THEY CALL CONTINUIOUSY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT DEVELOPED THE ART OF HUNT &
POUNCE!
"THERE IS NO VACCINE AGAINST STUPIDITY!"
"KNOWLEDGE IS KNOWING A TOMATO IS A FRUIT...
...WISDON IS KNOWING NOT TO PUT IT IN A FRUIT SALAD!
IF IT IS NOT FUNNY, DON'T SEND IT TO ME!
THANK YOU.
ALOHA,
Lee R. Wical, KH6BZF/ 7J1AAP
Yagi Acres 1-(808) 247-0587
45-601 Luluku Road
Kaneohe, Hawai'i 96744-1854
In a message dated 2/23/2011 3:03:35 P.M. Hawaiian Standard Time,
wn3...@verizon.net writes:
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 <_wn3vaw@verizon.net_
(mailto: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
ev
