On 2014-06-09 10:42 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
The ARRL does not care about deliberate interference. They do it on
a daily basis with the bulletins and code practice sessions and they
either don't care or talked themselves into believing that the FCC
gave them permission to do so by reading between the lines of a
regulation that simply allows them to pay a control op.
If you believe that, record the interference and file a complaint
with the FCC Enforcement Bureau. E-mail FCCham@fcc.gov, or see
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/amateur-radio-complaints
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 2014-06-09 10:42 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
The ARRL does not care about deliberate interference. They do it on a
daily basis with the bulletins and code practice sessions and they
either don't care or talked themselves into believing that the FCC gave
them permission to do so by reading between the lines of a regulation
that simply allows them to pay a control op.
Mike W0MU
On 6/9/2014 7:28 AM, Terry wrote:
Ron,
This is a great example of the deterioration of our amateur bands all
directly traceable to ARRL actions. The www.SaveRtty.com team is
working on
a new chapter that will be released soon that connects the dots
between the
ARRL Board, Winlink and developing recreational boater and HF email
products.
In your interference example we have the ARRL endorsed ("recreational
boater
product") Winlink interfering with the ARRL W1AW/0 Centennial
operation and
the official response from K1ZZ at ARRL HQ is "short term frequency
conflicts are best dealt with by using the VFO knob".
In reviewing all of the ARRL BOD minutes perhaps we missed the part where
the ARRL BOD exempting Winlink from the ARRL Considerate Operators Guide?
http://www.arrl.org/considerate-operator Perhaps that exemption will be
first on the agenda at the next BOD meeting. ;-)
Thanks for posting this. Great info.
Terry AB5K
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Kolarik
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 9:01 PM
To: RTTY
Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708
I've been debating whether or not to post this to the list but since I've
had no answer to my original question, I did get a reply but no answer on
how to proceed with a formal complaint, here's what I asked and what
I got
back from K1ZZ. My reply to this is available if anyone wants to see
it, a
bit long though and probably not for the list.
Ron
K0IDT
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:48 PM
To: Craigie, Kay, N3KN
Cc: Roderick, Rick (1st Vice President); Fenstermaker, James, K9JF;
k0qb@arrl.org; Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; Isely,Dick (Dir,Cl); Ahrens, Cliff,
K0CA;
Lisenco, Mike (DIR, Hudson); Woolweaver, David ( Dir, WG); Vallio, Bob
(Dir,
PC); Price, Brennan, N4QX
Subject: RM-11708 and a query
To the ARRL
I'm writing in support of the recent emails from W4TV and N9NB to pull
and reconsider RM-11708. I won't repeat the points already made except
to state that the RM was produced with no input from the amateur
community
and completely ignores the IARU Region 2 bandplan. As written there is no
protection for current narrow bandwidth users and the suggestion that
some
future bandplan will correct the problems the RM will cause is
ridiculous.
Why cause the problems in the first place? K1ZZ has pointed out that
Canada
allows 6kHz emissions almost everywhere as a reason to allow 2.8kHz in
the US narrow band segments. Has anyone at HQ actually listened to the
mess
on 40m in the early evenings? There is spanish language and VE SSB clear
down
to 7050kHz, doesn't leave much room for the rest of us and RM-11708
proposes
to add unidentifiable wideband digital to the mix. Which leads me to my
query.
I would like to file a formal complaint but don't know where or who to
send
it to.
I also don't know who I need to file the complaint against since the
offender(s)
never identify in a mode I can understand. This past week I had the
opportunity
to represent Nebraska as W1AW/0, thank you for that, I was strictly RTTY
and the interference from the unattended stations made things
difficult. I
avoided
the auto sub-bands because it's impossible to operate on a clear
frequency
there
without one of the store and forward boxes just firing up at will. On
40m I
had
to move down to 7062 to find a vacancy, running for over an hour before a
Pactor box lit up on my tx frequency, please don't tell me about the
hidden
transmitter effect there is also reciprocal receiving to take into
account.
I can only
assume I was interferred with by the side of the link with no
intelligence
present.
30m same thing, moved down to 10130 well away from the auto sub band and
sure enough
another Pactor box fired up this time on the 1-2kHz above my tx frequency
where I had
a pileup going. Some of the DX stations also missed a chance to work
me on
30m as
they are only allowed digital above 10140. The 30m interference
continued on
and off
over several hours, the only thing I could do was wait for the station to
deliver what I
guess was some very important email that just couldn't wait. In the past
when these
automated stations had CW id's I did identify one that was causing
problems
and sent
a polite email, the response of "the frequency is published" was the
reply,
that's the entire
reply. Since that time it seems most of the stations have turned off
their
cw id. Any
suggestions on how to deal with the ongoing interferrence or who to refer
the complaint to
would be appreciated.
