And therein lies the problem.
Adding regulations does not good if they are not being enforced. All it will
do is prevent the honest Amateur operators from using or experimenting with
potential new modes, out of respect for the regs. Those Amateurs who continue
to ignore or flout the rules, or misquote them, or look for technical
loopholes, all to justify poor or selfish behavior will (sad to say) continue
to do so.
I do not in any way condone the selfish, reckless, and otherwise poor operating
being shown by the handful of digital operators who (by their own usage, and
that of the mailboxes that they run, set up, or otherwise use) are causing
grief to so many. But adding, or supporting the addition of burdensome
regulations that will NOT be enforced and that will only be a hindrance to the
honest ops, not these turkeys, does not strike me as a wise decision in both
the short and the long run.
73, ron w3wn
On 08/25/16, Ron Kolarik wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 8/24/2016 5:53 PM, Michael Adams wrote:
> While I hate to say it, the regulators' response to the "keeps banging away"
> question would be to point out Part 97 already prohibits willfully or
> maliciously causing harmful interference, and requires adherence to the
> standards of good amateur practice, a matter that is independent of RM-11708.
>
> If there is something about a particular mode or automated system that
> invites noncompliance, or complicates enforcement, it would be appropriate
> for concerned amateurs to prepare a suitable petition for rulemaking, or to
> lobby Congress for increased resources for FCC enforcement efforts.
Ahh, yes it's prohibited but it's not being enforced or even monitored
as far as I can tell by either the FCC or OO's. I do understand FCC
budget constraints but even when presented with documentation nothing
ever seems to get done. It does have a lot to do
with the NPRM, inviting more of the same on to the bands is not a good
idea.
> Barring that, the answer is to spin the big dial, or work on making your
> signal louder (but clean and within power limits) since clearly someone is
> having a hard time hearing that the frequency is occupied.
I can't spin the big knob, I run a Flex:-) Increasing power is not going
to help them hear me, one classic response I got was " I have the sound
turned
down so I don't have to listen to that horrible noise and the frequency
is published so it's for mailbox use".......yeah, I was beat at that
point can't argue with
genius of that level. Instead of me turning the big knob maybe the
digital messaging crowd needs to turn the little knob up.
> --
> Michael Adams | mda@n1en.org
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
> Sent: Aug 24, 2016 1:26 PM
> To: Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future
>
>
> Finally, "I am fully willing to mix it up and compete", how do you
> compete with a mode that keeps banging away
> on an already occupied frequency until it makes a connection?
>
> Ron K0IDT
>
>
Ron K0IDT
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|