BE Informed
No. 56
THE VPOD PROTOCOL
And
THE GOTA
John B. Johnston W3BE
Q. For Field Day, with yours
truly as control operator, my three grandchildren, my son and his XYL called CQ. We were often referred
to as a GOTA station. What is a GOTA station?
A.
GOTA is the acronym for Get-On-The-Air. It is reportedly for attracting new people into the hobby, encouraging
upgrading, and developing support for the hobby among the non-ham population.
Q. Field Day rule 4.1.1 says that a GOTA station may operate on any HF or VHF Field Day band.
GOTA rule 4.1.1.2 says that a GOTA station may be operated by any person licensed since the previous Field Day, regardless
of license class. Non-licensed persons may participate - presumably by causing or allowing amateur stations
to transmit during events such as Field Day - under the direct supervision of an appropriate control operator.
GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3 says: As per FCC rules, this
station must have a valid control operator present (presumably anywhere the FCC regulates our amateur service that is within
31.0685 miles of the surface of planet Earth) if operating beyond the license privileges of the participant using
the station. I have read FCC Part 97 and I cannot find any such rules. If they are there, where
are they?
A. There are no unique FCC rules for Field day. Neither
is there any authorization for non-licensed persons to operate amateur stations or for a participant
to use an amateur station. When transmitting, each amateur station must have
a control operator (SCO). The SCO must be a person for whom an amateur operator/primary station license
grant appears on the ULS or who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation. Read FCC Section 97.7. Amateur radio is a radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested
in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
There are two possibilities here, although
neither is a precise fit. After a quick read, the use of the undefined term participant
would suggest that GOTA Rule 4.1.1.2 is based theoretically upon the third party communication perogative in FCC Section 97.115. After a closer inspection, however, it seems GOTA Rule 4.1.1 more
likely stems from the VPOD Protocol theory.
Third
party communication theory
With exceptions, FCC Section 97.115 says that an amateur station may transmit messages for a third party to
certain other stations. The third party may participate in stating the message where the SCO is present
at the control point and is continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation. It
is overstretching to read into this wording that it bestows rights and privileges upon unqualified persons to participate
in amateur station transmitting events by performing the duties of the SCO.
GOTA Rule 4.1.1.2 does not refer to FCC Section 97.115 or to third party communications. GOTA Rule 4.1.1.2 only requires
that the SCO be present; it does not specify where it is that the SCO must be present. Despite its specificity,
still other persons also assert that FCC Section 97.115 bestows undeniable rights and privileges upon a third party.
Our VECs’ question G1E08, for example, reads as though non-licensed persons have rights to
utilize our amateur radio spectrum; an inverted spin on FCC Section 97.115. Moreover, GOTA Rule 4.1.1.2 does not require, as does FCC Section 97.115, that the SCO must be positioned at the control point and must be continuously
monitoring and supervising the third party's participation. Even further, GOTA Rule 4.1.1.2 does not limit
– as does FCC Section 97.115 – the third party’s participation to simply stating his or her third
party message. (This is the FCC rule that makes our phonepatch, autopatch, and simpatch systems possible.)
GOTA Rule 4.1.1, to the contrary, speaks of unrestrained operating and the use
of amateur stations by unlicensed and under-licensed participants. FCC Section 97.115(b)(2), however, disallows certain persons
from participating in third party communications. GOTA Rule 4.1.1 does not follow suit.
VPOD Protocol
theory
The more likely
possibility, therefore, is that GOTA Rule 4.1.1 is based upon the VPOD Protocol (Verbalizing Person or
Device) theory. Its foundation, however, is what the FCC rules do not say. The
VPOD Protocol hypothesis is that a person or a device, at the discretion of, and on behalf of, the SCO, can compliantly originate
the speech transmitted by an amateur station as well as formulate and act upon judgments that are otherwise the responsibility
of, and normally are carried out by, the SCO. Section 97.3(a)(6) establishes that, at least in some instances,
the use of devices and procedures for control of a station when it is transmitting can achieve compliance with the FCC rules.
A person may be able to do this as well as a device.
FCC Section 97.305 authorizes phone type emission transmissions on most of our frequency bands.
FCC Section 97.3(c)(5) defines a phone emission as speech and other sound emissions having certain designators. It does not limit speechified sound to the
voice of the SCO. It can, therefore, be a playback of a pre-recorded voice message, be from a voice synthesizer,
or - in the instance of GOTA Rule 4.1.1. – be the live voice of the participant. Under the VPOD Protocol,
the participant is simply verbalizing precisely the thoughts of the SCO, although the undefined GOTA Rule 4.1.1
terms operate and using do not fit comfortably well into this hypothesis.
For a more thorough discussion
of this topic, read BE Informed No. 25 Who Must Throw The Big Red Switch? GOTA Rule 4.1.1 seemingly makes one gigantic leap over our traditional
privilege/no privilege dividing line. It obviously asserts that the unqualified person - out of operational
necessity - must likewise cause or allow the station to transmit. Once the baloney has been sliced that
thin, performing still other SCO duties, such as monitoring and adjusting the station’s regulated transmitting parameters,
go with the territory.
Q. It seems to me that the
reason for GOTA stations is so that licensees who do not have a station of their own can get on the air, using the privileges
for which they have qualified. It should help them gain experience in performing the duties of a control operator.
I don't see a difference between a Field Day group having a GOTA station for new or inactive licensees to use and for me inviting
a new or inactive licensee over to my station to get on the air as long as the FCC rules are observed compliantly. Otherwise,
that "anything goes" mindset is destructive, as is that "everyone gets Amateur Extra Class privileges"
and the other folklore hokum that springs from Field Day.
A. Of course. Competitive scoring inducements, however, are being tacked
on for enabling unqualified persons to cause and allow radio stations to transmit on our amateur service frequencies.
As long as those sessions are limited in duration and number, it may be unlikely that any harm to the hobby will result.
Perhaps there even may even be some benefit to somebody. On the other hand, should our once-valued protection against
encroachment by the unqualified become accepted generally as compromisable, there may be no U-turn on down the superhighway
to our amateur radio morphing into just CB on steroids.
Q. Why is there a need for VPODs?
A. There is no “need” for VPODs, but it may have benefits. Proponents apparently
view that allowing limited, episodic opportunities for non-licensed and under-licensed persons to speak over a station properly
controlled by an SCO is beneficial in attracting new people into the hobby, encouraging upgrading, or developing support for
the hobby among the non-ham population. As long as the VPOD sessions are limited in duration and number, it is unlikely
that any harm to the hobby will result, and perhaps there is some benefit. However, harm could result from routine
utilization of amateur stations by unlicensed or under-license persons as VPODs.
Q. A GOTA station is great because it makes it possible for more people to experience amateur radio.
A. It provides TPMSPs and VPODs with an easier and simpler way to enjoy amateur operator privileges without expending
the effort to qualify normally by examination for the otherwise required class of operator license grant.
With GOTA Rule 4.1.1 - now having been declared to
be FCC sanctioned – growing legs unchecked, we should expect it to infiltrate into still other amateur service
activities and compromise the legitimacy of our amateur radio service.
Q.
I have always had my non-ham daughter as an operator at my Field Day station. She has no interest
in ham radio beyond participating in our annual outing. Her energy and on-the-air personality, fortunately,
seems to result in making more contacts than anyone else. But ours is not a GOTA station. Is
that OK?
A. Apparently
so, as a VPOD, at least. Although the Field Day rules do not mention it in the context of non-GOTA stations,
once it is clearly accepted that the VPOD Protocol is compliant with our FCC rules, it could probably apply to all FCC-licensed
stations.
Q. As the designated SCO of a GOTA station, just how much operating and participating can I allow
a VPOD to do?
A.
Every transmitted word spoken by, and every action taken by, the VOPD is on behalf of the SCO. The
VPOD is simply verbalizing precisely the thoughts and intentions of the SCO.
Q. As the designated SCO of a GOTA station, where do I have to be stationed?
A. The GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3 says only
that the SCO must be present, although it does not say just where that has to be. There are, however, general
requirements in the FCC rules:
● The station must be under local or remote control. Read Sections 97.109(b) and
(c).
●
The SCO must be a person for whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated
licensee database, or who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation. Read Sections 97.7.
●
The SCO must be at the station control point. Read Sections 97.109(b) and
(c). The control point is the
location at which the control operator function is performed. Read Section 97.3(a)(14).
● The SCO, together with the station licensee - if a different person - is responsible for
the proper operation of the station in accordance with the FCC Rules. Read Section 97.103(a).
● The SCO must ensure the immediate proper operation of the station, regardless of the type
of control. Read Section 97.105(a).
● The station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges
authorized for the class of operator license held by the SCO. Read Section 97.105(b).
Q. While the SCO is monitoring and supervising a VPOD, does the SCO have to stand behind her and
reach around to activate the PTT?
A. Apparently
such matters are considered to be the prerogative of the SCO.
Otherwise, read BE No. 25 Who Must Throw The Big Red Switch?
Q. When I work with the scouts on JOTA (Jamboree on the Air), I hold the mike and press the mike
button, because the scouts are youngsters and there is a long line waiting to say just a few words. For our GOTA station,
it is a judgment call depending on the person speaking.
A. Apparently,
those JOTA messages meet the standards in Section 97.115 for third party communications.
Your scouts’ participation in stating their third party messages is, therefore, authorized.
Q. I understood that the purpose of a Field Day Control Operator was so that Technicians could operate
on HF without upgrading. Now I’m getting the picture that they can only operate with their own Technician privileges.
What, then, is the purpose of the Field Day Control Operator?
A. As on every
day of every year, the purpose of the SCO is to be responsible for the transmissions from that station to assure compliance
with the FCC Rules. Read Section 97.3(a)(13). For a station having a SCO who has been granted an operator license of Technician Class, Section 97.301(e) authorizes small segments in the 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter HF bands.
Under the VPOD Protocol, however, a Technician Class operator performs
duties of - and with the consent of - the SCO at a GOTA station transmitting on frequencies available to the SCO.
Presumably, the SCO would be an Amateur Extra Class operator so as to make all possible frequency privileges available
to the VPOD.
Q. My friend, a Technician Class operator, is visiting while I (Amateur Extra Class) am operating
in a contest. She would like to make DX contacts with her call sign and get some QSL cards. So I allow her to
be an operator at my station on 20 meters. I am the SCO so I have her ID with [her call]/[my call]. She
makes a contact with G6** who says her QSO is not a legitimate contact. I take the mike and tell him I am the SCO and
she is an operator, so this is a valid QSO. The G6 ham doesn't give credit for the contact and tells her it is not legal.
I think he is wrong because she is just the operator and I am the SCO standing by her side so he should send her a QSL card.
A. That G6 ham, at least, apparently may not yet be aware of our U.S. amateur service community’s still emerging
TPMSPs and VPODs. He is probably still laboring under the fading notion that all persons wanting to enjoy
the privileges of an amateur operator should first obtain the proper license grant.
Q.
The G6 is correct. This is a case of third party communications with a station in country with whom we have no third
party agreement (exception for Great Britain stations with prefix “GB”). The visitor is a third party
when she is speaking on 20 meters. Yes, she has a Technician license, but Section 97.115(a)(2) allows exemption from the international third party prohibition
only when the third party “is eligible to be a control operator of the station.” With a Technician
License, she is NOT eligible to be the control operator of the station on 20 meters. The rule about “her
call/my call” does not apply here. That is required when the HIGHER class operator is operating a lower class
licensee’s station. The situation in the question is just the reverse.
A. The questioner apparently does not consider that DX exchange to be third party communications,
at least as anything that is regulated under Section 97.115. He seems to view it in the context of his unique interpretation
of that indeterminable word operator, which - in this instance – seemed to be similar to the VPOD until it was disclosed
that QSL card was wanted for the under-licensed person.
If the message
was that the card was wanted by the Technician Class operator, it was a third party communication. If,
however, the message was that it was the SCO who wanted the Technician Class operator to receive the card, then it was still
a VPOD communication.
Q. By definition, a communication for a person other than the SCO (or a person qualified to be the
SCO of the station) IS third party communication. When an unlicensed or under-licensed person speaks over my radio,
he or she is a third party. I can’t let them talk to DX stations in countries with which we have no third party
agreement. That’s what the G6 was trying to tell him.
A.
Probably so. Actually, Section 97.3(a)(46) defines third party communications as a message from the control operator (first
party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control operator (second party) on behalf of another person (third
party). Read BE Informed No. 7 All About Third Party Communications.
May 18, 2011
Supersedes all prior editions