody owns a frequency. > > Someone earlier mentioned to me the sense of "entitlement." You are not > "entitled" to a frequency. QRO or QRP, big gun, little pistol, or squirt > gun... if the frequency is in use because someone heard it open up when you > left, them's the breaks. > > And I do believe, in the US at least, a near-continuous transmission like > this may be in violation of the FCC rules on one way transmissions. Although > I'd check on that before saying so with authority. Not that anyone ever > listens to me... > > 73 > > Feb 23, 2011 04:05:29 PM, cwd...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Nobody has addressed the opposite side of the coin: Incessant callers > calling CQ TEST XXXX without giving a chance for people wanting a qso to > break their non-stop calling.. those are also annoying... > > I also "enjoyed" the 65 WPM callers? Who were they trying to catch? The > skimmers? > > 73 de HK3CW Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Duane, WV2B > > To: dx-chat@njdxa.org > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:19 PM > > Subject: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers > > > > > > Why notstart recording some of them and post the clips on a website? > > To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to > have succeeded. > Ralph Waldo Emerson > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to > > imail...@njdxa.org > > In the message body put either > > unsubscribe dx-chat > > or > > subscribe dx-chat > > This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to > > imail...@njdxa.org > > In the message body put either > > unsubscribe dx-chat > > or > > subscribe dx-chat > > This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to > > imail...@njdxa.org > > In the message body put either > > unsubscribe dx-chat > > or > > subscribe dx-chat > > This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to > > imail...@njdxa.org > > In the message body put either > > unsubscribe dx-chat > > or > > subscribe dx-chat > > This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org > ----------------------------------------------------------- -- Ryan A. Jairam, ----------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to imail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chat or subscribe dx-chat This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org -----------------------------------------------------------
