Before I say anything, if I come across a touch cranky, I apologize in advance. Had a family event run late, which caused me to miss a small social event at W3WH's QTH; worse, my geriatric dog left me an unwelcome present, the less said about that the better...
Ahem. It seems to me that, after taking a step back and giving the matter some thought, we have two separate but inter-related major issues here. First, the issue of the legitimacy (for DXCC purposes) of the FJ/OH2AM operation. Many of the issues appear, IMHO, to be at best trivial or technical (or both) in nature. But let's look at some of them anyway. The matter of how Martti and Olli arrived on the island strikes me as somewhat irrelevant, especially in view of statements from others on this reflector and others about how strict access is -- or isn't. Since that issue wasn't raised in the F6GOX/FJ5BL letter, which implies there wasn't much if anything to the original gripe, we can probably forget about this. Then there's the matter of the use of the OH2AM call itself. Now, on this matter, I'm on shakier ground since I'm not extremely familiar with the CEPT regulations. But the implications in the letter of "criminal offenses" bother me on several levels. Here in the US, there's a difference, often a big difference, between minor (misdemeanor) and major (felony) infractions. To my mind, "criminal" is usually close to synonymous with "felony." Somehow, using a club call for operating -- a club call that the trustee was operating, amongst others -- just doesn't rise to the felony level. Which is not to say that if the indicated CEPT regulations are valid, the use of the club call may have been a mistake. Now, many of you know Martti personally, probably better than I (I'm still impressed that the man remembers my call, but that's another story). He's one of the top DX'ers in the world -- possibly THE top DX'er at present. One of the reasons for this is that the man is known as a meticulous planner. Few if any details miss his attention; that's why he's one of the best. Is it possible that he simply overlooked the CEPT reciprocity regulations on club calls? Sure. It's possible. A few days ago, I would add "but unlikely." But no one's perfect. And it is not unreasonable that he and Olli may have simply assumed that since CEPT covered their personal calls, the club call was also covered. Or, they may have checked with someone who was supposed to be familiar with the details of the regulation, and were incorrectly informed that CEPT covered the club call too. The preceding paragraph is assuming on my end that the implication in the F6GOX letter, that club calls are NOT covered under CEPT, is correct. Let me be clear that I am NOT stating this as a fact. I honestly don't know. IF this is correct... if the club call was improperly used... is THIS enough to cause the DXCC desk to disapprove of the operation for DXCC purposes? I don't know the answer to that... only Bill Moore NC1L can ultimately answer that. I've met the man several times and corresponded with him on other issues; I have no doubt that he's an honest man who will make the best decision that he can. Now regardless of what his decision is, there will be controvery -- the proverbial can of worms. If the operation is disallowed, you will hear one group complaining about a minor triviality. If it is allowed, you will hear another group counter-complaining that it was only approved because it is Martti, and Martti Can Do No Wrong. So I don't envy Bill or the rest of the DXCC staff on this one -- anything they do, someone will cry foul. Which starts to move into the second major issue. Why is this controversy being raised at all? Some will say that it's because Those Who Believe In The Purity of DXCC are just trying to be fair. If you believe that, we have to get back to discussing the price of that beachfront property in Arizona you're buying from me again. Sorry, but I feel that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that this is another application of NIMBY -- Not In My Back Yard -- Syndrome. In other words... it comes across as sour grapes from some of the FJ hams. Let's look at some history, or at least as much as we know. The French Ministry decreed that St. Barthelemy become an Overseas Collective on February 21. (And how many knew of this at the time? I dimly remember hearing something about the possibility... but contrast that with the developing situation regarding political changes in the Netherlands Antilles, which we've all been aware of for many months now). And this was the effective date of this decree, so this had been in the works for awhile. Nothing appears to have happened until July 2, when the US State Department first proposed that their list of "Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty" be updated. The next time something happened was when FJ5DX petitioned the DXCC Desk on November 8. Again, something that happened quietly. It wasn't until the update to the US State Department Fact Sheet on December 14 that an "event date" triggered. (Why this fact sheet? Because it is one of the internationally recognized means to determine political changes for possessions and territories, one that is also independant of Amateur Radio politics. Look at it sometimes, it's quite interesting what's on that list). Now one can argue that the date that the entity came into being was February 21 and that the addition to the entity list should be backdated accordingly. That's another matter, though, to be taken up with the DXCC Desk. Anyway, getting back to the drama at hand... or should I say soap opera... within 4 days of the List being updated, OH2BH and OH0XX were enroute, arrived, and operational. Co-incidence? I doubt it -- as I said a few paragraphs ago, Martti is a meticulous planner. I'm convinced that he knew about when the change was due to be published, and that he and Olli were ready to go -- and went. Did this catch the FJ hams by surprise? Maybe. So what? Once the word was out... why didn't any of them get on the air? Yes, there was some activity last weekend, but not very much. Regardless... there's something about the complaints that followed Martti and Olli going QRV that continue to bother me. I mentioned earlier that the cited CEPT regulations were possibly overlooked. Could it be because they were... somewhat obscure? (Should they have been? Maybe, mabe not; but how many US hams can say that they know EVERY FCC regulation -- or Canadian hams EVERY IC regulation -- etc). There's something about the timing in which they were brought to light that doesn't feel right. I get the hunch -- and only a hunch -- that someone was combing through the CEPT regulations looking for something to give credence to an operation amiss. Almost like the traffic cop who pores through the regulations just LOOKING for an obscure reason to give you a ticket, just to justify an otherwise unwarranted traffic stop. And if this is the case, then I have to wonder if it is fair to all concerned to disqualify this operation because of hurt feelings or bruised egos, eg, sour grapes? Because frankly, that's what this smells like. I alluded in an earlier email the the H8A debacle. As some of you may recall, a group of DL ops went to Panama to operate, an operation which was to include an RTTY contest. They requested and were granted the use of the H8A call -- the first time I believe the prefix was on the air. Certain HP ops were livid. I still have the emails from some HP ops complaining long and loud about how improper the call was, how it was against their regulations -- and how this should DQ the entire op. (Also that the short call gave the group an unfair advantage in the RTTY contest). Pointing out to some of these ops that their argument was with their licensing authority for granting the call appeared pointless. Meanwhile, many of the H8A transmissions were jammed. (I missed out on my 75 meter QSO when all I could hear was "Pirate" "Illegal" "Improper" and other words not suitable for a family reflector... the op finally gave up and went QRT). Eventually, some of the HP hams got their licensing authority to pull the call... but not before a bad taste was left behind. See a parallel here? I've expounded long enough. So with all this as background, let me sum up: If there is a legitimate reason that the DXCC Desk should not allow the operation, so be it. But if the complaints and regulation digging are purely the result of some local hams being offended that someone beat them to being the "first" operation from their entity... sorry guys, but don't give yourselves a black eye by being petty. Concentrate instead on getting more activity on more bands from your new entity... and frankly, be grateful that a lot of the pressure by hams to work "the first one" has been taken off of you. Have a good weekend! 73, ron w3wn Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
