[TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"

Tue May 27 15:28:46 EDT 2003

Paul,

Any idea who is bitching to Hollingsworth about this ? Until this week I had
been away from 20 meters for quite awhile and out of touch.

TNX,
Terry W6RU

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac at arrl.net>
To: <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"

> 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 at fyi.net>
> To: <tentec at 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 withdrawn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 at arrl.net>
> > To: <tentec at 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 at spacetech.com>
> > To: <tentec at 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 at w2agn.net>
> > > To: <tentec at 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 at contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>