eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 20, No 48 on December 8, 2001
Website: http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!

FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:

The FCC's Enforcement Bureau recently stepped in to halt feuding over the use of some 75-meter frequencies. The dispute had pitted the Alabama Traffic Net, the Alabama SKYWARN Net and the Country Cousins Net against an informal group of amateurs. All wanted to operate between 3.965 and 3.970 MHz. In the end, the FCC declined to take any enforcement action in the situation, but Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth took all sides to task for bringing their charges and countercharges to the FCC in the first place.

"This dispute appears to be largely a 'who's on first' dispute, involving issues of proper operating procedures, and not appropriate for enforcement action," Hollingsworth told the parties involved.

In a two-page response sent to Jeremy Jackson, K9CNI, Henry Willmon, WA4GQS, Sal Viglione, W4SAL, and Alabama ARRL Section Manager Bill Cleveland, KR4TZ, Hollingsworth recounted allegations of deliberate and retaliatory interference, verbal harassment, frequency hogging, obscenity and profanity and even a charge that one individual was selling illegal linear amplifiers.

Hollingsworth pointed out that nets--regardless of their longevity, membership numbers or public service benefit--are not specifically regulated by FCC rules and have no greater rights to any frequency than any other licensee. On the other hand, the informal group, Hollingsworth said, needs to consider whether it's good amateur practice to deliberately start communications on a frequency widely known to be used by a long-established net.

Hollingsworth put those involved on notice that anyone violating the rules was risking FCC enforcement action and possible fines. "We cannot, however, mandate courtesy, good and fair operating practices or even common sense," he added.

Hollingsworth says the informal group has told him it would find another frequency to meet on 75 meters.

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 20, No. 48 December 7, 2001

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by W9MDX on December 8, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC has done a nice job of bringing some order back to the HF bands. The one remaing thing for them to realize is that many of the problems that they are now dealing with has to do with severe overcrowding of the phone segments of the bands, particularily on 75 and 40 meters. It seems reasonable that they must eventually grow those segments to alleviate the overcrowding a bit and solve some of the disputes such as the one that prompted this incident. The sooner the better!!

 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by N8VW on December 8, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
"Hollingsworth pointed out that nets--regardless of their longevity, membership numbers or public service benefit--are not specifically regulated by FCC rules and have no greater rights to any frequency than any other licensee. On the other hand, the informal group, Hollingsworth said, needs to consider whether it's good amateur practice to deliberately start communications on a frequency widely known to be used by a long-established net."

This is very scary. What I hear Hollingsworth saying is that nets have priority over frequency use. Am I going to get notice if I use frequency were a net will soon start then refuse to relinquish that frequency if asked? Not that I wouldn't if I was just rag chewing, but what if I'm in a contest such as SS? Isn't that a "long established" use?
 
More "good amateur practice" doublespeak  
by W2RAF on December 8, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
This is just another glaring example of Mr. Wile E. Hollywood, Selective Enfarcement covering both sides of the rules fence. He acts as the judge in his own kangaroo court!

"the informal group needs to consider whether it's good amateur practice to deliberately start communications on a frequency widely known to be used by a long-established net."

If you are there first, it is yours until you are done. PERIOD! Please find for me the Part 97 section that states this established net concept! This is willfully false because it isn't there in Part 97! This "good amateur practice" crap is getting old & is not in our best interest as a service. It only serves Mr. Hollywood who once again must referree a dispute he creates by not making a defined stand! Make up your mind once & for all! Either the nets own the frequency or they don't, which is it?

I feel strongly that the individual should take precedence over any net. When the net moves off an already busy frequency, they should be required to be at least +/-3 KHz so as to stay out of the other's passband on SSB. If we can't use net frequencies, what is left for individuals to use? If this is allowed to stand, the nets really do own the frequencies! This is wrong!

Another squandered chance to take a stand & prevent further confusion. Mr. Hollywood creates this confusion on purpose so he can make himself seem important! This behavior by a Federal Law Enforcement Official is a travesty! He should be removed for official misconduct!
 
RE: More  
by NN6EE on December 8, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Dear w2raf,
Your comments on Part 97 were well taken, and I might add that those rules should also cover VHF or UHF repeater operation, in that if those machines are not in constant use then everybody else has THE RIGHT to use those channels wherever they may be!!! Why you ask? Simple, NO ONE IN AMATEUR RADIO OWNS THOSE CHANNELS, NO ONE!!!......JIM/nn6ee
PS: That goes for either open repeaters or closed as well as HF freqs.!!!
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by N9AVG on December 8, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Sooner or later, this kind of mindless bickering and feuding over "my frequency" is going to cause us all to lose out. We are sitting on literally BILLIONS of dollars worth of spectrum. Barry Goldwater is dead and gone and there isn't a high profile supporter of ham radio to be found. Someday, some newspaper reporter is going to record the lunatics on 75 meters and play it back at a congressional hearing on spectrum management. When they see how badly we are wasting the resource, it will be gone forever.

 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KB9TQN on December 8, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry folks but according to the ARRL nobody wants our HF frequencies. I specifically asked the ARRL if there is any threat to HF allocations from commercial interests and they said no.
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by K4RWW on December 9, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
For those who may not have the whole story, here are a few additional facts. This dispute, like many, which concern a governmental regulatory commission, involves politics. One of the parties associated with this dispute sent copies of a rambling and convoluted email to his congressional representatives as well as members of the FCC. The email had numerous inaccuracies and half-truths. The email included inflammatory accusations about amateur radio enforcement. The congressional recipients of the letter were ill equipped to determine the issues involved and likely pressured the FCC to take action. In all probability, Hollinsworth knew that the application of existing rules and regulations was not a good fit to this all too common dispute. Hollinsworth was required to take a position in the form of the letter that he issued. The letter simply says what the parties already knew. Most thoughtful amateurs understand that an occupied frequency should take precedence except in the case of a legitimate emergency. Many established net participants are unwilling to yield to this precedence for self-serving reasons. The whole affair is just another example of the ongoing deterioration of amateur radio. Hollinsworth is simply caught in the middle between inaccurate, uninformed and selfish people. Nobody wins.
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by N5JOB on December 9, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
In the long run, "Who cares?"

The reason why people feud over frequencies is because they don't have a life, and it gives them something to occupy their minds and time.

The rules are simple. You can't use a frequency that is already in use, and you have no exclusive right to any specific frequency.

So what part of "NO" don't these guys understand?

Maybe the F.C.C. should do these jokers a favor and revoke their F.C.C. licenses. Then they'd be forced to actually leave the house every once and awhile! They may actually start making REAL, in person friends! They may start to speak to other human beings in person, instead of exclusively over a microphone!

You never hear this foolishness from CW operators! What's that tell you?
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KA0MR on December 9, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
After reading the posted comments regarding Hollingsworth's action I find it unbelievable that so many of you find it so hard to support Riley Hollingsworth. We have problems on the bands and for the first time I can remember we can contact the FCC and see some action regarding our complaint in a reasonable amount of time.Has it been so long ago that we have forgotten that there was a time when we saw no action whatsoever from the FCC unless some politician put the pressure on them.

Why don't we welcome the FCC finally being responsive to our needs.It seems poor Riley is "Damned if he does and Damned if he doesn't". Let's keep it in perspective the lousy operators on the bands is a real problem not enforcment action.

 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KB9YNB on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
In response to the nets vs individuals on certain frequencies, and whether or not this is good amateur practice:

I think the point that was being made here was that the individuals were starting conversations on the net frequency right before the net, with the PURPOSE of DISRUPTING the net. That is NOT good amateur practice.

If you just happen to be on frequency when a net is beginning, I agree that the net should move. If you intentionally get on frequency just before a net is to start, then you're "not playing well with others"

Like someone said earlier, if you're just ragchewing, I think it would be considerate to QSY for a net..... but if you were contesting I think the NET should move.

just my 2 cents
your mileage may vary
batteries not included, etc.

KB9YNB
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by WA4IRE on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
"Hollingsworth put those involved on notice that anyone violating the rules was risking FCC enforcement action and possible fines. "We cannot, however, mandate courtesy, good and fair operating practices or even common sense," he added. "

How long will we have to put up with the problem children fighting the good guys on 75 meters before the FCC puts a stop to the fight.

Now that the FCC has taken a neutral stand on what constitutes good and fair operating practices, the bad guys now have a mandate from the FCC to use and abuse anyone they see fit as long as they follow all the regulations.

The FCC needs to confront this issue by thinking outside the box for a change and by adding a few new regulations that will define, and require good and fair operating practice.

With a little will power on the part of the FCC new regulations could be added, which will hold up in court when challenged, and finally allow the FCC to get rid of all the problem children on 75 meters.

It would be nice if the FCC would give Mr. Holingsworth the tools he needs to finish the fine enforcement job he started.

Sadly we all know that nothing will ever be done to really stop the war on 75 meters so I suggest that you
keep stocked up on popcorn, candy and soda pop and enjoy the fight between the sons of light and the sons of darkness brought to you courtesy of the FCC and the ARRL.

In the end we may have to be as rude and crude as the problem children when it comes to exhibiting fair and good operating practice, or common sense. It should be an interesting winter on 75 meters. Popcorn anyone?

73
Marc
wa4ire
 
RE: More "good amateur practice" doubles  
by KE4ZHN on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Here Here! W2AF hit the nail on the head! As one of the members of the so called "informal net" I would like to set this record straight. Our group was NOT operating on the so called net frequency like we were falsely accused of to begin with. Also, members of the "country cousins" net which for some unknown reason, chose NOT to move up one lousy KC even though our group would ALWAYS begin operating first on a clear frequency.(they were asked by Mr. Hollingsworth to yield 1kc but flatly refused) They had NO other groups above them, and purposely qrmed us by cranking their audio to the hilt. What reason, other than sheer ignorance would they have for staying on a frequency in our bandpass, just because they believed in their minds they "own" 3.970? This buisness of poor operating practice disturbs me. Mr. Hollingsworth is quick to chastise our group for poor operating practice, but yet contradicts himself at the same time. Is it not in part 97, that whoever is on a frequency first has the right to stay there till finished? Is it not poor amateur practice for these nets to feel that because they have been operating on a certain frequency, that they somehow own it? Is it also written in part 97 that nets have no special priority over anyone else, UNLESS its emergency traffic? Our group has gone out of its way for nets on other portions of the 75 mtr. band, and yet we get called names, qrmed, and insulted by rude, arrogant "old timers" that feel they own a part of 75 mtrs. because they have been on that frequency for 30 years, or since Marconi`s time. That is total bull! My interpetation of part 97 is, he who is there first, has the frequency! Period! But, since the members of the "country cousin net" decided to write letters to congressmen, and people above Mr. Hollingsworths head, I suppose he had no choice but to sit on the fence on this one. I am glad that W2AF saw the story for what it was, selective "enfarcement". Good amateur practice is supposed to be a 2 way street is it not? Why is it poor amateur practice for an informal group to operate on an unused clear frequency, but its NOT for some lamebrained net to begin operating 2kc away when the band is clear above them? Many times people are operating on my "pet" frequency, so I just find another one to use! Simple isnt it? Isnt that the rules? I dont fire up right beside them and qrm the crap out of them till they leave, like others seem to practice on 75 mtrs.! Just because some of these nets seem to feel they own the frequency they operate on, doesnt give them special rights over others. They should move just as anyone else if their so called frequency is in use per part 97 rules! 75 mtrs. is a very crowded band, and finding room is tough, but NOBODY "owns" any particular frequency! Nets or otherwise. I have no problem with courtesy, but I also expect some in return. Some of these rude old timers could use a lesson in courtesy when they intenionally QRM just to preserve "their" frequency. Thanks to W2AF for seeing the light!
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KE4ZHN on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
PS. Sorry for mistyping your call W2RAF!
 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KE4ZHN on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Hey Marc, maybe if you knew the real story, you wouldnt be so quick to jump to conclusions about who the good guy, or bad guys are here. Besides, what makes you think your such a terrific operator thats a cut above everyone else? Last I heard, you decided to operate CW right in the middle of an informal group operating phone! Thats real "fine" amateur practice. Keep up the good work! I thought a fine buisness ham like yourself would know better, but oh well....
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by NY4D on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
As a member of "the informal group" I think followers of this topic need to be aware of the following points:

1. The informal group consists of around 20 different amateur operators, bigger than some formal nets. This is not a case of one or two operators "hogging a frequency". Operations on these frequencies had been ongoing for months prior to the problems. Most of the operators of the "informal group" have known each other for years.

2. Frequencies used were never closer than 2 kHz to any established net and times of operation on the frequencies were often many hours prior to any scheduled net, and many hours after. This is not to say the frequency was occupied continuously, but that there was an established pattern of frequency useage by the "informal group" that the net members chose to ignore.

4. The "informal group" endured constant deliberate interference at almost any time, whether there was a net nearby or not. The "informal group" made many attempts at compromise but were stonewalled by the Net members who seem to think they own the frequencies their nets are scheduled on. Members of the Nets subjected members of the "informal group" to threatening emails, behind the scenes politics (all the way up to Congress), and absurd criminal allegations.

5. Net operators, especially on 3.970 mHz absolutely refused to consider any variation of their frequency, even though 8 to 10 amateurs might have been involved in "informal group" at any one time on 3.968 or 3.9675.

6. The FCC's action is a sad conclusion to the incident. Basically the members of the informal group were told to go elsewhere, the nets had precedence. Part 97 was totally disregarded in this amateurs' opinion.

7. The "informal group" decided that in the best interest of amateur radio they would attemt to meet in a part of the band far removed from 3.965 to 3.970, and have done so.

All amateur operators need to now be very wary. Knowledge of Part 97, following the rules as written, is now a thing of the past. The FCC has spoken. The rules are going to be applied to some amateur radio operators differently than to others.
 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by W5YY on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
November 14, 2001


Mr. Lowell P. Rieger
Rt 1 Box 1154
Lee, FL 32059


Re: Advisory Notice--Amateur station NY4D


Dear Mr. Rieger:


On November 2, 2001, your station was monitored on 3.968 MHz between 5:00 P.M. and 5:33 P.M giving only one call sign identification. Please review Section 97.119 of the Commission's rules relating to the Amateur Radio Service.
 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KB9IV on December 10, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Fellas,

The one in the most wrong does the most talking.....hint hint!
 
Salaban Terrorists Declare they Will, "Fight  
by AE4FB on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Salaban Terrorists Declare they Will, "Fight to The Depths"!
By Headley O. Possum
(c)2001 PNS (Possum News Service)


Terrorist Mustard Mind Sala ben Mander, and members of his Al Quarmda Terrorost band have been tracked to Bat Guano Filled Caves on De River in Northern Africa…, Denial. Many analyst say they doubt ben Mander has the capabilities to escape from the depths of Denial.

Meanwhile Riley Hollingsworth is Coordinating Anti-Salaban Home Defense from an FCC Bunker in Gettysburg while Possum Intelligence Group (PIG) Director (DPI) Mikey "Snake" Possum continues to coordinate Clandestine Activities from an unknown location thought to be near Booger Bottom, Alabama.

Director of Possum Intelligence, “Snake” Possum has asked for patience from the citizens of 75 meters and has been quoted by high level sources close to the PIG Director as saying, “this war has been going on for a long time and we don’t expect it to end soon unless the Salaban are willing to admit they have been acting out a passive aggressive neurotic disorder and seek professional counseling.”


Full Report to Follow.

ONLY ON - I N S


 
Lowell ` NY4D, Not For  
by AE4FB on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Lowell` NY4D,
Doesn't belong on the "Group 'W' Bench" with the rest of the "Litter Bugs and Father Drapers". He may be the nicest guy that enhabits Salaban territory and he is certainly 93% to 94% of their technical brain trust...;)
Sincerely,
Mikey, de AE4FB
 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by WA4IRE on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
by KE4ZHN on December 10, 2001

"Hey Marc, maybe if you knew the real story, you wouldnt be so quick to jump to conclusions about who the good guy, or bad guys are here. Besides, what makes you think your such a terrific operator thats a cut above everyone else? Last I heard, you decided to operate CW right in the middle of an informal group operating phone! Thats real "fine" amateur practice. Keep up the good work! I thought a fine buisness ham like yourself would know better, but oh well.... "



Hi Rich,

Rich here is my response. I would advise you to read my posting again. I made no reference to any specific party. I don't have to Rich because everyone is painfully aware of the perpetual warfare that takes place on the 75 meter phone band. As to who are the good and the bad guys that depends upon your point of view.

As far as my alleged CW operation right in the middle of an informal group (which by the way was the group I belonged to at the time) operating phone you have presented the facts in such a manner that it leaves the reader with the impression that I started sending CW on a frequency being actively used by a group of SSB stations.

For the record I and another station who were regular members with the group you mentioned were engaged in a SSB QSO on a week day around 6PM and no one else was using the frequency. Just Jim and I. Both of us switched over to CW for a while then resumed our SSB QSO. At no time did we send CW on a frequency occupied by active SSB stations.

Part 97 permits CW operation on the 75 meter phone band. So Your personal attack upon my operating practice has no merit and is a representative example of the half truths that are generated by those engaged in "mortal combat" on 75 meters.

On to other things. Could you please cite the regulation under Part 97 that specifically states that the first one there is entitled to the frequency. If part 97 specifically states this then it should be a simple matter for Mr. Hollingsworth to enforce this regulation.

Oh well...Popcorn anyone?

73
Marc
wa4ire


 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by WA4IRE on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Hello,

It is my understanding, that in the past the FCC has declared and offical emergency from time to time in response to a natural, or man made disastor. Once the FCC declared such an emergency it declared certain HF frequencies as being off limits to all Amateur Radio stations except those stations, which were handling health and welfare traffic through the Emergency Net.

The hurricane which hit Jamaca in the mid 80's is an example. An area around 14.286 was declared as off limits to all normal Amateur Radio activity. To my knowledge this is the only time a Net can prempt normal Amateur activity.

Now a days it seems that if two people get together they call themselves a net and they think that they own the frequency. If I understand part 97 correctly they don't.

If the frequency is in use by others common sense dictates that you either join them, find another frequency, or wait until the frequency is clear before you begin to use it.

To my knowledge there are no rules under part 97, that specifically deal with this issue except for the rule concerning intentional interference. If you try to run the other stations off by generating intentional QRM etc.. you are now violating part 97.

No matter how you look at it the Amateur Radio spectrum is utilized on a first come first serve basis.
It is up to us to SHARE the Amateur Radio spectrum in a FAIR and IMPARTIAL way. However, this is the core of the problem. Some of us simply don't want to share "OUR" frequency with others.

I feel that if the FCC is going to be effective at solving the remaining problems facing us on 75 meters in the year 2001 it needs to creat new regulations, which will address these issues and hold up in court when challanged. If we wait for common sense, or good operating practice to prevail on 75 meters Hell will freeze over first.

Will the FCC take this needed step on its own. Probably not. However, the FCC may do something if enough people complain and demand that the FCC take whatever action is necessary to resolve this so called common sense issue which so many Amateur Radio operators appear to be lacking.

73
Marc
wa4ire



 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by NY4D on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
W5YY's publication of the advisory notice I received just adds to circus. My reply to Mr. Hollingsworth is not public record, which is unfortunate. I hear the 10 minute rule violated on a daily basis on almost all the bands, including several formal nets I check into. I could have failed to id, or been covered over as others did so, I run only 100 watts. I have a ten minute timer, and use it, but perhaps being a mere mortal I did make a mistake and fail to ID. But many times while I operated 3.968 I have heard tapes of myself played back on that frequency while I was in qso there. I wonder how many times they were played when I was not on the air. Funny I have no entry in my log for that freq and time that day, when I am usually still working. It is interesting that this minor advisory is the only action taken to date, in spite of deliberate qrm and malicious interference from these 'holier than thou, more equal than others" amateur operators who seem to think they own a frequency 2 kHz removed from their net operations. W5YY, are you another one of those perfect amateur operators, blameless and faultless? Point your finger at those who did something really serious, like maliciously interfering. Perhaps that pointing might be at some of your (possum type) radio friends.
 
Hot Dog, We're Having a Circus!  
by AE4FB on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Hot Dog, We're Having a Circus!

What was that I heard the Salamander in Chief Humming?

“Goodbye cruel world,
I’m off to join the Circus,
Gonna’ be
a fat little Circus Clown”

My warm Possum heart bids me to say 73 and Merry Xmas to all the angry white male Salaban and their un-indicted co-conspirators huddled in their cold dank guano heaped caves of Denial, cut off from all intelligent thought, forced to live on bombastic scraps of sub-rational rhetoric, with their only hope being that their highly renowned ability to operate under deep guano for extended periods will save them to fuss another day.


Ever So Sincerely,
Head Possum de AE4FB
Possum Lodge Amateur Radio Club de KO4P
plarc@mindspring.com (soon to be plarc@bellsouth.net)
 
Guilt By Association  
by W5YY on December 11, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Hold on Lowell,
I was merely pointing out the fact that the innocent may be unfairly punished because of their association with a certain group of amateur radio operators.
I have heard you on the air and would say you are one of the most well mannered and considerate operators on the 75 meter band.
It is my firm hope that the "Herd" can find a pasture to locate and operate in peace. Unfortunately Mr. Hollingsworth cannot mandate "good manners". Maybe in the future operators will consider the other individuals that want to participate on 75 meters. Actually it is incumbent upon all to reform the mess on 75 and make it a better place. As I see it we are the only people that can achieve this as the FCC with the current rules is powerless.

73, Mike
 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by WA4IRE on December 12, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
November 15, 2001

Jeremy Jackson, K9CNI Mr. Henry E. Willmon, WA4GQS
2300 5th Avenue, N Apt. 1511 3699 Mount Olive Road
Birmingham, AL 35203 Mount Olive, AL 35117

Salvatore Viglione, W4SAL William H. Cleveland, KR4TZ
9235 S Timberline Terrace 2113 Wildwood Place
Inverness, FL 34452 Mobile, AL 36609-2583


RE: 75-Meter Interference Complaints

Dear Licensees:

The Enforcement Bureau has been asked to resolve a dispute involving the "Country Cousins Net", the Alabama Traffic Net, the Alabama Skywarn Net (Nets) and an informal group of Amateur licensees (Informal Group) operating on adjacent frequencies.

The Traffic Net and the Skywarn Net apparently meet on 3.965 MHz. The Country Cousins meet on 3.970 MHz. The informal group apparently meets on 3.967.5 MHz or 3.968 MHz.

The Nets allege that the Informal Group operates unreasonably close the Nets' frequencies and causes interference. They allege further that when informed of the interference, the Informal Group increases power, antagonizes the Nets and sometimes moves even closer to the Nets' operations.

The Nets allege that the Informal Group deliberately starts communications shortly before the generally known times that the Nets begin, and does so deliberately in order to disrupt the Nets' operations.

The Nets allege that the Informal Group has sometimes used obscenity, profanity and other verbal abuse in response to Nets' courteous request that they change frequency or cease operation while the Net is in operation.

The Nets allege that they have been long time users of the frequencies and that the Nets are among the oldest active nets in Amateur Radio, having almost a 40-year history of service.

Finally, the Nets allege that one member of the Informal Group advertises and sells linear amplifiers that are not type accepted by the Commission, in violation of our rules, although the allegation apparently is not that such is done on the Amateur frequencies.

The Informal Group alleges that the Nets start operations on what they consider "their" frequency regardless of existing communications, refuse to move even a slight distance to another frequency; and monopolize the frequencies for long periods, using crowded Amateur spectrum on 75 meters for such things as lengthy discussions of net finances, dues and membership, in violation of Commission rules.

The Informal Group alleges that if the Nets would only change frequency slightly on 75 Meters, there would be no interference.

In response, the Nets state that if they were to change frequencies, it would disrupt other net operations on other 75-meter frequencies, merely create a "domino" effect of interference problems. The Nets further respond that their long-used frequencies are widely known, and it would not be unreasonable to expect other operators to respect that fact.

At the outset, we warn all parties to this dispute that if any licensee engages in deliberate interference or retaliatory interference, or otherwise commits violations of our rules whether it be in failing to identify, equipment marketing violations or any other violations, we will take appropriate enforcement action against their license that will include revocation and monetary forfeitures of up to $7,500.

We also remind all parties that under Commission rules, only the minimum power necessary to maintain communications is to be used.

We will continue to review all specific complaints and will continue our review of tape recordings of communications as we receive them. Beyond this, we decline to take enforcement action at this time other than reviewing the complaints for specific violations referenced in paragraph 6.

This dispute appears to be largely a "who's on first" dispute, involving issues of proper operating procedures, and not appropriate for enforcement action. It is regrettable that the parties cannot solve it, and it is unreasonable to ask that the Commission use scarce enforcement resources to do so.

Nets are not specifically regulated under Commission rules and have no greater rights to any frequency than any other licensee, regardless of the number of members or how long they have been using any given frequency.

Nets may wish to consider whether they are making the best use of Amateur frequencies at a given time, and whether it is good Amateur practice to take up congested spectrum discussing business matters.

However, we do not regulate content of communications, and these are not enforcement issues.
The Informal Group needs to consider whether it is good Amateur practice to deliberately start communications on a frequency widely known to be used by a long established net or a net that sometimes handles emergency communications. It needs to consider the wisdom of deliberately raising power to be heard over net communications. The Informal Group needs to consider whether responding with profanity, obscenity or other verbal abuse is in the overall best interests of Amateur Radio. One might also wonder as well why, with the thousands of Amateur frequencies available, the Informal Group feels that it has to operate so close to frequencies used by the nets, the members of which are often volunteers who put in very long hours on a regular basis for humanitarian purposes without consideration of personal benefit, recognition or gain.

Beyond this, we note that all parties have passed examinations to obtain an Amateur license and are presumably familiar with the basis and purpose of Amateur radio and the most efficient way in which to operate equipment. All parties are surely aware that Amateur Operators are listened to all over the world and of what damage they may be doing to the perception of Amateur Radio by these disputes over congested frequency usage.

The Commission depends upon the Amateur Service to be largely self-regulating and self-policing, and expects it to resolve such disputes itself. Self-policing and self-regulation do not include retaliation, deliberate interference or a blatant disregard for courteous and proper operating procedures.

In conclusion, any party committing rule violations does so at the peril of their license. We cannot, however, mandate courtesy, good and fair operating practices or even common sense. If any party seeks more rights for nets, or has complaints about nets generally in the Amateur Radio Service, the matter should be taken up with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which is the Bureau responsible for licensing, rules and policy in the Amateur Radio Service.



 
Stop Confusing the Salamanders...  
by AE4FB on December 12, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Stop confusing the Sal and the Salamanders, Mark. You of all extraterrestrials should know that Osala ben Mander and his terrorist Salaban abhor facts...;)
73,
Your Earthling Friend,
Mikey
 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by N1FM on December 12, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
After the dust settled down, I talked to parties on both sides. In case anyone who is outside looking in, take a cold hard look through the glass and see if you can see some retaliatory conduct from the past from some people that are sitting back . Hmm; sound familiar. You know who you are! Get a grip and move on. Oh by the way.. Can't we just all get along.

