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]  

So-Called 'Code Practice'

Raymond M. Perkins, Jr. (W5VPU) on July 13, 2004
View comments about this article!

There's a ham on 7.030 "broadcasting" what he apparently views as "code practice" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. First slow, and then fast, then over and over and over.

Apparently his station is connected to a computer which broadcasts constantly. He's in Purdy, Missouri. Everyday. I noted that on June 21 he had been sent a notice requesting proof that what he is doing is in the public service.

What are the current regulations and practices about such on-air transmissions? Are they widely spread? I just found this a couple of days ago and was quite surprised that it has been tolerated. What do the rest of you think about this use of spectrum?

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AA3WS on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well, not a lot of difference from a beacon? Should make the code for life crowd happy.
AA3WS
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KG4RUL on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I also agree, it sound like beacon operation to me.

Dennis / KG4RUL
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K8ND on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC has already started dealing with this person,

See the ARRL coverage of FCC actions, fourth item down:

http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2004/0626.html
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K3QS on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
At night time 7030 is a crowded area, occupied by operators using cw at 18 - 28 wpm. It seems out of place to hear 24 hr transmissions at 10 wpm on 7030. It seems to me slow cw is better placed above 7100 kHz.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AC9TS on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
International broadcaster take over the Novice bands (above 7.1MHz) in the evening. It's touch to find a spot up there.

Tom - AC9TS
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W3JXP on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
It in my mind depends on what he's sending as code practice text. If it's random letters and the like, then maybe it's OK, but if its something else it could be a very lame attempt at broadcasting.

John
W3JXP
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N3HKN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Probably another freedom of speech nut. Now we will have to pay for his medications.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N4LI on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> I also agree, it sound [sic] like beacon operation to me.

Nope. That argument won’t work for him.

"Beacon" is a defined term under FCC Part 97 as, “[a]n amateur station transmitting communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other related experimental activities.” §97.3(a)(9). So, if Dude is sending Code practice, it sounds like the transmitter is there for purposes other than propagation.

But, even if the operator passed the definitional test, he would doubtless fail on the control issue. Beacons are not allowed to be automatically controlled (unattended) on the 40m band. Period. See §97.203(d). So, if he EVER leaves the house, it's illegal.

OK?

Peter, N4LI
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KT8K on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This is especially obnoxious since in the evening 7030 kHz is at the center of one of the busiest pieces of the entire amateur spectrum. I've also seen 7030 listed as the European QRP calling frequency.

I hate to assume anything about this individual, but I can't imagine that code practice needs to be transmitted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I hope this waste of spectrum will be stopped.

And, although there ARE shortwave broadcasters in the area above 7100, they aren't everywhere up there, so that's no excuse. One can find chinks in the interference in which to operate (I've done it many times) and it is a much more appropriate place for code practice. I love CW, especially when I can zero-beat one of those broadcasters and operate successfully right on top of them -- QRP, too!

Now, is someone going to invite Paul D. Westcott, KC0OAB, of Purdy, MO to explain himself here??

CW Rules! 73 de kt8k - Tim
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KE4MOB on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, I think it's Bible verses.

I know it could be considered beacon operation (or broadcasting, depending on your definition). The person responsible for these transmissions considers it "code practice".

So which is it? All three, depending on how you view it.

Personally, I find it incredibly convenient that there is a CW station on the air 24/7. I tune in regularly when I'm in the shack doing other things and just leave it running in the background decoding snippets in my brain as I can. He never has a good signal here, and the QSB sometimes sends him "down in the dirt" and gives good weak signal practice as well.

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N2NZJ on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
JUST ANOTHER WHACKO GIVING US A BAD NAME.we need people like that like a hole in the head. so RILEY will hopefully take action and shut him DOWN. 73 TOM.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N6AYJ on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Looking at the situation objectively, how is it different from W1AW's code practice transmissions? In the only decision of the F.C.C.'s (former) Private Radio Bureau on the "code practice" issue that I am aware of, Oakland, California 2-meter repeater WB6AAE was transmitting so-called "code practice" on its output frequency for many months in order to prevent certain stations from using the repeater. The PRB ruled that it wasn't really code practice, citing a lot of factual issues that contradicted the repeater owner's claims. So it becomes an issue of whether the code practice is sent in good faith or not. If he really intends it to be code practice, then I don't see how you can differentiate him from the ARRL. But if he has another agenda he's pushing, and if he doesn't really expect anybody to copy the code practice, then his claims are contradicted.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WB2WIK on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Some differences re Joe Ham vs. ARRL transmissions:

-ARRL doesn't transmit any code practice at night when propagation becomes global on 7 MHz.

-ARRL doesn't use any frequency 24 hours a day. Their code practice sessions are less than one hour long each, three times a day, and the latest one is at 7:00PM Eastern time.

-ARRL practice and bulletins are per a published schedule in a widely disseminated international magazine, and have been for 6+ decades.

-ARRL code practice on 40m is on 7.0475. (Frankly, I agree they should be up higher in the band, and there's no reason they couldn't use something above 7.100. The broadcasters are on known frequencies, and with CW bandwidth being as small as it is, it would be very easy to find a permanently clear frequency.)

-And ARRL code practice is always from QST text, with the source stated at the beginning of each session so anyone who wants to check their copy can do so. They are never of a political or religious nature.

As such, I've always endorsed (and applauded) the League's efforts in this matter and have a hard time endorsing anyone else's, at least anyone in the 48 States...because as long as the ionosphere can reflect a signal, no matter where you are you can copy *one* of the ARRL sessions, on some band, at some hour.

WB2WIK/6



 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W6EZ on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
It is fine.
Leave it alone and find something else to whine about.
I'm sure that someone, somewhere is wearing the wrong color shirt while talking on the radio.
Bitch about that.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KB2CPW on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
So-Called 'Code Practice'
by W6EZ on July 13, 2004
It is fine.
Leave it alone and find something else to whine about.
I'm sure that someone, somewhere is wearing the wrong color shirt while talking on the radio.
Bitch about that.


Ummm, I'm in my underwear on 40m, they are white BVD thong style... Is that ok :-)?? Regards.. Richy N2ZD
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W3DCG on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Thank you sir for this info and posting this article!

I find the broadcasts to be OBNOXIOUS.
It had been easy to ignore, but his signal level has steadily increased.

For the record, I am cool with Christ, I love Jesus, and I also happen to have a rather inclusive, open-minded view-point on religion(s) and Faith.

If I want to be "preached to" and quoted passeges out of the Bible, I can tune in to any number of dozens of shortwave broadcast band stations that wish to "spread the word of God" to the world.

When I want that I'll open the Book myself, thank you.
Sometimes the Spirit moves me, and I might even give It Is Written a whirl through the passages in my mind.

To me, these "Code Practice" broadcasts are arrogant, presumptuous, inconsiderate, dogmatic, and overzealous.

But we have space- so if the party responsible for this religous preaching is reading this, let me once again state, however, that "I am cool with Christ..." and "I love Jesus."

And so, would you kindly move your broadcast up above 7.1 Mc, that is, up in frequency, above Seven-point-one Mhz, closer to the standard phone broadcasters?

Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with Cheese-cake?

I might be one of several who would muchly appreciate such a congenial gesture.

didididah didah

W3DCG, Atlanta.




 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by SWANMAN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Gee...I guess it can't be one of us "dumbed-down no-code techs" doing this. We can't use that band!
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KE4MOB on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
A few more observations based on other posters:

A) I'm never on the radio in the early evenings...I listen after about 11:30 Eastern. So I usually miss the ARRL CW practice. The ARRL should expand W1AW's transmitting schedule to at least 4 AM Eastern.

B) ARRL practice comes from QST...which is just fine for members or for people who have newsstand access. What about those that don't have access to QST? Wouldn't standardized text that is widely available to all be better? (Like the Bible, US Constitution, and other historical documents?)

C) Everybody wants him to move above 7.1 Mhz...only problem is that 7.125 will (eventually) be the bottom edge of the Extra/Advanced SSB allocation....so are we then going to complain he would be taking up limited CW space between 7.100 and 7.125??

D) 24/7 transmissions is, I believe, excessive.


 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KG4GON on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
So he's a whacko because it the Bible?
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KG4GON on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree, 24-7 code practice is convenient for me.
He probably should have chosen a different freq, or better yet, he should rotate freq on a schedule.

Aside from the legitimate gripe about the bad choice of freq, all I hear is a bunch of Christian bashers!
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KI6YN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Amateur radio is just that, not a place to preach or push religion or lack of it. Keep religion in the church or home. There are many hams that are not Christains and it is probably an affront to them to hear bible stuff in the area most used in the evenings. I hope Mr. Hollingsworth gets this clown off the air soon.
 
...Another episode of .... As The VFO Turns  
by KC8VWM on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Firstly, no, these comments are not intended to condone ANY illegal operation on any band.

I just sometimes wonder about the "real" intentions of certain "ego maniacs" who think they own and control how other people are operating on radio frequencies.

These are usually the type of personality who purposely spin the VFO dial looking to cause trouble for other individuals. The proverbial "Mr. Kravitz" of the amateur radio bands if you will.

This usually comes to light in my mind when I hear about such "borderline cases" like this one when "questionable" (not necessarily illegal) operating practices of this type occur.

As a self regulated service, I am left asking myself why a simple and friendly "slap on the wrist" from a fellow amateur peer (COO?) wouldn't have simply sufficed in this "borderline" situation.

It seems it is not always required or necessary to go directly past go, do not collect $200, and go directly to Mr. Riley's desk to seek resolution for every "crackle" heard over the VFO dial.

Obviously, the FCC are quite busy with other matters and if we continue with our critically acclaimed "charades" they will view us all as the problem, and not the solution.

...And you all know what that will eventually mean down the road.. dont you?

Thanks for listening to my comments.

73
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by CODEBASHER on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by SWANMAN on July 13, 2004
Gee...I guess it can't be one of us "dumbed-down no-code techs" doing this. We can't use that band!

As you can see they do eat thier own so I dont feel so bad now.

And they want US to be just like them!

no thank you I'll stay on 6m and above.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by DROLLTROLL on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!


>>Aside from the legitimate gripe about the bad choice of freq, all I hear is a bunch of Christian bashers!<<

No you don't, you hear nothing of the sort, and if you do it's all in your head. Nobody here bashed Christianity, let alone in a bunch. Get a grip.

Nobody but the weak minded want to hear religious fanaticism, regardless of which religion it is. It would be just as wrong if it were Islam, Judaism, Buddhaism, or Christianity. There are plenty of legimate religious shortwave broadcasters and ham nets if you need to get your "religion fix". Broadcasting bible passages 24/7 in no way improves the "art and science" of radio.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KX8N on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Definately destroys the "theory" that CW makes one a good operator, heh?
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WILLY on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by CODEBASHER on July 13, 2004
" by SWANMAN on July 13, 2004
Gee...I guess it can't be one of us "dumbed-down no-code techs" doing this. We can't use that band!

As you can see they do eat thier own so I dont feel so bad now.
And they want US to be just like them!
no thank you I'll stay on 6m and above. "


Is your ability to think and use logic non-existant?

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WILLY on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by KX8N on July 13, 2004

"Definately destroys the "theory" that CW makes one a good operator, heh? "

Interesting.
I've never seen that theory proposed, and I do a bit of reading.

Is it possible that you are confused? Quite often, I see it stated that lack of CW, i.e. making the obtaining of a license quicker and easier, i.e. requiring less dedication, allows in an element that would normally not go to the trouble to get a license, and that this element contains a number that lack respect and caring, and are apt to cause trouble.

Note that this is not saying that ALL such are trouble.
Therein lies the fault in some peoples logic.

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AC5AA on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting comments. What I wonder is who are the folks who are too ashamed of their opinions to identify themselves?

My opinion - you don't have to be a QST subscriber to check your text with this one, but, really, 24 hours a day? I think more reasonable hours and/or frequency would a fine alternative.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W5HTW on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC is trying to find out why this guy is not a religious broadcaster, which is what he appears to be.

The question I pose is, if a bunch of us with our own agenda put up "code practice" 24/7, what space is left for ham radio activity? It becomes just another broadcast band. If this guy can do it, so can I, so can you, so can forty others, all over 40 meter CW. Then real hamming will have to go elsewhere.

Ed
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W6TH on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I believe it is in the wrong frequency and he should move up to the novice band or to the phone bands. Code practice is good for all, but not where it is in the middle of a 40 meter band. Bad enough the FCC is cutting our cw bands and now comes another.

Rights cannot be taken away. If they could be taken away they would be
called privileges. Rights can only be violated or infringed upon.

I will leave this up the the FCC and no-one else.

W6TH
.:
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K1ERN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Sounds like another K1MAN.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N6AJR on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Using a computer is not sending cw, it is generating cw.. there is a difference.

I may or may not be a religious man, but I do not tout any religion here on the air. It is not necessary.

I could be jewish, protastant catholic, wiccan, heathen, agnostic, or atheist, But have never indicated that here or on the air.

The only thing I preach is Fan Dipoles..

73 tom N6AJR
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KG4GON on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"Nobody but the weak minded want to hear religious fanaticism, regardless of which religion it is"

Sending the text of the Bible is fanatacism? Maybe it's just a convenient source of text. NOBODY'S "preaching" here, just sending what at one time was considered to be good literature, historical writings, as well as a religous material.

Tell me, would the Declaratiton of Independance or The Constitution of the United States be too PC for code practice? Would that offend someone? What would YOU like it ot be? Random 5 letter groups?

Oh and the remark about the "weak minded" wanting "to hear religous fanaticism":do you often quote Karl Marx?

Jim Poe
Christian, and a US Citizen, with as many rights as you!
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N8CPA on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
It doesn't matter if it's the Bible or Mark Twain. He's a whacko because he's broadcasting on amateur frequencies.

And he is not a CW operator. He is a computer operator, using Morse as a text protocol.
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KE4ZHN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Another K1MAN wannabe. I have nothing against religon, but it doesnt belong on amateur radio. If I want to be preached to, I will go to church on sunday, not listen to some religious zealot simply reading out of the bible with no clue as to what they are talking about. Personally, I feel ALL broadcasting has no place on the amateur bands, including ARRL code practice. With the standards being 5 wpm now, whats the point? Theres plenty of code tapes and computer programs available to those wanting to learn cw at the present 5wpm requirement. Broadcasting belongs on broadcast bands, not amateur radio!
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K2DBK on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KE4MOB said:
"B) ARRL practice comes from QST...which is just fine for members or for people who have newsstand access. What about those that don't have access to QST? Wouldn't standardized text that is widely available to all be better? (Like the Bible, US Constitution, and other historical documents?)"

Not to pick nits, but the ARRL code practice text as well as MP3 audio files are available at the ARRL website: http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/morse.html and most libraries do have copies of QST.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K7VO on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
7030-7040 has, traditionally, been where 40m QRP CW has lived. A high power broadcaster in there makes no sense at all and makes it less likely that low power ops will work DX on, as others have pointed out, the European/DX QRP calling frequency.

Don't get me wrong. QRPers most definitely do not own 7030. Neither does someone doing religious broadcasting via CW, and that sort of broadcasting seems to me to clearly violate Part 97.

I hope the FCC deals with this guy.

Steve, WB2WIK/6, already made all the points I'd want to make about W1AW.

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC8VWM on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>> The question I pose is, if a bunch of us with our own agenda put up "code practice" 24/7, what space is left for ham radio activity? It becomes just another broadcast band. If this guy can do it, so can I, so can you, so can forty others. <<<

With all due respect,

...Horsehockey!

Last time I checked, - Code Practice always was, and still is... A HAM RADIO RELATED ACTIVITY!

Not that I have the time to do so, with a job, a mortgage to pay and everything, but personally, I feel that if a guy wants to run a code practice session 24/7 - on amateur radio frequencies - for amateur related activities - he is probably within his right to do so. A little excessive perhaps by most peoples standards, but nevertheless not entirely against the law.

Perhaps I forgot to read part 97 "CW time limits" in the regs as they relate to operating CW.

The Author (W5VPU) said:

>>> Apparently his station is connected to a computer which broadcasts constantly. He's in Purdy, Missouri. Everyday. I noted that on June 21 he had been sent a notice requesting proof that what he is doing is in the public service. <<<


If CW time limits are the in question, we all might as well take down every VHF and UHF repeater off the air, because they too.. must be "broadcasting" CW signals to the general public" for a 24/7 period!

It is not like this guy is playing music, "news gathering", or is sending signals intended for the general public. (Since when did the general public suddenly become proficient with CW signals anyways?)

Seems like if we keep up with this line of thinking in Amateur circles, the next report hams will hear in the next issue of the "Riley Files" will probably go something like this:

"(insert a call sign here) was reported running an amateur station for 2 consecutive days for 2 - 24 hour periods on the 40 meter band. The amateurs station operator denied the allegations citing that he was engaged in what was termed as "field day activities" The amateur was given 30 days to respond to the allegations in writing, indicating how this activity is in the interests of public service or possibly face a $10,000 forfeiture and/or jail. The amateur was apparently not available for comment at press time."

These are just silly stories I keep hearing about lately, and as far as I am concerned he was using his amateur radio privileges - on amateur radio frequencies - for amateur radio related purposes.

I have yet to hear any nitty gritty details as they pertain to any so-called secret or hidden "agenda."

The only "secret agenda" must only be transmitted in CW, because I have yet to hear any "agenda" related activities broadcasted to the general public on any voice transmissions anywhere on the 40 meter band.

73
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KB9BVN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
How do you know he is using a computer to send this CW practice?

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KB9BVN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
How do you know he is using a computer to send this CW practice?

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WB2WIK on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with W5HTW. If "everyone" could place a "CW practice" station on the air 24/7, there wouldn't be any frequencies left for general operating -- they'd all be occupied with practice transmissions.

As such, it seems logical to limit the number of such stations actually permitted to "broadcast" like this, and in the U.S., I can't even imagine why we need a single one more than W1AW, who has been fulfilling this need since before I was born, and I've been licensed 39 years now.

WB2WIK/6
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by NI0C on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Steve, WB2WIK, and Caity, K7VO, have provided good comments here.

Certainly no more radio spectrum should be devoted to religious broadcasting from the Bible Belt, least of all in the amateur bands. KC0OAB's broadcasts are not useful for code practice, either. I heard him this afternoon go from a brief burst at 45 wpm then suddenly down to 5 wpm-- what a bore! The 5 wpm wasn't even with Farnsworth spacing.

Having said that, I do miss the High Speed Code Practice and Semi-Annual Code tests provided by W1NJM for many years. He picked up where the ARRL left off, with speeds from 40 to 65 WPM. There's a niche that could be filled.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by DROLLTROLL on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!


KG4GON wrote;
>>Sending the text of the Bible is fanatacism?<<

Yes, sending the text of the Bible, Torah, Koran, Communist Manifesto, Declaration of Independance, or excerpts from Bill Clinton's latest book, 24/7 would be considered fanatical.

>>Maybe it's just a convenient source of text. NOBODY'S "preaching" here, just sending what at one time was considered to be good literature, historical writings, as well as a religous material.<<

On this, most everyone agrees. Just keep it in the Home/Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple/ham nets, etc. Just not 24/7 in the Ham bands, otherwise it IS preaching.


>>Oh and the remark about the "weak minded" wanting "to hear religous fanaticism":do you often quote Karl Marx?<<

That's not what Commie Marx said. Do you often misquote commies to suit your agenda.

>>Jim Poe
Christian, and a US Citizen, with as many rights as you!<<

Jim, I see you're determined to make this about your particular choice of religion.

You perceive slights that aren't there, wrap yourself in the flag, tout your religion then fear that your very own personal rights are somehow at risk. I'll bet you've got guns behind every door and under your pillow too. You have my sympathies and I hope you get well soon.


Dr. Olltroll, and "Black Helicopter" pilot.

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WILLY on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by W5HTW on July 13, 2004
"The FCC is trying to find out why this guy is not a religious broadcaster, which is what he appears to be. "

He just may be.


"The question I pose is, if a bunch of us with our own agenda put up "code practice" 24/7, what space is left for ham radio activity? It becomes just another broadcast band. "



He may be somebody that wants to push the issue that:

"If this guy can do it, so can I, so can you, so can forty others, all over 40 meter CW. "

In that just because the ARRL can do code practice, therefore he must be given 'equal rights'.

If this is true, then it is very sad. Sad for us.
In that some folks just cannot leave well enough alone, and have to push the issue. Sometimes when it is stirred, it stinks.

Certainly, legit code practice, on the air, is useful.
However it is not easy to define. Look at the statement I just made - I used the term 'legit'. What makes one transmission legit, and another not? See what I mean?

The majority of us would say that the ARRL code practice transmissions are legit. Further it appears that most of us feel that his 24/7 transmission is not legit.

I suppose the FCC can deal with it from the angle that a license is a priviledge, and therefore they can simply tell him to stop. I hope he doesn't think he has been treated unfairly should this happen, and doesn't have the means to try to sue. This is what I mean when I say that this whole thing stinks, and is very sad.




 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W9SN on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Who cares??
I tune in just to see how much the band is open.
Gawd there are just too many other things in life to bitch about guys....get a grip!
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K4RAF on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Despite postings otherwise excusing certain broadcasts, I fail to see any difference in W1AW, K1MAN, RAIN relays or this CW freak.

Face it, the hobby is shot, filled with old men who have nothing better to do everyday...

Listen to the 7240 Club or the Indiana Traffic Net to see what other "wastes of skin" exist in this once great vocation!
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W3DCG on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I just want it to be GON from 7.030...
If it were the Declaration of Independence or what have you, I'd still want it to be gone from 7.030.
It's smack in the middle of a very busy part of the 40m spectrum. If it is any consolation to the person responsible, he has a great signal lately. 599.

I am not willing to say that somehow he should not have the right to do this, I am saying, that the choice of frequency is intrusive and inconsiderate. What kind of a good true Christian throws gentleman's agreements carelessly to the wind?

Even W1AW broadcasts code practice around 7.050.
W1AW does it on an open to all, published schedule.

From a PURELY CODE PRACTICE perspective, in all fairness, perhaps some people do not have the QST issue being sent by W1AW, to check their work so to speak. It is likely that every home with a ham radio receiver in it, probably has the book from which he quotes. Fair and balanced.

Much of what is in the Bible is actually very disputable, could be and has been, argued TO DEATH.
People killing each other over arguements concerning the validity of the Bible, the interpretation of the Bible, lines of separation, division, because of belief or not, in the Bible.

Frankly, I believe Jesus would be a bit miffed, if he saw what much of "Christianity" has become. And Jesus was known to have had a tantrum or two, during his travels and observations here. Such accounts are even written, in the Bible.

 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WN3VAW on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
*yawn*

Are we through yet giving him the publicity and notoriety he so obviously craves?

The FCC is dealing with it. Due process takes time. Patience. Meantime, ignore him. With a lack of attention he will go away.
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W6EZ on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Back when I was learning code I used to listen to this guy a lot. I found it very helpful to be able to check my work at any time, day or night.

Using the Bible might have been a very good idea a few decades ago as most homes had at least one copy.

Of course in today's world attacking anything that has to do with Christanity has become an expected reaction so this latest attack, disguised as a complaint against code practice, in not an unexpected event.
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N3ZKP on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Geez, if you don't like what he is using for text, DON'T LISTEN! No one is holding a gun to tyour head making you listen. If you are using a rock-bound rig and this is your ONLY frequency, buy another crystal.

I never cease to be amazed at the mentality of so many hams - if you don't do it my way or like what I like, you are wrong.

Get a life, people!

 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W5GNB on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well, let's look at it this way; At least there will not be any LID CONTESTERS using that frequency!!
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W6TH on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!



I wonder if this is what I am thinking?

A member of an evangelical Protestant church of congregational polity, following the reformed tradition in worship, and believing in individual freedom, in the separation of church and state, and in baptism of voluntary, conscious believers.


Hallelujah

We will find out the thoughts of the FCC and the ARRL upon checking this young fellow. I will keep watch and see how it is handled, going to be very interesting, believe me.

.:
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AB0XE on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
For crying out loud, whine , whine , whine.
Leave him alone, he is offering some of us who still
like to practice an oportunity to practice our copy.
On nights when I hear little I can count on his station to be there. Here is a guy who is offering
a service to us and people have to bitch , bitch , bitch. I can understand; if he needs to be moved to another location, but I like him and hope he continues.
It sure beats trying to copy those who go faster than their skills allow. eeeeeeee

Steve

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KB3LHI on July 13, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I am a new ham. Quite often, especially on weekends, everyone is sending at 20-30 wpm, and I cannot begin to copy them. I personally appreciate finding code practice on the band which I can copy. The alternative is to just turn the radio off.

It seems to me that the hobby should be for everyone, not just those who got a license when Eisenhower was in office, and feel theyown the bands.

I see no difference between what he is doing and what W1AW does, other that his schedule is more convenient.

The odds are, if this guy was sending text from QST, this entire discussion thread would never have gotten started.

If the attitudes espressed in this thread is representative of all hams, perhaps its time to find a new hobby. And you wonder why the number of amateurs is declining ....

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by OMNIPRESSIVE on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"by W6EZ on July 13, 2004 It is fine.
Leave it alone and find something else to whine about. I'm sure that someone, somewhere is wearing the wrong color shirt while talking on the radio.
Bitch about that."

How about I call you an idiot instead?
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W6TH on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!


Notice, Notice, Notice.


Anytime the government stays within the limitations of the constitution
it is a good government.
Anytime the government is outside of the constitution it is a bad
government and it is time for us to stomp it out.

Amen

.:
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N3QT on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
On a positive note, one had to "know code" in order to complain about this individual.

Congratulations!!!

~~
N3QT
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by G6HVY on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I wonder how people would feel if I set up the same thing on 7.033MHz with 24 hour CW texts from the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, recipes for LSD, Barry Manilow's Greatest Lyrics, or whatever? Technically speaking, I reckon I could get such a station on the air within an hour or so.

And so can everyone else. Imagine what it'll sound like if just ten people decide to do this - and I'm sure ten such people will volunteer in short order.

There is no shortage of ways to practice CW reception (I'm using Morsecat, I hope it'll stick) and no shortage of CW transmissions on 80,40,20... whatever. There are plenty of religious broadcasters, for those so inclined. There is no need to combine the two in a 24 hour station slap bang in the middle of a ham band, and plenty of harm for all should the practice (ahem) continue.

From a purely practicable viewpoint, it is an intolerable abuse of an invaluable shared resource. It's also a lousy advert for the hobby...

R
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K0RS on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I think I'll set up a 24/7 phone station on 14.200 and blather religious non-sense and call it "English lessons."

Why can't the superstitious just practice their delusional mumbo-jumbo in privacy of their homes and churches? Do any of you self-appointed proselytizers realize how exceedingly irritating you are? It's like living in Christian Iran.

And yes, it would STILL be a problem if it was of a non-religious nature. 7030 is NOT the place for CW practice OR a beacon. To call this nonsense "CW practice" is disingenuous in the extreme.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AB2RC on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> How do you know he is using a computer to send this CW practice?


If he isn't then
a - he never sleeps

or

b - he sleeps and others are sending for him -- in which case who is the control op at the key

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AC9TS on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I wonder how people would feel if I set up the same thing on 7.033MHz with 24 hour CW texts from the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, recipes for LSD, Barry Manilow's Greatest Lyrics, or whatever? Technically speaking, I reckon I could get such a station on the air within an hour or so.


I dare you to find any of Barry Manilow's Greatest Lyrics! ;-)

Tom - AC9TS
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W1XZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
What if we all exercised our "rights" to transmit non stop 24 hours a day? A little Fallwell here a little Frankin there with K1MAN in the middle. That would be interesting, eh?
I usually turn the knob and go somewhere else, but soon all the spectrum will be taken, and damnit I don't want to have to be forced off the bands. I might have to interact with my wife and family or read a book or some others horrible activity.
So please save us all from this fate and knock it off now.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC8VWM on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>> If "everyone" could place a "CW practice" station on the air 24/7, there wouldn't be any frequencies left for general operating <<<

First thought: This is similar in context to the question, "If everyone held amateur radio nets every night of the week, there wouldn't be any frequencies left for general operating."

Everyone is not the same person, hence the reason that not everyone will setup CW practice stations throughout the entire HF spectrum on every available frequency.

While I agree to some extent that the content might seem a little fanatical by some peoples standards, he does however indicate it is in fact a code practice station intended for radio amateurs.

Who are we to argue that position? One writer indicated that if it were QST or ARRL articles instead of the Bible, then it would be a non-issue. I tend to agree.

The fact of the matter is, currently we CAN all setup a CW practice station if we so choose. When the day comes to light when we no longer have these choices available at our disposal to make, would be the same day we have lost our right to make any choices.

Be careful when you choose to supress others from making free choices. Someday, you might look back and find out you are your own victim of your own choosing.

73

 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K0RGR on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well, I haven't noticed this one personally - must be in the skip zone on 40 at night here. But it sounds like he has managed to make a terrible choice of frequencies for this code practice.

I consider W1AW a very useful service. I've tuned up more receivers on their signals than I can count. I used their code practice years ago when I was studying for the Extra. If you can't hear W1AW you know that your antenna blew down last night.

I really do think it's poor form to discuss sex, politics, or religion on the air, and I would not choose to use the Bible as practice material there. I'm a Christian, and would not be at all offended by this choice of material, so long as it is from a version of the Bible that my church endorses. Oh, they're not all the same? We all use the New Revised Version - NOT!

If this fellow really feels that he's performing a service, he should be encouraged to move his code practice to a less intrusive frequency. Frankly, he can pick one between 3500 and 3650, and few of us will ever hear him again. A strong, steady, predictable signal from the midwest anywhere between 1900 and 2000 Khz. would be a boon Top Band DXers everywhere.

If, on the other hand, he considers this a sly way to preach on the air, and intends to get as much attention as possible, it should be strongly discouraged, in writing.
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W5LSD on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
If you listen carefully you'll hear him occasionally
switch from computer to bug sending where he
sings praises to his evangelical King Bush for
leading us all closer to the rapture with our
own tax dollars.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Hmmmm..... lets look at this seriously - it really has minimal religion component to it - it is more a matter of practicality.

At 10WPM CW, I doubt the sender is converting anyone to Christianity. Logically speaking, the nature of his broadcasts are probably not religious - I think the FCC has a weak argument in that claim. Sending random signals out wouldn't make since either, because you don't have a crib sheet on the receiving end to grade the answers against. So if you are going to send code practice for the benefit of U.S. hams, you must pick a subject text that is widely available to most U.S. hams.

QRZ is a copyrighted publication which may not be photocopied....etc....retraansmitted electronically....etc... Anyway he could be the subject of potential litigation if he was found to be retransmitting copyrighted material. Bad idea for him to transmit that. W1AW can do it all day long, because they own the copyright.

Although he could pick many public domain works to use as the generation of text, the Bible is unarguably the most freely available work in the U.S. - so it is a rather convienent source for generating snippets of code groups that the recipient can grade. I don't think it would have worked with the Koran, because the english translation of the Koran may still be copyrighted material. Besides, in the U.S., the Koran would not be a terribly good subject because it is not as available as the Bible is - for that matter, railroad timetables wouldn't make a good subject either because of their lack of availability. Needless to say, the Bible is thus a practical subject to use for CW practice.

Don't forget that in the 1800's-early 1900's, McGuffy Reader was using Bible passages (in the public schools, Eek!!!) to teach reading - because many parents had the Bible at home and read it to their children (parents were helping out with the homework assignments), and because they were not infringing on any copyrights by using public domain material. Hopefully I have ground this point in - although it is interesting to delve in the history of teaching reading in the U.S. to see what worked in the past, but that's for another thread.

Unless he has feedback from radio land, he may be dead in the water on his claim that he is acting as a service, providing code practice. What he should have done - to generate feedback from users - is solicit feedback in the means of "perfect copy" type of awards so that he has documented evidence that people are using and enjoying the benefit of his code practice transmissions. Currently, it is his word against that of another - the other person being the complaintant - and this isn't a courtroom - he is guilty until he can prove himself innocent.

73s de N8MMZ
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
BTW - I concur that he has parked his transmissions in a rather poor spot. 7030 used to be a region where the Generals/Advanced would slide down to for the Extras to work with them on speed improvement. Haven't been down on 40M in a while so it may still be used for that. Perhaps if the code practice guy is bent on continuous operation, he could move up in frequency?

-N8MMZ
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by DROLLTROLL on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KC8VWM wrote;

>>Be careful when you choose to supress others from making free choices. Someday, you might look back and find out you are your own victim of your own choosing.<<

How out of context is this statement!? This is so Knee Jerk reactionary. Nobody is trying to "supress" him, just use a different portion of the band and not run it 24/7/365 ad nauseum.

On another note, what's with people screaming about your "rights"? The other side of the "personal rights" coin is Personal Responsibility. In other words you need to know when NOT to excersize your rights so you're not irritating everyone else.

Case in point, my friends and I are rock musicians, really into practising heavy metal and punk music loudly (the kind with violent and satanic lyrics). We also like to build up and test monster engines for racing cars, this helps us pay the bills to support our love for nothing less than 150 dB/SPL of audio all the time, 24/7. Hey, it's my right -and if you don't like it- you can just as easily move on down the road.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
One final addendum and then I will free up the frequency for general traffic:

Yes - I do believe that the operator is being discourteous by conducting 24 hr. transmissions - I know why he is doing it, he doesn't want someone to slip in the frequency and have his automatic stuff pop up on them - in which case he would be creaitng interference to an ongoing QSO. For that matter - it stinks to be on a CW frequency, forgetting where you are, and hearing "QST QST de W1AW" on top of you.

Perhaps part 97 needs to have a section codifying the amount of continuous message transmission time that a bulletin/code practice sender can take up? I'll toss that out for consideration.

73s N8MMZ
 
Religious messages  
by KB1HAP on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Hey Guys, I would like to comment on the content of these transmitions. I'm from Argentina and I was a licensed amateur operator down there too (LU6AUW), although living in the US since 8 years ago. I'm also a Catholic, and I think the religious transmitions are totally out of place. Actually, the Ham radio laws in argentina explicitly prohibit the disemanation and discussion of any message of political and religious nature on the air, and I think that's smart. I'm all for "freedom of speech" but I think they are time and places to excersize that freedom, and I don't think ham radio is the proper forum.

I'm religious, educated by Jesuits, and I'm against preaching on the waves (yes, sending biblical content on the air constantly to me means preaching) as well as praying in public schools, etc.... I don't see who I am to impose my religion onto others.

Max
 
RE: Religious messages  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KB1HAP:

We enjoy a different set of freedom then the folks in Argentina do. That is why we are a different country from any other in the world. Argentina is a nice place to visit but has been plagued by government upheaval and other unstable settings in recent times (starting with the Falklands) - if your laws are so superior to U.S. laws, why don't you go back home?

Obviously there is what is consided genuinely obscene material - that should not be discussed on air - but religion and politics has always been an open topic in the good ole U.S.A. I do remember that in the past, U.S. hams were advised that it was in ill form to talk politics with foreigners - and perhaps that is still a good rule of thumb (although it is not the law of the land), but our freedom to openly discuss politics and religion in the U.S. is still a good one that shouldn't be infringed upon.

Now the issue here, if you read the letter from the FCC - is this guy broadcasting, based upon his content and other issues, or is he providing code service. The issue is not that it is wrong to talk religion on the air - although that may have spuned the complaintant to write the FCC.

73s de N8MMZ
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KD7NNT on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting. That unless he specifies the Bible he is using (I have three versions in my house, with differing number of books), there is a problem with checking accuracy.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WILLY on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by KB3LHI on July 13, 2004
"I am a new ham. Quite often, especially on weekends, everyone is sending at 20-30 wpm, and I cannot begin to copy them. I personally appreciate finding code practice on the band which I can copy. The alternative is to just turn the radio off. "

Not really.
You could tune around, bands other then 40M and likely find more CW contacts in progress to monitor. You could, just for fun, try to copy those 20 wpm contacts you are hearing - you'd be surprised how much you do copy, and how quickly trying it can improve your copy speed. You could use any one of a variety of computer programs to practice CW.
There is more then just one alternative.

"It seems to me that the hobby should be for everyone, not just those who got a license when Eisenhower was in office, and feel they own the bands. "

No one owns the bands. Does someone give you the impression that they do?
Perhaps this fellow that is on the air 24/7 is attempting to own a frequency though. If you use him as an example, I will grant you that exception.

"I see no difference between what he is doing and what W1AW does, other that his schedule is more convenient. "

I don't believe W1AW stays on one frequency 24/7.


"The odds are, if this guy was sending text from QST, this entire discussion thread would never have gotten started. "

An interesting point. If this fellow is monitoring this thread of posts, he would be wise to change his source text now, wouldn't he? That would alter some theories a bit.
Unless, of course, his intent is to transmit Bible verses. If that is so, then he has shot himself in the foot.


"If the attitudes espressed in this thread is representative of all hams, "

Certainly, they are not. It may be difficult, especially when one is new, as you've said you are, to keep from feeling like what you are primarily exposed to is representative of the whole. It is not. Take it with a grain of salt. Always remember that the opinion expressed is simply that of the writer, and nothing more.


" perhaps its time to find a new hobby. "

It should not be.
Face to face conversation can be much different and more rewarding. Which reminds me - in another area here you'd asked an antenna question. Did you ever get in touch with the locals down your way? K3TKJ perhaps? or the local club(s) within close driving time? You should be able to get some hands-on advice and help locally.



"And you wonder why the number of amateurs is declining. "

Is that a fact?
I'm not so sure that the number is declining.


Congratulations on what appears to be your very recent
upgrade! http://www.qrz.com/detail/KB3LHI


73





 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KD7NNT writes: "Interesting. That unless he specifies the Bible he is using (I have three versions in my house, with differing number of books), there is a problem with checking accuracy. "

Well he's prob. transmitting the King James Version (KJV) as it is not under copyright in the U.S. (hasn't been since 1782), and is under limited copyright under the crown. All other translations (correct me if I am wrong) are under copyright. KJV Bible (or the English Bible) is still the first book published and the most widely published book.

I suppose if you start copying "thee" and "thou" and "shalt" you might have to use the old noggin for a moment to think what it is.

Again the argument is broadcast or code practice? He could be "broadcasting" railroad time tables, or flight arrival times at Dulles and still be in the wrong as much as broadcasting religious texts.

N8MMZ
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KD7NNT on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Gutenberg bible printed 1455
King James printed 1611

I agree that this is not code practice. For I have no way to verify what he is sending is what I decoded.
Unless he has a notice somewhere?

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC8VWM on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Drolltroll says,

>>> How out of context is this statement!? This is so Knee Jerk reactionary. Nobody is trying to "suppress" him, just use a different portion of the band and not run it 24/7/365 ad nauseum. <<<

With all due respect to the Droll,

So let me get this line of thinking straight for a moment. You agree that we should not suppress his code practicing activities on the 40 meter band.

However, we should suppress his activities from continuing on the basis that it's inconvenient on the current frequency he is using now?

May God Bless America...

???

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W6TH on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!



His preaching or practice code is not bothering me. Better than reading sex and porno. The King James version Bible is an education that we should follow, all of us and even to the 10 commandments. Which have value for all. I think most fear the readings of the Bible.

Going to the Novice band is the way to go. Yes he should qsy and give us more room.

I have no use for the high rate of speed as I am good for over 60 words per minute so does me no good to copy him. No value for me except the transmitted knowledge.

Giving money and power to government
is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Same with the FCC today and not the FCC of the past.

I believe we should bash our government more than anything else to bash.

Hams yak, yak and yak, but never show results, so yack on boys.

.:
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KD7NNT:

Touche!

You have a point - ARRL publishes their code schedules and tells you (in the next edition) where they were taken from. So the question is - does this person publish his "code practice" - I think it could be something as simple as a regular classified ad or a newsletter in a ham club to qualify.

If he observes the rules and interpretations of the FCC on providing code practice then it really shouldn't matter what he transmits as long as he violates no other U.S. laws in the process. A proper response to the first letter (that remains unseen to us) from him should have been "please provide guidance upon proper operation of my CW practice service."

In which case - I would argue that yes - unless he is publishing where you can look up the material for copy - he is broadcasting.

I don't think it would be a requirement for him to change his material to avoid complaints or actions by the FCC, it would be for him to change his present operating practice - again, may be as simple as publishing the particulars of his transmissions.

73s N8MMZ
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by EFH777 on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
As KG6VQE, I don't see it as a problem, as long as it is not interferring with other QSO's. While I may not be a "Code for life" guy, I do like morse, and want to improve my skills. I guess a "BEACON" operation really bugs most people. I would be bugged to, if the guy just sent W5XXX over and over.
Too bad there isn't a place for an operation like that. I have tried to listen to W1AW at the ARRL, but the times are wrong for me. I have listened to MP3 copies of the code practice. MY $0.02
73's
 
RE: Religious messages  
by KB1HAP on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Hi there,

I'm not trying to start a debate here, which is not the place to discuss this things, but here are some strays:

- if your laws are so superior to U.S. laws, why don't you go back home?

I have never stated that Argentinean laws were better than US laws. Read my post. I simply stated that I thought forbidding the discussion of politics and religion on amateur bands was a good idea. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I guess there are ways and places to do certain things. Also suggesting I go "back home" is nothing more than some cheap bigotry. I'm a US citizen, I live here with my US born kids and wife, whether you like it or not.

73 KB1HAP
 
RE: Religious messages  
by W6TH on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KB1HAP


Very well spoken and the new young Americans no longer understand or read the English language.

One of many reasons I enjoy eham that prove the misinterpretation of the English/American language by the newer generation. Not all, Just some.

.:
 
RE: Religious messages  
by W8AQ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KB1HAP
Very well stated. I hope someday we'll get beyond suggesting Americans "Go back where they came from". Because there will be precious few left on this continent if we ALL do so. KB1HAP, You have a better understanding of democracy than many of us.
 
RE: Religious messages  
by K3ESE on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This guy was just above 7.040, the QRP "watering hole" for awhile...I contacted Riley, who contacted this guy, and he moved down. Whew! He was really getting our knickers in a twist with his incessant QRO sigs.

Personally speaking, I admit that I think anyone transmitting to the world, one-way, stuff with content that is religious or political seems inappropriate - but the 24/7 thing is just ridiculous - and illegal. Even if he never leaves the house, he's got to sleep sometimes.

He thinks it's ok to use the spectrum as his own little evangelical tract-distributorship. What if there were four or five other guys who felt the same way? What about a few on SSB, linked like a daisy-chain of gospel across the band? What then?

This guy ain't doing ham radio - he's abusing it.
 
RE: Religious messages  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KB1HAP:

I'm sorry, but when you said, "Actually, the Ham radio laws in argentina explicitly prohibit the disemanation and discussion of any message of political and religious nature on the air, and I think that's smart. I'm all for "freedom of speech" but I think they are time and places to excersize that freedom, and I don't think ham radio is the proper forum." If you think that is smart, then by syllogism do you not also think that that particular law is superior to our first amendment right of freedom of speech? You are suggesting we adopt a similar law in the U.S. that would further usurp our constitutional rights?

I realize that the first amendment has been up for interpretation since the 1960's, but to suggest that we restrain speech with legislation, (i.e. FCC saying that we cannot discuss politics or religion on the ham bands) is about as unamerican as one can get. While it is a personal choice as to the time and place to discuss religion/politics, it is not the business of the government (U.S.) to dictate that to the governed. By definition, that would be "abridging the freedom of speech".

Welcome to the U.S. and respect the sacrifices of many of the citizens that came before you to maintain our freedom of speech. My advice is to read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, etc... and learn more about this country you now call home.

And by the way, I'm glad you're "religious" and "educated by Jesuits" - it really makes no difference to the argument as to whether it is broadcast or code practice.

Ohh yeah - I was educated by Buddhist Monks in Tibet on the art of making Cappucino - I guess that qualifies my opinion.

73s N8MMZ
 
RE: Religious messages  
by WB2WIK on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
N8MMZ, I have to ask, "Do Buddhist monks make good Cappucino?"

Yummy.

WB2WIK/6
 
RE: Religious messages  
by N8MMZ on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
They make wonderful Buddhist Cappuccino ;)
-N8MMZ
 
RE: Religious messages  
by W6TH on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK
N8MMZ, I have to ask, "Do Buddhist monks make good Cappucino?"

Yummy.



I can verify that the Italians make the best cappucino.


.:
 
RE: Religious messages  
by KE4MOB on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I personally find those who discuss the results of their latest colonoscopy (or whatever medical procedure of the week they have) on HF equally as reprehensible. What do I do? I turn the VFO.

It seems to me that even though the person responsible for these transmissions do not promote them as such, the amateur community views them as "code practice". Riley calls them that. The author of this article calls them that. Several posters here acknowledge them as such. So let's just take everybody at face value and say they are either religious broadcasts or code practice...shall we?

If they are religious broadcasts, then how can the FCC logically force him to cease just because of content? They can't. The transmissions are not obscene, especially in light of what IS allowed.

Are they broadcasts in general? Yes. But broadcasts of a type that are expressly allowed under FCC rules as code practice.

The only thing the FCC can do is order that the transmissions not occur 24/7 and perhaps give the person a warning about having a control operator.

Other than that, there's not much else that the FCC can do. They have already let the cat out of the bag with W1AW and K1MAN.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by DROLLTROLL on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KC8VWM wrote;

>>So let me get this line of thinking straight for a moment. You agree that we should not suppress his code practicing activities on the 40 meter band.

However, we should suppress his activities from continuing on the basis that it's inconvenient on the current frequency he is using now?<<

Yes, that's what I said, in part. But I expect an educated person to at least finish reading the one sentence that I wrote, before questioning it.

Here is the balance of what I said:

"just use a different portion of the band and not run it 24/7/365 ad nauseum."

Seems to me that you missed the part about 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year.

Selective reasoning perhaps?
 
Code Practice  
by KG6DVO on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I own the infamous 147.435 repeater in southern California and we are being plagued with a moron named Jack Gerritsen. See http://www.435online.com/gerritson.htm
This knucklehead is unlicensed, has recently received a $10,000 NAL yet continues to jam and play political and anti-war recordings on my repeater and many other 2 meter and 440 repeaters in the southern California.
When I turn my repeater off due to his unlicensed and illegal broadcasting he fires up his amplifier and continues on the output of my repeater. To combat this activity, instead of turning the repeater off I let the code practice tapes roll for hours at a time. I got the green light from the FCC for this activity and not only does JackAss Gerritsen go away but my users are actually learning the code! Imagine that.

Gary Elmer - KG6DVO
 
RE: Religious messages  
by KB1HAP on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> If you think that is smart, then by syllogism do you not also think that that particular law is superior to our first amendment right of freedom of speech? You are suggesting we adopt a similar law in the U.S. that would further usurp our constitutional rights?

Wrong again. You didn't suggest that I thought that a particular law was better. You suggested that I stated that all Argentinean laws were better than all US laws. I now must ask you to read your own post again. You went further to suggest that I "go back home" because of this. Speaking of syllogisms, your logic is incoherent at best.

> By definition, that would be "abridging the freedom of speech".

So bleeping foul speech on broadcasting is "abridging the freedom of speech"? There is a lot of hams that might be atheists and might find the discussion of religion (or the broadcasting of the bible) as offensive as other might find foul language. Foul language as I understand it, its outlawed on amateur radio. Would you call this abridging the freedom of speech too? Just curious. In all honestly, I can see where you are going though with not giving the government more power to limit freedom though, and I respect it.

>Welcome to the U.S. and respect the sacrifices of many of the citizens that came before you to maintain our freedom of speech. My advice is to read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, etc... and learn more about this country you now call home.

I have the utmost respect for people that shed blood for this country and fought for freedom of speech. That's why I don't want to see this priviledge abused. Heck, I have the utmost respect for everyone that fought for the freedom of the world, such as W6TH did on WWII.

I read the papers you mention, in fact I wrote a paper in college (here in the US) about James Madison, and how his many contributions helped model to what is for me the greatest country in the world. I don't know why the fact of myself being born on another country automatically suggests to you that I'm uneducated and know little of "this country I call home".

> And by the way, I'm glad you're "religious" and "educated by Jesuits" - it really makes no difference to the argument as to whether it is broadcast or code practice.

Wrong again. Somebody on the thread suggested that people opposing this transmissions were just a bunch of "Christian bashers". I was presenting the case that I'm a Christian and oppose to these broadcastings. In the context of this thread, it makes a difference.

From my part, this is it on the topic. I sincerely hope you can open your mind and understand that not everybody that was born in this country loves it, and not everybody that was born outside this country hates it. I don't think you mean harm, you might have sent me back home because you might have felt that I was bashing the country. I sincerely hope you understand that wasn't my intention at all, and we can put all this stuff behind.

Sincerely
Max
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WV2NY on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
After reading about this I tuned it in to see if I could hear it. Comes in just fine here in Buffalo NY. But it leave me with a question for those opposed to it. Which is worse, his messages or those sending random dits and dahs trying to over ride it?

73 to all.

JOE
WV2NY
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC8YVE on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I practice code with a key on our local 2 meter repeter on a regular Basis. I would never, ever do it 24/7 out of respect for my fellow operators.

I think that this guy is inconsiderate and disrespectful.

my 2 pennys.
Tracy
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K0RFD on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Why in the name of Hiram Percy Maxim are we debating the Bible here?

This guy is clearly a nut case who is infatuated with his own importance. Can anyone ELSE but me say "K1MAN"?

He is crawling thru a loophole in Part 97 designed to set the ARRL apart from the rest of society without naming them specifically. Shame on everybody involved. You want to write a regulation with special privileges for somebody? Just say so. Because any loophole you design for the purpose of avoiding disclosure of who you're REALLY favoring will eventually come back to bite you in the behind.

As long as we try to use "the system" to give special rights to certain people (which, by the way, I have no problem with) then we deserve whatever we get.

Government needs to be honest with the people and not write disingenuous rules that pretend they aren't written for the sole benefit of a single organization. I have no problem with favoring some at the expense of others, particularly if the "some" that's being favored is the ARRL. Just say so.

Don't think we're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. In this wonderful system of American democracy, if I KNOW what you are doing but don't agree with you, I get to throw you out in the next "revolution" -- er, election, but that's what the founding fathers designed for us. It works.

To do otherwise leads to special privileges for idiots like this.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by X-WB1AUW on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
There have always been people who’s greatest joy in life is to aggravate, upset, or bully other people, especially if they can thwart the intended purpose of a law or regulation, but still remain within a narrow interpretation of the law or regulation.

To me, broadcasting a message in CW, and claiming it is “code practicse” is a prime example of this.

If you doubt it, just think how the airwaves would sound if we each decide what out favorite text was, and did the same. One day, I could transmit, in CW, words to all Jim Hendrix songs; my views on political issues; passages from motorcycle repair manuals; etc.

I think 7.02 would be a good place to start.

Bob
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KT3K on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
We have W1AW for code practice. I've noticed his 'broadcasts' on 7.030 and wondered if he was ever going to give it a rest. There's precious little bandwidth as it is, and no need for one person to sit on a frequency like that.

my 2 cents...

kt3k
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC5SAS on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KE4MOB wrote-
"B) ARRL practice comes from QST...which is just fine for members or for people who have newsstand access. What about those that don't have access to QST? Wouldn't standardized text that is widely available to all be better?"
Forgive this poor No Code Tech but what do you mean by "those that don't have access to QST?" Who here lives somewhere that the US Mail won't deliver each months issue to their mailbox? If you are a Ham and live in the USofA you should be an ARRL member. There's no excuse not to send in your subscription each year.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K0RFD on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KE4MOB wrote:

>Who here lives somewhere that the US Mail won't
>deliver each months issue to their mailbox?

1) some old advanced class licensees who think ARRL sold them out with "incentive licensing"

2) other folks who think that ARRL rolled over and played dead when UPS stole 220-222 from us.

3) pro-coders who think that ARRL has been too proactive in eliminating the Morse requirement.

4) no-coders who think that ARRL hasn't been proactive enough in eliminating the Morse requirement.

5) People who think that the ARRL is solely responsible for the "dumbing down" of Ham Radio, whether Ham Radio is actually being dumbed down or not.

6) People who are too cheap to pay the dues, or who simply don't have the money (station building is expensive)

7) People who have a chip on their shoulder in general, and find ARRL to be a convenient target for their anger.

8) People who have had bad experiences with the ARRL, think it's too east-coast-centric, who don't like their section manager or some other local representation.

9) People who don't like to join organizations

10, 11, 12 ...) (insert your own personal reasons here)

ARRL may be our national organization, but there are still people who aren't members for one reason or another. No judgements implied here, these are just reasons I have run into in various forums and listening on the air. It's too bad really, because "all of us" is a whole lot more effective than "one of us".
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KE4MOB on July 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"What do you mean by "those that don't have access to QST?"

At least 78% of the licensed hams in the US aren't ARRL members (source: 2003 ARRL annual report and www.AH0A.org). Meaning that those people either have to get the practice text from the internet (likely), a library (unlikely), or a bookstore (highly unlikely).


 
RE: Religious messages  
by AE6IP on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"I realize that the first amendment has been up for interpretation since the 1960's, but to suggest that we restrain speech with legislation, (i.e. FCC saying that we cannot discuss politics or religion on the ham bands) is about as unamerican as one can get."

The interpretation of the free speech clause of the first amendment has been 'up for interpretation' since the debate over the Alien and Sedition act. Thomas Jefferson had this to say on the topic:

''The federalists having failed in destroying freedom of the press by their gag-law, seem to have attacked it in an opposite direction; that is, by pushing its licentiousness and its lying to such a degree of prostitution as to deprive it of all credit. . . . This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its credibility if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the States are sufficient for this if applied. And I have, therefore, long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses.''

There are two problems with the absolutist position about the 1st amendment. First, it neglects that with every right comes a responsibility. But more than that, it wishes to define "speech" far more broadly than the framers every intended.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC8VWM on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Droll says;

Yes, that's what I said, in part. But I expect an educated person to at least finish reading the one sentence that I wrote, before questioning it.

Agreed. The comments were not intended to misquote you in any way. My reply was intended to focus and expand on a particular point in question. The reply was written in a "food for thought" style and was only commentary in nature. Please accept my apologies if you have been personally offended in any way - this was never my intention.

73

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Religious messages  
by N8MMZ on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP: The debate is broadcast vs. code practice sessions. Take another look at the quotation of my passage. I do not suggest that libel, slander, or obscenity is acceptabl or permissible. I state that religious and political discussion is protected speech among other forms of protected speech.

I would be more than happy to discuss that matter offline - n8mmz@hotmail.com - as it is well beyond the issue here.

However, I think the debate is quickly resolved by a careful reading of Part 97 (which does not specifically exclude the discussion of religion or politics - it doesn't need to).

"§97.101 General standards.
(b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station."

He is operating 24/7, thus he is using a frequency exculsively. They have him on this section.

"§97.103 Station licensee responsibilities.
(a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point.

(b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled."

His station is not permitted to be automatically controlled, so unless he is able to stay awake 24/7, and has a chamber pot, and someone else to get his meals, then he is in violation of the above section.

"§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services."

It can be argued that others in the amateur service provide code practice, and that others in the commercial broadcast service provide religious content - I think he is nailed on this point as well.

We should not allow the debate to swing to one of what amateurs in the U.S. can or can't say - otherwise, we'll get more than we bargained for. Although it is considered the law in other countries not to discuss poiltics or religion on air - so when talking to DX we should adhere to those regulations for the sake of our dx operator.

That is my position and has been my position all along. We enjoy certain rights that others don't and we shouldn't lay them on the chopping block so quickly to get this fellow off of the air - there are already plenty of statutes that he is in violation of.

73s de N8MMZ

 
RE: Religious messages  
by W5HTW on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
But I just betcha, if I put up a 24/7 CW station on 7027 KHZ, transmitting as code practice, the text of political speeches by George W. Bush, OR text from The Rifleman (NRA magazine), OR even my own published political articles over the years (as a newspaper columnist I have published many) I'd not exactly be welcome. And someone else would immediately put up a different political view on, perhaps, 7025 KHZ, and someone else one on 7033 KHZ, and, folks, it would be political broadcasting by all of us.

There has long been another apparent CW religious broadcaster, on 7100 KHZ, so this guy is not the lone rooster in the henhouse.

At any rate, the FCC has asked him to explain why he is not a religious broadcaster. If his explanation satisfies them, he will be allowed to continue. And we will have done our part. If he is declared legal, then, as noted, we can simply tune away and wait for the next ham with some other agenda to show up somewhere else.

73
Ed
 
RE: Religious messages  
by KE4MOB on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
N8MMZ...I disagree with your interpretation of two of the rules you quote.

First:
>
>"§97.101 General standards.
>(b) Each station licensee and each control operator
>must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels
>and in making the most effective use of the amateur
>service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned
>for the exclusive use of any station."

>He is operating 24/7, thus he is using a frequency
>exclusively. They have him on this section.

There is nothing in Part 97 prohibiting a station from using a frequency exclusively. (Strange, isn't it?) What the above rule says is that the FCC will not ASSIGN certain frequencies for exclusive use. If they aren't assigned as exclusive use frequencies, then anyone has a crack at them. This guy just got there first. In fact, look at repeaters. Logically, there can only be one repeater per coverage area per frequency pair. The FCC doesn't assign the frequency, but if a repeater is placed on a frequency, and then another is placed on the same frequency pair at a later date, someone's usually guilty of QRM. Usually, the principle of first on frequency applies.

>"§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
>(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

>(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could
>reasonably be furnished alternatively through other
>radio services."

"others in the amateur service" aren't in other radio services...besides that, if others in the amateur service provide code practice, then it gives ample precedent for this guy, doesn't it?

And seeing how CW is only service that uses Ham Radio now, it seems like "religious broadcasts" (if that's how you want to classify them, although I doubt "broadcast" applies here given the strict FCC definition) could not be reasonably furnished alternatively through other radio services. If they could, they would have by now.

I agree with you that he is probably violating the whole control operator rule, though.
 
RE: Religious messages  
by KC8VWM on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N8MMZ says,

It can be argued that others in the amateur service provide code practice, and that others in the commercial broadcast service provide religious content - I think he is nailed on this point as well.


Unfortunately, there are no restrictions placed on any specific number of code practice stations that are permitted to exist in the ARS.

Someone mentioned that there is no "control op" present at the station therefore the transmissions would be considered illegal. I would then have to question the validity of the many HF "beacon" stations that operate 24/7. Surely, they are not all attended to on a continuous 24/7 basis are they?

There does however seem to be the question of what will happen if everyone and their brother decides to setup "code practice stations" on HF bands in the future.

Obviously, we just can't start telling people not to use their equipment in this fashion. Code practice is certainly not out of any context with respect to Amateur Radio operation.

If these types of stations are going to in fact exist - Perhaps we need to look at some sort of HF frequency coordination / allocation and operating time schedule / restrictions placed on them as the solution.

I am not so sure that the material content or text of the code practice is the the real issue at hand. Unless of course such text or material sent is copyrighted or otherwise prohibited by law (ie. profanity etc.)

Section 97.3 defines the term "broadcasting," in the context of the amateur service, as a transmission intended for reception by the general public, either direct or delayed.

The term "Broadcasting" may also not apply because unlike your local TV station signals - Amateur radio signals using CW are not intended for the general public. Other forms of "Broadcasting" as the FCC defines it, usually involves a One-Way transmission.

However, there are even some exceptions allowed for "One Way" transmissions in the FCC rules:

Section 97.111(b) provides for one-way communications. In summary, auxiliary, beacon, space and stations in distress are specifically authorized to make certain one-way transmissions. Additionally, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communications:

5. Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning, or improving proficiency in, the international Morse code;

It could also be argued that using CW as a mode of sending "religious texts" or transmission is not "Broadcasting" or intended for the general listening public or average SW listener.

It may be argued that CW is considered as a specialized mode of operation. It must be specifically intercepted and decoded only by qualified individuals possessing certain technical knowledge.

This seems to rule out the "general public" aspect of "broadcasting" and there does not seem to be any profanity or copyrighed material being sent on the air.

Sounds quite legit in my judgement.

73

 
RE: Code practice allowed  
by W6TH on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!


We must try to solve this situation as all are getting nowhere.

There must be a cause and there is an effect.

We all know the effect and now solve for the cause.

Is he a disturbed person, what is the making and cause of this? Is this a person who wants to provide a service? Is this person challenging the FCC.

What is his reason and why, will solve the problem.

We can blame the dumbing of ham radio can't we.

No opinion of mine, but will listen to yours and I hope you are not the cause.

.:
 
RE: Religious messages  
by N8MMZ on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KC8VWM:
The rules on beacon operation are quite clear. You can't have an automatically controlled beacon on 40M - besides that, the defendant is not in a beacon mode.

Part 97 relating to Beacons:

"§97.203 Beacon station.

(d) A beacon may be automatically controlled while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz, or 432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm and shorter wavelength bands."

ARRL (I am sure of this) has someone on site, being compensated, as the control op while their CW practice is being transmitted - if anything goes wrong (i.e. TX sticks closed), then the control op can shut things down and not tye up a world wide band with a dead carrier.

I think where the FCC has messed up is in their choice of wording - it does signal a "religous intent" argument which is not a good signal in my opinion. The FCC writes: "5. Specifically address the complaint as it relates to allegations of religious broadcasting."

It was a poor choice of wording on the part of the FCC. They should have omitted the word "religious" and the intent is the same (unless their intent is dubious).

Depending on this fellows response, he can wiggle out by saying - "nope it's code practice and here is documentation from my users - and I have contol ops present for the length of the transmission and here are their callsigns". Alternatively, he will be found to be "broadcasting" there will be some argument as to whether or not it is content that could be obtained through other services - remember CW is a mode to transmit information - so it could be something that is found on a voice service , because of the ambiguity of Part 97. So he could be found in violation of one-way transmission, broadcasting, no control op, etc....

I think this guy is in trouble unless his response is carefully worded.

73s N8MMZ


 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W3DCG on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
By N3QT earlier in the thread:

"On a positive note, one had to "know code" in order to complain about this individual.

Congratulations!!!"

Wow. That observation never entered my mind!
I guess I took it for granted.
Thanks for highlighting it.

73.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WILLY on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by KC5SAS on July 14, 2004

"Forgive this poor No Code Tech but what do you mean by "those that don't have access to QST?"

It means, "those that don't have access to QST"


"Who here lives somewhere that the US Mail won't deliver each months issue to their mailbox?"

I doubt anyone does.
But what does this have to do with it?

" If you are a Ham and live in the USofA you should be an ARRL member. There's no excuse not to send in your subscription each year. "

There is no excuse? ??
Why - - thank you for volunteering to pay the $39.00 !
That is so kind of you.

Tell you what - you send me the $39.00, and I'll send it in with the subscription. ok?


 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC8VWM on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
N8MMZ says,

>> I think where the FCC has messed up is in their choice of wording - it does signal a "religous intent" argument which is not a good signal in my opinion. <<

I tend to agree with that assertion and I appreciate your clarification with regard to beacon station transmissions.

Perhaps, they suspect that the station is "officially" located and transmitting from some sort of commercial entity like a church or congregation as opposed to a regular Joe ham shack.

Now that you mention it, It does seem rather curious why the FCC are focusing primarily on the religious aspect of these transmissions. ?!?

It would seem like the more logical line of questioning the FCC should focus their attention on should relate to the 24/7 "control op" question.

73
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K3ESE on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
HTW: I think this guy IS the guy from 7.100...he moved down to escape the BC QRM, and to favor us with his CW QRM.
 
RE: Religious messages  
by N8MMZ on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KE4MOB: "And seeing how CW is only service that uses Ham Radio now"

Ham Radio is the service (Amateur Radio Service), CW is a mode to convey the content, but CW is not the "service" as service is defined. If the operator is providing the sole service of "Biblical readings" - then he could be in violation of the aforementioned statute as it could be reasonably argued that commercial broadcasters (other services) provide that content - you could also tack on the question of one-way transmissions. If he is providing code practice then none of the above applies.

KC8VWM: " It does seem rather curious why the FCC are focusing primarily on the religious aspect of these transmissions."

Yes - it is curious indeed, especially since in their [FCC] letter, they acknowledge that he was providing code practicing service in the past [FCC writes: "We have previously discussed this matter with you and were given assurances that the transmissions you were making were for Morse code practice."]. It appears to be a "tacked on" complaint - somewhat incongruent with the original complaint of the letter which was, "The enclosed complaint alleges that the transmissions are 24 hours a day, seven days per week."

Perhaps someone at the FCC is feeling their oats and is just sparring a little. Anyway, the defendant can easily keep out of that [religious] argument if he keeps the topic directed toward broadcasting, i.e. "no, I wasn't broadcasting - I was providing CW practice as you have been aware of, without objection, in our previous correspondence." If he looses his cool and heads toward the direction of "you are restricting my right to transmit messages from the Bible," then they have him on broadcasting. Perhaps that is what the FCC is trying to do - get him worked up a little so he will lose his cool and won't watch his response back to the FCC.

I also find it interesting that the FCC says: "Please provide detailed justification as to how such transmissions adhere to good amateur practice provisions of Part 97 of the Commission's rules, and why you are using the 40 meter band." Usually the FCC is good about citing SPECIFIC portions of Part 97 that the defendant is in violation of - in this case, they don't cite chapter and verse. It appears that the FCC is just fishing and waiting for his response so they can mine through it for damaging info. He needs to be very careful in his response of his goose is cooked!

And if he really is operating automatically, etc... then he needs to correct that scenario and own up to his sins. The FCC can only order that he correct the problem of not having a control op and can only tell him: a-Cease operation; b-Restrict hours of operation to hours when a control op will be present; c-Provide licensed control ops to meet current transmission schedules.

73s de N8MMZ
 
RE: Religious messages  
by KE4MOB on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"And seeing how CW is only service that uses Ham Radio now"

EEK!!! Did I really say that? The brain cells must be slipping....it should have said:

"And seeing how Ham Radio is only service that uses CW now"

At any rate gents, good debate all around!!


 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WA2JJH on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
W1AW has been doing a fine job for many years.
I am finding 40M a more worthless band.
Some of the Broadcast SW stations run so much power, they might as well be considered ""CLEAR CHANNAL""
SSB is out after 2PM est. The extra CW portion is still viable.

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AE6IP on July 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
40 is a bit noisy, but it's hardly unusable.

I've gotten just over 1200 contacts on 40 since January.
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by W1BAK on July 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Time for an "antenna party".
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by WB2WIK on July 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I haven't kept up with all of this, but someone mentioned "this IS the 7100 guy, moved in frequency" or something like that.

It's not. The "code practice" station on 7100 was a sort-of neighbor of mine, located in North Hollywood, CA and it does appear he's stopped the broadcasts. I have no idea exactly when, or why. But I'm glad it's "gone," since it was too close and could pump my AGC and noise blankers at times...

If anyone needs a 24/7 propagation check for 40 meters, station CHU in Ottawa is on 7.335, just above the ham band, and has been for decades, with a time and frequency standard transmitter similar to our WWV. Damn, it's strong, even here in Los Angeles -- I can hear it during the day most times, from 3100 miles away!

WB2WIK/6
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by GHOSTRIDERHF on July 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Now the code folks are complaining that there is TOOOOO much code...

But I do agree --

One long rope + one pickup truck + one six pack of beer = No more antenna problem and thus no more code transmission...

 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K8CPA on July 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
My Comments:

1. He's sending such poor code at slow speeds who can copy what he's sending anyhow?

2. He's got such a pee willy signal here, who can even copy him?

3. If he is send 24/7, He is breaking F.C.C. Rules, Christian or not. Jesus himself said to Give under caesar what is caesars and give unto God, what it's God's. and if he's breaking rules set up by the F.C.C. He is sinning. End of Story.

4. As to the content, Who cares? The point is, he's breaking the rules and should be stopped.

5. I've been listening to him for the last 10 minutes, and I've yet to hear an ID.

He should be stopped, end of Story. Riley, get to work.

73 es God Bless you all and America.

-Chuck K8CPA

...-.- ..

 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by GHOSTRIDERHF on July 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
you know the cool thing about my rig ... i have the ability to TUNE OFF a signal .. if it bothers you .. report it to someone that can do something about it like the FCC ... (opinions in a fricking eHAM forum isn't going to make one ounce of difference) ... and then ignore it....
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KC7PFR on July 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
To the best of my knowledge there are now two 24 hour "code practice stations" on 40 meters. One at 7.100 and the other at 7.030. K1MAN brodcasts on 20 meters (14.275, I think). He is not on 24 hours, but broadcasts amateur radio related information on a regular basis.

I have mixed thoughts about all of this. Yes, the code practice is similar to a beacon station. Yes, the K1MAN brodcasts could be considered similar to W1AW broadcasts (except longer in duration).

My concern is that if this is all indeed legal (one could perhaps argue whether it is or not), it is starting to proliferate. How many more of these stations will "pop up"? What kind of impression does it give about the United States to the rest of the world? On several occasions I have heard a Canadian (British Columbia) station on 14.275 complaining about these types of broadcasts coming out of the U.S.
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by AB8RU on July 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Hmmmm Maybe he is that strongly for the Code that now this is going to be interesting that the FCC will look at this case and anyone willing to watch.

Stay Tuned Folks

AB8RU
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by XXX53SP on July 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with your position. The ARRL code practice and bulletins have been a mainstay of my practice sessions to try to learn the code. I hope they remain for years to come for myself and for all the other hams who want to learn CW.
Sidney Patin KC0OSB
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by XXX53SP on July 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with your position. The ARRL code practice and bulletins have been a mainstay of my practice sessions to try to learn the code. I hope they remain for years to come for myself and for all the other hams who want to learn CW.
Sidney Patin KC0OSB
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by N6PUO on July 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This guy has been doing this on this same freq. for at least 15 years. I have used his broadcasts often. Hope he keeps it up.

Greg
 
So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by KB0ZEM on July 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well, I'm typically not one to say much, or post on controversial subjects, but no one (that I read) has said anything about this so... here it goes.

Let's say for arguement sake, that the content itself
is NOT the issue here. Instead, I think the REAL issue is in the amount of time transmitted.
As I was helping my 11yr old study, I came across
the TECH class study book question T1b09.
It reads...
What rule applies if two amateur stations want to use the same frequency?
The Answer...
Both (or ALL) operators have equal right to operate that frequency.

Simply put, If this guy is transmitting ALL day - he has completely consumed a frequency that ALL of us have equal rights to operate.
The BIGGEST difference between This guy, and W1AW is that, like a net, W1AW, posts the times it will use the frequency, is punctual, gets the job done, and gets off the air so others may operate as they see fit. W1AW SHARES the frequency. Late night code practice would be GREAT - if it was done with GOOD AMATEUR RADIO PRACTICE!
Wich brings me to the next question I came across while studying with my 13yr old son...
It reads...
(G1B02)
If the FCC rules do NOT specifically cover a situation, how must you operate your amateur station?
The Answer...
In accordance with good engineering, and good amatuer practice.
There is NO WAY 24hr code practice on the same frequency is good amatuer practice.
Part of amateur radio is creating an environment where emergency communications may take place in the event of an emergency. Operating on frequencies that MANY qrp rigs fixed via crystal to, is inexcusable. I suppose someone will try to tell me that while hes transmitting, hes been monitoring the frequency for emergency traffic too - right?
If 40 OTHER stations want to do code practice, then do it. But do it in accordance with good amateur practice. Be thoughtful of other stations. We've all worked hard for our lisence, lets at least PRETEND we are still the brother/sisterhood of operators we once were, stop bickering amongst ourselves, and realize that the ONLY way to preserve our bandwidth is to be at least half-way unified in our appearance, and approach.
As for the code practice transmitter...
Someone's gotta do something. Its not AT ALL like what the ARRL is doing at W1AW.
(Sorry if I got too carried away..) ;-)

73's!!!
Kirk, kb0zem
 
RE: So-Called 'Code Practice'  
by K6KDK on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"Its not AT ALL like what the ARRL is doing at W1AW. "

Yes it its. It is exactly like what the ARRL is doing and it IS WRONG ! It is called broadcasting. The definition of broadcasting is that it is a transmission that is on a prescribed time schedule and it is one way in nature (not a QSO with two active/ inter-acting parties).

What I can't belive has been tolerated all these years is ARRL cominng up on a set of frequencies and just blowing off any existing QSOs. No "is the frequency in use?" No, even pretense, of good amateur practice, just a blustering wide shouldered "Of course we can do this, we are the ARRL"
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
WIA: Temporary Reassignment of Commercial Services into 70cm:
Army MARS at the ARRL Convention:
Skywarn Warriors: Radio Buffs Work Front Lines for National Weather Service
Amateur Radio Operators Descend on Civic Center for Annual Hamfest:
Ham Radio Users Could Be Vital Resource In Emergency: