Topband: Re: 1837.5 KC/1845 KC CW QRM

[Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>]

At 09:17 PM 4/16/04, Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:
> Bill,
>  The usual group of Florida hams including I were on 1845 kc phone this 
> evening. Suddenly someone started calling CQ on the top of us using CW, 
> so we QSY'ed to 1840 kc. Shortly thereafter there you were calling CQ DX 
> at about 5 wpm on 1837.5 kc on CW.
>  You never operate above 1835 kc, probably very rarely above 1830 kc. You 
> never send CW at 5 WPM. You were using a keyer and calling CQ 
> automatically as you were not answering the other stations coming back to 
> you. I have it all tape recorded.
>  Your actions were very inflammatory, antagonistic and child like, 
> probably a setup by you and your cohorts against us, like you baited the 
> guys out in the Midwest a few years ago. The FCC ruled against your 
> co-sponsored RM-10352 so get over it and act like an adult and a Minister 
> instead of an elitist child having a tantrum.
>  I will go to Riley Hollingsworth in a heartbeat if you try to start 
> trouble between CW and phone operators.
>
> 73 & GUD DX,
> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
> Plant City, FL, USA

In less than 30 minutes, I replied at 9:46 PM:

>Hi Thomas,
        Please be more specific with your times and
I'll be happy to comment.  You have several facts
wrong but it is important to document the exact times
before I comment.

                                73,  Bill

        It is now exactly 12 hours later and you have
not responded.  Therefore I'll address your comments and
correct your facts as I recall them below.  I suspect there
are others who can corroborate most of what I have to say.

KN4LF wrote:
The usual group of Florida hams including I were on 1845 kc phone this 
evening. Suddenly someone started calling CQ on the top of us using CW, so 
we QSY'ed to 1840 kc. Shortly thereafter there you were calling CQ DX at 
about 5 wpm on 1837.5 kc on CW.

        FACT:  I was calling CQ DX on 1837.5, well within the ARRL
Bandplan for CW shortly after my sunset at 2355.  If I recall correctly,
I began hearing some weak SSB which I thought might be fishboat
QRM around 0030.  I didn't pay any attention to it because it was weak,
but I guess this must be when you moved to 1840.  Others heard
me well before this time on 1837.5, and WA1LNP even documented
it on Packet.


WA1LNP     1837.5 W4ZV        Booming                       0021 17 Apr


KN4LF wrote:

 You never operate above 1835 kc, probably very rarely above 1830 kc.

        FACT:  I was in the same area less than 24 hours ago,  documented
on Packet, and called CQ DX beginning at 0000 while listening for UK8GK.


W4ZV       1837.5 AE9B        Sri ant beams NE.             0118 16 Apr
AE9B       1836.5 W4ZV        still trx?                    0120 16 Apr
W4ZV       1836.5 W4ZV        Who can hear my 0.1 watt?     0117 16 Apr
UA6LV      1837.0 UK8GK       CQ for NA                     0023 16 Apr
VE1ZZ      1837.0 UA6LV       with uk8gk weak hr            0024 16 Apr

I was there because my friend Vlad UA6LV had sent me the E-mail below
on April 15 telling me that UK8GK might be active.  Last night (April
17 UTC) I moved to  1837.5 because Vlad relayed to me that UK8GK had a
birdie on 1837.0 and preferred 1837.5 kHz.

(Original UA6LV E-mail follows):

*******************************************************

Hello Bill !

How there are you ?
I was seldom on TOP recently and only T33C there is last my new one.Nigmat 
UK8GK has desire to try 160 for NA now.
His RIG: about 300 wt and GP 25 m. But there are some problems with RX.
His QTH is Kokand (near Fergana) and SR about 00.34z.
When you have SS now ?
He has already QSO,s with NA on TOP .
Probably now you will be a success .
We shall be today 00-01z on 1837.
My main PA now under repair and I have about 400-500 wt .


73!

Vlad UA6LV
********************************************************************

        FACT:  The 1837 area is often used by Asian CW stations.  If
I "never operated" above 1835, then how did I work YI9ZF on 1837.0
on 12 February, and why was I calling UK9AA in a big pileup on 25
February?

Packet spot history:


W4ZV       1837.0 YI9ZF       569 and #311                  0231 12 Feb 2004

K1GUN      1837.0 UK9AA       what zone??                 UK0153 25 Feb 2004
VE1ZZ      1837.0 UK9AA       op fedor zone 17              0154 25 Feb 2004
UA6LV      1837.0 UK9AA       Big pileup can,t copi !       0203 25 Feb 2004
N4XD       1837.0 UK9AA       pse no help!!                 0210 25 Feb 2004
N1EU       1837.0 UK9AA       past sr                       0212 25 Feb 2004
SP2FAX     1837.0 UK9AA       wkg Eu                        0218 25 Feb 2004
AA1K       1836.8 UK9AA       fading new; S6-7 at 0205z     0227 25 Feb 2004
K8SIX      1836.8 UK9AA       Nil here. Zone 17....       UK0229 25 Feb 2004
K1GUN      1837.0 UK9AA                                     0127 10 Mar 2004


KN4LF wrote:
You never send CW at 5 WPM. You were using a keyer and calling CQ 
automatically as you were not answering the other stations coming back to 
you. I have it all tape recorded.

        FACT:  I was sending CW at ~18 WPM according to
my keyer.  Thomas, the last time I sent CW at 5 WPM was
in 1957 when I was first licensed.  :-)  Yes, I was using a keyer
for my CQ's, listening transceive as well as on 1815 to see if
YA8G might show up again.  I was ending most of my CQ DX
calls with a KN, meaning "DX only".  I did hear a very weak
station reply sometime around 0030, which I believe may have
been AG4T (?).  I ignored it since it was not DX and obviously he
could not copy CW, otherwise he would have understood "CQ DX"
and "KN" did not mean I wanted to work Florida.  :-))  I told that
station to try later and continued my CQing, since it was still
before UK8GK's sunrise around 0035.  I would love to have a
copy of your tape recording to document the SSB interference
since I had been on 1837.5 continuously beginning around 0000.
Fortunately my NE Beverages reject signals from the South
quite well so the interference really was not much of a problem
here, but I would love to hear what you recorded in Florida.

KN4LF wrote:
> Your actions were very inflammatory, antagonistic and child like, probably 
> a setup by you and your cohorts against us, like you baited the guys out 
> in the Midwest a few years ago. The FCC ruled against your co-sponsored 
> RM-10352 so get over it and act like an adult and a Minister instead of an 
> elitist child having a tantrum.

        As someone who once argued that Adolf Hitler was a
devout Christian, I suggest you omit your religious analogies.
In fac, the "guys in the Midwest" you refer to (W5TZ, WA4TWM
and KT5S) had been operating LSB on 1823 for years in violation
of the old ARRL Bandplan as well as IARU Bandplans.  Almost
coincidentally with the submission of RM-10352 on September
10, 2001, Riley Hollingsworth issued these stations "cease and
desist" letters on September 12, 2001.  A copy follows:

*************************************************************************************
September 12, 2001
Mr. George W. Wehrung
1312 Sempronius Road
Chappell Hill, TX 77426

Re: Amateur license W5TZ

Dear Mr. Wehrung:

The Commission has received the enclosed complaint alleging that you 
interfered with communications on the 160 Meter Amateur band in the 1800 to 
1840 kHz portion of the band that, according to the international band 
plan, is set aside for CW, RTTY and other narrow band modes. The complaint 
alleges that you have deliberately operated LSB on 1820 to 1825 kHz on top 
of CW stations.

Band plans are voluntary in nature, but the Commission depends upon them 
because they minimize the necessity for Commission resources to be used in 
solving Amateur problems and they provide an opportunity for Amateurs to 
use various modes of Communications. Where interference results from band 
plans not being followed, the Commission expects substantial justification 
to be shown by the operators ignoring the band plans.

Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the 
Commission the authority to obtain information from licensees about the 
operation of their stations. Accordingly, you are requested to respond to 
the enclosed complaint within 20 days of this letter. Please address your 
response to 1270 Fairfield Road at the letterhead address. Please be 
advised that Congress had made punishable a willfully false or misleading 
reply to a letter of this type.

You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this matter.

Enclosures: 3 pages

http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2001/0922.html
*****************************************************************************************************

        Since receiving these letters, I believe W5TZ et al
finally learned how to use their VFO's and are now happily
ragchewing somewhere above 1843.  Quite frankly, had K1ZM
and I realized the FCC would FINALLY take that long overdue
enforcement action, I doubt we would have gone to the bother
of writing RM-10352, which was actually mailed just 2 days
before the above letters were sent by Riley Hollingsworth.

KN4LF wrote:
>  I will go to Riley Hollingsworth in a heartbeat if you try to start 
> trouble between CW and phone operators.

        That works both ways Thomas.  In every society there are
some people who would probably insist on driving on the wrong
side of the road unless there were laws.  In their infinite wisdom,
ARRL does not support the very same regulation by mode on
160 that they supported themselves in their Novice Refarming RM
for the higher bands.  As usual, the FCC followed ARRL's lead in
supporting Novice Refarming as submitted but rejected RM-10352
(ARRL did not comment) in the identical NPRM released on April 15.

"For these reasons, we will propose amending Part 97 of our Rules as the 
ARRL requests."
(Page 8 of FCC NPRM 04-79).

Do you follow their logic?  Mode segmentation on 80, 40, 15 and 10
meters makes sense...but not 160.  Perfectly logical isn't it?

        ARRL and FCC logic aside, I would strongly caution you
and others (W8VLN comes to mind) that lack of segmentation
regulation on 160 does not mean that you can operate SSB on any
frequency and create interference to CW without consequences, as
W5TZ et al learned in 2001.  If you wish to contact Riley, you will
find his address in the cc area at the beginning of this message.

        Now I have a few questions for you and the others in your
group.  You stated in your message above that "we QSY'ed to 1840 kc."
Would you please explain why you moved below the 1843 Bandplan
limit for SSB?  Were all 157 kHz in the band above 1843 kHz fully
occupied or was it because the FCC's recent NPRM made you feel
emboldened use SSB anywhere on the band?  If it was the latter,
you have just guaranteed job security for Riley for the rest of his
tenure at the FCC.  ;-))

                                73,  Bill  W4ZV


_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband