Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
I think the incessant callers might do that to hold their QRG whilst they have a coffee, attend to nature etc? ;-) The show off speed merchants don't seem to realise they're losing points from the many who just can't copy their high speed callsign? Dave - Original Message - From: HK3CW To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers Nobody has addressed the opposite side of the coin: Incessant callers calling CQ TEST 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 ---
Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
There are other possibilities such as falling asleep on the keyer,, your cat resting on your key etc... Lou KE1f On 2/24/2011 5:40 AM, G4GED Dave wrote: I think the incessant callers might do that to hold their QRG whilst they have a coffee, attend to nature etc? ;-) The show off speed merchants don't seem to realise they're losing points from the many who just can't copy their high speed callsign? Dave - Original Message - *From:* HK3CW mailto:cwd...@gmail.com *To:* dx-chat@njdxa.org mailto:dx-chat@njdxa.org *Sent:* Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:39 PM *Subject:* Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers Nobody has addressed the opposite side of the coin: Incessant callers calling CQ TEST 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 mailto:w...@juno.com *To:* dx-chat@njdxa.org mailto: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* http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ralphwaldo140896.html** --- 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 ---
Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
I also noticed a good bit of this. It is maddening to be sure. I wonder if some of it might not be due to excessive noise levels at their location, thus they are really unable to hear very well. I wasn't all that surprised when my dinky signal wasn't being heard, but I also heard other stations calling these CQers, and many of them I know to have very good stations and antenna systems. Thus, my speculation about possible excessive noise levels. Nonetheless, it was certainly frustrating to only be on the 2nd character of my call when I heard the CQer go again, time after time, thanks to my QSK. Only the real loudenboomers were getting through. Dave W7AQK - Original Message - From: Mecseri To: radiodave.g4...@tiscali.co.uk Cc: cwd...@gmail.com ; dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:29 AM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers There are other possibilities such as falling asleep on the keyer,, your cat resting on your key etc... Lou KE1f On 2/24/2011 5:40 AM, G4GED Dave wrote: I think the incessant callers might do that to hold their QRG whilst they have a coffee, attend to nature etc? ;-) The show off speed merchants don't seem to realise they're losing points from the many who just can't copy their high speed callsign? Dave - Original Message - From: HK3CW To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers Nobody has addressed the opposite side of the coin: Incessant callers calling CQ TEST 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 --- --- 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 ---
Re: Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
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... 73Feb 23, 2011 04:05:29 PM, cwd...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody has addressed the opposite side of the coin: Incessant callers calling CQ TEST without giving a chance forpeople wanting a qsoto 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 toimail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chator subscribe dx-chatThis is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org--- ---To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message toimail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chator subscribe dx-chatThis is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org--- ---To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message toimail...@njdxa.org In the message body put either unsubscribe dx-chator subscribe dx-chatThis is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org---
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 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*http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ralphwaldo140896.html * * --- 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 ---
RE: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
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 ever listens
Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
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
RE: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers
Just so that we're clear on what I'm talking about... Yes, there is often a short pause. Key word there is short. I know I observed at least 3 stations (2 EU 1 NA) who had a brief pause before the CQ machine started up again... about enough for a character or two. Now one can argue that maybe the station didn't hear me, and in my own case, I will concede as much, since I'm running 100 W into a vertical. But I wasn't the only one calling. And for every station I heard calling the, ah, gentlemen in question... there could conceivably be another dozen who I can't hear, due to the vagaries of propagation -- but the CQ'ing station may have. Oh, the fact that non-contesters also do this is just as wrong. Further... Now I don't know the entry classes, and won't until the results come out in a few months. But if, for the sake of argument, one of these continual CQ'ers is entering as a Single Op... and as you said, is actually mult-hunting, or trying to work others on another band... he (or she) would clearly be in violation of the rules. This situation is not an SO2R situation, where someone is listening on 2 radios at once but only transmitting on one... this is transmitting simultaneously on 2 bands. I can't think of ANY contest where this is permitted. And please, no hair-splitting on the finer points of SO2R... because again, this is a situation where one transmitter is simply transmitting, no one is (at the moments in question) listening. In short... Sending a long CQ is one thing. It may be inefficient, and not in your best interests, but that's still one thing. Transmitting a long string of CQ's, not listening for callers, and doing so solely to hold a frequency until you get around to operating on that band? That's something else altogether. Oh, if that AM'er is the person I think you're thinking of... frankly, I'll take your word for it, I don't know what his personal habits are... especially on the air! 73 -Original Message- From: Ryan Jairam [mailto:rjai...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:40 PM To: wn3...@verizon.net Cc: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Continuous callers 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, Im not convinced. Consider: Why send a CQ? To solicit someone to answer you. That is a perfectly acceptable, and legal, one way transmission you dont 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 thats the key here, without pausing to listen. Thats 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 Im not a lawyer, let alone a communications lawyer. However, my lawyer is. Hell 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? Im not talking about contest rules, either. Im 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
