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