[RTTY] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations

[Michael Clarson]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at arrl.org>
> >>> To:     'W0MU Mike Fatchett' <w0mu at 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 at 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 at contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>