Topband: Fishing beacons redux

[Shoppa, Tim]

If we are the primary allocation, we have a responsibility to use that frequency as it was allocated. "Use it or lose it" works on every level here.

Using the frequency is not jamming it.

Nothing wrong with tracking it with ARRL intruderwatch but their pull with Chinese fishing beacon manufacturers will have to be careful.

Tim N3QE

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of mstangelo at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:21 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Fishing beacons redux


Is this the correct thing to do? How do you know that the beacon user is breaking the law in his jurisdiction?

In any case jamming should not be proposed as a solution. Amateur radio operators should not cause malicious interference.
 
If word got out that hams were jamming commercial fishermen it would give us a blabk eye. Remember, the public would perceive the fishermen using the beacons for their livelihood, and hams using these frequencies for a hobby.

The best thing to do is to provide the information to the ARRL Intruderwatch and maybe they can make a case to have the manufacturers delete channels in the 160 meter band.

Mike N2MS

<snip>

"The most effective way to get rid of one is to operate on, or very close to, the beacon frequency. It takes some period of time, but if the owner can't hear the beacon reliably he will program a new frequency. Several nights of heavy activity near a beacon often results in a channel switch.
... "

UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK