Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
from
Radio Amateur Information Network (RAIN)
on
May 14, 2000
Website:
http://www.rainreport.com/
View comments about this article!
FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
The nations top ham radio cop is putting the Amateur
Radio Community on notice. He says that you must use
your full callsign -- not just phonetics to identify
your station. And in his weekly audio column on
RAINREPORT.COM, FCC Special Counsel for Enforcement,
Riley Hollingsworth says that there is a proper way
to identify and the FCC expects everyone to abide by
the rules:
"We have been getting some questions, and I think
you have too, about identifying with phonetics. Now,
I just wanted to point out that phonetics are to
assist the intended operator in understanding the
callsign. They are not a substitute for
identifying. The identification rule is very simple,
and requires that the callsign be used in English.
But now phonetics are not callsigns, they are just
facilitators. And it is particularly disturbing to
hear signals that are 30 and 40 over and the
operator is using phonetics that are repeated. Or
only phonetics."
Hollingsworth says that not only does identifying only with phonetics not comply with the Amateur
Service Rules, but excessive use of phonetics is entirely unnecessary.
This is not the first time that Hollingsworth has brought the matter of proper identification to the
attention of the nations ham community. Last year a number of DX net operators became openly agitated
after Hollingswoth told them that partial callsign recognition was OK -- but only if all stations
identified properly according to the FCC's rules.
ENFORCEMENT: $8000 FINES UPHELD AND ORDERED PAID
Two Texas hams that the FCC says they caught in the act of interfering with a local repeater have been
ordered to pay some very stiff fines. The Notices of Apparent Liability to Monetary Forfeiture had
been issued last January to Paul Holcombe, K4TOF and Robert L. Meyers N5WLY. According to rules
enforcer Riley Hollingsworth, the fines stand:
"Two $8000 forfeitures were ordered. Notices of
Apparent Liability have been issued in January to Paul E. Holcombe, K4TOF of Houston and Robert L.
Meyers also of Houston, N5WLY. Those Notices of Apparent Liability happened on January 13th. That
was for deliberate interference to the Memorial Emergency Repeater Associations repeater operations
on 145.470 there in Houston in 1999. And after viewing the replies of Meyers and Holcombe the
decision was made not lower the $8000 amounts. And each has 30 days to pay or file an appeal."
(FCC)
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by WD4NGB on May 14, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In a recent article, " http://www.eHam.net/articles/688 " , Riley Hollingsworth of
the FCC stated that he was putting the Amateur Radio Community on notice
about IDing properly, and not with PHONETICS only, or excessive use of them.
This is a valid point, and some day may become a problem, but we face many
more SERIOUS problems with rule violations. No need to go into all of them
here, everyone knows.
Some day we may have the the blatant violations cleared up, to the point that
violations that are not intended to cause intentional interference, or profanity
need addressed. We are a long way from this now. Excessive use of Phonetics
would be WAY down on my list of things that hams need to be put on notice about.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by WB9YCJ on May 14, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suspect this important issue is only one item on a "plate"
of many that will be dealt with over the coming years. Be patient and fair with Mr. Riley. Since we hams as a whole have had difficulty in "policing" our bands (and have asked for help) that the Feds will have their own way of "discipline" at various levels of the rules. Would you expect your local sheriff to only go after murderers and rapists while spending the rest of the time in the donut shop?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by N6JSX on May 14, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is just typical of the FCC - enforce a rule that does not hurt anyone - except the FCC can nail a guy from their cooshy arm chairs in the office. Next Hollingsworth will be on a campaign to bust rag chewers that accidently ID at the 11th or 12th minute. What a way to run up their stats to show effectiveness to Congress when seeking more budget.
Come on FCC get off your butt's and go for the real problems like the 2m jammers/LIDs in LA, Chicago, NY, and other large HAM areas. Do some real DF'ing work - then fine 'em high. But lay off the easy targets - especially the no harm no foul busts - how about a courtesy notice?
[Tha LA area has over 50,000 HAMs and not a reapeater pair to be bought - just sit on 147.435 and you will get all the profane jammer action you every didn't want to hear!]
Now that the Section OOC's have been muted by ARRL HQ - even less is being done. The OO group is hand tied by ARRL HQ bureaucrats in that the OO group can no longer make any direct contact with the local FCC on any probelm without the permission of the ARRL HQ. We all know that the ARRL HQ doesn't know beans about Western USA HAM radio, frequency coordination, or FM'ing. So LA with the largest HAM population in the USA (and almost the world, behind Tokyo) is still waiting for "REAL" FCC action. The only way the ARRL HQ will seek FCC action is when they know it is a slam dunk case (almost rigged). Why is the the ARRL HQ so lathargic? They want the big news splash and PR $dollar$ to impress prospective member$!
[FYI, the only serious FCC action in LA was the 1982-85 x-WB6JAC case was an easy gimmy for the FCC - he sunk himself with the help of his so called HAM friends that got away with aiding and abetting! Right Arny?]
So Mr. Hollingsworth you can talk tough but until I read that 2m jammers and outright beligerent profane LIDS are being busted in LA, Chicago, Milwaukee, and other cities you are merely another politician doing the numbers game to secure a budget. Your efforts to date have had little to NO real effect on serious Part 97 violators! The SCARE game doesn't seem to work for you! (A pea under the shell game!)
X - Los Angeles Special FCC RDF Auxilary member 1984-85
X - Los Angeles Official Observer Coordinator 1987-89
X - Wisconsin Official Obserever Coordinator 1994-96
[FYI, I gave up on OO'ing due to the ARRL HQ's political agenda (that does NOT include "real" OO'ing) of ONLY focusing on increasing member$hip number$!]
|
| |
|
RE: FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by AA8LL on May 15, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I confess. I'm guilty of this. I work mostly DX and find phonetics so much easier to understand with foreign accents and my marginal hearing that I always identify with phonetics. I've literally done this thousands of times. I try to be a courteous operator and obey all the rules. It really is discouraging to find out I've been doing so poorly. I'm going to try to rehabilitate myself (it won't be easy) but I can't help but wonder what the harm is in those four extra syllables (clogging up the airwaves?).
|
| |
|
RE: FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by K5NIC on May 15, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why not leave Mr. Hollingsworth alone to do his job. He has, in my opinion, done a superb job in stepping up enforcement!!!! So you may not agree with one statement he made, BIG DEAL!!!
Instead of cutting him down, why don't you do something to HELP him out! At least encourage him to continue on his endeavor. Maybe we can have a hobby for a little while longer instead of losing it to the way of Citizen Band.
|
| |
|
Relax!
|
|
|
by N5NJ on May 15, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No one is getting fined or cited for this. He's just clarified what the rules and requirements are for ID'ing.
73
N-5-N-J
|
| |
|
Re: Use Your Call Not Phonetics
|
|
|
by N4XMX on May 15, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I work mostly DX as well as one of the other people hear. If I gave my callsign as N4XMX instead of November 4 Xray Mike Xray, they would not have a clue what I said. I quess I'll have to squeeze it in somewhere in the exchange. With weak signal work, the letters alone will be lost. (or work cw :) )
-73 Rick N4XMX
|
| |
|
Phonetics?
|
|
|
by VE1GN on May 16, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't understand this, in the commercial world you always identify with phonetics. IE. November 7 2 9 mike sierra
for an aircraft's callsign or Victor Yankee Sierra Victor for The Motor Vessel Grand Manan VYSV, a ferry. As a commerical operator in Coast Guard radio and now a Flight Service Specialist the rules are phonetics and phonetics only when using callsigns. This enables clear communication with little chance of confusion.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by HA1HA on May 16, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You are right. A lot of talk about nothing when more serious violations are ocurring. How about someone with a speech impediment? Would they fine him for not being able to say a letter of his call so everyone else can understand?
Most hams are so fat and lazy you can't understand their call letters with a microphone stuck halfway down their throat, a chaw of tobacco in the cheek and poorly adjusted speech processors. Maybe the FCC will require a spech class before voice operations can begin. CW Forever!!!!!
|
| |
|
Improper Identification Citation (old)
|
|
|
by N8SM on May 16, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Several years ago, K0RR (ex-WA7RRR) told me he received a FCC citation because he identified as WA7-'triple-R' instead of WA7RRR. So there have been citations issued for not identifying in accordance with the FCC's interpretation of the rules.
More importantly, anyone hearing an English language transmission such as WA7-'triple-R' or Whiskey-1-Alpha-Whiskey can easily determine the assigned call sign of the station. This would seem to meet the intent of Section 97.119 - namely station identification. I suppose the FCC has the authority to enforce the rules as they see fit, but Section 97.119 actually encourages the use of phonetics for correct station identification of phone emissions:
Sec. 97.119 Station identification.
(a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand
station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting
channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes
during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of
the transmissions from the station known to those receiving
the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications
or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not
authorized to the station.
(b) The call sign must be transmitted with an emission authorized
for the transmitting channel in one of the following ways:
(1) By a CW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only
for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute;
(2) By a phone emission in the English language. Use of a phonetic
alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged;
(snip)
Is it just me or is this topic totally absurd?
|
| |
|
Station Identification Citation (old)
|
|
|
by N8SM on May 16, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Several years ago, K0RR (ex-WA7RRR) told me he received a FCC citation because he identified as WA7-'triple-R' instead of WA7RRR. So there have been citations issued for not identifying in accordance with the FCC's interpretation of the rules.
More importantly, anyone hearing an English language transmission such as WA7-'triple-R' or Whiskey-1-Alpha-Whiskey can easily determine the assigned call sign of the station. This would seem to meet the intent of Section 97.119 - namely station identification. I suppose the FCC has the authority to enforce the rules as they see fit, but Section 97.119 actually encourages the use of phonetics for correct station identification of phone emissions:
Sec. 97.119 Station identification.
(a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand
station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting
channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes
during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of
the transmissions from the station known to those receiving
the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications
or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not
authorized to the station.
(b) The call sign must be transmitted with an emission authorized
for the transmitting channel in one of the following ways:
(1) By a CW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only
for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute;
(2) By a phone emission in the English language. Use of a phonetic
alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged;
(snip)
Is it just me or is this topic totally absurd?
|
| |
|
Phonetic ID's Illegal????
|
|
|
by AC0X on May 16, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This topic IS absurd. The whole purpose of using phonetic ID's is to make identification of your station EASIER. And as I read it, 97.119 (b)(2) seems to ENCOURAGE the use of phonetics in ID'ing. Even the ARRL's FCC rule book states (emphasis mine) "**WHEN*** you indentify by phone, you must use English, and you are encouraged to use phonetics". It doesn't say "you or encouraged to use phonetics IN ADDITION to IDing by phone", it says "WHEN you indentify by phone... you are encouraged to use phonetics" So it looks like even the League thought that phonetic ID'ing was OK, even preferred. I think Mr RH should rethink his opinion and statement on this issue.
|
| |
|
Riley blew it!
|
|
|
by N5NJ on May 17, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to a report on the ARRL "Members Only" page, Hollingsworth has recanted this directive and claimed "I plead temporary insanity".
As others have mentioned here, Part 97 cites the use of phonetics as an enhancement to recognition of a callsign. Clearly, his comments did not line up exactly with Part 97.
Even the best guys make mistakes sometimes.
November 5 November Juliet
|
| |
|
RE: Riley blew it!
|
|
|
by N5GE on May 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
He sure had you guys stirred up though...
73!
Tom,
November Five Golf Echo
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by N9NRA on November 12, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have to agree with N6JSX on this one. I have heard some hams id`ing with phonetics on some of the repeaters i work around the state. And, while the fcc is going after these "little fish," the big `uns down in Milwaukee and places like that are jammin`away and wrecking it for everyone else. So, lets not worry about this id`ing thing untill the problem of jamming and outright bad operating is fixed, okay? TNX AND 73 DE N9NRA ANDY
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by W3DCG on November 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am afraid that as an aspiring phone operator, I don't fully grasp what the problem is there. Phonetic ID is NOT acceptable ID? To be legal is Mr Hollingsworth clarifying that we must say for example:
"Double You Three Dee See Gee" and THAT is legal, but
"Whisky Three Delta Charlie Golf" is ILLEGAL?
