TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
From: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen, Esq.)
Date: Tue May 27 17:08:07 2003
Here's the short answer:

I was named in the Notice(s) along with W4NSG.  The FCC withdrew its
"allegation of alleged operating conduct" simply because he was never
transmitting with SSB bandwidth in excess of 3 kHz.

Mr. Hollingsworth simply relied on "hearsay evidence" from a group of
spiteful and malicious operators in formulating his Advisory Notice.  The
most unfortunate shame of all this is that W4NSG and I were recklessly named
in the Notices without one iota of due-diligence (read: authenticating the
veracity of the alleged infractions).  I had been off the air for many
months before this Notice and I'm still QRT due to antenna issues.

There was once an FCC that investigated claims before actually issuing
allegations of improper operating practices.  Times have changed as well as
our rights...at least with the current FCC Enforcement Officer.

I spoke with the FCC's FOIA Director this morning.  In my case, this is the
calm before the storm.   Once I secure all facts under the FOIA, the real
story (including that of the FCC's position in this matter) will be
forthcoming.  Stay tuned.

-Paul, W9AC



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw@fyi.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 16:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"


> Just FYI:
>
> According to the ARRL Web page's FCC Enforcement Letters posted earlier
> today (http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2003/0517.html?nc=1), on
> May 6th, the FCC withdrew one of the Advisory Notices issued in the
> "Enhanced SSB" matter... specifically to W4NSG.  The posted letter simply
> stated that the Advisory Notice "was issued to you in error."  And Riley
> apologized for it's being issued.
>
> No further information available, though one wonders why this was
withdrawn
> (ie what was the error?), and if anyone else who received one of the
> Advisory Notices also got a withdrawl letter.
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
>
> "I would like to do 3000 more" -- Sportscaster Guy Junker on his 3000th
> "Sportsbeat" show.
> The next night, after his 3001st show, for reasons left unclear, Fox
Sports
> Net Pittsburgh declined to renew his contract & fired him.
> (Source:  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Saturday, 17 May 2003)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 8:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
>
>
> Note that I, W9AC, am one of four culprits named in the article.
Absolutely
> fascinating considering the fact that I have not operated on SSB of any
kind
> since October, 2002.   I am primarily a CW operator and spend less than 1%
> of my time on SSB.   The fact that I authored some of the audio
enhancement
> mods may have contributed to the issuance of the official Notice.  So,
where
> is due-diligence on the part of the FCC when and where it's needed?
>
> I am an advocate of the mode (one band, on one frequency), but not the
> manner in which the FCC is arbitrarily issuing Advisory Notices based on
one
> man's personal opinion rather than on a Notice based on a legal memorandum
> of law.  I have challenged the FCC to produce any case law, particularly
> appeals to that effect.
>
> The "Notices" were issued, because the FCC realizes that a citation based
> solely on a violation of "good operating practice" as prescribed under
> 97.307 et. seq., will never, ever, pass Constitutional scrutiny as it will
> not meet the two-prong procedural due-process test.
>
> That said, his time and for that matter, tax-payer dollars are better
spent
> on enforcing clear violations of the rules (e.g., 75M obscenities, 2M
> repeaters that do not identify, etc.), rather than arbitrary and
capricious
> personal "opinions" on how to operate a station.   Note that no specific
> reference to a rule is applied against the operating practice in question.
> Disseminating a letter that tells us to "read the rules" is a bit silly
when
> no convincing violation is occurring.
>
> In the future, you will see action taken to the League, for the League is
> the most appropriate place in which to add this activity to the existing
> ARRL band plan....the same band plan the FCC uses to judge other
> mode-related operating practices.  AMI successfully added a calling
> frequency to the band plan and soon enough a new calling frequency will be
> added.  The logic is axiomatic: if AM transmission falls within "good
> operating practice," then taking an AM signal (from which we derive SSB),
> cutting it in half, and eliminating the carrier, must also represent "good
> operating practice.  The argument I often hear is "Because that's the way
it
> is," or  "because that's the history of AM and SSB."  But if we examine
the
> issue for what it truly is, a matter of bandwidth, then the FCC's logic
> simply fails.
>
> Quite honestly, the FCC does not care about the root issue.  Recall, that
> the FCC's Bill Cross, W3TN has repeatedly stood before a group of us and
may
> I paraphrase: "The FCC will no longer rule the amateur radio service by
> fiat."  The FCC is reaching out to add, alter, and delete rules.  The FCC
> currently places weighted emphasis on the League's band plan as the
> appropriate place in which to reference all operating modes....and I
> maintain this is where reconciliation is required.  Codifying bandwidth
> rules will only hurt the amateur radio service.
>
> So, what does any of this have to do with Ten Tec?  Well, if you're an
owner
> of a Jupiter, Pegasus, or Orion and your SSB transmit menu indicates
> anything more than 2.4 kHz audio bandwidth, guess what?  That Advisory
> Notice could have had your name on it instead of mine.
>
> 73,
>
> -Paul, W9AC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 20:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
>
>
> > Excellent !
> >
> > 73 de Gary, AA2IZ
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "W2AGN" <w2agn@w2agn.net>
> > To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:55 PM
> > Subject: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
> >
> >
> > > The ARRL Web site notes that several "widebanders," a wide SSB
> > > emission that has bothered HF-Pack operations on 17 meters, have been
> > > put on notice by the FCC's Riley Hollingsworth:
> > >
> > > " 'Enhanced SSB' Bandwidths 'Extremely Inconsiderate,' FCC Says (Apr
> > > 17, 2003) -- The FCC has sent advisory notices to four enthusiasts of
> > > what's become known as 'enhanced SSB'--the practice of engineering
> > > transmitted single-sideband audio to ..."
> > > Complete article at
> > > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/04/17/102/?nc=1
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > +-++-++-++-++-+   John L. Sielke
> > > |W||2||A||G||N|        http://www.w2agn.net [UPDATED]
> > > +-++-++-++-++-+    Ex-K3HLU,TF2WKT,W7JEF,W4MPC,N4JS
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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