RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations

To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
From: Paul Jones <paul@nn4f.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 12:14:13 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
The ARRL does not represent all hams, they need to be taken down a few
pegs, getting too big for their boots...

I was ASM for a SC section, i resigned and dropped my membership because of
some hassles i went through, I told them I would resign if they didn't care
care of an cheating issue, it took them a year to do it, I was asked by the
SM, that if the issue was taken care of would I reconsider my resignation
email and continue, I said of course, well i guess I was too much of a
trouble maker, after it was taken care of, I was told my resignation was
accepted and I was not needed....Ole Boys Club, with an overpaid CEO...

Paul - NN4F


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Michael Clarson <wv2zow@gmail.com> wrote:

> If one does as Paul suggest, to "trap" W1AW into interfering with you,
> aren't you actually the one maliciously interfering with W1AW? Who was
> there first does not automatically define who is causing the interference
> and who is being interfered with. --Mike, WV2ZOW
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> > If you want to test it out, I suggest you operate on a W1AW bulletin
> > frequency and keep a recorder going. When W1AW fires up on top of you,
> > file a complaint with the FCC and send them your recording.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Paul, N8HM
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> wrote:
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > So I can publish a schedule and effectively claim the exclusive right
> to
> > > 14.195?  Since it is published I can fire up without checking to see of
> > the
> > > frequency is in use.  I do not believe the FCC would be happy that the
> > ARRL
> > > is interfering with other amateur transmissions as that goes against
> > almost
> > > everything in the rules.
> > >
> > > If you are the FCC would you allow the ARRL or any other organization
> to
> > > wait until the QSO was over and NOT cause malicious interference to
> other
> > > amateur or allow them to publish alternative frequencies?  Waiting 5
> > minutes
> > > would not harm anyone.  These transmissions are not life and death.
> >  These
> > > are news and advertising pieces for the ARRL.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike W0MU
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/5/2014 8:59 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The wording of that section of the regulations might not explicitly
> > >> override the other regulations against causing interference to other
> > >> amateur stations but implicitly it must. The control operator must
> > >> follow the published schedule, including time and frequencies. To QSY
> > >> would be to violate the schedule. To delay the transmission would be
> > >> to violate the schedule. To not make the transmission could reduce the
> > >> number of hours below the required 40 hours per week.
> > >>
> > >> The bottom line is that the schedule is published well in advance.
> > >> Everyone knows what frequencies to avoid and when (or should).
> > >>
> > >> 73,
> > >>
> > >> Paul, N8HM
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:48 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> There is nothing in 97.113 a 3 iv that gives them the right to the
> > >>> frequency
> > >>> at all times.  I believe these actions by W1AW are in violation of
> the
> > >>> rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> 113 a 3 iv is about paying the control op and following a schedule.
> It
> > >>> does
> > >>> not give anyone the right to ignore the other rules.  Every operating
> > >>> guide
> > >>> printed by the ARRL talks about listening and making sure that the
> > >>> frequency
> > >>> is clear before transmitting.  If there was a control op on duty at
> the
> > >>> time
> > >>> of the interference then that person was in violation of the rules.
>  I
> > >>> was
> > >>> told that these broadcasts are automated.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am starting to see a pattern where the ARRL believes that only some
> > of
> > >>> the
> > >>> rules apply to them.  The ARRL is just another club.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -------- Original Message --------
> > >>> Subject:        RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
> > >>> Date:   Thu, 5 Jun 2014 12:50:45 +0000
> > >>> From:   Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>
> > >>> To:     'W0MU Mike Fatchett' <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Mike W0MU
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> RTTY mailing list
> > >>> RTTY@contesting.com
> > >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>