I'm thinking, because I could say,
DoubleYou Three DeeSeeGee and an FCC monitor or O.O. could NOT be sure amongst fading, static, and nearby other signals, that I did NOT say -B- or -E- or -G- for any of it unless I was on FM, full quieting.
If the point was, can the excessive use of phonetics, I get it. Otherwise, I'm afraid I do not see the point being made- enforcement of rules purely for the sake of conformity even if in so doing the result is uselessness?
I must be missing something, please someone enlighten me?
I have no beef with Mr. Hollingsworth, I think he is doing a good job given the task at hand.
I simply do not comprehend the point of standard phonetic usage for voice ID being some kind of problem.
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by W8LV on November 17, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The rules say ") By a phone emission in the English language. Use of a phonetic
alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged".
My call sign is: W8LV
that would sound like "V" and also can be misconstrued as: "P" , and "T", and "B", and also "C", and, let's not forget "Z".
So, when I identify as "Whiskey Eight Lima Victor", now, you know that I ACTUALLY AM, W8LV(!)
Now, this guy HAS been helpful to Amateur Radio. He has been reasonable in the past, and so maybe he just made a mistake or he is being misunderstood? Since EVERYONE ID's with phonetics, (did you ever, ever, in your life, EVER hear an aircraft NOT identify as "Two November Three Eight Fife One Niner", on the AM aircraft band, for example? Boy, it could really be bad if they didn't, eh? And could you imagine a QRP QSO WITHOUT phonetics?
I can be fined for clearly identifying my station if the rules say "Use of a phonetic
alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged"? What am I missing here?
W8LV BILL
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by KG6NXL on December 11, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm not sure exactly what the problem is. Why not identify with BOTH call sign and words? So, this is KG6NXL, Kilo Golf Six November X-Ray Lima, saying 73's to ya, and clear.
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by N9ESH on December 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wait a minute! If the FCC is sending out fines for stations "not identifying" properly, how do they know who the station is? Sounds like a Catch-22.
Anyway, MARS stations take note!!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC: USE YOUR CALL -- NOT YOUR PHONETICS
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on March 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Take care N6JFX. You never know when one of those bureaucrats with a fragile ego will trump up a charge against you. It would certainly not be the first time THAT has happened!
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on May 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is ridiculous! It states right in part 97 that phonetic use is encouraged...and now its illegal to use phonetics to ID? OOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKK maybe Im missing something here. Looks like the big guy tripped over his shoelaces on that one. Go after the real violators like jammers, and qrmer`s and pirates. Do we really need hams gettings pink slips over using phonetics to ID? Get real!
Rich
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by KC4VFP on May 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Riley would flip at the daily meeting on 14.208
These people virtually NEVER ID, except by using their first names, and having CW keyers, that ALL GO OFF AT THE SAME TIME (while the the QSO continues over the top of the CW IDs). Don't have your auto-null turned on, or you'll miss their calls!
When directly asked for a call sign, I've listened to one of these "gents" tell a young sounding voice to get off "their" frequency if he couldn't copy his keyer.
I'm against STRICT, dot the "I" and cross the "T" enforcement, the knitpicking stuff, but I've got to go along with Riley on this one ... BUT .. the FCC should also equally enforce against the BROADCASTERS that ID their stations as "BOSS RADIO," "COOL 96," "POWER 96," et.
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on June 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It appears that Mr.Hollingsworth had a senior moment. One of the questions in the Technician exam pool not only permits the use of phonetics for station ID, but suggests it as well. Nowhere in my text does it indicate that phonetics should be redundant over and above the standard presentation of call letters.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by W3DCG on June 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about those DX pile-ups...and people running low power. Worse yet, QRP with no to low gain antennas.
In these cases, and under higher than usual noise levels...
Well, yep, CW Forever... one reason why I'm not as comfortable with SSB.
One cannot be sure; the other station did not say F but S was heard, without phonetics, in many cases. In the case of QRP, that would be MOST cases.
I work at a Medical Call Center, we require our TELEPHONE operators to use phonetics of some kind if they are not positively sure they did not hear B when D was said, or S when it might be F, and in the case of proper sir names, this happens often. Telephone, generally Q5 100% Five by Nine, even then, we say you must be sure.
How about that rule, more like Commandment, to not use more power than necessary.
I would feel confident that I would need phonetics RARELY, provided two things:
A) Gain antenna.
B) Legal limit amplifier.
C) Some of that IHY tailored tweak to my microphone.
Guess that would be three things. But if this is what it takes to accomplish Good Amateur Practice, although it seems like a conflict to begin with, then this would be my aspiration, if SSB were my favorite mode.
I'm thankful it is not. (Still want some of that 2IHY on my microphone some day, regardless).
Also the comment of 30-40 over S9 needn't mean poor amateur practice- I've heard many in a pile-up, and my location was in the path of the station where contact was being attempted. 40 over S9 to me, but given the interference from others (it's a pile-up after all), I'm sure the stations I heard at 40 over were perhaps S9 to 20 over or less to the DX, which is doling the contacts in as fast a manner as possible, having to hear clearly in a sea of other s9-20 db over signals.
Given this, phonetics are THE ONLY SURE WAY TO KNOW you sent your call in a manner which could not be misheard by the DX many thousands of miles away.
Again, the DX is doling Q's out AS FAST AS POSSIBLE in an effort perhaps to break records, while also trying to accommodate as many callers as possible. Every American station having to repeat their call also unphonetically would be irritating at best. It might make the DX or DX pedition work Americans last- after all they can crank out 1 extra Q for ever 3 Americans worked, since the Americans have to somewhere in the exchange repeat their call UNPHONETICALLY too! hi.
;)
At any rate it seems Hollingsworth is doing a good job. Perhaps I am mishearing what he means. Again parameters must be defined in order to comprehend what he means.
For example, I could see myself over phoneticizing on 2 meter FM. I might forget that actually, now most can hear a D from a G from a C, at full quieting. However, if spoke with an accent then all bets might again be off, no?
Well, rules are rules. Moaning about this trivial detail is like No Coders lamenting about “how hard 5 wpm” is given their special circumstances. So I’m going to do my best to comply, because it’s the rule, period.
73
W3DCG.
You know- the main reason I only feel comfortable using phonetics is simply, in an exchange when they are confirming contact, unless they say Delta or Denmark…I can be sure that I said Dee See Gee and hope they did not hear Bee See Gee, so W3BCG is in their log. Bummer. They might even say back, DubbyaThreeDeeSeeGee, but I heard BeeSeeGee possibly- but I know, If I say Delta Charlie Golf- and they say what I hear as DoubleUThreeBeeSeeGee, that it’s probable, that my call is in their log as DCG, cuz-
Bravo and Delta cannot be misconstrued.
|
| |
|
Riley: ID With Your Call; Fines Upheld
|
|
|
by G0GQK on May 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boy this is big stuff !
From what I read about the bad language, jamming, playing music and all the rest of the fun things on the bands in the USA, his department must be short of work or money! Just make sure you wash your neck and wear a clean shirt before you go on the radio next time !!!!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Improper Identification Citation (old)
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Riley Hollingsworth says simply to ID with your call sign .Use phonetics only if the person cannot understand your call sign . But your call is your proper ID , Easy
|
| |
|
RE: Improper Identification Citation (old)
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on September 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If Tsarina Hollywood admits to temporary insanity, don't you think we are entitled to inquire whether his admitted insanity is permanent rather than merely temporary?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Do We Need a Kick in the Pants?
Action On BPL By Congress?
NTIA Study Documents Radio Interference from BPL:
RFI Complaint Against Linksys
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
Other News Articles
ARISS Contact on Amateur Television and YouTube:
Two Canadian Stations on 500kHz:
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
|