Now according to the RM some of the rules are archaic and outdated, it
may
be wise to evaluate the rules concerning unattended operation and
easing the
current interferrence
problems, they were written a long time ago after all. The current IARU
Region 2 bandplan
requests that unattended operation be limited on HF. The automated
store and
forward
stations have had several decades to develop and deploy effective "busy
channel" detection
and have failed miserably at it. It may be time to further restrict or
remove them from HF.
While eliminating outdated rules it might also be good to revisit the
use of
Pactor as a mode
since the stations are not easily identified and there is absolutely
no way
to verify content
if you're not part of the ARQ link.
Thanks for listening,
Ron Kolarik
K0IDT
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
To: 'Ron Kolarik' ; Craigie, Kay, N3KN
Cc: Roderick, Rick (1st Vice President) ; Fenstermaker, James, K9JF ;
k0qb@arrl.org ; Isely,Dick (Dir,Cl) ; Ahrens, Cliff, K0CA ; Lisenco, Mike
(DIR, Hudson) ; Woolweaver, David ( Dir, WG) ; Vallio, Bob (Dir, PC) ;
Price, Brennan, N4QX
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: RM-11708 and a query
Ron, thanks for your message. Kay Craigie asked me to respond, but
travel to
the Dayton Hamvention has put me a bit behind.
First of all, thanks for helping to make W1AW/0 available from Nebraska.
Yours was the first state to repeat, and it's interesting to see that the
QSO demand was even greater the second time around.
Regarding RM-11708, it is important to keep in mind that the petition
does
not seek to "allow" HF data emissions with 2.8 kHz bandwidth. Such
emissions
are already allowed, with no limit as to bandwidth. The rules changes
proposed in RM-11708 are very limited. The existing 1980-era HF symbol
rate
limits are based on the old Bell telephone modems; otherwise there is
nothing special about them. In 1980 they served as a surrogate for a
bandwidth limit, but with more modern data modes they no longer serve
that
function. All RM-11708 proposes is to replace the symbol rate limits
with a
bandwidth limit that accommodates the data modes that are already in use
while prohibiting the use of wider bandwidth modes in the future.
The petition has two objectives: to permit more efficient use of the
bandwidth that is already being employed and to prevent the deployment of
data modes with wider bandwidths. Currently the only thing standing in
the
way of the latter is that up to now operation has been done with
conventional SSB transceivers, but with the dramatic increase in the
popularity of software defined radios that barrier no longer exists.
The scope of the petition is deliberately limited. It does not purport to
address issues such as automatically controlled digital stations and
proposes no related rules changes. The petition may not offer a
solution to
every existing problem but that is no reason to not support what it would
accomplish, namely heading off the development of wider bandwidth HF data
emissions than are now in use. One of the consequences of doing
nothing is
that the quest for higher data rates will be forced in the direction of
wider bandwidths, with no regulatory barrier to that development.
With respect, addressing issues through band planning is not
"ridiculous."
Band planning is not perfect, but it works pretty well except perhaps
during
periods of unusually intense activity. The FCC rules take precedence over
voluntary band planning but we cannot expect (nor would we want) the
FCC to
resolve all of the compatibility issues among various modes. The last
time
the FCC did so had a very unfortunate result: the 80 meter RTTY/data
subband
was compressed from 250 kHz down to 100 kHz, with severe consequences for
CW, RTTY and data operators. The FCC gave short shrift to our petition
for
reconsideration at the time, but a common thought heard recently is
that it
may be time to reintroduce the subject.
Internationally, our 10 MHz allocation is secondary to the fixed
service and
we are obligated to avoid interfering with stations in the fixed service;
that is the reason for the 200 watt power limit and the reason why
there are
so many non-amateur signals in the band. Working around them is a
challenge
in the best of times and it may not always be possible to do
everything in
the band that we would like, but we're far better off having the
secondary
allocation than not having it.
Quite a few ARRL Official Observers are capable of identifying stations
using the various data modes including Pactor, although monitoring
message
content of ARQ modes is more difficult. We can request that OOs monitor
specific frequencies at specific times if illegal operation is suspected,
but short term frequency conflicts are best dealt with by using the VFO
knob. There was a rather amusing one at the start of the Colorado and New
York operations last night on 40 CW: W1AW/0 was on 7029 listening up 1
and
W1AW/2 was on 7030 listening up 1. The New York op QSY'ed after a few
minutes.
73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
_______________________________________________
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
|