I believe that the ARRL went out on a limb and just assumed that it was
ok to trash other amateurs.
There is no specific exception that would allow them to cause willful
and malicious interference to other hams. The ARRL is no better than
any other club or licensee.
I have asked the FCC for clarification on the matter. I am sure it was
the ARRL that proposed their own rules to allow them to pay an operator
to broadcast in 99.99 of the time fluff and advertising but if amateur
helps in an emergency it is strictly volunteer. The ARRL being the
largest CLUB in the world can't find operators to man their station.
Seems odd to me.
This is a case of gosh we didn't consider what we would do, or they did,
if the frequency they wanted to use was in use.
The ARRL no more owns that frequency or the right to use it anymore than
I do. Period. What they keep quoting allows them to pay someone but as
far as I am concerned they must OBEY every other rule.
Lets sell thousands of copies of books that say to be courteous and
check your frequency etc but those books don't apply to us..........
Mike W0MU
On 6/5/2014 9:35 AM, Alan Brubaker wrote:
> people have been complaining about this for many years. yes, w1aw is
> an exception to the rules that the rest of us must follow. for what
> it's worth - from the horse's mouth:
>
> Hi John,
> In response to your email regarding W1AW’s code practice transmissions.
>
> W1AW is the only station that operates under the provisions of
> 97.113(d). These rules were written by FCC staff years ago
> specifically to permit W1AW to continue to provide CW practice and
> information bulletins to the Amateur Radio community. The rules
> require that the station transmit CW practice and information
> bulletins for at least 40 hours per week, schedule operation on at
> least six MF and HF bands using reasonable measures to maximize
> coverage, and publish the schedule of normal operating times and
> frequencies at least 30 days in advance of the actual transmissions.
>
> In order to conform to the rule it is necessary for W1AW to operate in
> accordance with the published schedule. Therefore, I must be on those
> published frequencies and at their published times.
>
> Aside from technical or weather-related issues that would otherwise
> prevent me from being on-air at our scheduled frequencies and times, I
> must abide by our published schedule. I cannot arbitrarily make a
> change (frequency, time, mode, date, etc.) without giving 30 days
> advanced notice.
>
> I understand this explanation may not sit well with some amateurs. My
> only hope is that they understand the overall mission of W1AW. And,
> that while we use and publish these frequencies, obviously we don’t
> claim to own them.
>
> Thank you for writing.
>
>
> 73,
>
>
> Joseph Carcia, NJ1Q
>
> W1AW Station Manager
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:15 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> *_Willful or Malicious Interference Complaints _*
>
> Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules prohibits amateur
> operators from willfully or maliciously interfering with or causing
> interference to any radio communication or signal. 47 C.F.R. §
> 97.101(d).
>
> They cannot ignore the other rules Paul.
>
> This rule was put in place so they could pay a control op. It is a
> special interest rule that probably no longer serves a purpose today.
> It does not say that rule 97.101(d) can be ignored.
> Mike W0MU
>
> On 6/5/2014 9:11 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>> W1AW can operate as per it's published schedule and you can too If you
>> can meet all the requirements.
>>
>> You must:
>>
>> 1. Be a club station that is paying the control operator for their
>> services.
>> 2. Make one way transmissions for telegraphy practice or informational
>> bulletins.
>> 3. Publish your schedule 30 days in advance (this would generally have
>> to be a written publication under normal interpretations of "publish"
>> in the CFR).
>> 4. Transmit for at least 40 hours a week.
>> 5. Schedule your operations on at least 6 MF or HF amateur bands at
>> times meant to maximize coverage.
>>
>> In practicality, the ARRL is the only organization that can actually
>> meet those requirements.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett<w0mu@w0mu.com>
>> <mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>> FYI. Read the entire chain.
>>>
>>> Apparently, the ARRL feels that it does not need to adhere to the all
>>> the
>>> rules that the rest of us do and they effectively own or have the
>>> exclusive
>>> right to their bulletin and practice frequencies.
>>>
>>> All you need to do is publish an operating schedule and you too can
>>> own
>>> whatever frequency you want?
>>>
>>> I am aghast at his response, that it is ok for W1AW to maliciously
>>> interfere with another amateur using a frequency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
>>> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:54:12 +0000
>>> From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ<dsumner@arrl.org>
>>> <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>
>>> To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'<w0mu@w0mu.com> <mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike, data modes with bandwidths of about 2.4 kHz have been in use on
>>> HF for
>>> at least 13 years. RTTY/data and phone/image have separate subbands.
>>> Changing that would be a major change. RM-11708 proposes a minor
>>> change to
>>> prevent the use of much wider data bandwidths and more efficient use
>>> of the
>>> bandwidth now in use. Why is that a bad thing?
>>>
>>> W1AW does not operate under automatic control. There is a control
>>> operator
>>> on duty at all times the station is in operation. Transmissions are
>>> made on
>>> published frequencies and at published times, and have been for
>>> decades. If
>>> you follow your logic to its natural conclusion then somebody could
>>> just
>>> shut down the bulletin and code practice function by squatting on
>>> those
>>> frequencies.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 10:42 AM
>>> To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
>>> Subject: Re: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> 113 a 3 iv talks about compensation for the control Ops. That was not
>>> my
>>> question.
>>>
>>> My concern is with any station not just W1AW firing up on a specific
>>> frequency without checking to see if it is busy. No where in the rule
>>> above
>>> does it say that all the other rules can be ignored. Transmitting on
>>> a
>>> frequency without checking if it is busy is contrary to all the
>>> published operating guides by the ARRL and contrary to the FCC rules.
>>> Where in the rules does it give any station the authority to fire up
>>> on any
>>> frequency without checking?
>>>
>>> The rule says you may pay your control op if you have to have a
>>> schedule and
>>> it has to be published. It does not mean that the schedule must be
>>> followed
>>> at all costs. The FCC has stated many times that no net, organization
>>> or
>>> otherwise own or control any frequency unless they are using it. When
>>> I
>>> stop using a frequency it if free to be used by the next person. If I
>>> am
>>> using a frequency I should be able to continue to use that frequency
>>> until I
>>> am finished.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that there is a control operator on duty at all times
>>> when
>>> the bulletins are being sent? I always thought it was an automated
>>> process.
>>> If there was a control op in charge at the time of this issue why did
>>> he/she
>>> allow the transmission on top of a frequency in use?
>>> This behavior would be in violation of the rules would it not?
>>>
>>> Any proposals could and should have moved the wideband transmissions
>>> into
>>> the wideband area ie SSB and SSTV. The proposal could and should have
>>> set a
>>> much lower limit on signals in the cw portions to something much less
>>> than
>>> 2.8khz.
>>>
>>> Pactor 4 and winlink will take over our cw bands with transmissions
>>> much
>>> like the W1AW broadcasts. No need to check if the frequencies are
>>> busy,
>>> just transmit, wipe out the cw or rtty that was there and do whatever
>>> it is
>>> they do. These wide band data modes can easily deal with narrow band
>>> noise
>>> which was why the proposal moved them into the cw bands. They cannot
>>> deal
>>> with wide band noise like SSB ans SSTV.
>>>
>>> If W1AW does not have to check if a frequency is in use then why
>>> should
>>> anyone else? These so called automated systems either ignore
>>> frequencies in
>>> use or just don't care. There are many complaints about many of the
>>> other
>>> modes just coming on and causing interference.
>>>
>>> Mike W0MU
>>>
>>> On 6/5/2014 6:50 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> The bulletin transmissions must conform to the published schedule in
>>>> order
>>>> to comply with 97.113(a)(3)(iv). 18 MHz is problematic because the
>>>> band is
>>>> narrow, but it provides excellent coverage.
>>>>
>>>> 2.8 kHz HF data signals are permitted now and have been in use for
>>>> more
>>>> than a decade. What RM-11708 would do is to limit the bandwidth to
>>>> that
>>>> rather than to continue the status quo, which allows much wider
>>>> bandwidths.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Dave K1ZZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:49 PM
>>>> To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
>>>> Subject: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
>>>>
>>>> Dave,
>>>>
>>>> Apparently in the last few days it was reported that W1AW came up on
>>>> 18.100 and started the Bulletin. Unfortunately, one of the W1AW/X
>>>> stations was on that frequency.
>>>>
>>>> I have been going over the rules and I would like to understand why
>>>> W1AW does not check for a busy frequency prior to firing up. Where
>>>> in
>>>> the FCC rules is this allowed. I am sure that I would be subject to
>>>> a
>>>> pink slip if I decided to fire up on top of W1AW or face much peer
>>>> retribution wouldn't I?
>>>>
>>>> Sadly if RM-11708 passes we will all be subject to 2.8khz signals
>>>> firing up on top of people using a frequency just like W1AW does.
>>>> Maybe you can explain the difference to me.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY@contesting.com <mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmc mailing list
> Gmc@grandmesa.org <mailto:Gmc@grandmesa.org>
> http://mail.grandmesa.org/mailman/listinfo/gmc_grandmesa.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty