[RTTY] [Gmc] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
Jeff AC0C
keepwalking188 at ac0c.com
Thu Jun 5 15:58:25 EDT 2014
Dave,
You are better of to debate the issue by arguing your objective viewpoint
and advocating your solutions. And I see your call in my log quite a few
times - so I know you have a personal interest in how this 11708 issue plays
out. However, if you don't like the thread, press the DEL key. Keep away
from personal attacks - all that does is give guys hard feelings towards
each other. When we should be focusing on the potential mess that 11708 may
bring.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cole
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 12:03 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] [Gmc] Fwd: RE: ARRL W1AW Bulletin Operations
Anything left of that Ax you are grinding?
--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 09:53 -0600, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> 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 at 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 at w0mu.com>
> >> <mailto:w0mu at 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 at arrl.org>
> >>> <mailto:dsumner at arrl.org>
> >>> To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'<w0mu at w0mu.com> <mailto:w0mu at 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 at 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 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.
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> RTTY mailing list
> >>> RTTY at contesting.com <mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmc mailing list
> > Gmc at grandmesa.org <mailto:Gmc at grandmesa.org>
> > http://mail.grandmesa.org/mailman/listinfo/gmc_grandmesa.org
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the RTTY
mailing list