Actually I received a personal response from Riley Hollingsworth about the
situation in question and he was going to contact this individual. I am not
sure what will happen but if you provide proof they will act.
I would agree that the Amateur spectrum is not at the top of the FCC's
concerns list.
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Charles Morrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:29 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: k0luz@topsusa.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Reporting Jammers to the FCC
Red,
Im afraid it would appear that the same goes for the FCC when it comes to
interference. It would appear as though unless it's a California 2m
repeater they don't seem to give a hoot about operating practices that much
anymore. They certainly have some serious double standards though.
Shutting down repeaters because of foul language and abuse of Part 97 rules,
but not a peep on incredulous Part 15 violations by BPL programs around the
country. One answer.. Money.
The FCC doesn't care about it unless it makes money on it. The only money
it makes on ham radio is through Vanity call signs and fines and
forfeitures. One can file all the comments on the NPRM's about code, entry
level licenses, bellyache about BPL, but they're not listening and they
don't care and all the comments in the world will have no affect on the
ultimate outcome. The fact remains the FCC doesn't give a rats rear about
amateur radio anymore and has no intention of stopping interference to us by
other amateurs or outside sources. The exception of course is if WE
interfere with a "commercial" licensee.
There was once a time when I was a kid that I was actually scared to DEATH
that "Charlie" was going to come knocking on the door.
Heck, they don't even outlaw 11 meter amplifiers or export CB Radios
anymore. You can buy them online, Ebay, and at truck stops across America.
It would take a SERIOUS and flagrant violation that interferes with a money
paying, public service frequency such as your local police, to draw a fine
that they will actually follow up on these days. Or of course, you can be
K1MAN.
Charlie
KI5XP
-----Original Message-----
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:29:44 -0500
From: <k0luz@topsusa.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Reporting Jammers to the FCC
To: "'AD5VJ Bob'" <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <20051207202950.EB7CF319259@dayton.akorn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Has the OO program improved?? Who is training and certifying OOs?? In a
previous life, (in other words - long long ago), I was appointed an OO via
the ARRL. What this meant was I received a stack of cards sent from ARRL
that I could use to fill out and send to "violators". Did I receive any
training to determine what a violation was? No, however, I will say that
the people who were OO's, seemed to be knowledgeable from operating and
participating in various activities. However, we did not have any contact
or affiliation with the FCC.
I also received a nice certificate to hang on the wall. AND I got to use
the appointment to participate in CD contest parties (now you know how long
ago).
Unless things are very different in modern time, OO appointees will be
ineffective in solving this situation.
73
Red K0LUZ
_______________________________________________
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
|