De N1FM
 
RE: FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by KU4GS on December 12, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
I did a quick search on 75/80 ARRL nets just a few moments ago, and to my surprise there are over 200 nets on the band in just 5 states! So I ask since these nets are ARRL sanctioned and not FCC mandated as emergency nets how is anyone suppose to operate with 3 kcs of these nets in Florida alone? I participate in emergency nets on HF because they keep us prepared for an emergency .But sanctioning religious nets and calling your self a netfor the sake of "reserving a frequency" but not handling emergency traffic is BAD practice and to me seems illegal in itself!

Mr. Hollingsworth states:” Nets are not specifically regulated under Commission rules and have no greater rights to any frequency than any other licensee, regardless of the number of members or how long they have been using any given frequency".

So this is what it boils down to , it is rooted in Law and until then things will be hairy as long as nets get together call their traffic then start talking about there lint in their belly buttons, and insist they have been there for 40 years so "hit the Blanking road"

When the upcoming changes come let us consider a small part of the band for Net use only (the league could still sell their net book!)and since the bands are getting filled with some new operators that have upgraded (and they are good ones as far as I see), why not expand the the reserved 250 kHz set aside for cw and open some up for voice and reward the old advanced operators?

Oh these 212 nets are the ARRL sanctioned ones; there must be hundreds more! Remember enforcement usually follows the money trail.
 
RE: Salaban Terrorists Declare they Will, "Fi  
by K4WHO on December 13, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
MIKE , YOU BETTER LAY OFF THE TEQUILA 1800. ITS HAVEING AN NEGITIVE EFFECT ON YOURE BRAIN.

K4WHO
 
TEQUILA 1800?  
by AE4FB on December 14, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Gee Kerry,
You better stop eating the Salamander in the bottom of the Salaganda Bottle, it seems to be eating away your pre-frontal cortex. I haven't had a drop in about three weeks... but tonight may be the night.
73,
Mikey

Question? What do Osala bin Mander and St. Stephen have in common?

 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by N7KKR on December 14, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Gentlemen,

There's been a long-standing truism: Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. Incessant bickering serves to demand further regulation because the individual, or in some cases groups, cannot self regulate themselves. I believe we all have seen additional Government regulation most frequently impacts the greatest number of people not associated with the problem. To the different groups who are passionately at odds, please mediate, seek binding arbitration, or whatever it takes to resolve the issue before someone less caring takes our collective privileges away. It's hard enough to get the good news stories out on the value and relevance of our hobby without being distracted by feuds.


 
FCC Chastises Feuding 75-Meter Occupants:  
by K5YY on December 15, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
A simple comment. I think the "QRM" and splatter level would be much less if everyone concerned would run just the approximate 100-125 watts of the commonly used stations sold today and FORGET the linear. But, that requires a "gentlemanly" approach and ALL have to abide. THAT's the kicker. There is a good extra 1-2 KC of splatter when one kicks in the linear, and that is what this whole thing centers around, 1 to 2 KCs around the net frequency. Why don't the involved parties get together and "run this power test"?? Back to basics, if the stations are S9 to 40dB over S9, as they usually are on 80 and 40, dropping the dang linear off will only lower the signals 10dB theoretically and that's still plenty of signal for sustained QSOs.. .. 80 meters is NOT a weak signal band like 144 or 432. So, cut the power on ALL sides and the nerves will stay intact and we will live longer. It just a HOBBY guys!! de K5YY (since 1957)
 
Overmodulation Causes Splatter  
by AE4FB on December 16, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Overmodulation and Clipping Causes "Splatter". Running too wide a filter (over 2.7kHz)to get "Broadcast Audio" causes bleed over. Trying to operate closer that 3kHz to another QSO causes bleed over much of the time. Watch your alc and don't clip your amp and you'll live happily ever after.

Power by itself does not cause "Splatter". Two well run stations can run 10KW, 3kHz apart and not "splatter" on each other.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other News Articles
Amateur Radio: The World's First Internet:
Attleboro Area Gears Up for International 'Ham Radio' Competition:
For These Vets, Amateur Radio Remains Alive:
Ham Radio Fest is Saturday in Austintown:
Ham Radio Operators Compete in Devens in Worldwide Contest: